Square Building Trust Limited (202417742)

Background

1. The resident is a tenant of the landlord which is a housing association. The tenancy started on 11 March 1991.
2. The property is a 3 bedroom house. There is a path at the front of the house which leads from the pavement through an arch between the resident’s house and the neighbouring property which is private. The land registry transfer deeds for the neighbour’s property show that the path forms part of the resident’s property. His neighbour has a right of access over it. The resident has installed a fence between his garden and the path.
3. The landlord has discharged its management and complaint handling duties to a managing agent. On 7 June 2024 the resident contacted the managing agent to report that his fence was loose and in need of repair.

What the complaint is about

4. The complaint is about the landlord’s response to the resident’s request for a fence repair.
5. We have also investigated the landlord’s complaint handling.

Our decision (determination)

6. There was no maladministration in the landlord’s response to the resident’s request for a fence repair.
7. There was no maladministration in the landlord’s complaint handling.

Summary of reasons

8. In summary we found that:
   1. The landlord’s decision not to carry out fence repairs was in line with its Fencing Policy.
   2. The landlord’s complaint handling was appropriately in line with the Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code.

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.

9. The managing agent inspected the fence on 17 June 2024. It advised the resident it would not repair the fence because it was a party fence not a boundary fence.
10. The managing agent’s Fencing Policy says that it will only carry out repairs to boundary fences. Residents are responsible for undertaking repairs to dividing or party fences. It reserves the right to apply discretion to undertake this work in exceptional circumstances.
11. Both the garden and path form part of the resident’s property therefore the fence cannot be a boundary fence. It’s a party fence which divides the garden and the path.
12. Therefore the managing agent’s response was appropriate and in line with its policy.
13. When the resident contacted the managing agent on 17 July 2024 to express his dissatisfaction it agreed to send the matter to the landlord for review. The landlord’s reply of 29 July supported the decision not to repair the fence.
14. The managing agent’s stage 1 complaint response of 4 September 2024 provided an explanation as to why it did not consider the fence to be a boundary fence. While this was positive it could have provided a more detailed explanation referring to the land registry deeds. This may have helped the resident understand its position.
15. Its response also explained why it had used its discretion to carry out works to a neighbour’s party fence. Its explanation was appropriate and in line with its Fencing Policy.
16. Therefore we found there was no maladministration in the landlord’s response.

17. The Housing Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code) sets out when and how a landlord should respond to a complaint. The relevant Code in this case was the 2024 edition (April 2024). The managing agent has published a complaints policy which complied with the terms of the Code in respect of timescales.
18. The managing agent acknowledged the stage 1 complaint and request to escalate to stage 2 within 5 working days of receipt. It issued its stage 1 response within 10 working days and its stage 2 response within 20 working days of its acknowledgement.
19. The landlord’s complaint responses were in line with the timescales set out in its policy and the Code. Therefore there was no maladministration in the landlord’s response.