Westward Housing Group Limited (202117310)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202117310

Westward Housing Group

23 September 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 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 reports of damage to a garden wall.

Background

  1. The resident is an assured tenant and the property is a bungalow with a private garden.
  2. According to the landlord’s stage two complaint response, the resident made her initial contact on 10 July 2021 regarding a garden wall which had fallen down. The landlord attended on 16 July 2021. Its operative described the wall as a “small soil retaining decorative wall within the garden” approximately four meters long and forty centimetres high. The landlord concluded that the wall was the resident’s responsibility to repair. The resident disagreed, saying that as the garden sloped and was on a hill, it was a retaining wall and not her responsibility.
  3. No evidence has been provided showing any further activity, until the resident sent a chaser email to the landlord in November 2021 asking for an update about her complaint (the resident’s original complaint has not been seen). This prompted the landlord to contact the resident on 11 November to discuss her complaint and arrange another garden inspection.
  4. The landlord issued its first complaint response on 16 November 2021. It referred to having visited the resident the previous day and discussed the wall issue with her. It explained that “our position with regard to the garden wall remains unchanged. It is a single skin section of aged decorative wall, 5 metres in length and 45cm in height, dividing two sections of differing height within your back garden area. It is not a boundary wall; it does not run alongside any pathway, and it is a decorative feature within a sloping garden. It has a raised soil area planted with shrubs on one side of the wall and primarily a lower grassed area on the other side of this wall. As confirmed previously, the garden and maintenance of it all is deemed to be your responsibility.”
  5. Nothing further appears to have occurred until March 2022 when the resident asked for her complaint to be escalated. She said she had arranged for a professional survey of the wall, which had determined that it could not be repaired. She disagreed that the wall was decorative, and wanted the landlord to remove and replace it.
  6. The landlord issued its stage two response on 5 April 2022. It maintained its position that the wall was the resident’s responsibility. It explained that it had considered the information provided by the resident, but noted that it was a verbal opinion given by a landscaper, rather than a professional survey. The landlord concluded that under the tenancy agreement, it was the resident’s responsibility to maintain her garden, and therefore it would not remove or replace the wall.
  7. The resident referred her complaint to this service as she remained dissatisfied that the landlord would not repair or replace her garden wall.

Assessment and findings

  1. The resident’s complaint is about the dispute in responsibility to remove, repair, or replace a wall in her garden. The full terms of the resident’s tenancy agreement have not been provided for this investigation. However, the landlord’s policies and procedures state that garden maintenance is a tenant’s responsibility and that any boundary fencing/gates backing onto a public area are the landlord’s responsibility to maintain.
  2. It is important to make clear that the Ombudsman is not able to make a determination, one way or the other, about the nature of the wall at the centre of this complaint, in relation to which of the two parties’ views may be correct. Rather, this investigation focusses on the reasonableness of the landlord’s responses to the resident’s reports, concerns, and complaints.
  3. Following the residents reports that her garden wall needed repair, the landlord acted by arranging a visit to investigate the matter, following which it concluded that the wall was not in its obligations as it sat centrally within the garden and was purely decorative in nature. This was appropriate as the landlord was acting in line with its policies and procedures, and the explanations and decision it gave the resident are supported by the views of the operatives who inspected, i.e. that this was not a boundary wall for which it would be responsible.
  4. The resident disagreed with the landlord’s decision because of her view that the wall was not decorative, it was there due to the property being on a hill and sloped to prevent soil from coming into the garden. Nevertheless, the purpose of the wall would not change who was responsible in this case because the wall was in the garden and not acting as a boundary from any public area, so the responsibility would fall to the resident.
  5. The landlord appropriately addressed further concerns from the resident with a second visit on 15 November 2021, and subsequently maintained its stance on the matter, which it then reiterated in its stage one complaint response. The landlord addressed in its findings that the wall was not a boundary wall and it did not run alongside any pathways and it was not under any obligations to repair this in line with its policies, which the resident accepted and then closed the complaint.
  6. Appropriately, a final response was provided when the resident asked to escalate her complaint after receiving professional advice about the wall. The landlord remained unchanged in its decision, and reasonably used its policies to support it. The resident mentioned that she had raised concerns about the wall on her initial inspection of the property before accepting it. Regardless of the outcome, the resident accepted the property as it was, and no evidence has been provided indicating that the landlord had accepted responsibility for its repair or maintenance.
  7. Overall, the landlord acted reasonably. Its policy and procedures state that garden maintenance is the resident’s responsibility, and that it would be responsible only for boundary walls. The landlord responded to the complaints and concerns in a timely manner and attended the property on two occasions to investigate and discuss the resident’s concerns. 

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration by the landlord in respect of the complaint.