The Riverside Group Limited (202123850)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202123850

The Riverside Group Limited

7 July 2022

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 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 his garden fence to be replaced by it.

Background

2. The resident lives in a tenancy of the landlord of a house.
3. In May 2021, the resident reported to the landlord that his front garden fence needed to be replaced because this was “falling apart”. The fence was inspected by its contractor in June 2021, and a decision was made by them to repair instead of replace this. A job to do so was raised by the landlord for July 2021, but this was cancelled by the resident, who wanted his fence to be replaced by it. Throughout August to October 2021, he continued to decline the repairs to this that it re-offered him on four more occasions, believing that the fence needed replacing. Although the landlord then replaced some of the resident’s fence panels that had blown out in November 2021.
4. Due to his dissatisfaction with his fence replacement requests being declined, the resident raised a stage one complaint in November 2021. He stated that he was “bemused” by the landlord’s decision to not replace his fence because the age of this was double the life expectancy for such a fence. The resident added that its contractors had agreed with him that his fence needed replacing, and that he had spent “money and time” repairing and painting the fence over the course of years. He was also unhappy that his request for a replacement was denied by the landlord ten years earlier, and he wanted to be provided with a “non-budget” detailed reason for why his fence would not be replaced by it.
5. In its stage one complaint response in November 2021, the landlord stated that its contractors had consulted with the delivery and performance manager, and they had concluded that the fence did not need to be replaced. The resident disagreed with its position and he raised a final stage complaint in November 2021, explaining that, when he had previously raised the issue in May 2021, a contractor had inspected the fence three times and had agreed that this needed to be replaced. He added that he declined to have the fence repaired as this was “past its lifespan”, and that he was dissatisfied that part of his fence was replaced by the landlord without his consent. He stated that he had paid it over £50,000 in rent over the years and that, due to this, he expected a fence replacement.
6. In the landlord’s final stage complaint response in November 2021, it explained that that it would not be replacing all of the resident’s fence, but that it was willing to complete repairs to this, and that it would replace only part of the fence if required. It also noted that it would replace the fence’s rotten batons as well, and that it would not replace all of the fence due to its performance delivery department reviewing photographs of the fence and deeming this to be repairable. The landlord then further explained to the resident that it was not responsible for the painting of the fence because this was an aesthetic feature, and that it did not currently have a fencing replacement programme that it could refer him to.
7. The resident subsequently complained to this Service, as he was unhappy that the landlord had declined to replace all of his fence, despite it installing a new part of the fence without his consent. He was also dissatisfied that the new part of the fence that it had installed was a different size and colour. As a resolution, the resident wanted the entire fence to be replaced, stating that this had been in poor condition since 2009, was beyond the expected lifespan, had partly collapsed in April 2021, and the landlord’s contractors and other third–party experts that he had shown photographs of the fence to had agreed that this needed to be replaced.

Assessment and findings

Scope of Investigation

8. While the resident reports that the condition of his fence has been poor since 2009, the scope of this investigation is limited to considering the landlord’s response to his reports about this in 2021. This is because, under the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, this Service cannot investigate complaints about issues that were not brought to the landlord’s attention as a formal complaint within a reasonable period of normally within six months of the matters arising, and his complaint about this was made in November 2021. Furthermore, we also do not have the authority or expertise to determine and award the value of the resident’s rent or works for his fence to him in the way that a court or tribunal might.

The landlord’s response to the resident’s request for his garden fence to be replaced by it

9. Under the landlord’s responsive repairs policy, it has an obligation to repair and maintain the structure and outside of the resident’s home. This includes fences, and it also has a responsibility to be responsive to his needs and expectations.
10. The landlord demonstrated a willingness to keep to its obligation under its responsive repairs policy to maintain the outside of the resident’s home by making several attempts to repair his fence. Throughout out July to October 2021, it offered to repair the fence on a total of five occasions, however he continued to decline this as he preferred his fence to be replaced. The landlord also then demonstrated a willingness to resolve the complaint with the resident in November 2021 by replacing the fence panels that had blown out, offering to replace the rotten batons on his fence, and reiterating its offer to repair the rest of the fence.
11. Furthermore, in the absence of any other expert evidence to the contrary, it was reasonable for the landlord to rely on the expert opinion of its staff and contractors in how to carry out repair or replacement works to the resident’s fence. It was advised by its contractors, delivery and performance manager and performance delivery department from their inspections and assessment of photographs that not all of the fence needed to be replaced, and that part of this could still be repaired, which they recommended that it do.
12. The resident has stated that the landlord’s contractors, and other third-party experts that he had shown photographs of the fence to, had agreed with him that all of his fence needed to be replaced. This Service is unable to consider this, however, as there is no evidence to this effect to support that the contractors or other third-party experts agreed that the fence should be replaced. Therefore, it was suitable for the landlord to agree to repair and replace parts of the resident’s fence instead of replacing all of the fence. It is nevertheless recommended below that it discuss his reports with its contractors of them agreeing that the fence needed to be replaced, and to provide him with the outcome.
13. Under the tenancy agreement with the landlord, the resident is permitted to carry out alterations or improvements to his property. He informed it that he had spent time repairing and painting his fence to improve the life expectancy, and that he wanted this to be taken into consideration when assessing whether the fence needed to be replaced. It was appropriate, however, for the landlord to advise the resident that it was not responsible for the painting of the fence, as this would be classed as an aesthetic improvement, which it is not required to perform under the tenancy agreement.
14. Furthermore, the resident wanted a “non-budget” reason as to why the landlord declined to replace all of his fence. Nevertheless, it was reasonable for it to rely on the expert opinion of its staff and contractors who found that not all of the fence needed to be replaced, as they found that part of this was repairable. However, to try and resolve the resident’s complaint and maintain their relationship, the landlord has been recommended below to consider whether it is able to introduce a fencing replacement programme in the future, and to provide him the outcome of its consideration.

Determination

15. In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration by the landlord in respect of its response to the resident’s request for his garden fence to be replaced by it.

Recommendations

16. It is recommended that the landlord:
    1. Discuss with its contractors the resident’s reports of them agreeing that his fence needed to be replaced, and provide him with the outcome.
    2. Consider whether it is able to introduce a fencing replacement programme in the future, and provide the resident the outcome of its consideration.