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

Yarlington Housing Group (202006045)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202006045

Yarlington Housing Group

3 February 2021


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 concerns the landlord’s handling of the resident’s request to repair the back fence and gate in his property.

Background and summary of events

Background

  1. The resident is a tenant of the landlord.

Summary of events

  1. On 12 July 2020 the resident asked his landlord to repair the back-boundary fence and back gate to his property.
  2. On 13 July 2020 a member of the landlord’s team advised the resident that, as per the tenancy agreement, if the fence backed onto a public footpath, it would be the landlord’s responsibility to repair and maintain; but if it backed onto a service or access path, then it would be the resident’s responsibility. The resident asked if there was a grant available to give him financial aid but was advised that there was not.
  3. On 14 July 2020 the resident raised a stage one complaint as he was dissatisfied with the landlord’s response.
  4. On 20 July 2020 the landlord issued its stage one complaint response. The landlord confirmed what the resident had been advised when he first enquired about repairs to the fence. The landlord stated that, in accordance with the tenancy agreement, fencing is the resident’s responsibility unless it backs onto a “main or busy road”.
  5. It apologised to the resident that the member of its team had not made him aware beforehand that there was a Positive Partnership Fund (PPF) which could potentially provide the resident with financial aid. It acknowledged that the resident should have been made aware of the fund earlier when he had asked for support. It explained that it had reminded staff of this fund so they would be aware for future occasions. It then organised a meeting for 27 July 2020 with the resident’s Community Partner to discuss a potential application to the fund.
  6. The landlord concluded by advising the resident that if he remained dissatisfied, he had until 10 August 2020 to escalate the complaint.
  7. On 27 July 2020 the resident’s Community Partner visited the resident at his property. At this point the resident had already installed a new fence, which he said had cost him £657. He said he had had to sell some belongings to pay for the fence.
  8. The Community Partner advised the resident that as he had already demonstrated that he could pay for the fence himself, he might not qualify for the grant, and that the PPF did not offer reimbursements.
  9. On 13 August 2020 the landlord wrote to the resident in response to other queries he had made regarding a front fence and outside light (which do not form part of this investigation). It also explained that the resident’s complaint about the back fence had already been dealt with and would not be reopened. It advised the resident that his application for funding for the rear fence had been submitted, and he would hear from the relevant team once a decision had been made.
  10. From the landlord’s notes it is apparent that on 14 August 2020 I,n a telephone conversation, the resident was advised that his PPF funding request had not been successful. No specific reasons are documented in the landlord’s records.
  11. On 17 August 2020 the resident asked how he could appeal the landlord’s decision concerning the funding decision.
  12. According to further notes from the landlord, on 24 August 2020 the landlord advised the resident that it could not accept an appeal as it had made its final decision regarding the funding. Following this, the resident raised a stage two complaint as he remained dissatisfied with the landlord’s response.
  13. On 3 September 2020 the landlord issued its final complaint response. It reiterated that the fence was the resident’s responsibility given that it backed onto an access path. It also apologised that the resident was unhappy with the previous outcome of the complaint.
  14. The landlord concluded by explaining how the resident could approach this Service if he remained dissatisfied.


Assessment and findings

  1. The resident’s tenancy agreement states that the tenant is obligated “To carry out minor repairs to your home such as, but not limited to: all front and back gates and fences (unless there is a main or busy road or some other danger on the other side of the fence, or a legal obligation to maintain).”
  2. When the resident first expressed his concerns regarding the fence, he was made aware that the landlord did not consider itself responsible for the such repairs. The landlord maintained this stance throughout its correspondence with the resident concerning. This was in line with the tenancy agreement and was therefore a reasonable position.
  3. The landlord acknowledged that it should have advised the resident of the potential funding for the fence repair when he first asked. In its complaint response it apologised, explained how it would learn from the error, and referred him to the appropriate funding option. In reaching that decision the landlord inspected the relevant area of the property to ensure its understanding was accurate and assisted the resident with the funding application. Nothing in the evidence indicates that the subsequent failure of the funding request was due to any action or inaction on the landlord’s part.
  4. Overall, the landlord offered reasonable redress to the resident upon its team member failing to provide the resident with the appropriate information. Even though the landlord was under no obligation to carry out the repair work itself, it did make an effort to aid the resident in seeking financial aid upon acknowledging his concerns about not being able to afford the repair work.

Determination (decision)

  1. In accordance with paragraph 55 (b) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the landlord has made an offer of redress prior to investigation which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, resolves the complaint satisfactorily.

Reasons

  1. As stated in the tenancy agreement, the resident is responsible for carrying out repairs on his back gate providing that it does not back onto a main or busy road and was advised this on multiple occasions by his landlord. Even though the resident was not correctly advised about the potential of receiving financial aid, the landlord offered the resident an apology, explained how it had learnt from this experience and attempted to put things right by organising a visit from the resident’s Community Partner to submit an application for funding.