Newlon Housing Trust (202123057)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202123057

Newlon Housing Trust

18 May 2022

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 complaint is about the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of a damaged fence.

Background

2. The resident is a tenant of the landlord. The resident lives in a house with a garden. There is fencing surrounding the garden.
3. In November 2020, the resident contacted the landlord about a garden fence that had fallen and broken due to weather conditions and raised health and safety concerns regarding this. The resident sent pictures, at the landlord’s request, of the damage that had been caused. The resident explained that the fence boundary sits between her own and her neighbour’s property and so it was the landlord’s duty to repair it.
4. The landlord did not respond to the resident’s concerns until January 2021 when it confirmed the resident would need to contact her neighbour to establish ownership of the fence and who would be responsible for maintaining and repairing it. The resident then informed the landlord that her neighbour was very hostile towards her and that she was unable to approach her neighbour to establish ownership of the fence. In January 2021, the resident received a response from the landlord stating there was not much it could do unless ownership of the fence was confirmed. The resident also raised concerns that she had ongoing damp issues in her bathroom. The resident was advised by the landlord that the damp issues would form part of a separate complaint and this element would not be considered as part of the current complaint.
5. In March 2021, the resident escalated her complaint through the landlord’s process because of the lack of communication and the landlord’s failure to recognise the duty of care to its residents by carrying out repairs. During this period, the landlord arranged for a surveyor to inspect the damage caused to the fencing. The surveyor failed to attend to carry out the inspection in April 2021 and so the appointment was re-arranged. On inspection, the surveyor confirmed the fence was damaged and needed to be addressed. There was limited communication between the landlord and the resident until August 2021 when the landlord arranged for its contractor to carry out works to repair the fence.
6. In October 2021 the landlord issued its final response to the resident. It advised that it was correct in the first instance in requesting the resident establish contact with her neighbour. The landlord confirmed it did not have a duty of care and responsibility to repair the neighbour’s fence unless the neighbour was a tenant of the landlord. It apologised for its lack of communication with the resident and accepted that the pictures set by the resident were clear in showing the damage to fencing. It concluded that it had now repaired the fence as a gesture of goodwill and offered compensation of £300 to the resident for the lack of its response, the eight-month delay in completing repairs, handling of repairs, missed surveyor appointments and for poor communication.
7. In her complaint to the Ombudsman, the resident advised she wanted the landlord to accept responsibility for any future concerns raised regarding the fencing.

Scope of Investigation

8. The resident had complained to the landlord about damp in her bathroom. The landlord stated it would be investigating this as part of a separate complaint through its internal complaints process. This can also be referred to the Ombudsman separately if the resident remains dissatisfied once she has received the landlord’s final response to the bathroom complaint. The complaint has not exhausted the landlord’s complaints process so it is not clear what the landlord’s response is at this stage and therefore the Ombudsman cannot assess whether this response was reasonable.

Assessment and findings

Policies and Procedures

9. The tenancy agreement says the landlord is obliged to keep in good repair the structure and exterior of the premises including boundary walls and fences.
10. The landlord’s complaints policy confirms its timescales for acknowledging an escalated complaint within two working days and confirms a full response to be sent to a resident within 20 working days.
11. The landlord’s complaints policy also confirms the resident’s right to have a repair carried out that is urgent and affects the health and safety of the resident. In terms of compensation, the policy confirms the resident will be paid an equivalent amount to what a contractor would have been paid to complete the works.
12. The landlord refers to awards of compensation of £250 to £700 for considerable service failures that may or may not have had an impact on the resident, but where the resident had to repeatedly chase the landlord for a response or to seek corrections of its mistakes.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of a damaged fence.

13. The landlord was obliged to keep the structure and exterior of the property in good repair for its resident as per its tenancy agreement. The resident had raised initial concerns that the garden fence had collapsed in December 2020. The landlord has not followed its timescales for repairs as there was a delay of eight months to complete the repair and the landlord has not given an adequate explanation for the delay, so it appears it was avoidable. In addition to this, it is not clear from the correspondence why the initial surveyor’s attendance had taken over a month from the resident reporting the matter or, why a second surveyor visit was required before a work order to carry out the repair could be raised.
14. The landlord’s complaint policy confirms repairs posing a health and safety risk should be regarded as urgent. The resident had stated that the fencing broken in her garden had prevented her from using the garden as it posed a health and safety risk.  In this case, the landlord has shown it considered the resident’s concerns about health and safety but its response that the fence was not posing an immediate hazard was reasonable as this was based on the photographs provided by the resident and a visit by the landlord’s surveyor to the property.
15. It was reasonable for the landlord to suggest that the resident contact the neighbour in the first instance as in some cases this may lead to a quicker resolution compared with the landlord attempting to contact the neighbour. However, once the resident had stated that her neighbour was hostile, the landlord should have stepped in and attempted to contact the neighbour itself rather than continuing to ask the resident to contact them. 
16. Whilst the landlord chose to initiate the repairs to the neighbour’s fence and on the neighbour’s behalf, it took a considerably long time to make that decision. The landlord’s complaints policy confirms timescales to act for repairs within 20 working days. This repair was outstanding for over eight months before the landlord had agreed to repair the fence as a gesture of goodwill. However, on reviewing the case, once the decision was made to repair the fence, the repairs process itself took a relatively short time.
17. The landlord acted reasonably in repairing the fence. There is nothing in the tenancy agreement to suggest the landlord is responsible for repairs for non-residents’ property. The landlord is therefore not obliged to take responsibility for the fence. However, if possible, the landlord should note on the resident’s file that she is not able to approach the neighbour in the case of any future problems with the fence and therefore the landlord should consider approaching the neighbour on behalf of the resident in an effort to resolve any future issues with the fence.
18. Overall, in terms of the landlord’s complaint handling, the landlord has shown that it has learnt from this complaint by confirming it is reviewing and looking to draft a policy around repairs involving neighbouring properties which the landlord does not own. It is reasonable for the landlord to do so to help prevent similar issues occurring in future.
19. The landlord’s offer of £300 compensation is in line with the Service’s remedies guidance (published on our website) which suggests awards of between £250-700 where the Ombudsman has found considerable service failure or maladministration by the landlord, but there may be no permanent impact on the complainant. Examples include failure over a considerable period to act in accordance with policy – for example to address repairs and serious failures but which have already been recognised and resolved by landlord, including redress for actual financial loss.
20. In this case there were significant delays in the landlord completing repairs and poor communication which was a significant failure by the landlord. However, the landlord has recognised these errors and taken appropriate action to resolve them through its offer of compensation and the repairs which have now been carried out to the fence.

Determination

21. In accordance with paragraph 55 (b) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the landlord has made an offer of redress prior to investigation which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, resolves the complaint about the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of a damaged fence satisfactorily.

Recommendations

22. It is recommended that the landlord pay the resident its original offer of £300 in compensation if it has not already done so. The Ombudsman’s finding of reasonable redress in this case is based on the understanding that this compensation will be paid.