Kirklees Metropolitan Borough Council (202345070)

Decision
Case ID	202345070
Decision type	Investigation
Landlord	Kirklees Metropolitan Borough Council
Landlord type	Local Authority / ALMO or TMO
Occupancy	Secure Tenancy
Date	17 April 2026

 

Background

1. The complaint concerns the landlord’s response to reports of disrepair to the rear garden fencing and drainage, which the resident said affected the security and usability of her garden.

 

What the complaint is about

2. The complaint is about the landlord’s response to the resident’s:
   1. Reports of fence repairs.
   2. Reports of issues with garden drainage.
   3. Related complaint.

 

Our decision (determination)

3. We have found that:
   1. There was service failure in the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of fence repairs.
   2. There was maladministration in the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of issues with garden drainage.
   3. There was maladministration in the landlord’s response to the resident’s complaint.

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

 

Summary of reasons

Fence repairs

4. The landlord did not respond to the initial repair report within its policy timescales. It did not communicate effectively with the resident after it decided to defer the repairs to a planned programme.

 

Drainage

5. The landlord did not complete repairs within a reasonable time or maintain full, accurate records of its actions and decision making.

Complaint handling

6. There were delays at both stages and the landlord’s communication and its record keeping was poor.

 

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	Apology order The landlord must apologise in writing to the resident for the failures identified in this report. The landlord must ensure: The apology is specific to the failures identified in this decision, meaningful and empathetic. It has due regard to our apologies guidance.	No later than 15 May 2026
2	Compensation order The landlord must pay the resident £325 to recognise the distress and inconvenience caused by its failures. The amount is made up as follows: £100 for its response to fence repairs £150 for its response to reports of issues with garden drainage £75 for its handling of the complaint This must be paid directly to the resident by the due date. The landlord must provide documentary evidence of payment by the due date. The landlord may deduct from the total figure any payments it has already paid.	No later than 15 May 2026

 

Recommendations

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

Our recommendations
In line with the recommendations in our spotlight report on knowledge and information management, we recommend the landlord reviews its repairs record‑keeping practices to ensure it consistently records inspections, actions taken, decisions made, and outcomes, so that it can demonstrate compliance with its repair obligations and respond accurately to complaints.
We recommend the landlord considers refreshing staff guidance on complaint handling to ensure it accurately records and clearly explains response timescales, extensions and escalation stages to residents.

 

Our investigation

The complaint procedure

Date	What happened
9 January 2024	The resident complained that: the landlord had not repaired the rear garden fencing after it fell over a year ago the garden was like a swamp.
27 February 2024	The resident told the landlord she had not received a response to her complaint and asked if it was now at stage 2.
4 March 2024	The landlord issued its stage 1 response and said: it would carry out a drainage survey it would replace the resident’s fencing however it was currently only carrying out repairs to front line fencing and could not provide a timescale for the work to be completed it would provide an update in the spring it upheld the complaint and apologised for any stress and inconvenience caused.
26 April 2024	The landlord issued its stage 2 response and said: it would keep the resident informed about timescales for the fencing programme it had repaired the broken drainage gulley it apologised for stress and inconvenience caused by poor communication about the complaint.
Referral to the Ombudsman	On 6 June 2024 the resident asked us to investigate. She said: the landlord had not replaced the fencing there were ongoing issues with flooding in the garden she had no privacy in the garden and was unable to keep her dogs contained the flooding had damaged the garden and her personal belongings the situation was impacting her mental health she would like the landlord to resolve all issues and pay her compensation.

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.

 

What we did not consider

7. We are aware the resident submitted an insurance claim for damage to personal belongings in the garden. We cannot intervene with an insurance claim process or overturn the outcome of an insurance claim. Therefore, we have not considered the resident’s reports of damage to her belongings within the scope of this investigation.
8. The resident said the situation affected her mental health. We cannot decide whether a landlord’s actions (or lack of action) have had a detrimental impact on a resident’s health. It would be fairer, more reasonable and more effective for these matters to be considered by a personal injury claim or court. The courts are best placed to deal with this type of dispute as they will have the benefit of independent medical advice to decide on the cause of any injury and how long it will last. However, we have considered what the resident told us about how they were affected, and any distress or inconvenience that was caused because of any failings by the landlord.

 

Complaint	The response to the resident’s reports of fence repairs
Finding	Service failure

 

9. The landlord’s repairs policy (prior to 1 May 2024) says it aims to complete responsive repairs within 25 working days. However, in some cases it may defer works to be completed as part of a planned programme. It will inform residents when it has referred their repair to a programme.
10. On 20 December 2022 the landlord logged a repair for the fence. It says it attended on 1 February 2023. This was 3 days over its policy target of 25 working days, and after the resident told it that more of the fence had fallen. It is not clear what action the landlord took when it attended which is a record keeping failure.
11. On 23 February 2023 the landlord logged a further repair. The landlord’s records are unclear, but it told us it attended on 1 March 2023, removed the rotten fence and added the work to ‘the spreadsheet’ for renewal. Although the landlord added the work to a future planned programme, there is no evidence it adhered to its policy by communicating this to the resident which was unreasonable.
12. On 27 April 2023 the resident chased up the repair and said 6 panels had fallen. We have not seen any evidence that the landlord responded to the resident’s report. This was unreasonable.
13. The landlord’s records say that on or around 4 September 2023, the resident spoke to a member of the landlord’s staff who was carrying out visits in the area and asked when it would replace the fencing. The landlord said it “reiterated what it had told the resident previously that the fence would not be replaced anytime soon as there is a hold on all rear line fencing”. Although the note refers to information previously discussed with the resident, this is the first time the landlord records telling the resident the repairs were postponed. This is a record keeping failure.
14. On 2 January 2024, the landlord logged another fence repair. It told us it attended the next day to remove fencing.
15. While we have still been able to investigate the resident’s complaint and arrive at a reasonable conclusion, the landlord’s records do not include the dates it attended repairs or confirm what work it carried out. The landlord’s failure to record this information means it does not have an accurate audit trail of the actions it took.
16. The resident repeatedly raised concerns that the garden was insecure. She said she was unable to contain her dogs or prevent dogs from neighbouring properties from entering her garden. The resident chased the repairs several times and was frustrated about the lack of progress. Whilst the landlord’s policy allowed it to defer the repairs to a planned programme, it would have been reasonable for it to consider whether it could do anything in the meantime to secure the property boundary temporarily.
17. The landlord’s actions amount to service failure because:
    1. it attended the first repair 3 days outside of its policy target
    2. we have not seen evidence of clear and timely communication with the resident
    3. it has not maintained accurate records of its actions and decision making.
18. The landlord has confirmed the fencing was replaced in July 2024. Therefore, we have ordered the landlord to pay the resident £100 compensation. This is in line with our compensation guidance which says up to £100 is appropriate where there have been minor failings which have not significantly affected the outcome.

 

Complaint	The response to the resident’s reports of issues with garden drainage
Finding	Maladministration

 

19. The landlord’s repairs policy says it will keep in good repair the structure and exterior of the property, including drains and gulley’s.
20. From the information provided to us it appears that the first time the resident reported issues with waterlogging was when she raised the formal complaint. The resident provided us with messages and photos of the flooded garden she said she sent to the landlord on 29 February 2024. There is no evidence the landlord logged a repair until 1 March 2024. This was 38 working days after the resident first reported the issue which was an unreasonable delay.
21. We have not seen any evidence the landlord completed the drainage survey it committed to in its stage 1 response. Nor have we seen evidence it completed repairs to the gulley as stated in its stage 2 response. This is a record keeping failure which has impacted our ability to accurately assess its actions.
22. On 31 July 2024, the landlord wrote to the resident following a site visit on 19 June 2023. It said it would not carry out any drainage repairs because the waterlogging was not causing problems with accessing the property. However, the landlord told us it completed the repair raised on 1 March 2024 when it fitted a land drain on 13 May 2025. This was279 working days over its 25 working day target for the completion of responsive repairs.
23. The landlord’s actions amount to maladministration because:
    1. it’s completion of repairs was significantly over its repairs policy timescale
    2. it has not maintained accurate records of its actions
    3. it gave conflicting information to the resident.
24. In line with our compensation guidance, we have ordered the landlord to pay the resident £150 compensation for failures which adversely impacted the resident.

 

Complaint	The handling of the complaint
Finding	Maladministration

 

25. Our Complaint Handling Code (the Code) sets out when and how a landlord should respond to complaints. The relevant Code in this case is the 2024 edition.
26. The landlord has a published complaints policy which complies with the timescales set out in the code.
27. The landlord should have issued its stage 1 response by 23 January 2024. On 27 February 2024 the resident contacted the landlord because she had not received a stage 1 response. She asked if the complaint had moved to stage 2. The landlord responded the following day. It confirmed it had registered the complaint at stage 2 and said it would provide its response within 20 working days (by 27 March 2024).
28. When it subsequently issued its stage 1 response, the landlord said it had spoken to the resident on 28 February 2024 and extended its response timescale by 7 days. It also said it had tried to contact the resident multiple times on 17 January 2024. However, we have not seen any records to confirm the landlord attempted to contact the resident on this date, which is a record keeping failure.
29. The landlord told us it wrote to the resident on 4 March 2024, extending its stage 2 response target to 26 March 2024. This would have been a reduction of the timescale it stated in its letter of 28 February 2024.However, the copy of the letter the landlord provided us with is undated and says it extended the deadline for its stage 2 response to 6 March 2024.This is an example of poor communication and record keeping.
30. The landlord should have issued its stage 2 response by 2 April 2024. This would have been within 20 working days after the stage 1 response was issued (and the landlord confirmed with the resident during a telephone call that she wanted to escalate the complaint). However, it did not issue the stage 2 response until 26 April 2024 which was an unreasonable delay.
31. The landlord’s handling of the complaint amounts to maladministration because:
    1. it took 39 working days to provide its stage 1 response
    2. it took 38 working days to issue its stage 2 response
    3. its communication with the resident and its record keeping was poor.
32. In its stage 2 response the landlord apologised for any stress and inconvenience the resident felt it may have caused by its lack of communication regarding the initial complaint. However, it did not acknowledge or apologise for delays at stage 2. The landlord’s apology did not provide sufficient redress for the shortcomings in its complaint handling. Although the delays may have had limited direct impact, they added to the resident’s frustration. Therefore, in line with our compensation guidance we have ordered the landlord to pay the resident £75 compensation.

 

Learning

Knowledge information management (record keeping)

33. The landlord should maintain accurate and complete repair and communication records, ensuring it clearly records inspections, survey findings and completed actions.

Communication

34. The landlord should ensure residents are clearly told when it has added work to a planned programme, what this means for timescales, and how they can obtain updates.