London Borough of Redbridge (202334994)

Background

1. In July 2022 the resident reported a broken fence in her back garden to the landlord. Following her report the landlord attended to inspect, however, it did not complete repairs.

What the complaint is about

2. The complaint is about the landlord’s response to the fence repair.
3. This investigation has also considered the landlord’s complaint handling.

Our decision (determination)

4. There was a service failure by the landlord in its response to the fence repair.
5. There was no maladministration in the landlord’s complaint handling.

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

Summary of reasons

The landlord’s response to the fence repair

6. The landlord reasonably set out that the resident was responsible for the repairs. It acknowledged it did not communicate to its expected standard as part of the process. However, despite identifying this was inappropriate, it did not provide any redress to put things right.

Complaint Handling

7. The landlord responded to the complaint in line with the timeframes as required by our Complaint Handling Code (the Code).

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.

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.

8. Following the resident’s report about the fence in July 2022, the landlord completed 2 inspections in November 2022 and February 2023. The resident said after the inspections, she repeatedly chased the landlord for updates about the repair of the damaged fence. In August 2023, the landlord confirmed to the resident that the fence repairs were not its responsibility.
9. The tenancy handbook states residents are responsible for maintaining fences and boundaries. The landlord’s complaint response was in line with this.
10. The landlord’s void standard states it will repair an unsafe boundary which belongs to it, to ensure a property is secure. The resident said the fence was unstable when she moved in. However, there is no evidence she raised concerns about the fence at the start of the tenancy. The first report about the fence was submitted by the resident 3 months after the tenancy started, after storm damage. On the basis of when the resident reported the damaged fence to the landlord, its decision to refer responsibility for the repairs back her remained reasonable.
11. The landlord upheld the complaint because it failed to inform the resident from the outset that the fence repair was her responsibility to undertake. The landlord inspected the fence twice, which created false expectations and led to the resident to chase the repair for a year before the landlord confirmed its position that the resident was responsible for the repair under the tenancy conditions.
12. The landlord apologised to the resident for the lack of clarity about the responsibility to repair when she first reported the matter. An apology as a part of putting things right was appropriate but not proportionate on its own given the impact of its failure to clarify the repair responsibility sooner. The resident spent time and effort pursuing the matter and received misleading information before the landlord confirmed its position.
13. To recognise this, we have ordered the landlord to pay £50 compensation to the resident. The compensation ordered is in line with our remedies guidance, which recommends this amount would be suitable where a failure caused inconvenience, but did not change the overall outcome. In this case, the landlord’s delay to clarify responsibility through its poor communication led to unnecessary time and trouble for the resident.

14. The landlord has a 2 stage complaint process with timescales that align with the Code. The Code requires landlord’s to log complaints at both stages within 5 working days and respond to complaints within 10 working days at stage 1 and 20 working days at stage 2.
15. The landlord provided its formal response at both stages of the process within the appropriate timescales within the Code. There was no maladministration in the landlord’s complaint handling.

Learning

16. The landlord acknowledged its failure to provide the resident with the correct information about fence repair responsibility at the earliest opportunity. It confirmed it would remind staff to inform residents at the outset that fence repairs are their responsibility, in line with tenancy conditions. This demonstrates the landlord has gained learning from the complaint and as a result has made a commitment to improve its communication.

Knowledge information management (record keeping)

17. The landlord provided sufficient records for us to investigate the resident’s complaint.