Incommunities Limited (202402187)

Decision
Case ID	202402187
Decision type	Investigation
Landlord	Incommunities Limited
Landlord type	Housing Association
Occupancy	Assured Tenancy
Date	21 May 2026

Background

1. The resident told the landlord she was concerned that her back garden was subsiding. She was dissatisfied with the works the landlord carried out to address her concerns. This included a gap under a new fence it had fitted.

What the complaint is about

2. The complaint is about the landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns about the stability of her garden and issues with the new fence.
3. We have also investigated how the landlord handled the associated complaint.

Our decision (determination)

4. We have found that:
   1. There was service failure in the landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns about the stability of her garden and issues with the new fence.
   2. There was no maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the associated complaint.

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

Summary of reasons

The landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns about the stability of her garden and issues with the new fence

5. The landlord acted reasonably by completing works in line with survey recommendations and addressing follow-up concerns. It explained why it took the actions it did. However, it repeatedly failed to keep the resident updated regarding the progress of the works. While it apologised for this, we found that this was not sufficient to address the impact caused.

The landlord’s handling of the associated complaint

6. The landlord responded to the complaint in line with its policy.

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.

Order	What the landlord must do	Due date
1	Compensation order The landlord must pay the resident £75 to recognise the time and trouble caused by its response to the resident’s concerns about the stability of her garden and issues with the new fence. This must be paid directly to the resident by the due date. The landlord must provide documentary evidence of payment by the due date.	No later than 19 June 2026

 

Our investigation

The complaint procedure

Date	What happened
20 November 2023	The resident complained to the landlord. She said it had not contacted her since she reported concerns about the works it had carried out.
30 November 2023	The landlord issued its stage 1 response. It said that a structural survey on 27 July 2023 confirmed there was no ground movement in the garden. It said it had installed a new fence, in line with the recommendations from the structural engineers. It apologised that one of its operatives had previously advised the resident a retaining wall would be required. It confirmed this advice was incorrect.   The landlord said it had attended to extend the fence to alleviate a gap underneath it, but the resident refused the works. It said she later agreed to the works, so it would return to complete them. It apologised for not keeping the resident updated and for not responding to her requests in a timely manner. It committed to improving its future communication.
27 January 2024	The resident escalated her complaint as she said she had not received any updates since December 2023 and was unhappy with the works.
26 February 2024	The landlord issued its stage 2 response. It said it understood the resident’s main concerns were the stability of the garden and that the fence had not been installed in its old position, leaving a gap. It confirmed it would not be moving the fence, but that it would attend to address the gap. It said a delay of 2 to 3 months can be expected during winter but apologised for not keeping the resident updated about this.
Referral to the Ombudsman	The resident asked us to investigate the complaint because she was dissatisfied with the works the landlord had carried out. She said these would not resolve subsidence. The resident wants the landlord to move the fence back to remove the gap and help prevent subsidence. The resident recently confirmed there have been no major changes since the landlord completed the works, but she remains concerned about potential future problems.

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.

Complaint	The landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns about the stability of her garden and issues with the new fence
Finding	Service failure

7. On 26 June 2023 the resident emailed the landlord about a suspected subsidence issue with her back garden and said she had received no contact since her initial report. The exact date when the resident first reported the problem is unclear. The landlord responded with an apology and confirmed it would review this. Just over a week later, it instructed a firm of structural engineers to complete a survey of the property.
8. The survey took place on 22 July 2023. The engineers found no evidence of ground movement in the rear garden at the time of the inspection. However, they said that the rear boundary fence was in a poor state of repair and recommended replacement. The landlord replaced the affected section of the fence in September 2023.
9. The resident contacted the landlord on 20 September 2023 and raised concerns about the durability of the works. She said that one of its operatives had previously advised her that a retaining wall was required, but the structural engineer later recommended replacing the fence. She said she did not understand how this would address the reported issue of the garden slipping. The resident chased the landlord for a response on 18 October 2023. The landlord visited the following day and confirmed it did not believe the garden was slipping and it identified no immediate health and safety risk. It said it completed works as per the structural survey. However, it noted there was a gap left where a small dog could get through. It said it would come back to address this.
10. An internal email from 3 November 2023 confirmed the landlord requested works to address the gap but could not confirm exact timescales because this was weather dependent. There is no evidence it updated the resident regarding this. The landlord said joiners attended following the resident’s complaint, but she refused the works. It later agreed with the resident it would come back to fit filler panels to remove the gap but confirmed no timescales.
11. There is no evidence of any further communication until the resident escalated her complaint on 27 January 2024. The landlord’s records show it completed the works on 11 March 2024. The resident confirmed that although the landlord addressed the gap, she remained concerned that the works were insufficient.
12. When the requirements for works are disputed, we consider whether the landlord took reasonable steps to identify what was required to resolve the issue. The landlord acknowledged its operative initially advised the resident a retaining wall would be needed and that they should not have done so. This led to unmet expectations for the resident when it later changed its position. However, its decision to renew the fence was based on advice from structural engineers who inspected the property and found no evidence of ground movement to indicate subsidence.
13. The landlord is entitled to rely on expert evidence when deciding what works to undertake. We have not seen evidence to show the landlord’s reliance on the findings from the structural survey was unreasonable. The resident referred to historical waterlogging issues from when she first moved in in 1998, but we have not seen evidence these are linked to the current concern. Overall, the landlord acted reasonably by completing works in line with expert advice and revisiting in October 2023 to inspect the new fence after the resident raised further concerns. It also addressed the reported gap and explained to the resident why it did not believe her garden was subsiding.
14. The landlord acknowledged it failed to keep the resident updated throughout the process. In its stage 1 complaint response, it apologised and committed to improving its future communication. However, it did not demonstrate this improvement, as it did not update the resident about next steps to address the gap until 3 months later and only after she escalated her complaint. It apologised again at stage 2 of its complaints process. While it was reasonable that the landlord acknowledged its failings and apologised, we find that this was not sufficient to put things right in the circumstances. This is because it failed to update the resident on more than 1 occasion and after already identifying this as an issue. The resident had to chase it to receive responses.
15. We have therefore ordered the landlord to pay the resident £75 compensation for the likely time and trouble its communication failings have caused. This is in line with our compensation guidance for situations where there was a minor failure by the landlord in the service it provided and it did not fully put them right.

Complaint	The handling of the complaint
Finding	No maladministration

16. The landlord’s complaints policy at the time of the complaint complied with the definition of a complaint in the March 2023 Complaint Handling Code (the Code). The timescales in the landlord’s current complaint procedure comply with the April 2024 Code.
17. The landlord responded to the complaint at both stages in line with the timescales set out in its complaints policy. Its responses were adequate and explained its position.

Learning

18. Landlords should ensure they avoid providing advice on works before confirming their position, as later changes can lead to unmet expectations for residents.

Knowledge information management (record keeping)

19. Landlords should maintain clear and dated records of any inspections, decisions and repairs.

Communication

20. Landlords should provide clear communication about works and timescales, including updates where there are changes or delays to existing timescales. This helps to manage expectations and reduce any impact caused.