We are updating our systems this weekend. You will be unable to submit an online complaint form from Friday 3 April until Monday 6 April.

Normal services will resume on Tuesday 7 April.

Thank you for your patience.

Sandwell Metropolitan Borough Council (202417491)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202417491

Sandwell Metropolitan Borough Council

9 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

  1. The complaint is about the landlord’s response to the resident’s request for a fence.

Background

  1. The resident has been tenant of the landlord since 2006. The landlord is a local authority. The landlord is aware that the resident is a pensioner and that he has health concerns.
  2. On 22 February 2024 the resident said to the landlord that his neighbour had previously a fence installed by it in the front of their property, and he also requested a fence installed.
  3. In May 2024 the landlord inspected the property and advised the resident that there had never been a fence in his front yard due to being an open garden. Given this, it refused any work.
  4. On 10 June 2024 the resident made a formal complaint to the landlord. He said he had spoken to someone 2 weeks ago about his fence and had not heard back. He said he felt like he was being discriminated against as the neighbour got a fence and he did not.
  5. The landlord issued its stage 1 complaint response on 3 July 2024. It said the resident had been correctly informed as the repairs he requested were not covered by its policy/tenant handbook. It said that its policies were reviewed on a yearly basis and it would ensure that the residents’ concerns would be shared at the next review.
  6. On 17 July 2024 the resident escalated his complaint unhappy with the landlord’s response.
  7. On 22 July 2024 the landlord issued its stage 2 complaint response. It did not uphold the complaint. It said it could not give the resident the specific reasons why the neighbours fencing had been completed as this would disclose personal information. It considered based on his circumstances whether the fence work (despite being the resident’s responsibility) could be undertaken. It decided it could not provide any assistance with the fencing.
  8. The resident remained unhappy with the landlord’s refusal to provide a fence and referred the matter to us.

Assessment and findings

The landlord’s response to the resident’s request for a fence

  1. The landlord’s tenant handbook (the handbook) refers to the responsibilities of the landlord and the resident when it comes to fences. The handbook is published on the landlord’s website and it says that the landlord is responsible for fencing only if fitted by it. Whereas the resident is responsible for fencing that is not fitted by it, unless next to a public footpath.
  2. It is our role to consider whether the landlord took reasonable steps to consider the request made by the resident. In this case, the resident confirmed with the landlord in February 2024 that no fence had existed prior to his request for a fence, and the area was not near a boundary or public footpath. Therefore the landlord appropriately relied on its handbook in making its decision to decline to install a fence. It had no obligation to erect or pay for a fence.
  3. The evidence also shows that the landlord considered the residents individual circumstances and explored options for financial assistance for the resident to obtain his own fence. The landlord sought to understand the resident’s situation and arranged a ‘home check’ visit. Although we do not have records of the home check visit, this was not disputed by the resident. Additionally, the landlord’s internal correspondence refers to it taking place in early May 2024. At this time the landlord sought to make arrangements for a hardship assessment and investigated the fencing situation further.
  4. The landlord’s stage 2 complaint response acknowledged that the resident was 86, living alone, and had multiple health concerns. It also said that it had conducted the home check, which included a discussion around financial issues and the potential for further support and support from the resident’s family. While the outcome of this check was not what the resident was hoping for, this demonstrated that the landlord considered its discretion in exceptional circumstances about undertaking works which were the resident’s responsibility. This was an appropriate and customer focused approach to the concerns raised by the resident.
  5. The evidence shows the landlord took an additional step to explain to the resident’s niece what had happened in relation to the neighbour’s fence. The landlord, on 19 September 2024, said that the fence should not have been installed and it could not determine why the fence had been installed as the officer in charge had retired. It further said there were no notes relating to the neighbour’s fence. This showed the landlord was openly communicating with the resident about this matter. It was reasonable and forthcoming for the landlord to explain what had happened in relation to the neighbour’s fence. However, for clarity, we do not have any further evidence surrounding the neighbour’s fence, nor do we consider it to have any bearing on the determination in this case. This is because each case is considered on its own individual circumstances, which are separate to other cases.
  6. In accordance with its handbook, the landlord did not have any obligation to install a fence and clearly communicated its decision. It took appropriate action to visit the property to further understand the resident’s concerns and his circumstances. It responded reasonably to each of the resident’s concerns that were raised. Given this, there was no failure in the landlord’s response to the resident’s request for a fence.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was no maladministration by the landlord in its response to the resident’s request for a fence.