Torus62 Limited (201913625)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 201913625

Torus62 Limited

15 December 2020

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 how the landlord responded to the resident’s concerns about the security of the fencing at his property.

Background and summary of events

2. The resident is concerned that the boundary fence for his property, which backs onto a park, has panels that could be lifted by members of the public who could intrude on his property. He lived in a flat and questioned why the tenants of the flats had ‘lift up’ fences whilst the tenants of nearby houses had solid fences. He felt that this constituted discrimination.
3. On 13 December 2019 the landlord responded to the resident’s enquiries to say that all new fencing, where practicable, was concrete post and panel design. It explained that this was the most cost effective method for maintenance and renewal.
4. A surveyor visited on 14 January 2020 and concluded that: ‘Fence panels are secure, intact and none are missing, I’ve explained to tenant that this is not a repair issue and possible different specifications of fencing were erected during the investment works. I can’t see a security issue as none are missing and panels are secure in place between posts. No repair required.’
5. On 21 January 2020 the landlord telephoned the resident, following further contact from him, and asked how long he had lived in the flat and if there had been any incidents with the fence. He replied that he had lived there for two years and there had been no issues, but he felt that prevention was best. The landlord said it would ask its Investment Team to visit the property to provide the more in-depth explanation the resident was seeking. The Investment Team then attended the following day, but the visit was terminated when the resident became verbally abusive. Later that day, he visited the landlord’s office, when staff reported that his behaviour was threatening and intimidating.
6. In the landlord’s stage 1 complaint response of 30 January 2020 it said that the fence had been in place since 2014 (a considerable time before the resident’s tenancy started in May 2017) and there had been no other complaints about it. It reiterated the comments made during the site visit that the fence met with current standards and would not be replaced. It then formally warned the resident about his behaviour towards staff.
7. On 14 February the landlord wrote to the resident to clarify its position in relation to his complaint. It said that it operated a two stage complaints procedure but had understood from the resident that he wanted his complaint closed so that he could approach the Ombudsman. It said that decisions about whether a complaint could be considered at the second ‘Appeal’ stage were based on whether there was the potential for the complaint to have an alternative outcome following independent review. Having a duty to exhaust its internal complaints procedure, it had reviewed the complaint and concluded that there were no grounds to progress to an appeal hearing. The landlord therefore confirmed that it had closed the complaint.

Assessment and findings

8. The resident believes that the landlord is putting cost before security. However, the landlord has a duty to spend its money wisely and the Ombudsman encourages social landlords to make the most effective use of their limited resources. As a result, it was reasonable for the landlord to choose a fence design that would allow for easy maintenance and renewal.
9. When the resident raised concerns about the fence, the landlord sent a surveyor out to inspect it and the surveyor reported that the fence was not in disrepair and did not present a security issue as it was fully intact. The resident has not presented any evidence that the fence is not fit for purpose. The landlord’s response here was appropriate, by taking steps to assess the matter and confirm its position to the resident. In the absence of any evidence to the contrary, it was reasonable for the landlord to base its complaint response on the professional opinion of its surveyor.
10. The resident says that houses owned by the landlord have different fences and that the tenants in flats are, therefore, being discriminated against in breach of the Equalities Act 2010. This Act protects people against discrimination because of certain protected characteristics. Being the tenant of a flat is not a protected characteristic and therefore the Ombudsman does not agree that the landlord has breached the Equalities Act in this case. Further, this Service is satisfied that the landlord chose that style of fence for that location based on reasonable considerations such as cost and practicality, rather than through any policy of treating the tenants of flats less favorably than tenants of houses.
11. The resident’s concern is that the fence’s design has the potential to create security issues, rather than concerns stemming from any actual incidents. The fence has been in place since 2014 and no security breaches have occurred. The Ombudsman understands the resident’s fears, particularly in relation to his dog biting people if someone were to lift one of the fence panels and intrude on the property, for which he says he will be liable. However, the resident’s preoccupation with this issue is disproportionate to the likelihood of such an event occurring, and it does not impose an obligation on the landlord to take the action he is requesting.
12. The landlord listened to the resident’s concerns and carried out two site visits to inspect the fence and discuss the matter further. Its decision to not replace the fence was based on it being in good repair and there being no evidence that there was a security issue. This was a reasonable response on the part of the landlord and no further action is required.

Determination

13. In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Scheme, there was no maladministration by the landlord in the way it responded to the resident’s concerns about the fence.