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.

The Guinness Partnership Limited (202429616)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202429616

The Guinness Partnership Limited

20 August 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 resident’s complaint is about the landlord’s handling of a fence repair.
  2. We have also considered the landlord’s handling of the associated complaint.

Background

  1. The resident is a secure tenant of the landlord, which is a housing association. The property is a 3-bedroom house. The neighbour is also a resident of the landlord. The landlord has recorded that the resident suffers from a mental health condition.
  2. The resident made a service request to the landlord to fix a dividing fence between his and his neighbour’s back garden in June 2024. The landlord advised him that it was not its responsibility to repair it as it was not a boundary fence.
  3. The resident sent a formal complaint to the landlord on 23 June 2024 as he believed the landlord was lying as it had installed the fence 36 years ago and would like it fixed.
  4. The resident chased a response in August 2024 as there had been no acknowledgment given by the landlord. The landlord acknowledged the complaint on 6 August 2024.
  5. The landlord provided its stage 1 complaint response on 15 August 2023. It stated that the complaint was not upheld and again explained it was not responsible for its repair. It advised the fence which it repaired in January 2024 was a boundary fence, which it was responsible for. It did however identify a complaint handling failure in its delayed response, apologised and offered £75 compensation.
  6. The resident escalated his complaint on 19 August 2024 stating that he disagreed with the statements made by the landlord. The landlord acknowledged the escalation that day.
  7. The landlord provided its stage 2 response on 24 September 2024 upholding its stage 1 decision. It provided further information about why it was not responsible for the fence repair by stating the terms in its tenancy agreement and responsive repairs policy. It explained although a repair did take place in 2009 it was discretionary and could understand why the resident believed he had been lied to. It identified it had not acknowledged his complaint escalation request, apologised and offered a total of £100 compensation for its complaint handling failures.
  8. The resident brought his complaint to us in January 2024 as he wanted the landlord to fix the fence.

Assessment and findings

The landlord’s handling of a fence repair

  1. The landlord has provided the resident’s original tenancy agreement from 1985 and the conditions of its secure tenancy agreement that were varied in April 1997. It is unclear if the tenancy conditions from 1997 apply to the resident’s tenancy and we recommend that the landlord clarifies this with the tenant.
  2. The terms and conditions from the tenancy agreement dated 1985 do not refer to the landlord having any responsibility in relation to repairing the fences. The conditions of tenancy dated 1997 state that the landlord is responsible for boundary walls and fences. The landlord’s responsive repair policy further clarifies where the fence divides 2 of its properties it is the responsibility of the residents to repair and replace the fence.
  3. The resident has asked us for clarity on the landlord’s repairing responsibility for the fence. Specifically under the clause from his tenancy agreement dated 1985 which says “the resident should report something outside that requires attention to the landlord”. We cannot provide a definitive ruling on the interpretation of a tenancy agreement, including whether this clause places any obligation on the landlord to repair the fence, as only the courts can do that.
  4. However, our understanding is that Section 11 of the Landlord Tenant Act 1985 and any tenancy clauses which reflect those provisions (which set out the landlord’s statutory repairing responsibilities), do not extend to fencing. Therefore, we have not seen anything that definitively confirms that the landlord is responsible for repairing the dividing fence. Accordingly, its decision that it is not responsible for repairing the fence was reasonable based on the available evidence, and it has communicated this to the resident throughout the complaint.
  5. In the stage 1 complaint response on 15 August 2024 the landlord advised the resident it was not its responsibility to repair the fence but it did not provide any further explanation. It appropriately rectified this in its stage 2 response of 24 September 2024 by providing a clear explanation as to how the decision had been reached. It explained it was based on the tenancy agreement and responsive repair policy. The landlord’s explanation regarding the request to repair the fence was appropriate.
  6. The landlord did acknowledge that it made a repair to the dividing fence in 2009, however appropriately explained this was done at its own discretion. It advised it was unclear of the decision making at the time, due to the passage of time. It showed understanding of why the resident may have felt lied to due to this and the boundary fence having been repaired in January 2024. The landlord’s explanations of its legal position were clearly communicated in its stage 2 response. We have found there to be no maladministration in the landlord’s handling of a fence repair.

The landlord’s handling of the associated complaint

  1. The landlord has a 2-stage complaints procedure in its complaints policy, which is in line with the Housing Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code). The policy states the landlord will aim to provide a response to stage 1 complaints within 15 working days, and at stage 2 within 25 working days. This includes 5 days allowed for it to acknowledge the complaint. It also states it will agree any extension to these timescales with the resident.
  2. The resident brought his complaint to the landlord on 23 June 2024. It was acknowledged on 6 August 2024 (31 working days); however this was only after the resident was forced to chase a response. Its stage 1 response was provided on 15 August 2024 (38 workings days from initial complaint).
  3. Therefore, there was a delay at stage 1 of 26 working days to acknowledge the complaint and an overall delay of 23 working days for its response.
  4. The resident’s escalation request was brought to the landlord on 19 August 2024 and acknowledged that day. Its stage 2 response was provided on 24 September 2024 (26 workings days from initial complaint) and was therefore one day over target. The landlord said it had failed to acknowledge the complaint at stage 2 however the evidence shows that it did acknowledge the complaint and therefore there has been no detriment to the resident.
  5. The landlord apologised and offered £100 compensation for its delayed acknowledgements and complaint handling response at stage 1. This was reasonable and in line with the landlord’s compensation policy for service failure. It is positive that the landlord showed learning from its failings at stage 1 by providing a timelier stage 2 response and speedy complaint acknowledgement. We therefore find there was reasonable redress in the landlord’s handling of the associated complaint.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman’s Scheme there was no maladministration in the landlord’s handling of a fence repair.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 53.b. of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the landlord has made a reasonable offer of redress, which resolves the landlord’s handling of the associated complaint.

Orders and recommendations

Recommendations

  1. The Ombudsman recommends the landlord contacts the resident and re-offers him £100 compensation (if not paid already) for the time and trouble caused to the resident by the landlord’s complaint handling failures.