Royal Borough Of Greenwich (202323784)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202323784

Royal Borough Of Greenwich

22 May 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

This complaint is about the landlord’s handling of:
1. The resident’s request for a replacement back fence.
2. The associated complaint.

Background

The resident is a secure tenant of the landlord under a tenancy that commenced in September 2015. The landlord is a local authority. The property is a 3-bedroom house with garden.
The landlord has a disability recorded for the resident’s son. The resident has ADHD of which the landlord is aware.
On 14 June 2021, the resident logged a complaint with the landlord. She said that she had been trying to get her back fence fixed for years as it was dangerous and not serving its purpose. She noted that the landlord had replaced the two fences of her immediate neighbours and it was unfair that it would not replace hers. She informed the landlord that she had two children with disabilities who had hurt themselves many times on the fence and a dog which could not go into the garden as it was unsafe. She asked the landlord to look at her fence and replace it.
On the same day, the landlord contacted the resident by telephone regarding the fence. During the discussion, the landlord raised queries as to whether the resident had made alterations to the property. The following day, two representatives from the landlord attended the resident’s property and took photographs of the front of it.
By way of context, it is noted that the resident raised a complaint on 15 June 2021 about the behaviour of the landlord’s representatives which she felt was inappropriate and intimidatory. However, that complaint and the circumstances giving rise to it are not part of this investigation.
The landlord visited the resident’s property on 16 July 2021 regarding a range of works which were required. It inspected the rear fence at this visit and recorded that it was damaged. The landlord noted in the repair log that the fence was private and not for it to repair or replace. There is no evidence in the records produced to this Service that this outcome was communicated to the resident at the time.
There was a period of delay in the landlord responding to the resident’s complaint. On 8 April 2023, the landlord issued a stage 1 response:
1. The landlord apologised for the delay in providing the response.
2. It advised the resident that its policy on fencing was that it would repair or replace a fence only if it joined public land. Any other fencing was the resident’s responsibility.
3. It was unable to share with the resident the reasons why her neighbour’s fence was replaced. However, it advised that it was legally allowed to use discretion on grounds of safeguarding or other concerns.
4. It stated that its fencing team had attended the resident’s home on more than one occasion and it was agreed that it would not replace the rear fence.
5. It offered £50 as a goodwill gesture in respect of the delay in responding to the complaint. The response also stated that the landlord had recently awarded her another £50 goodwill offer. Therefore, the final compensation amount was £100.
On the same day, the resident asked the landlord to escalate the complaint. In her email, she pointed out that the landlord had replaced three of the fences dividing her and her immediate neighbours’ properties although they did not adjoin a public path. She noted that the landlord could use its discretion to carry out the works for safeguarding reasons and stated that these reasons applied in her case. She had a young child with autism and ADHD who she was home educating and needed a safe garden.
The landlord issue its stage 2 response on 24 May 2023. This reiterated its position as stated in the stage 1 response. In addition, the landlord stated that:
1. The resident had installed her own fences to the front of the property, moved the back gate and had previously removed the rear fence to move materials when carrying out works to the rear of the property. As a result, it was not responsible for any fencing that the resident had installed or removed.
2. The resident had mentioned safeguarding concerns for her son. It said that it would discuss the matter with tenancy services before making a final decision on what action it would take with regards to the fence. It would provide the resident with a response in 10 working days’ time.

Post-complaint events

The resident sent emails to the landlord on receipt of the stage 2 response, explaining that she had not touched the back fence or taken it down since living in the property. She informed the landlord that it had installed the fencing at the front of the property. She asked that the landlord correct these points.
On 7 June 2023, the landlord sent an enforcement letter to the resident, informing her that she had made alterations to the fencing at the property without permission. It reminded her of her tenancy conditions and requested that she put the fencing back to its original state or submit an application for retrospective permission within 14 days.
On 8 June 2023, the resident contacted the landlord. She informed it that the fencing at the front and side of the property and other works to the driveway had been carried out by the landlord for the benefit of her son who was disabled. The landlord made its own enquiries which confirmed this. It decided not to pursue enforcement action against the resident.
On 14 November 2023, the resident referred her complaint to this Service. She said that she wanted a safe and secure rear fence.

Assessment and findings

Scope of the investigation

In the resident’s complaint, she refers to having made requests of the landlord over a number of years for her back fence to be replaced.
Under paragraph 42(c) of the Scheme, the Ombudsman may not consider complaints which, in our opinion, were not brought to the attention of the landlord within a reasonable period which would normally be within 12 months of the matters arising.
There is no record in the evidence available to this Service that the resident made a repair request in respect of the back fence in the 12 months prior to raising a formal complaint with the landlord on 14 June 2021. Accordingly, this investigation has focussed on the period from 14 June 2021.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s request for a replacement back fence

The landlord has provided its fencing policy to this Service. It states that the landlord will only repair or replace fencing where the fence joins public land or in cases where the landlord considers it necessary to maintain a safe environment. Similar provisions are contained in the landlord’s repairs handbook and standard tenancy terms.
Where a resident makes a request for fencing work, the procedure set out in the policy requires the landlord to carry out an inspection and make an assessment.
In this case, the resident asked the landlord to replace her back fence in her formal complaint of 14 June 2021. The landlord carried out an inspection on 16 July 2021 in line with its procedure. The inspection was carried out within a timeframe which the Ombudsman would expect for a non-urgent repair of this nature.
From the landlord’s repair log, it appears that the landlord concluded from the inspection that the fence was on private land and for this reason it was not the landlord’s obligation to repair or replace. There is no dispute in this case that the resident’s fence adjoined private land.
However, in line with its policy, the landlord should also have considered whether repair or replacement of the fence was necessary to maintain a safe environment. This would have been appropriate given that the resident had informed the landlord that she had children with disabilities who had hurt themselves many times on the fence. There is no evidence in the landlord’s records produced to this Service that it considered this at the time of the inspection. This was a failing by the landlord.
Following the inspection, it would be reasonable to expect the landlord to confirm its decision to the resident in a timely manner. In this case, the landlord first explained its decision to the resident in its stage 1 response of 8 April 2023. This was more than 18 months after its visit to the property, which was an excessive and unreasonable length of time.
In the stage 1 response, the landlord explained that its policy was only to repair or replace fences which joined public land. With regard to its decision to replace the resident’s neighbour’s fence (which did not adjoin public land), the landlord explained that it could use its discretion on grounds of safeguarding or other concerns.
While it was appropriate for the landlord to refer to its policy and explain the use of its discretion, it did not mention the safety concerns raised by the resident. It should have done so because they were relevant to the landlord’s decision–making, both under its fencing policy and to the exercise of its discretion (if the fence otherwise fell outside its obligation to repair). There is no evidence that the landlord took the resident’s safety concerns into account although it had an opportunity to do so at this stage. This was a failing by the landlord.
At the time of escalating her complaint, the resident noted that the landlord had discretion and made clear that she felt that there were safeguarding reasons which applied in her case.
The landlord’s decision, as set out in its stage 2 response of 24 May 2023, was that it would not be responsible for the fencing at the property because the resident had installed, removed or altered it. This was not a fair or reasonable response of the landlord.
If, as the landlord believed, the resident had carried out unauthorised alterations to the fencing, this should not have excluded other considerations, such as the safety of the resident’s children. In its response, the landlord recognised that there were safeguarding concerns and stated that it would discuss the matter with tenancy services before making a final decision.
However, there is no record in the evidence produced by the landlord of any discussions in this regard, nor did the landlord write to the resident to explain its final decision as it promised. The concerns raised by the resident about the safety of her children were therefore left unanswered.
Moreover, the landlord should have ensured that the information on which it was basing its decision was accurate. As was later accepted by the landlord, the information it relied on was not correct. It was the landlord itself, and not the resident, which had carried out alterations to the fencing and block paving to the front of the property. This would have been apparent to the landlord if it had checked its own records as it should have done before making its decision.
It is noted that by 9 June 2023, the landlord had established that it and not the resident had carried out these alterations. It rightly decided not to pursue enforcement action against the resident. It would have been reasonable for the landlord also to revisit its decision not to replace the resident’s fence and consider the matter afresh in light of the changed information. It did not do so which was also a failing by the landlord.
In summary, there were failings by the landlord in its handling of the resident’s request for a replacement back fence as follows:
1. while it inspected the fence within a reasonable period, it failed to communicate its decision to the resident in a timely manner;
2. it did not consider or address the safety concerns raised by the resident which were relevant both to the application of its fencing policy and to the exercise of its discretion;
3. it relied on inaccurate information when reviewing its decision at stage 2 and failed to revisit that decision when the true position was known.
The landlord’s failings caused detriment to the resident. She was caused stress and inconvenience by the situation because she felt unfairly treated by the landlord in comparison with her neighbours and because her concerns about the safety of her children went unaddressed. She spent time and trouble in pursuing her complaint to try to resolve the matter.
The landlord did not recognise its failings in its complaint responses or subsequently. Under the circumstances, compensation of £300 is appropriate. It is understood that the resident’s back fence remains in a state of dilapidation some 4 years after the resident brought her complaint. Accordingly, an order has been made below.

The associated complaint

At the relevant time, the landlord operated a 2 stage complaints process. It aimed to acknowledge a complaint within 5 working days and provide a stage 1 response within 15 working days. At stage 2, the landlord aimed to provide a response within 20 working days. If more time was needed at either stage, the landlord would contact the resident to explain why.
The resident logged her formal complaint on 14 June 2021. The stage 1 response was due on 5 July 2021. The landlord provided its Stage 1 response on 8 April 2023, which was one year and 9 months after the due date.
The evidence suggests that the delay was in part due to the landlord’s confusion with a separate complaint. In part, it was because the resident’s alleged unauthorised garden works became a complicating factor in the landlord addressing the complaint. In any event, the resultant delay was excessive and outside appropriate timescales.
There is no evidence that the landlord sought to update the resident during this period or agree an extension of time as it should have done in line with its complaints policy.
In its stage 1 response, the landlord accepted and apologised for the delay in providing its complaint response. However, it did not explain the delay and incorrectly referred to the resident’s complaint as having been made on 14 June 2022 rather than 14 June 2021. The delay was therefore a year longer than the landlord acknowledged to the resident. This gave the impression that the landlord had not given the resident’s complaint sufficient care and attention when investigating it.
The stage 1 response offered a goodwill payment of £50 for the delay. It also stated that it had recently awarded the resident another £50 goodwill offer bringing the final compensation to £100. While it was appropriate for the landlord to offer compensation for the delay in these circumstances, it should have identified whether the further £50 compensation was also in respect of the delay or for some other reason. It is good practice for the landlord to explain the failures for which compensation is being offered to provide clarity to residents.
Although the landlord took longer than 20 working days to issue its stage 2 response, it informed the resident that it required further time on two occasions. This was appropriate and in line with the landlord’s policy. The stage 2 response was issued within the extended time period.
It is noted that the Stage 2 response contained the same error in respect of the date of the resident’s complaint as was in the stage 1 response. The Ombudsman refers to the comments made in paragraph 39 above in this regard.
In addition to delay, some of the failings which have been identified above in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s repair request were also failings in its handling of the complaint. In particular, the landlord did not address the safety concerns raised by the resident in its response at either stage, which it should have done as these were an integral part of the resident’s complaint.
The stage 2 response referred to, and relied on, inaccurate information which the landlord should have checked for accuracy as part of its investigation. The landlord should have followed through on its promise to write to the resident within 10 working days of the stage 2 response because this was part of its resolution of the complaint. However, as these aspects have been dealt with in the section above, they have not been duplicated by further findings here.
The landlord’s failings caused detriment to the resident. The resolution of the complaint was significantly delayed without proper communication from the landlord. Overall, she spent more time and trouble in seeking to resolve her complaint than would reasonably be expected.
Where there are admitted failings by a landlord, the Ombudsman’s role is to consider whether the redress offered put things right and resolved the resident’s complaint satisfactorily in the circumstances. In considering this, the Ombudsman assesses whether the landlord’s offer of redress was in line with the Ombudsman’s Dispute Resolution Principles: be fair, put things right and learn from outcomes, as well as our guidance on remedies.
In this case, the landlord acknowledged the delay in responding to the complaint at stage 1. The redress offered by the landlord comprised an apology to the resident and a goodwill payment of £100 across the complaint. While the landlord acknowledged some delay, it not recognise the full scale of it, the lack of communication, or the other failings in its complaint handling. The compensation offered by the landlord in the complaints process likewise failed fully to address the extent of the service failure and detriment caused to the resident.
Under the circumstances, £200 would be appropriate compensation for the resident. This includes the £100 already offered at stage 1.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord in respect of its handling of the resident’s request for a replacement back fence.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord in respect of its handling of the associated complaint.

Orders and Recommendations

Orders

Within 4 weeks of the date of this report, the landlord is ordered:
1. To write to the resident to apologise for the additional failings which the Ombudsman has identified in this report.
2. To pay the resident compensation of £500 comprised of:
  1. £300 in respect of the distress and inconvenience caused to her by the failings identified in its handling of her request for a replacement back fence;
  2. £200 in respect of the time and trouble caused to her by its complaint handling failings, inclusive of the £100 offered through its complaints process (if it has not paid this sum already).
Within 4 weeks of the date of this report, the landlord should re–inspect the condition of the resident’s back fence and the safety issues presented by it. It should assess whether the fence should be replaced as per its fencing policy and whether it should exercise its discretion to replace the fence having regard to any safeguarding concerns identified by it or raised by the resident. It should write to the resident and this Service to provide the result of its assessment with timescales for any action it identifies.
The landlord should contact this Service within 4 weeks of the date of this determination to evidence its compliance with the above orders

Recommendation

Within 4 weeks of the date of this report, the landlord should contact the resident to discuss whether any reasonable adjustments are necessary to assist her in accessing or using its complaint service.
Within 4 weeks of the date of this report, the landlord should contact this Service confirming its intentions regarding the recommendation made.