Salix Homes Limited (202119049)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202119049

Salix Homes Limited

2 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 request to replace the fencing at her property.

Background

2. The resident is an assured tenant of the landlord.
3. On 22 September 2021, the resident contacted the landlord in relation to her fencing as it had fallen into disrepair and needed to be replaced. The landlord advised the resident that as per the tenancy agreement this would be her responsibility. The resident was dissatisfied with this response and raised a complaint with the landlord as she believed the landlord was responsible.
4. In the stage one complaint, the resident stated that her neighbour had repaired one side of the fence but that the works carried out were very poor and this had affected her side as well. The resident stated that her tenancy agreement did not mention that the fencing was her responsibility. The resident informed the landlord that the fencing was in a dangerous condition and it had already fallen on one occasion and damaged her car. The resident explained in her stage two response that the repairs booklet and tenancy agreements in question had been renewed since she signed and therefore are not relevant, she also raised further concerns regarding the state of her driveway.
5. In response to the complaint, the landlord advised that if the fencing was dangerous, it would remove the fencing but not replace it. The landlord informed the resident that there were two local companies who would offer a discount for the resident for any repairs work. It stated that it may replace fencing as part of regeneration works or if the fence was a potential health and safety risk then exceptions may be made. The landlord also advised that it would arrange for the driveway to be repaired for the resident.
6. The resident escalated her complaint to this Service on 17 September 2021 as she remained dissatisfied with the landlord’s response to her request due to the variance in tenancy agreements and dispute in responsibility.

Assessment and findings

Policies and Procedures

7. The tenancy agreement states that the landlord is responsible for external decorations. It also states that the resident must obtain written permission before making alterations to any fence and that if the resident installed their own fence, they would be responsible for maintaining it. The tenancy agreement also states that tenants are responsible for all garden maintenance and defines garden to include fencing.

The landlord’s response to the resident’s request to repair the fencing

8. The landlord advised the resident that she was responsible for the maintenance of fencing, as stated in the tenancy agreement and repairs booklet. The original tenancy agreement signed in 2015 confirms that residents are responsible for maintaining all aspects of the garden, with garden defined as including fencing. Whilst this explanation was reasonable, the landlord should have addressed the other concerns raised by the resident.
9. Throughout the complaints process, the resident informed the landlord that she would not be able to repair the fencing due to mobility issues and health conditions. Therefore it would have been appropriate for the landlord to address this possible vulnerability and the potential impact on the resident’s ability to maintain the fence and whether it was therefore an exception as referred to in its complaint response when the landlord stated “where there could be health and safety implications for the tenants… by not repairing or re-instating a fence, then exceptions can be made”.
10. The resident also stated within her complaint that the fencing was “dangerous”, and had fallen and damaged her car on one occasion. The landlord failed to address the damage inflicted upon the car but stated that it could remove the fencing completely but would not reinstate it. It was understandable that the resident declined this offer due to a ‘large drop’ between her garden and the neighbours garden which would have been a potential health and safety risk to the neighbour’s small child, as well as a neighbour whose garden is overgrown and who has dogs which would then have access to her property. It would have been appropriate action for the landlord to acknowledge these concerns and assess other potential resolutions given the potential health and safety risks and previously mentioned vulnerabilities.
11. The landlord did advise the resident of further support they are able to apply for in relation to repairs, such as a firm who is able to assist with repairs services, as well as recommending companies who could provide discounted repairs services within the local area. This was reasonable as the resident had advised the landlord within the complaint that she was financially unable to replace the fencing.
12.  Internal communication shows that the landlord specifically decided to use a generic complaint response for the situation. The landlord would have been expected to treat each case individually and to respond to each concern raised, as this would have helped to avoid concerns being overlooked throughout the process. It would have been expected for the landlord to carry out an investigation of the fencing and to comply with the Equality Act 2010 which states that landlords may need to adapt normal policies to accommodate individual needs. The landlord also should have complied with the complaint handling code as suggested by this service which states that complaints officers should consider all information and evidence carefully and should act independently.
13. In summary, whilst the landlord correctly advised that it was the resident’s responsibility to maintain fencing at the property it should have treated the complaint individually, not used a generic response, and visited to inspect the specifics of the individual case. As such the landlord should pay the resident £100 to recognise the inconvenience caused, in line with the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance, which suggests awards of £50 to £250 for cases where the Ombudsman had found considerable service failure or maladministration, but there may be no permanent impact on the resident.

Determination

14.  In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure by the landlord in way the landlord failed to assess the condition of the fencing and failed to fully address the resident’s concerns relating to this.

Orders 

15. It is ordered that the landlord pay the resident £100 in compensation for failing to address the concerns raised appropriately. This should be paid within 28 days of this letter.
16. It is ordered that the landlord survey the fencing in order to determine the most appropriate resolution (including the extent of any health and safety risk) and provide their findings to the resident. This should also be done within 28 days of the date of this letter, and a copy should be sent to the Ombudsman for our records.

Recommendations

17. It is recommended that the landlord provide further staff training in relation to complaint handling and the importance of treating each case individually, particularly where vulnerabilities are raised.