Hyde Housing Association Limited (202405598)

Background

1. The resident is unhappy with how the landlord responded to her request that it replaces the fence which it removed.

What the complaint is about

2. The landlord’s handling of the resident’s request for a replacement fence.
3. The landlord’s complaint handling.

Our decision (determination)

4. We have found the landlord responsible for:
   1. maladministration in its response to the resident’s request for a replacement fence
   2. service failure in its complaints handling

We have made orders for the landlord to put things right.

Summary of reasons

Fence replacement

5. The landlord gave unclear and sometimes incorrect information about whether the fence was a boundary or dividing fence, and its policies did not explain who should replace it. It did not explain why it believed the resident was responsible for replacement, and did not follow up on what the contractor told her about a possible new fence. The landlord also failed to acknowledge how the missing fence affected her privacy, security, and ability to use her garden.

Complaint handling

6. The landlord initially refused to investigate the resident’s complaint, then issued a stage 1 response only after she said she had contacted us. It did not explain or apologise for the delay, and sent inconsistent information about how to escalate her complaint to stage 2.

Putting things right

Where we find service failure, maladministration or severe maladministration we can make orders for the landlord to put things right. We have the discretion to make recommendations in all other cases within our jurisdiction.

Orders

Landlords must comply with our orders in the manner and timescales we specify. The landlord must provide documentary evidence of compliance with our orders by the due date set.

Recommendations

Our recommendations are not binding, and a landlord may decide not to follow them.

Our investigation

The complaint procedure

What we found and why

The circumstances of this complaint are well known by the parties involved, so it is not necessary to detail everything that’s happened or comment on all the information we’ve reviewed. We’ve only included the key information that forms the basis of our decision of whether the landlord is responsible for maladministration.

7. The resident’s tenancy agreement refers to attached conditions, but these were not provided to us. The agreement itself does not explain who is responsible for fences or gardens. Because of this, we could not identify any terms that set out the landlord’s or resident’s responsibilities about replacing the fence.
8. The landlord’s website says that if a fence separates one of its properties from a private owner or tenant, it must first establish ownership. It also explains that when a dividing fence is shared with another of its properties, the tenant is responsible for basic repairs, while the landlord will make the area safe if the fence is dangerous.
9. The law does not automatically require a landlord to repair or replace a fence. The landlord must make safe a dangerous fence, which it did. However, the landlord’s communication created confusion because it did not explain whether the fence was a boundary or dividing fence, and it did not explain why it would not be responsible for replacement.
10. The landlord removed the dangerous fence promptly after attending on 31 January 2024. However the repairs policy provided to us contains no repair categories, emergency definitions, or response timescales. Because of this, we cannot say if the wait between the resident’s reports on 18 January and the landlord attending the property on 31 January, met its own standards.
11. When the landlord first refused to investigate the complaint, it said this was because its website states that a boundary fence between 2 properties is the resident’s responsibility to repair and replace. The website does not say this. It only refers to basic repairs and removal where a fence is dangerous. Giving inaccurate information at this early stage would reasonably undermine the resident’s confidence in the landlord’s understanding of its duties and in the fairness of the process.
12. The landlord’s stage 1 says its website states that a boundary fence that separates 2 properties is the resident’s responsibility to repair and replace, and is not the responsibility of the landlord. This is incorrect. The website actually says:
    1. a boundary fence separates a property from a road or public footpath
    2. when a fence divides a landlord owned property from a private owner or tenant, the landlord must first check ownership
    3. when it divides 2 of the landlord’s properties, the tenant is responsible for basic repairs, while the landlord will make safe and remove a dangerous fence

The landlord’s incorrect reliance on information from its website made the situation unclear for the resident.

13. The landlord’s responses further confused matters as the landlord’s stage 1 response only referring to a boundary fence, while its stage 2 only referred to a dividing fence. This prevented the resident from following the landlord’s reasoning across the complaint stages and made it unclear which responsibilities applied to them or to the landlord.
14. The landlord’s stage 1 and stage 2 responses did not explain why it believed the resident must replace the fence. The landlord later told us that the neighbouring property is another of its tenants, which was not included in the complaint responses. The neighbouring property being another of its tenants would mean the resident was responsible for basic repairs under its policy. However, the policy does not address fence replacement. As a result, we are unable to identify any provisions within the agreement that set out the landlord’s or resident’s responsibilities for who is responsible.
15. When the landlord’s contractor found the fence to be in poor condition, they arranged to remove it the next day. Their notes set out what work might be needed, and said that any replacement would need landlord approval. The resident said the contractor told her it would return to install a new fence. There is no further evidence about this conversation. The landlord did not follow up with the resident about the contractor’s comments, and it did not address them in its complaint responses. Because the landlord’s own guidance does not cover fence replacement, the lack of explanation may have led the resident to believe it had not properly considered its contractor’s assessment or her complaint.
16. The landlord has further guidance online about repair responsibilities. Although it linked the resident to the fence repairs page in its complaint responses, it did not link her to the page explaining general repair responsibilities. That page says tenants must maintain dividing fences with neighbours, but again, does not clarify who replaces a fence. As with the guidance described earlier, this page does not clarify who is responsible for replacement. The lack of clear policy information meant the resident could not understand how the landlord interpreted its responsibilities.
17. During the complaint process, the landlord did not show empathy for the impact the missing fence had on the resident. She explained in her original complaint that she was left without privacy, could not get home insurance, and could not use her garden. The landlord did not acknowledge these concerns at stage 1 or stage 2. This showed a lack of understanding of how the situation affected her daily life and sense of security. This was a missed opportunity to provide a supportive, person-centred complaint response.
18. After the landlord’s stage 2 response, the resident told us that the fence remains missing and her garden is not secure. She feels unable to enjoy or use the garden as intended. The landlord’s use of a policy that does not cover fence replacement has left the resident dissatisfied and worried about safety and use of her outdoor space.
19. When determining that the landlord must pay the resident compensation, we considered a range of factors contributing to the overall level of failure and its effect on her, including:
    1. duration of avoidable distress and inconvenience
    2. time and trouble
    3. disappointment
    4. loss of confidence
    5. delays in getting matters resolved

20. The landlord’s policy requires it to explain any decision not to accept a complaint and to advise residents they can refer that decision to us. In this case, the landlord initially refused to investigate the resident’s concerns and only issued a stage 1 response after she said she had contacted us. It did not explain why it changed its position. When the resident later asked whether the landlord’s refusal was a stage 1 or stage 2 response, it failed to clarify this and instead issued a stage 1 response. This lack of clarity made it hard for the resident to understand how her complaint was being handled and caused unnecessary confusion, trouble, and frustration.
21. The landlord’s evidence does not show when the resident first made her complaint, and its stage 1 and stage 2 responses also fail to record this. Including the original complaint date in its responses is essential because it provides a clear audit trail, and shows the complaint was being handled within the correct timescales. Without this, the resident could not understand how her complaint was being recorded and progressed.
22. In its email of 28 March 2024, the landlord addressed the resident as ‘NAME’ when refusing to investigate the complaint. This suggests it did not check the response properly before sending it. Given that the landlord was already declining to investigate the complaint, this lack of care in presentation would reasonably have made the resident feel her concerns were not being taken seriously. Poorly presented responses can undermine confidence in the complaints process and give the impression that the resident’s concerns have not been fully considered.
23. If the landlord’s refusal email of 28 March is treated as a formal acknowledgement, the stage 1 response should have been provided within 10 working days under the landlord’s policy. Issuing the response 4 working days late, and without any explanation or apology, would reasonably have prolonged the complaint unnecessarily and contributed to the resident’s frustration.
24. In its stage 1 response, the landlord said it had closed the complaint but that the resident could request a stage 2 review within 10 working days. However, on the same day it sent her a separate email saying the complaint was closed and directed her straight to us. This inconsistent guidance made it harder for the resident to understand the next steps and may have reduced her trust in the landlord’s handling of the matter.
25. The resident escalated her complaint on 16 April 2024, and the landlord issued its stage 2 response on 10 May 2024, which was within its 20 working day target and the Complaint Handling Code. However, the earlier delays and unclear communication were likely to have already weakened the resident’s trust in the landlord’s ability to manage the complaint in line with its stated policies.

Learning

26. The landlord should consider providing clearer explanations of how its policies apply, especially where its own guidance does not address key issues such as fence replacement. It should also ensure that policy information given to residents is accurate and consistent.

Knowledge information management (record keeping)

27. The landlord should consider keeping a clear record of when a resident first raises a complaint, to strengthen the audit trail and confirm compliance with timescales. Where such records exist, the landlord should ensure it provides this dated information to us when requested.

Communication

28. The landlord should consider the need for consistent and accurate communication, particularly around fence repair responsibilities and complaint stages. It should also quality check responses before sending them, and include contractor comments where appropriate.