The Riverside Group Limited (202017095)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202017095

The Riverside Group Limited

22 June 2021


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 concerns the landlord’s decision to decline the resident’s request for a fence to be installed at the back of the garden.

Background and summary of events

Background

  1. The resident is an assured tenant of the landlord, which is a housing association.
  2. The landlord operates a two-stage complaints policy. When a complaint is raised, the landlord will provide a complaint response within five working days. If the complainant remains dissatisfied with the response, they can request an escalation to the next stage. The landlord will then send a stage two response to the complainant within ten working days. This will be the landlord’s final response to the complaint.

Summary of events

  1. On 20 April 2020 the resident called the landlord regarding unauthorised access to his property via the back garden. The landlord’s notes of the call state that the resident informed it that the garden was ‘wide open’ and that people had entered the garden due to the lack of fencing.
  2. The landlord wrote to the resident on 22 May 2020. It informed him that:
    1. Due to current Covid-19 restrictions it was unable to undertake any home visits.
    2. It had attempted to call the resident back following his 20 April 2020 telephone call, but it had been unsuccessful.
    3. Photographs taken of the property’s back garden during a previous visit on 11 February 2020 did not suggest that the property was insecure or easily accessible.
    4. It would need evidence of anti-social behaviour (ASB) taking place as a result of a lack of fencing in the garden in order for it to take action. It asked the resident to supply it with any evidence he had (such as crime reference numbers). It also provided the resident with diary sheets to complete and record any subsequent incidents.
    5. It had opened an ASB case into the matter.
  3. The resident next called the landlord on 26 August 2020. The landlord notes of the call stated that the resident expressed his dissatisfaction with his current living conditions and that the matter had yet to be resolved. The landlord’s call notes did not record a request by the resident to open a formal complaint.
  4. The resident called this Service on 23 September 2020 and said he was not happy with how his complaint had been progressed. This Service passed on the resident’s concerns to the landlord and the landlord sent a stage one complaint response to the resident on 29 September 2020.
  5. The landlord noted that while it had informed the resident verbally of its position regarding a fence in his back garden, it had not confirmed this in writing. It apologised to the resident for that oversight.
  6. It noted that following its letter sent on 22 May 2020, the resident had not provided any reports or evidence of ASB caused by the lack of fencing in the property. The landlord had therefore not changed the decision it had made regarding the fencing.
  7. The landlord concluded the response by informing the resident how he could request an escalation of the complaint to the next stage if he disagreed with its decision.
  8. The resident called the landlord on 1 October 2020. The landlord’s notes of the call state that the resident was dissatisfied with the stage one response and that there had been no inspection undertaken of the garden. The landlord advised the resident that he could request an escalation of complaint. The landlord’s notes also say that the call was disconnected and it was unable to call the resident back.
  9. The landlord’s call logs state that it attempted several times to call the resident following 1 October 2020, but it was unsuccessful. The landlord was then able to call the resident on 20 October 2020. The landlord’s notes of the call state that it was informed by the resident that:
    1. When he first moved into the property, the back garden was ‘wide open’, so he planted shrubbery and bushes. However, the plants were now dying off allowing access to the garden.
    2. There is a river at the rear of the property which attracts people, and some had gained access into his garden.
    3. He reported this to the landlord but was advised to contact the police. The situation had left him feeling vulnerable and scared.
  10. Following the telephone call, the complaint was escalated, and a stage two complaint response was sent to the resident on 29 October 2020.
  11. The landlord informed the resident that it had checked its records and could confirm that the property had never previously had fencing installed due to the scale of planting along the rear of the garden.
  12. It confirmed that, based on this information, that it would not consider installing a fence. The landlord concluded the response by informing the resident how to report any incidents of ASB he experienced.

Assessment and findings

  1. The landlord has provided a copy of the tenancy agreement for the property, which was signed by the resident in 2001. The agreement does not specify any fencing for the property; only that the home includes “any garden, paths, hedges, fences and outbuildings owned by [the landlord]”.  The resident confirmed in his call on 20 October 2020 that the rear garden did not have any fencing when he moved in.
  2. The landlord was therefore under no obligation to install any fencing as the property was offered to, and accepted by, the resident without fencing installed. Under the terms of the tenancy agreement, the landlord is responsible for maintaining the property but it is not obliged to carry out improvements. The addition of fencing would be regarded as an improvement as the property did not include fencing when the resident started his tenancy.
  3. The resident’s request for fencing to be installed was based on incidents of ASB due to the decrease in the density of shrubs planted in the garden over time. The shrubs had previously provided screening and made it more difficult to access the garden from the area to the rear of the property.  The landlord opened an ASB case and advised the resident how to record and report incidents to it. It also advised the resident to contact the police if he observed people entering his garden without permission. This was appropriate action by the landlord and was in line with its ASB policy, which states that it will investigate reports of ASB that “caused, or is likely to cause, harassment, alarm or distress to any person” or “conduct capable of causing nuisance or annoyance to a person in relation to that person’s occupation of residential premises”.
  4. The landlord’s ASB case notes do not record any reports made by the resident relating to fencing and/or unauthorised access to the garden during the period of the complaint. Therefore, the landlord was not expected to take any action regarding ASB during this time. The landlord would only be able to take further action regarding the ASB if there were evidence such as CCTV footage or information from the police to support the resident’s reports of ASB.
  5. In relation to the condition of the planting in the garden; the landlord relied on an inspection undertaken on 11 February 2020. The landlord explained that due to the restrictions it was working under due to the Covid-19 pandemic it was unable to arrange an inspection of the garden during the period of the complaint.
  6. An inspection of the property was subsequently arranged for 25 February 2021. Following the visit, the landlord wrote to the resident. It provided photographs of the rear garden, which showed the bushes and hedges that it said provide a barrier. It was reasonable for the landlord to carry out an inspection to check if anything further was required to provide adequate screening for the garden. The landlord was entitled to rely on the opinions of its qualified staff that nothing further was required following this inspection.

Determination (decision)

  1. In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was no maladministration by the landlord in respect of its decision to decline the resident’s request for a fence to be installed at the back of the garden. 

Reasons

  1. The tenancy agreement does not specify whether there is any fencing to the rear garden. The resident signed the tenancy agreement with the knowledge that there was no fencing. The landlord was therefore under no obligation to install a fence as that would be an improvement to the property, rather than a repair or maintenance of an existing feature.
  2. The landlord opened an ASB case as the result of the resident’s concerns of intruders entering the garden. However, no further reports or evidence of unauthorised access to the garden were supplied by the resident and without further evidence, the landlord would not be expected to take any action regarding the ASB.
  3. When Covid-19 restrictions allowed, the landlord undertook an inspection of the garden. It then wrote to the resident, provided photographs of the garden and explained why it would not install a fence. This was a reasonable response to the resident’s concerns about the fencing and the landlord was not obliged to do anything further in this regard.