London Borough of Hounslow (202417650)

Back to Top

 

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202417650

London Borough of Hounslow

29 August 2025

 

Our approach

The Housing Ombudsman’s approach to investigating and determining complaints is to decide what is fair in all the circumstances of the case. This is set out in the Housing Act 1996 and the Housing Ombudsman Scheme (the Scheme). The Ombudsman considers the evidence and looks to see if there has been any ‘maladministration’, for example whether the landlord has failed to keep to the law, followed proper procedure, followed good practice or behaved in a reasonable and competent manner.

Both the resident and the landlord have submitted information to the Ombudsman and this has been carefully considered. Their accounts of what has happened are summarised below. This report is not an exhaustive description of all the events that have occurred in relation to this case, but an outline of the key issues as a background to the investigation’s findings.

The complaint

  1. The resident’s complaint is about the landlord’s handling of an unsecure communal gate and its request to remove the resident’s fence.

Background

  1. The resident is a secure tenant of the landlord, a local authority. The tenancy commenced on 15 November 2021. The property is a 1-bedroom ground floor flat.
  2. The landlord has an agreement with the freeholder to lease the block which the resident resides in. The communal grounds are not included within its lease with the freeholder.
  3. The resident is vulnerable, and the landlord is aware of her medical conditions.
  4. The resident had been experiencing issues concerning unauthorised access into the communal areas. This was causing her distress as she had previously experienced anti-social behaviour (ASB) in the past. Following reports from residents of the block, the landlord asked for foot patrols from the neighbourhood enforcement team and police.
  5. Following an inspection of the grounds, the landlord sent a letter to all residents on the ground floor on 21 March 2024 informing them that added patios or fences on the estate were not within the tenancy agreement and are a breach of tenancy. It instructed that these were to be moved within 28 days.
  6. The resident was unhappy about this and did not want to remove the fence which she had erected. She stated this was for her safety.
  7. On 19 April 2024, following an inspection of the block and communal grounds, the landlord sent a letter to the resident to explain that the freeholder would not permit alterations to the communal area under the terms of its lease. It explained it had to enforce these terms, and the resident was required to remove the fence she had added. An extension was given to the resident to remove her back garden fence by 6 May 2024.
  8. A complaint was raised on 13 May 2024 by the resident’s representative. This was concerning:
    1. Problems experienced with unauthorised access and the resident’s reasons for erecting a fence.
    2. The landlord’s request for the resident to remove the fence.
    3. The resident being served with a warning.
  9. Following this the landlord spoke with the resident. She explained she did not want to remove the fence until it dealt with her ongoing concerns of unauthorised access through the communal gates. She had erected the fence for privacy and security.
  10. Issues concerning unauthorised access continued in May 2024. Following reports from residents of the block, the landlord requested its CCTV be checked and also contacted its enforcement team to check the area.
  11. The landlord issued its stage one response on 23 May 2024. It understood the resident’s complaint to be about her being asked to remove her fence and security concerns. It explained:
    1. It or its residents are not allowed to make alterations to the communal area without the permission of the freeholder. Therefore, the fence needed to be removed immediately.
    2. If the fence was not removed by 28 June 2024, it would have to refer the matter to its legal team to seek an injunction for the restoration of the communal grounds and to recover any costs incurred.
    3. It acknowledged the resident’s concerns about the communal gates being left open, but explained the communal gate was managed by the freeholder. It confirmed it would write to all residents to ensure the gate was left locked.
  12. On 17 June 2024 the landlord sent a letter to all residents about closing the back communal gate.
  13. The resident escalated the complaint and the landlord issued a stage two response on 8 July 2024. This explained that:
    1. It did not have any authority or jurisdiction to make alterations to the communal gardens or external communal area. This is because it is a leaseholder.
    2. It had raised the resident’s concerns about the communal gate with the freeholder. It was informed that installing a fence on either side of the rear communal garden was cost prohibitive and the freeholder did not have the funding to carry out any additional works to the communal grounds.
    3. The landlord explained it was only responsible for managing and maintaining the internal communal areas.
    4. It sent letters to all residents on 17 June 2024 advising them to ensure the rear gate is closed.
    5. Its tenancy officer also advised all ground floor residents that if their needs have changed since the start of their tenancy they could apply for an exchange or join the housing register.
    6. The landlord provided the resident with the details of who she would need to contact for any repairs needed to the communal garden gate that leads to the local park.
  14. On 6 August 2024 the landlord contacted the resident to inform her the gate already had a coded key lock on it which the freeholder found was sufficient. It explained that it would not find the installation of a fob entry access to the gates to be cost prohibitive. It further explained it would ask the freeholder if it could consider installing a gate spring to assist it closing.
  15. Since the complaint the landlord has requested further patrols from the neighbourhood enforcement team and police in an effort to prevent unauthorised access. This was requested between August until October 2024.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation.

  1. It is our understanding the representative has been contacting the landlord and its freeholder in an attempt to resolve the issues concerning the communal gate and fencing. In this investigation we have considered the landlord’s actions in response to the resident’s concerns. This is because the freeholder is not a member of our scheme, therefore we cannot consider the reasonableness of its actions. In this case the contractual relationship is between the resident and the landlord, and we have therefore considered the landlord’s actions, including its actions in terms of liaising with the freeholder.

Unsecure communal gate and its request to remove the resident’s fence.

  1. The representative stated that as a result of the communal gate being left open, unauthorised individuals are gaining access to the communal area. She stated all residents on the ground floor are vulnerable, which makes them feel unsafe. She is seeking for:
    1. The communal ground gate to shut automatically.
    2. A key fob to get in and out.
    3. Fencing or a wrought iron railing on either side of the boundary railing.
  2. The landlord has explained that the gate is the responsibility of the building owner, so it is unable to act other than through tenancy enforcement methods. It also is able to raise its resident’s concerns with the freeholder.
  3. Section 5.15(e) of the resident’s tenancy agreement states that she must not keep open, damage or obstruct in any way communal entrance doors. Therefore, when the landlord was informed of the communal gate being left open it was obliged to look into this matter as this could be a potential breach of tenancy for those responsible.
  4. The landlord informed the resident on 23 May 2024 that it would write to all its residents concerning the communal gates being left open. This was completed on 17 June 2024. We find the landlord wrote to its residents within a reasonable timeframe.
  5. In response to the resident’s request for the gate to shut automatically and a key fob be installed the landlord explained it was unable to make these changes as they were outside of its lease agreement with the freeholder.
  6. The agreement between the landlord and the freeholder is set out in its letting terms.
    1. Section 3.1.1(d) states that tenants of the landlord should not in any way interfere with the outside of the block.
    2. Schedule 1 states the leaseholder’s interest in the block is shown in red on the premises plan. This plan shows only the block is considered within the lease between the freeholder and the landlord.
  7. Reviewing this information, we are satisfied the communal gates which the resident has complained about are not the landlord’s responsibility. Nonetheless, we recognise the resident’s frustrations and concerns relating to safety, as unauthorised access keeps happening. In such circumstances we would expect the landlord to be taking actions within its remit to help resolve the matter.
  8. We can see the landlord has taken the following actions:
    1. It sent letters out to all residents of the block, asking them to ensure the gate is closed after use.
    2. It put signs up.
    3. It contacted the freeholder about the resident’s concerns to see if anything could be done, such as it installing an automatic gate, spring or fob.
    4. It explained its position and responsibility to the residents regarding it being a leaseholder.
  9. We find the landlord has taken reasonable steps to address the resident’s concerns. We recognise she states the landlord has not resolved the issue, and she would like improvements to be made to the communal gate. However, the landlord is not obliged or able to carry out works to the communal gate as stated within its lease agreement with its freeholder.
  10. We understand the resident had previously erected her own fencing for privacy and safety reasons.  She stated she was given permission verbally to have this installed in 2022. She stated the reason she needed this to be installed is for her mental health and security. While we do not dispute this, we have not seen evidence to support this.
  11. The landlord explained the fence was a breach of her tenancy and asked her to remove it on several occasions. While we understand she was unhappy about this, as stated above the communal ground outside of the block is not within the landlord’s lease agreement. Therefore, any alterations must be approved by the freeholder. We have not seen evidence to show a request for approval was made. In the resident’s tenancy agreement, it does not state the communal grounds form part of her agreement.
  12. The evidence shows that on multiple occasions the landlord informed the resident of its position regarding the fence and asked for this to be removed. On 9 May 2024 the landlord also informed the resident that if the property was no longer suitable for her with the fence removed, she could make an application for a transfer. Alternatively, she could do a mutual exchange.
  13. We find it was appropriate that the landlord explained the resident’s housing options, as this provided her with a practical alternative. As it would not be able to make amendments to the communal areas outside of its lease agreement, which was causing the resident distress, this suggestion was reasonable.
  14. We understand multiple residents of the block reported unauthorised access and loitering. Following this we see the landlord conducted a multi-agency approach. This included the involvement of police, CCTV team and neighbourhood enforcement officers. It also had signs put up.
  15. The representative has recently told us that nothing had changed. Though we recognise it is not within the landlord’s remit to carry out improvement works to the communal gate, it should now consider whether any other alternative measures can be taken to increase security within the premises which it leases. Such as, discussing these concerns further with the freeholder.
  16. In summary, we have found there was no maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of an unsecure communal gate and its request to remove the resident’s fence. It appropriately made its position clear to the resident in line with its policies and procedures.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration by the landlord in its handling of the resident’s reports of unsecure communal gates and its request to remove the resident’s fence.

Recommendations

  1. The landlord should consider whether any other alternative measures can be taken to increase security within the premises which it leases.