Applications are open to join the next Housing Ombudsman Resident Panel – find out more Housing Ombudsman Resident Panel.

Royal Borough of Kingston Upon Thames (202326374)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202326374

Kingston upon Thames Council

10 June 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

  1. The complaint is about the landlord’s decision not to replace the resident’s garden fence.

Background

  1. The resident is a secure tenant of the landlord. She has stated that her tenancy commenced in 1989. The landlord has informed this Service that it does not possess a signed copy of the resident’s tenancy agreement. Neither does it have a signed copy of her tenancy conditions, which all residents are required to sign.
  2. The property is a 3-bedroom house with a rear garden, and the resident reported moving into it in March 2023. The landlord clarified that she was rehoused to this property as part of regeneration works in the area. Regeneration involves transforming neighbourhoods through demolition, rebuilding, and new development, with the aim of enhancing housing quality and community living.
  3. The resident raised a stage 1 complaint on 15 August 2023, saying that upon transferring to her current home, the landlord had assured her that the chain link fence separating her garden from her neighbour’s would be replaced. She further stated that the landlord’s contractor had come to take measurements for “4 fence panels” but she was ultimately informed that the fence would not be replaced. She was dissatisfied with this decision and expressed her desire for the fence to be replaced.
  4. The landlord responded at stage 1 on 30 August 2023, stating that it had consulted with staff from the regeneration team, the repairs team, and the relevant housing officer. It confirmed that there was no evidence of any agreement to replace the chain link fence. The response noted that the resident had requested an inspection of the fence with the possibility of replacement. After the inspection, the contractor sought approval from the landlord to proceed with the replacement, which was ultimately denied. The landlord clarified that, in line with its fence policy and the resident’s tenancy agreement, maintaining the fence was the resident’s responsibility.
  5. The resident requested to escalate her complaint to stage 2 on 28 September 2023. She said that the fence was inadequate and the landlord had acknowledged this, noting that her garden was higher than her neighbour’s. She stated that since her move during the regeneration, she had been promised various things that had not materialised. Additionally, she mentioned that her tenancy agreement dated back to 1989, and she had not signed any newer agreement. As a result, she expected the landlord to adhere to the original terms outlined in her 1989 tenancy agreement.
  6. Throughout October 2023, the landlord coordinated internally regarding the fence replacement issue. It issued its stage 2 response on 26 October 2023, confirming that it had discussed the matter with both housing officers involved in the initial viewing with the resident. Both officers had said that they did not make any commitment to replace the chain link fence. The response acknowledged that there may have been a failure on the part of its contractor, which accepted the resident’s request for fencing repairs but should have clarified that it was her responsibility. It also noted that the initial order only requested the contractor to carry out an inspection and report back.
  7. The resident contacted this Service on 10 July 2024, stating that the landlord had made promises it did not fulfil. As a resolution, she requested that the chain link fence be replaced.

Assessment and findings

Scope of the investigation

  1. While we do not dispute the resident’s version of events, the Ombudsman cannot comment on what was verbally discussed in relation to the replacement of the fence. This is because our findings must be based on documentary evidence. Instead, we will focus on the landlord’s communication with the resident in response. Our investigation will therefore assess whether the landlord responded appropriately to the situation and decide whether its actions were fair and reasonable, taking all the circumstances of the case and the available information into account.


The landlord’s decision not to replace the resident’s garden fence

  1. The landlord’s fencing policy, dated November 2013, says it does not repair boundary fences unless:
    1. There is a child residing in the property under 7 years old and the property leads onto a main road, a railway line, or to a waterway.
    2. There is a potential security risk due to the type and location of the property.
    3. The household contains a vulnerable person, and that vulnerability means that they do not have a true grasp of their own safety, may cause a risk to others, or where increased privacy is required.
    4. The fence runs along a communal boundary.
  2. The landlord’s tenants’ repairs service standards say that residents are responsible for “fencing, other than where there is a health and safety risk”.
  3. The resident stated that her complaint was primarily about a promise from the landlord to replace the chain link fence separating her garden from her neighbour’s. Evidence shows that on 12 May 2023, the resident reported that the “bottom of the wooden fence was rotten” and that the “wire fence had fallen down”. After 2 rescheduled appointments, an inspection was carried out on 26 May 2023. The case notes indicated that the chain link fence was “not fixable”, and the resident requested new 6-foot panel fencing. The notes also mentioned that the matter was referred back to planners, as a code was required for the renewal since a chain link fence was already in place. There was no indication that the fence was scheduled for replacement; rather, the details were to be forwarded to the appropriate team for a decision.
  4. An internal email of 31 May 2023 said that the resident was unable to have a wooden fence as the replacement would not be like–for–like. On 1 June 2023, the landlord’s notes said that an inspection should be arranged with the resident regarding the fence replacement and that its contractors could replace the fence “but it will need to be replaced (like for like)”. While this was resolution focused, there does not appear to be any evidence to suggest that this information was passed to the resident, and so we are not be able to conclude that the action took place.
  5. The resident raised a complaint on 15 August 2023, stating that she was informed before moving into the property that the chain link fence would be replaced. She explained that contractors had visited to take measurements for 4 fence panels, and after several weeks of attempting to get an update, she was finally told that the replacement would not be proceeding. The landlord responded at stage 1 on 30 August 2023. It advised the resident that it had liaised with various departments and housing officers to establish what had happened. This was an appropriate step by the landlord to gather the necessary evidence to investigate the complaint.
  6. The landlord further explained that it had found no evidence of any agreement to replace the chain link fence. It also noted that it had previously advised the resident to consult her tenancy agreement and its website for information. The landlord highlighted that the resident had continued to pursue the matter through its repairs team, and after an inspection, the contractor sought approval from the landlord to proceed with the replacement. This request was denied, in line with the fencing policy and the terms of the tenancy agreement, which stated that maintaining the fence was the resident’s responsibility. The landlord’s response was consistent with its policy; however, it lacked empathy for the situation the resident was experiencing.
  7. The resident’s concerns regarding the potential impact of the loss of the original tenancy agreement are acknowledged. However, it is important to note that this issue has not materially influenced the decision, as the resident is assumed to be subject to the landlord’s existing tenancy conditions and policies. While the loss of records is regrettable, it is recognised that such circumstances can sometimes be unavoidable over the approximately 35-year period or outside the landlord’s current control, and therefore do not significantly alter the overall assessment. The landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns has been taken into consideration.
  8. The resident requested to escalate her complaint to stage 2 on 28 September 2023. She said that the fence was inadequate because her garden and her neighbour’s were at different heights. She was dissatisfied with the numerous promises made, which she felt had not materialised, and felt she was being portrayed as a liar. Evidence shows that the landlord conducted internal discussions on 23 and 24 October 2023 to gather more information. An email sent on 24 October 2023 acknowledged that a staff member had explained the fencing policy and noted that the resident was “not overly happy with it.” The staff member also mentioned that they would seek a quote for her in the future, but there was no guarantee that an exception would be granted. It was good practice for the landlord to further investigate the details of the complaint, demonstrating its commitment to addressing the resident’s concerns and taking them seriously.
  9. The landlord issued its stage 2 response on 26 October 2023, reaffirming that it had investigated the complaint by consulting with relevant departments and staff involved in arranging the property viewing. This demonstrated a proactive approach by the landlord in taking additional steps to further investigate the matter. The response clarified that both staff members confirmed the resident had requested a replacement fence in the rear garden; however, neither of them had provided any assurance that the landlord would undertake such a replacement.
  10. The landlord acknowledged that there may have been a misunderstanding regarding its contractor’s acceptance of the resident’s fencing repair request in May 2023. It stated that the contractor should have advised the resident at that time that fence repairs were her responsibility, although the initial work order only required an inspection and report. Once the findings were communicated to the landlord, this was clarified, and no further work was scheduled. The landlord’s response clearly outlined its position on fence replacement and admitted that there was a misunderstanding on the part of its contractor. However, the landlord did not offer any compensation to resolve the issue. Providing compensation would have demonstrated that it was actively following our dispute resolution principles of being fair, putting things right, and learning from outcomes. 

Summary and conclusion

  1. We have considered the layout of the property and position of the fence in our investigation. The landlord’s fencing policy outlines circumstances under which fence repairs or replacements are considered its responsibility, primarily focusing on safety, security, vulnerability, and communal boundaries. In this case, the resident’s request for a fence replacement did not meet these criteria, and the landlord’s position that fence maintenance was her responsibility aligns with its policies.
  2. In relation to the resident’s assertion that the landlord had promised to replace the fence, we do not doubt the resident’s testimony. However, our assessment is based on the available documentary evidence. The case notes from 1 June 2023 indicate that replacing the fence with a like-for-like option was considered. However, there is no evidence to suggest that this offer was communicated to the resident or referenced in the complaint responses. Therefore, it cannot be confirmed that the resident was offered a like-for-like replacement.
  3. The landlord demonstrated a positive approach by investigating the complaint through internal consultations, referencing relevant policies, and communicating with the resident. While it acknowledged a potential misunderstanding regarding the contractor’s communication in May 2023, it maintained that there was no formal agreement to replace the fence, and that the resident was advised to review her tenancy terms.
  4. The resident said that she had spent “several weeks” attempting to get an update. The evidence was not comprehensive in this case to demonstrate that landlord was prompt in clarifying that the fence repair was her responsibility, which could have helped manage her expectations more effectively. It would have been helpful if the landlord had followed up in writing to show what information had been provided to her, prior to the complaint being made. Additionally, the landlord’s decision not to offer any form of compensation despite the apparent miscommunication from its contractor was unfair to her.
  5. Therefore, for the reasons outlined above we find there was service failure in the landlord’s decision not to replace the resident’s garden fence. £100 compensation has been awarded to the resident for its communication in relation to the matter. The landlord’s compensation policy says that it will consider “discretionary payments or goodwill gestures”. These payments will “generally be of low value and are part of restoring positive customer relations” with a “maximum value of £50.00”. We feel this amount is not quite sufficient to put things right, and consequently, we have used our remedies guidance in relation to the level of award for service failure.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme there was service failure in the landlord’s decision not to replace the resident’s garden fence.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

  1. Within 4 weeks of the date of this determination, the landlord is ordered to take the following action and provide the Ombudsman with evidence of compliance:
    1. Write to the resident to apologise for the failures identified in this report, in line with this Service’s apologies guidance.
    2. Pay directly to the resident compensation of £100 for the impact of its service failure, including the distress and inconvenience.
    3. Re-offer the resident the replacement of the chain link fence (like–for–like) as per its records of 1 June 2023.

Recommendations

  1. It is recommended that the landlord familiarises itself with this Service’s spotlight reports on complaints about repairs, knowledge and information management (KIM), and repairing trust. It should consider self-assessing against these reports, and any training needs of its staff in these areas.