Paradigm Housing Group Limited (202427562)

Decision
Case ID	202427562
Decision type	Investigation
Landlord	Paradigm Housing Group Limited
Landlord type	Housing Association
Occupancy	Assured Tenancy
Date	2 February 2026

Background

The resident reported an issue with her fence on 16 July 2024. The landlord attended on 20 August 2024 and found an issue with the trellis not the fence. The resident raised a complaint that the landlord would not replace the fence and only remove the trellis.

What the complaint is about

The complaint is about the landlord’s:
1. Handling of the resident’s concerns about her fence and the attached trellis.
2. Complaint handling.

Our decision (determination)

We have found that there was:
1. No maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s concerns about the fence and attached trellis.
2. No maladministration in the landlord’s complaint handling.

We have not made orders for the landlord to put things right.

Summary of reasons

Handling of the concerns about the fence and attached trellis.

The landlord attended in line with its policy to inspect the fence. It was entitled to rely on its qualified contractors to decide that the fence was structurally sound and its decision not to replace the trellis was in line with its policy.

Complaint handling

The landlord responded in line with its complaints policy and the Complaint Handling Code (the Code).

Our investigation

The complaint procedure

Date	What happened
20 August 2024	The resident raised a formal complaint; the key points were as follows: The trellis in her garden kept coming off, which she had repaired at her own expensive. Someone attended to inspect the fence but was not diligent as the resident was unaware an operative had attended. The fence needed replacing as it was broken and needed to be replaced with a fence that did not require trellis.
11 September 2024	The landlord provided its stage 1 response; the key points were as follows: The resident had raised a fence repair on 16 July 2024 which it had attended to inspect on 20 August 2024. At that visit it noted the issue was with the trellis and not the fence. The resident was unhappy with this assessment and said the fence was broken, not just the trellis. It would repair the fence but not replace it as it was structurally sound and the decision was in line with its repair policy.
11 September 2024	The resident escalated her complaint to stage 2 of the complaint process as she was unhappy with the landlord’s decision to not repair the trellis and only repair the fence. She said the trellis made up the fence panels and was therefore part of the structure, without it the fence would not be strong enough. She said the broken trellis was a risk to her children. She asked for the fence to be replaced, or the structure be changed.
9 October 2024	The landlord provided its stage 2 response; the key points were as follows: It provided and overview of its stage 1 response. It confirmed that on the 20 August 2024 it had found the fence to be fine but the trellis damaged. It confirmed where financially viable it would repair wooden fencing but would not repair trellis as it was not part of its repair standard. It confirmed that it had agreed to remove the trellis due to the resident’s concerns. It said that the resident could submit a home improvement form if she wished to replace the fence at her own cost.
23 November 2024	The resident referred her complaint to us and said she wanted the landlord to replace the fence with a fence that did not require trellis.

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	Handling of the resident’s concerns about the fence and attached trellis.
Finding	No maladministration

When the resident reported an issue with the fence, the landlord attended to inspect the fence, in line with its policy. While the resident was not in when the operative attended, the operative was able to inspect the fence. The landlord is entitled to rely on the opinion of its qualified contractors when they said they have completed an inspection.
Furthermore, the operative took photos which the landlord confirmed during the complaints process it had reviewed to confirm its position.
The operative found that the problem lay with the attached trellis rather than the fence. The landlord explained that its policy did not cover repairing or replacing trellises but confirmed it would remove it. This response was consistent with its policy, as the landlord was responsible only for the fence and not the trellis.
Following this, the resident asked the landlord to replace the entire fence and trellis with a single, stronger structure. The landlord declined, saying that the existing fence was in sound condition and it would only replace this where it was not financially viable to do a repair. This approach was consistent with its repairs policy.
The landlord appropriately confirmed its stance in the stage 1 and 2 responses. It also told the resident that she was able to replace the fence herself at her own cost if she wanted to. It signposted the resident to its home improvement form. It also appropriately reiterated its offer to remove the trellis for the resident.
In this case, the landlord followed its policy. It inspected the fence, confirmed it was of sound condition and confirmed that to the resident. Its decision not to replace the fence and to only remove the trellis, was in line with its policy.
Therefore, we find there was no maladministration in its handling of the resident’s concerns about the fence and attached trellis.

Complaint	The handling of the complaint
Finding	No maladministration

The landlord has a 2 stage complaints process. It will acknowledge the complaint and escalation request within 5 working days. It will respond at stage 1 within 10 working days and stage 2 within 20 working days.
The resident raised a formal complaint on 20 August 2024, which it acknowledged the following days. The landlord wrote to the resident, prior to the stage 1 complaint was due to explain it would respond by 11 September 2024. While the landlord should strive to respond within 10 working days, it managed the resident’s expectations in line with the Code. The landlord responded at stage 2 in line with its policy and the Code.

Learning

Knowledge information management (record keeping)

The landlord demonstrated good record keeping in this case.

Communication

The landlord demonstrated that it had effective communication with the resident in this case.