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

Abri Group Limited (202309128)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202309128

Abri Group Limited

19 December 2024


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 report of a broken fence.

Background

  1. The resident is an assured tenant of the landlord, a housing association. The tenancy commenced in 2012. The property is a 2-bedroom house and there are no vulnerabilities recorded for the household.
  2. On 18 February 2022 the resident contacted the landlord to report that her fence (between her and her neighbour’s property) had blown down during a storm and asked the landlord to fix it. The landlord responded on 21 February 2022, explaining that it would be the resident’s responsibility to repair the fence if it was located between hers and the neighbour’s property. 
  3. During February, March and April 2022 the resident and landlord corresponded further about the matter. The resident disputed that the fence was her responsibility, explaining that: it was installed before she was a tenant; it had been rotting; she could not afford it as it was not a minor repair and would cost around £500; if she repaired it this would remain her responsibility in the future; and she needed a fence as the neighbour had an animal.
  4. The landlord repeated its position that the fence repair was her responsibility as the tenant, and it was up to her if she wanted to install one. It also offered signposting and advice about finances.  
  5. On 26 April 2022 the resident raised a formal complaint about the landlord’s decision. She disputed the landlord’s interpretation of the repair as being minor and repeated her original concerns. The landlord acknowledged the complaint on 27 April 2022 and called the resident on 9 May 2022 to explain the outcome. It then issued its written stage 1 response on 12 May 2022 when it:
    1. Acknowledged the resident’s reports that the fence posts had been rotting and explained that this should have been raised by her when she moved in.
    2. Explained that it would not now be able to repair the fence that had blown down as this was her responsibility (as per the tenancy agreement).
    3. Explained how it classed the work as a minor repair, comparing it to a structural repair or anything which would make the property unsafe.
  6. On 11 May 2022 the landlord sent the resident a copy of the tenancy agreement terms and conditions, with specific reference to the term about the responsibility relating to the garden and external areas. It also explained that it would contact the neighbour to ask them to remove any damaged fencing which had fallen into the resident’s garden.
  7. The resident escalated her complaint on 16 June 2022 and discussed it with the landlord on 27 June 2022, when she reiterated her previous submissions. On 2 July 2022 she confirmed that her desired outcome was for the fence to be repaired. The landlord then attempted to arrange an inspection to assess the safety of the fence, but the resident advised that the fence had now been removed and provided photographs of the remaining rotting fence posts. The landlord said its surveyor would look at this to ensure there were no health and safety issues requiring make safe repairs by the landlord, before it confirmed the status of the complaint at stage 2.  
  8. In the landlord’s stage 2 response of 18 July 2022, it acknowledged the resident’s concerns but confirmed that it was unable to contribute towards the fence repair as this was her responsibility under the tenancy agreement. It signposted her to its tenancy support team for advice on finances in response to her concerns about the unaffordability of the repair. 
  9. The resident continued to dispute the landlord’s response in August and September 2022. The landlord explained that it did not enforce fence repairs on residents so if she could not install one, she did not have to. 

Assessment and findings

  1. The Tenancy Agreement terms and conditions state the respective repairing  responsibilities of the landlord and resident. The landlord must keep in repair the structure and exterior of the property, including outside walls and doors, external decorating, pathways and means of access, paved areas, and boundary walls. The resident must carry out minor repairs in the property which includes all front and back gates and fences. This is unless there is a main or busy road or other danger on the other side of the fence, or a legal obligation for the landlord to maintain it.
  2. The resident has not disputed that the fence is listed in her responsibilities under the Tenancy Agreement, but she has disputed the landlord’s interpretation of the term ‘minor’ repair, stating that the fence repair is not actually a minor repair and she should not, therefore, be held responsible for it. She has been clear on her position in her communications to the landlord.
  3. The Ombudsman acknowledges the resident’s position and her points about why the repair should not be considered minor, but the terms of the Tenancy Agreement are clear in setting out the repair as the resident’s responsibility. The Tenancy Agreement terms support the landlord’s position and its communication to the resident from the outset of her requests. The landlord’s response was therefore appropriate, although it is acknowledged that it has been disappointing for the resident for the reasons she has outlined.
  4. The Ombudsman is unable to adjudicate further on a dispute over the correct interpretation of the wording of a given occupancy agreement (this would be a matter for the courts). Instead, this Service can only consider if the landlord has taken reasonable steps to investigate, address and, where appropriate, resolve the resident’s concerns.
  5. Following the resident’s report about the fence blowing over, the landlord responded promptly to set out its responsibilities depending on the location of the fence. It then managed her expectations by explaining why it would not repair the fence itself, but investigated whether there were make safe works required, which was reasonable.
  6. In response to the resident’s repeat reports about the financial implications of doing the work herself, the landlord took appropriate steps to signpost her and explained that it would not enforce the repair on her. This was reasonable, though understandably difficult for the resident who has maintained that this should not be her responsibility.
  7. The landlord repeated its advice and continued to engage with the resident’s requests, though it ultimately did not change its position. There has been no evidence that the landlord failed in its repairing obligation under the Tenancy Agreement, and it reasonably provided the resident with clear responses explaining its position and limited role in repairing the fence. The Ombudsman therefore finds no maladministration by the landlord in respect of the complaint and no further action is needed.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was no maladministration by the landlord in its response to the resident’s report about a broken fence.