Aster Group Limited (202311926)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202311926

Aster Group Limited

5 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 requests for replacement garden fencing.

Background

2. The resident holds an assured tenancy with the landlord. She occupies a ground-floor flat.
3. On 20 April 2023 the resident told the landlord that although she and her neighbour had maintained the fencing in the garden, it was now deteriorating. She was unhappy that the fence was 4–foot high and that other neighbours had 6-foot fencing. She asked the landlord to replace the fencing to protect her privacy. In response, the landlord said it was only responsible for fencing that bordered a highway or pavement. It added that residents were responsible for any fencing between neighbouring properties.
4. On 28 April 2023 the resident complained to the landlord. She said that the fence had fallen, and she wanted it repaired. She also repeated her concerns about her neighbours’ fencing and questioned why there was a difference in size. The landlord responded to her concerns at stage 1 of its complaints process on 12 May 2023. In summary, it said that under the repair responsibilities set out in her tenancy agreement, it was only responsible for ‘boundary walls, gate and fencing bordering on to public footpaths or highways, but only if it had erected the boundary walls, gates and fences itself’. It said that if the fencing needed to be replaced, it would be hers and the upstairs neighbour’s responsibility. It added there was no evidence it originally installed the fencing and that, in any case, it would not look to replace it as it did not border a public footpath or highway.
5. On 30 May 2023 the resident told the landlord that she felt it should replace the fencing. She added that the responsibility of fencing was not clearly defined in her tenancy agreement. The landlord subsequently escalated the complaint and issued its stage 2 final response on 5 June 2023. It reiterated its stage 1 position and added that the information it provided to the resident was correct and had been consistently explained.
6. In the resident’s referral to this Service, she said that nothing within her tenancy agreement said she had to maintain the fencing. She added that all her neighbours had 6-foot fencing, and that the situation was affecting her mental health. As an outcome, she wanted the landlord to replace the fencing.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

7. The resident has advised that the handling of this matter by the landlord has affected her mental health. We do not doubt the resident’s comments, however, the Ombudsman cannot conclude the causation of, or liability for, impacts on health and wellbeing. This is outside our jurisdiction. However, consideration has been given to the general distress and inconvenience that may have been caused to the resident.

The landlord’s response to the resident’s requests for replacement garden fencing

8. The resident’s tenancy agreement states that the landlord will keep in good repair the structure and exterior of the property including fences bordering on to public footpaths or highways, but only if it has erected fences itself. When a resident raises a concern or a request with a landlord, the Ombudsman expects the landlord to consider this, and provide a timely and clear response, setting out its position.
9. In this case, the landlord responded promptly to the resident’s initial request for replacement fencing. It set out its position clearly, and its response was consistent with the terms of the resident’s tenancy agreement as set out above. Furthermore, the landlord acted fairly by informing her that she could ask permission to replace the fencing herself.
10. Additionally, following further requests from the resident the landlord acted reasonably by clarifying its position. It acknowledged that although the tenancy agreement did not specifically state that the resident was responsible for maintaining the fencing, it was not the landlord’s responsibility to replace it. In explaining this, it acted appropriately by referring the resident to the relevant section within her tenancy agreement.
11. The landlord’s stage 1 response went into further detail. It quoted the relevant terms of the tenancy agreement that it had relied on to decline her request. This was fair and demonstrated a willingness to be as clear as possible in its decision-making. Furthermore, it explained whose responsibility it was to replace the fencing and why. The landlord’s response also said it found no evidence that it originally erected this fencing. This showed it was careful to consider her request and ensure its response was fair and accurate.
12. In the resident’s referral to this Service, she said that nothing within the tenancy agreement said she had to maintain the fencing. Indeed, the landlord did not dispute this. Nevertheless, it set out why it was not responsible for replacing the fencing, and the Ombudsman is satisfied that the landlord explained this clearly and accurately throughout.
13. She was also unhappy that her neighbours had 6-foot fencing. In response to this point, the landlord explained that the relevant tenancy conditions applied to all its properties. This was a reasonable response, and there was no evidence that the landlord had acted inconsistently or treated the resident differently to other neighbours in declining her request for replacement fencing.
14. While this Service does not underestimate the distress this situation caused to the resident, the landlord acted fairly by considering the resident’s request and providing a timely and clear response, setting out its position. Moreover, the landlord was not obligated to replace the fencing. Therefore, there was no maladministration in the landlord’s response to the resident’s request for replacement garden fencing.

Determination

15. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration by the landlord in respect of its response to the resident’s request for replacement garden fencing.