Folkestone & Hythe District Council (202127200)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202127200

Folkestone & Hythe District Council

29 February 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 handling of the resident’s request for fencing at the rear boundary of the property.

Background and summary of events

Background

2. The resident is a secure tenant of the landlord which is a local authority. The property is a 1 bedroom, first floor flat. The tenancy commenced on 23 October 2006.

Landlord obligations

3. The landlord’s repairs and maintenance policy states:
   1. It has no statutory responsibility to provide fencing to residents.
   2. A resident can request it undertakes fencing work on their behalf, with the full cost being recharged to the resident. This cost must be paid in advance of the works being undertaken.

Summary of events

4. Between 26 June 2018 and 13 September 2021, the resident reported concerns with the security of the boundary hedges at the rear of the communal garden and said they were overgrown. He also reported fly-tipping on the road behind the hedges. The landlord arranged for its maintenance team to cut back the hedges. The resident requested the hedges be removed and replaced with fencing so the grounds can “live up” to the current standard of a housing estate.
5. On 18 September 2021, the resident wrote to the landlord requesting it replaced the hedges with a fence.
6. On 21 September 2021, the landlord discussed the hedges with its major works surveyor. It was confirmed the hedges were not considered a hazard. The landlord confirmed it had also not received any complaints from other residents about the hedges or requests for it to be replaced with fencing.
7. On 20 December 2021, the resident wrote a second letter to the landlord following his previous letter and 2 calls to the landlord which were not responded to. He stated the garden maintenance contractors were clumsy in their maintenance of the hedges. He received advice from the maintenance contractors to raise his concerns to the landlord about his request for removal of the hedges. He asked his request to be logged as a complaint if the landlord would not replace the hedges with fencing.
8. On 13 January 2022, the landlord provided its stage 1 response:
   1. It explained its grounds maintenance team did maintain the hedges. However, it acknowledged it was slightly delayed to attend and trim the hedges. It stated this was due to unexpected weather which caused more growth in the trees and hedging, across its properties. It noted the delay was minimal.
   2. It acknowledged it was not the first time the resident had requested the hedges were replaced with fencing. It explained the hedges were not in need of repair as it had informed him in the past and it was not required to replace the hedges with fencing. The request for fencing was a cosmetic improvement request and the hedges did not pose a health and safety risk.
9. On 1 February 2022, the resident escalated his complaint. He explained:
   1. The hedges were on the boundary facing a busy main road that was used by pedestrians every day.
   2. The road behind the hedges was regularly fly tipped.
   3. He believed there was a security risk due to the above concerns and the hedges were unsuitable and the risk would be mitigated by installing fencing.
   4. He believed the landlord was required to replace the hedges in line with standard local authority housing provision.
10. On 3 February 2022, the landlord acknowledged the resident’s escalation request. It responded to say it would provide a response by 15 February 2022.
11. On 15 February 2022, the landlord provided its stage 2 response:
    1. It confirmed there was no planned works to replace the hedges with fencing.
    2. The was no local authority policy requiring the hedges to be replaced.
    3. There was no evidence to support that the hedges could be cut to provide unwanted access by potential intruders. A fence would also not provide any greater security.
    4. It did not uphold the complaint.
12. On 9 March 2022, the resident complained to this Service. He explained he has made several requests to the landlord over a number of years, to ask it to replace the hedges at the rear of his property with fencing. The resident states the hedges were unsuitable as:
    1. It does not provide security and poses a greater risk of a burglary.
    2. The hedges are not well maintained and contained weeds.

Assessment and findings

13. The landlord’s repairs and maintenance policy is robust and confirms it does not have a statutory responsibility to provide fencing to residents. There is also no local authority policy which requires all local authority housing to have fencing installed.
14. The landlord’s repairs policy does give it scope to offer to install fencing as a rechargeable repair. In this instance the cost would be paid by the resident. This Service has not seen evidence the landlord offered this option to the resident. Whilst the costs of installing fencing are likely to be high, the landlord should have provided the resident with this option. A recommendation has been made at the end of this report to discuss this with the resident.
15. This Service acknowledges the resident had previously requested fencing be installed, and the landlord had already declined this. However, there is no evidence the landlord sought to respond to the resident’s new request promptly from 18 September 2021. The landlord did not provide a response until its stage 1 response on 13 January 2022. There is evidence the landlord discussed the resident’s request internally however, the delay of approximately 4 months to respond to the resident was unreasonable. The landlord’s communication was poor and led to him chasing the landlord for a response. This is evidence of service failure.
16. Whilst the resident raised concerns with the maintenance schedule and this led to weeds being present and the hedges becoming overgrown, the landlord has appropriately responded to requests to complete maintenance work when required. It has also apologised for minor delays to carry out maintenance of the hedges.
17. The landlord confirmed with its surveyor, the presence of weeds and the hedges being overgrown whilst awaiting maintenance was not a hazard. The landlord reasonably applied its repairs policy which does not require it to install fencing. Whilst it had discretion, it was reasonable for it to decline the resident’s request for the hedges to be replaced with fencing.
18. However, there were failings regarding the landlord’s response as it did not respond to the resident’s request for fencing in a timely manner. This was not customer focused. Considering this, in the Ombudsman’s opinion the landlord’s handling of the resident’s request for fencing at the rear boundary of the property was service failure.

Determination (decision)

19. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was service failure by the landlord in its handling of the resident’s request for fencing at the rear boundary of the property.

Reasons

20. The landlord was not required to install fencing. It assessed the hedges did not pose any risk of a hazard and therefore acted reasonably to decline the resident’s request. However, it did not respond within a reasonable timeframe.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

21. Within 4 weeks of the date of this report, the landlord is ordered to:
    1. Apologise to the resident for the failing identified in this report.
    2. Pay the resident £100 compensation for the time and trouble caused by the landlord’s poor communication.

Recommendations

22. The landlord should discuss the option of a rechargeable repair with the resident for installation of fencing panels.