Bolton at Home Limited (202230739)
REPORT
COMPLAINT 202230739
Bolton at Home Limited
25 February 2025
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
- The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of:
- The resident’s request for a reimbursement of costs to replace fencing.
- The associated complaint.
Background
- The resident has been an assured tenant of the landlord since 7 May 2018. The property is a one–bedroom sheltered semi-detached bungalow. The landlord is a housing association.
- According to its records, the landlord inspected the resident’s rear garden fences on 16 April 2018 before they moved in, when the property was void or empty. A photograph showed the fences to be in a good state of repair. The landlord’s repairs team recorded on 11 May 2018 that “the fencing panels were being kicked out by kids – can they be secured as there is nothing wrong with the panels.” The resident has provided evidence to show they then paid £520 to a private company to replace the rear fencing on 21 June 2018.
- The resident raised a complaint on 12 January 2023. They said the landlord had recently replaced their neighbour’s rear garden fencing but, when they moved into their property, the landlord told them it was not responsible for fencing. They said that, despite their property having had no rear garden fencing at all, they had been expected to pay for their own fencing. They asked the landlord to refund the £520 they paid, as they should have been treated the same as their neighbour.
- The landlord issued its stage 1 complaint response on 2 March 2023. It said, during the letting process, photographs were taken on 16 April 2018 that showed the fencing to be at a lettable standard. It said it was therefore not necessary to replace any of the fencing, which was why it told the resident, if they wished to replace the fencing, it would be done at their own cost. It also explained that, during the letting process for the neighbouring property, the fencing had been found to be in an unlettable standard and was therefore replaced.
- The resident told the landlord they were dissatisfied with the decision the next day. They disputed the date of the photograph and said what little fencing that had been present was far from being in that condition when they moved in. The landlord provided its final complaint response on 18 May 2023. It reiterated the information given at stage 1. It also said:
- The photograph had been taken by its voids team and added to the repair records on 16 April 2018. There was no evidence to suggest the photograph was not from that time.
- Its repair records showed a report dated 11 May 2018 about the fence panels being kicked down by children, and that they needed to be secured back in place, as they were still intact. It also said the panels would have been secured on 5 June 2018 when its garden contractors attended.
- There had been no further reports of issues with the fences since 11 May 2018.
- The resident had requested an escalation on 3 March 2023 and 6 April 2023. The landlord contacted the resident on 11 April 2023 and sent an acknowledgement of the escalation on 13 April 2023. It apologised for the delays escalating the complaint to stage 2 and offered £50 compensation.
- The resident then complained to the Ombudsman that there was no rear garden fencing when they were shown the property and disputed telling the landlord this was kicked down by children. They also disputed its photograph of fencing there was taken when the property was void just before they moved in and said it told them it did not do fencing. The resident asked for their complaint to be resolved with an apology and a refund of the £520 they paid for fencing from the landlord.
Assessment and findings
Scope of investigation
- The resident complained on 12 January 2023 about the landlord’s handling of their request for a refund for fencing they replaced on 21 June 2018. The Ombudsman may not consider complaints that were not brought to the landlord’s attention as a formal complaint within a reasonable period of normally within 12 months of the matters arising. However, while the resident’s complaint was made more than 12 months after replacing the fencing, they explained they only found out the landlord replaced fencing when it replaced their neighbour’s fencing in January 2023. They also explained that they did not know until then that it thought their fencing was at a lettable standard, which they disputed. Therefore, this report can consider the landlord’s handling of the resident’s request for a refund because both the request and the information this was based on arose within 12 months of their formal complaint, as these all occurred in January 2023.
The landlord’s handling of the resident’s request for a reimbursement of costs to replace fencing
- The landlord’s repairs policy states it only replaces fencing as part of its planned improvements programme. It will keep in repair any fencing it has installed from April 2009 onwards. The resident is responsible for any fencing they installed themselves, or that the landlord installed before April 2009. Residents must not remove, replace, build, or renew any fencing without the landlord’s permission.
- Planned improvements are part of the landlord’s upgrade or renewal works and can be completed over long periods of time based on the landlord’s available budget and prioritisation of required works.
- The photograph taken by the landlord’s voids team on 16 April 2018 is the only evidence of the state of repair of the fencing around the time the resident moved into the property. The photograph shows the fencing in a good state of repair and fully intact.
- The resident has disputed the date of the photograph, but the landlord’s records show it was taken by its voids team and uploaded to its system on 16 April 2018. The Ombudsman has no reason to doubt the validity of the photograph or its date. In addition, the landlord’s repairs policy states it only replaces fencing as part of its planned improvements programme. There is therefore no evidence on which the Ombudsman could reasonably conclude that the landlord should have replaced the fencing before the resident moved into the property.
- The repair record of 11 May 2018 indicates the fence panels were in good condition and just needed to be secured back in place. While there is no evidence to confirm the landlord secured the fence panels, there is also no record of any contact from the resident to request any further repair. This does not provide the Ombudsman with sufficient evidence to conclude there was any maladministration by the landlord. This is because no other evidence has been provided to show it was required to take any further action for this at the time and it is not practical to expect it to have kept full records of this for nearly 7 years until now.
- The next evidence of any contact from the resident about the fencing was when they raised a complaint on 12 January 2023. If there was damage to the fencing, or a need for the fencing to be replaced after the recorded repair on 11 May 2018, the Ombudsman would expect to see a repair request from the resident through the landlord’s normal channels. There is no such evidence and the resident has not provided evidence they raised any concerns about this with the landlord before paying for a replacement fence. In the absence of any further contact from the resident, it is not possible for the Ombudsman to conclude the landlord did not meet any repair responsibility it had for their fencing.
- In summary, the Ombudsman finds there was no maladministration by the landlord in its handling of the resident’s request for reimbursement of costs to replace fencing.
The landlord’s complaint handling
- Under the Housing Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code) landlords must respond to the complaint at stage 1 within 10 working days of logging the complaint. They must also provide a final stage 2 response within 20 working days of escalating the complaint.
- The landlord’s complaint policy follows the Code’s above requirements and those to acknowledge complaints and stage 2 escalations within 5 working days. It also says it will respond at stage 2 within a further 15 working days.
- When the resident raised a complaint on 12 January 2023, the landlord did not provide an acknowledgement until 30 January 2023. That was inappropriate and not in line with its own policy or the Code’s 5-working-day timescale.
- The landlord issued its stage 1 response on 2 March 2023 which was 35 working days after the resident first complained. This is significantly outside of the 10-working–day timescale. That was a failure and not in line with the Code or the landlord’s own policy.
- The resident asked to escalate to stage 2 on 3 March 2023, 3 April 2023, and 6 April 2023. The landlord did not provide a response until it emailed the resident on 11 April 2023 and apologised for the delay. The landlord then issued an acknowledgement of the escalation request on 20 April 2023. That was a failure and not in line with the landlord’s own policy or the Code’s 5-working-day timescale.
- The landlord issued its final response on 18 May 2023, which was 18 working days after acknowledging the escalation request on 20 April 2023. That was inappropriate, as it is not in line with the landlord’s own policy of responding at stage 2 within 15 working days of the acknowledgement. In addition, had the landlord acknowledged the resident’s initial escalation request of 3 March 2023, it should have sent the stage 2 response much sooner.
- In summary, landlords must have an effective complaint process to provide a good service to its residents. An effective complaint process means landlords can fix problems quickly, learn from their mistakes, and build good relationships with residents. In this case, the landlord did not issue an acknowledgement of the complaint at stage 1 within the appropriate timescale, and there was a significant delay issuing the stage 1 response. The landlord also delayed acknowledging the escalation request from 3 March 2023 to 20 April 2023 and delayed sending the final response according to its own policy. The Ombudsman therefore finds maladministration in the landlord’s complaint handling.
- Therefore, we are ordering the landlord to apologise to and pay the resident £100 compensation for the time, trouble, distress, and inconvenience caused by its poor complaint handling. This is appropriate for the detriment caused to the resident and is within the bracket of compensation our remedies guidance would recommend awarding for failures of this nature resulting in maladministration adversely affecting the resident.
Determination
- In accordance with paragraph 52. of the Scheme, there was no maladministration in respect of the landlord’s handling of the resident’s request for a reimbursement of costs to replace fencing.
- In accordance with paragraph 52. of the Scheme, there was maladministration in respect of the landlord’s complaint handling.
Orders
- The landlord must within 28 days of the date of this determination:
- Provide the resident with an apology for the failings outlined in this report.
- Pay the resident total compensation of £100 for the time and trouble of having to raise a complaint, together with the distress and inconvenience caused by the landlord’s complaint handling failures.
- This award replaces any offer made to date by the landlord through its internal complaints process. The landlord is entitled to offset against this sum any payments already made to the resident. All payments must be paid directly to the resident and not credited to the rent account, unless otherwise agreed by the resident.