London Borough of Barking and Dagenham (202341562)

Decision
Case ID	202341562
Decision type	Investigation
Landlord	London Borough of Barking and Dagenham
Landlord type	Local Authority / ALMO or TMO
Occupancy	Secure Tenancy
Date	27 February 2026

 

Background

1. The resident raised concerns about the repair obligations for the fence that separated her garden from her neighbour’s. The landlord initially made repairs to the fence but subsequently told her it was the neighbour’s responsibility to fix because they had a pet. It later told her that she was jointly responsible for the fence because a pet regularly visited her home. The resident asked us to investigate if it had acted fairly in the circumstances. The resident is blind, and her son made the complaint on her behalf. We have referred to the actions of both as those of the resident.

 

What the complaint is about

2. The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of the resident’s:
   1. Concerns for repairing the boundary fence.
   2. Associated complaint.

 

Our decision (determination)

3. We found:
   1. Maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s concerns for repairing the boundary fence
   2. Maladministration in the landlord’s complaint handling.

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

 

Summary of reasons

Concerns for repairing the boundary fence

4. We found that the landlord failed to communicate clearly about the fence boundary responsibilities. It also kept poor records of the work completed and the advice given.

Complaint handling

5. The landlord failed to provide a stage 1 response because it had misinformed her that it could not do this while it was considering an MP enquiry. It did not appropriately address all of the concerns raised by the resident.

 

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 13 March 2026
	Compensation order The landlord must pay the resident £250 made up as follows: £150 for failures caused by its handling of the resident’s boundary fence repair. £100 for failures caused by its complaint handling. 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 13 March 2026

 

 

Our investigation

The complaint procedure

Date	What happened
13 February 2024	The resident complained through the landlord’s webform, because she said she had complained for the past year about a broken fence. She also said: She had been told that the fence was the neighbour’s responsibility for several months before being told that it was hers. She was given a map by the landlord to evidence the boundary responsibility. But this was unclear because the landlord referenced boundary marks that did not exist on the title plan. She asked the landlord, if the tenancy ended, if she could take down any new fence she put up but was told that the original fence must stay. The landlord incorrectly told her neighbour that she was unwilling to help fix or replace the fence, which she says could have jeopardised their relationship.
16 February 2024	The landlord acknowledged the complaint and said it would respond by 27 February 2024.
Between 27 February 2024 and 2 April 2024	The resident sent 2 chaser emails to request a response to her complaint. She eventually asked for it to be escalated to a stage 2 response. We wrote to the landlord to ask that it provide its complaint response by 9 April 2024.
9 April 2024	The landlord issued its stage 2 complaint response. It said: On 1 February 2024 the resident raised a query with her MP which was pending when she raised a complaint with the landlord on 13 February 2024. Its policy says that multiple complaints will not be accepted about the same matter, but it apologised that this was not properly explained to her at the time. The resident’s neighbour owned a dog, therefore it was not wrong to conclude that the neighbour had responsibility in that respect. The neighbour agreed to replace the fence when they had the funds. It was then told that the resident also has a dog visit, therefore the same rules applied to visitors as occupants. So, the resident was jointly liable for ensuring the boundary remained secure. It apologised for how its officer’s involvement in communicating with her neighbour was perceived. As the resident and her neighbour were on good terms, it said it would be better for them to agree to a solution without its involvement. “[It] acknowledged [its] communication could have been clearer at the outset, particularly in respect to the complaint and substantive repair responsibilities”. It did not deviate from policy and procedure by holding her jointly responsible for maintaining the fence after it became aware that she also had a dog regularly visit.
Referral to the Ombudsman	The resident referred her complaint to us because she was dissatisfied with how the landlord had come to its decision, including delays in explaining its position, to hold her responsible for the fence. She wanted it to reimburse her the £700 it cost to replace the fence. We understand that since the complaint her grandson purchased the property.

 

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	Concerns for repairing the boundary fence
Finding	Maladministration

6. The tenancy agreement says the landlord will not repair any boundary fence. Residents must maintain fencing that is needed to keep their animal in their garden. The landlord’s website says that it has no legal duty to provide fencing or repair fencing. Residents must repair any damage to their fence and maintaining fencing that is needed for their animals.
7. It is unclear when the resident first reported the issue because the landlord did not provide records of this. It is also unclear if this is because it did not make a record or failed to share this with us. This was poor record keeping which affected our ability to fully assess its response. The first record we found was on 31 June 2023, where the resident said the fence had been broken “months ago” and was caused by the neighbour’s dog.
8. The resident said a contractor came to view the fence and said it would be the neighbour’s responsibility to fix it within 12 weeks. Because of the lack of records for this appointment, we were unable to come to an evidence based conclusion about what advice was given at the time. Because of this we cannot be satisfied the landlord took reasonable steps to manage her expectations about the obligations towards the fence at the earliest opportunity.
9. On 1 August 2023 the landlord told the resident it had reported her concerns to the repairs department, who would carry out the necessary works. The timeline about this work is unclear however, the resident’s email of 7 February 2024 says the wooden fence was fixed but the wired fence was not. The resident said she had been told by the repairs team at this appointment, that the neighbours were responsible for this. The lack of records about actions taken or advice given was inappropriate. Because it ought to maintain robust records for its customer contact and appointments. Again, we were unable to assess whether the landlord acted appropriately to explain the correct position about the responsibilities of parties at this appointment.
10. The landlord replied to an MP enquiry 6 months later. It said it became aware that the resident also had a dog come to visit on weekends. Due to lack of records, it is unclear how or when the landlord became aware of this, or if it told her in a reasonable time, she was responsible for the fence. The evidence we have shows it first informed her on 12 February 2024. Given the lack of records we could not be satisfied this was the earliest opportunity to do so. We consider this caused the resident time and trouble seeking support from her MP and raising a complaint to get clear information about the responsibility of the parties.
11. The landlord discussed the title plan with the resident and offered tentative advice about responsibility for the fence. As it owned both properties, it was unnecessary for it to engage in such communications because this further confused the resident. This added to the distress and confusion caused by its earlier inconsistent communications.
12. It was reasonable in line with its policy, for the landlord to say that it would not replace the fence. However, it repaired part of the fence, and this set an expectation that it would carry out repairs. It is unclear why it did this, when it was also explaining her neighbour was responsible at the time. It was positive the landlord used its discretion, but this further confused the resident about its intentions regarding the obligations of the parties for the repair of the fence. However, we consider the landlord could have done more to work with the resident and neighbour to come to a resolution. This would have mitigated any distress caused by its earlier communications about who was responsible for the fence.
13. In its stage 2 response, the landlord appropriately acknowledged and apologised for unclear communication. But it took no further steps to put things right or to learn from the complaint. This was a missed opportunity to address the distress, confusion, and time and trouble caused to the resident because of its failures.
14. To reflect the impact, we have made an order for compensation in line with our remedies guidance. The amount reflects that the landlord has acknowledged the failings but failed to address the detriment to the resident.

 

 

Complaint	The handling of the complaint
Finding	Maladministration

15. The Housing Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code) published in 2022 applied when the resident made her complaint. The landlord’s complaint policy appropriately adopted the definition of a complaint and the response timeframes set out in the Code.
16. When the resident initially raised her complaint, the landlord said it could not have 2 ongoing complaints about the same matter. This was because it was also responding to an MP enquiry. In this instance, the landlord could have treated the MP enquiry as a complaint for the resident, but it should have told her at the time. It could also have explained this when she raised her complaint and sent its stage 1 response. If not, it should have treated the MP enquiry as only an enquiry and then started stage 1. The main issue is the lack of clear communication.
17. Following this, the resident chased the landlord to escalate her complaint. There is no evidence it took further action until we wrote and asked that it provided a response. We wrote to the landlord to ask that it provide its complaint response by 9 April 2024. It issued its stage 2 response on that date.
18. The stage 2 complaint response did not address the resident’s concern that the housing officer had made a “personal character attack” on her by telling the neighbour incorrect information. It only apologised for how this was perceived by the resident. There was no evidence it had taken steps to investigate this matter and come to an evidence based conclusion. We would have expected the landlord to have answered this element as part of its response. This meant the resident felt this matter was unresolved, which caused her distress.
19. To reflect the inconvenience, time and trouble caused, we have made an order for compensation in line with our remedies guidance. The amount reflects that the landlord failed to address the detriment to the resident.

 

Learning

Record keeping

20. The landlord should consider reviewing its record keeping processes to ensure it keeps accurate and accessible records, of actions completed and of residents’ contact. It may wish to refer to the Ombudsman’s spotlight report on Knowledge and Information Management.

Communication

21. There was a theme of delayed communication with the resident, and this also caused concerns with expectation management. The landlord could reflect on this and improve communication by giving clear, timely updates.

Complaint handling

22. This investigation has highlighted that the landlord did not fully address all the elements of the resident’s complaint. The landlord could reflect on this and consider any learning and staff training needs.