Accent Housing Limited (202332888)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202332888

Accent Housing Limited

27 March 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 response to the resident’s reports of a broken boundary fence.

Background

2. The resident is an assured tenant of the landlord, the tenancy began on 8 April 2008. The property is a 3-bedroom semi–detached house. The landlord has no vulnerabilities recorded for the resident.
3. The resident reported in February 2022 that her garden gate had broken in the wind and could not be closed. The landlord attended on 26 May 2022 and replaced the bottom hinge on the gate. The resident reported on the same day that the gate still could not be locked and that the engineer had informed her the fence had “rotted” and was “no longer stable”. The landlord raised a repair to inspect the fence on 1 June 2022, it attended on 9 June 2022 and measured up for a replacement fence and gate. The landlord reinspected the fence and gate again on 7 July 2022 and advised the resident on this visit that the fence could be repaired and if it was to replace the fence it would be with “chain-link fencing”.
4. The resident continued to chase the landlord for updates on replacing the fence up to raising a complaint on 25 January 2023. In her complaint, she included previous correspondence that she had received on the matter and said she had been waiting since “early last year” for the work to be completed.
5. The landlord provided its stage 1 response on 16 March 2023, which included:
   1. It advised the delay in investigating the issue following the residents initial report in February 2022 was due to a storm resulting in “unprecedented” demand on its contractors.
   2. It advised it was confident the fencing was “structurally sound” and in “good condition”.
   3. It clarified that for fencing it had to provide a “boundary” and the fence at the property achieved this.
   4. It said it would not replace the fence with solid panels.
   5. It offered advice about the gaps in the fencing but advised this was by design to allow wind to pass through.
   6. It concluded and said that it had revisited its repair responsibilities over the last 12 months and all future fence repairs would be the resident’s responsibility.
6. The resident requested her complaint be escalated on 28 March 2023 as she had waited a year for an expected repair to be told it will no longer be honoured. She said this was “irresponsible”.
7. The landlord provided its stage 2 response on 27 June 2023, in this response it said:
   1. It had arranged for an inspection of the fence on 26 June 2023, and it was determined that a repair was required.
   2. It had instructed its contractor to replace 2 fence posts and refit the panels on completion.
   3. It said all work should be completed within 28 days.
8. On 28 July 2023, the resident requested her complaint be escalated to stage 3. She highlighted that fencing that led to a public footpath was the landlord’s responsibility and the operative who attended to repair the fence had stated the same issue of previous operatives, that the fence was “rotting”.
9. The landlord provided its stage 3 response on 9 August 2023, this included:
   1. It advised it was within the surveyors remit to survey fencing; the surveyor had deemed the fence to be in reasonable condition on his visit on 26 June 2023, therefore the required repairs were carried out.
   2. It confirmed the fence would not be replaced as it was deemed “repairable”.
   3. It said it had previously advised if it was to be replaced it would be with “chain link fencing” whereas any remedial work would be like for like.
10. The resident advised the Ombudsman on 17 December 2023 that she wanted her complaint investigating and the landlord to honour the repair they had agreed to which was to replace the entire back fence. The resident subsequently advised the Ombudsman on 21 March 2025 that the landlord had provided a new fence as the fence had fallen on one of the resident’s cars parked on the driveway.

Assessment and findings

11. The tenancy agreement states that the landlord would be responsible for boundary walls and fences. The landlord’s website confirms it is responsible for repairs to fencing, gates and walls if they border a public footpath or other public area. The fence in dispute runs alongside the resident’s property bordering a public grassed area, it is therefore appropriate that the landlord took responsibility for repairing the fence.
12. The landlord’s repairs policy states that it will complete routine repairs within 28 days. Following the resident’s initial report that the gate was insecure on 21 February 2022, the landlord acted appropriately by carrying out a repair to the gate, however it was not completed in a timely manner. It was following this when the resident raised concerns about the fence itself, again the landlord appropriately raised an inspection on 1 June 2022 and attended on 9 June 2022. Its repair records indicate that the operative at this time deemed the fence to require replacing. No records have been provided to evidence what was discussed with the resident at this point, however it is understandable that once an operative had measured for a replacement fence that she expected the fence to be replaced.
13. The resident chased the landlord on 13 June 2022 and was advised the fence was awaiting approval. She was also advised that fencing was no longer part of the landlord’s policy from 13 June 2022. She requested more information about the change in policy, it is not evident that the landlord provided this at the time.
14. Furthermore, the landlord’s records indicate there was no job awaiting approval as on 16 June 2022 it contacted its contractor who advised no job was on its system. It therefore raised another repair for its contractor to attend. It subsequently attended on 6 July 2022 and advised the fence could be repaired but if it was to replace this it would be with “chain link fencing”. A letter dated 14 July 2022, sent to the resident, stated “chain link” fencing would be used to replace a party fence, one that borders another property, a boundary fence would be replaced with “6ft wooden panel fencing” at the back and “4ft chain link” fencing to the front. As the resident’s boundary fence was to the side of the property it is understandable there was confusion about whether the landlord would replace the fence.
15. In line with its obligations for maintaining the property, as set out in the tenancy agreement, the landlord would only be obliged to replace a fence when it deemed it uneconomical to repair. It is reasonable for it to rely on its surveyor’s opinion following inspection. Within its complaint process the landlord advised it would not replace the fence as it felt it could be repaired, which was a reasonable response under the circumstances.
16. The length of time it took to advise the resident of this however was not reasonable. It took the landlord from May 2022 to March 2023 to advise the resident it would not replace the fencing. Its communication throughout this time was not clear as the resident remained hopeful that her fence would be replaced.
17. Within her initial complaint on 25 January 2023, the resident referenced a neighbour having their fence fully replaced. The landlord failed to acknowledge this within its complaints process which was not reasonable as it was clearly a point of contention for the resident.
18. The resident raised her concern with the landlords’ previous communication in her escalation request on 28 March 2023 and its change in position on replacing the fence. The landlord failed to acknowledge this element of the resident’s complaint in its stage 2 response which was not reasonable and resulted in the resident spending time and trouble escalating her complaint further. It confirmed its position on replacing the fence within its stage 3 response on 9 August 2023, 4 months after she had raised her dissatisfaction to the landlord. This amount of time was not reasonable and demonstrated the landlord’s inadequate complaint investigation at its initial stages.
19. At the time of its complaint responses the landlord operated a 3 stage complaints procedure as follows: early resolution, manager investigation and director investigation. The landlord has since implemented a new complaints policy in May 2023 which comprises of 2 stages, this brings its complaints procedure in line with the Ombudsman’s complaint handling code.
20. The landlord had noted that it had advised the resident on 15 June 2022 that “going forwards” fencing would be the resident’s “duty”. It reiterated this point in its stage 1 response also as it stated that it had revisited its repair responsibilities over the last 12 months and all future fence repairs would be the resident’s responsibility. The landlord has not provided a fencing policy that supports this statement, the tenancy agreement and its website, at the time of this determination state it is responsible for repairs to fencing, gates and walls if they border a public footpath or other public areas. It was therefore not reasonable for the landlord to take this stance in the circumstance.
21. In summary, the Ombudsman notes the resident’s dissatisfaction with the landlord’s decision, however the landlord’s choice to not replace the resident’s current fence was reasonable at the time as the landlord would only be obliged to replace a fence it could not repair. The landlord’s communication around the fencing repair and its responsibility was not clear, the resident spent a year chasing the landlord for its decision on replacing the fencing before making a complaint, and pursuing this for a further 7 months, it is evident this caused the resident avoidable time and trouble.
22. In relation to the failures identified, the Ombudsman’s role is to consider whether the redress offered by the landlord put things right and resolved the resident’s complaint satisfactorily in the circumstances. In considering this the Ombudsman takes into account whether the landlord’s offer of redress was in line with the Ombudsman’s Dispute Resolution Principles: Be Fair, Put Things Right and Learn from Outcomes as well as our own guidance on remedies.
23. In consideration of the above, there was service failure by the landlord in its handling of the residents reports of the broken fence. The landlord is ordered to pay the resident £200 in recognition of the failures identified in this report with its communications and the time and trouble experienced by the resident in pursuing her complaint.

Determination

24. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was service failure by the landlord in respect of its response to the resident’s report of a broken fence.

Orders

25. The landlord is ordered to pay the resident £200, for the failures identified in its handling of the resident’s reports of a broken fence. This is to be paid directly to the resident and not offset against any arrears in line with the Housing Ombudsman guidance on remedies.
26. The landlord should provide evidence to this service that it has complied with the above order within 4 weeks of this determination.

Recommendations

27. It is recommended the landlord consider a separate fencing policy which clearly states responsibilities with respect to any tenancy conditions.