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

Peabody Trust (202323387)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202323387

Peabody Trust

25 July 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 handling of the resident’s:
    1. dispute about a garden fence.
    2. complaint.

Background

  1. The resident has an assured tenancy with the landlord which began on 1 August 1993. The landlord is a housing association. The property is a 2-bedroom flat. The landlord was aware that the resident has physical and mental health conditions.
  2. On 27 November 2019 the landlord agreed to split the garden to allow the resident and her neighbour each to have exclusive use of part of the back garden. The landlord confirmed how the proportions of the garden would be split, and the resident paid for and erected a fence with the landlord’s approval. In 2022 the landlord responded to concerns that the position of the fence caused a fire hazard by arranging a fire safety inspection. On 3 November 2022 it confirmed there were no fire safety concerns, and the resident did not need to move the fence.
  3. On 12 September 2023 the landlord wrote to the resident and said the fence was in breach of fire and safety regulations and was a potential hazard. It asked her to relocate the fence to comply with fire safety guidelines.
  4. On 12 September 2023 the resident told the landlord she was unhappy with its request to move her fence. She said it previously investigated and approved the position of the fence. On 3 October 2023, she said:
    1. she was unhappy the landlord had not responded to her complaint by 26 September 2023 or agreed an extension.
    2. she had spent money on the fence and was confused that the landlord had changed its position.
    3. the landlord had not responded to her request for it to consider previous correspondence it had sent her confirming the fence should not be moved. She wanted clarification on the landlord’s position.
    4. its handling of the fence dispute was making an Antisocial Behaviour (ASB) dispute with her neighbour worse and was impacting her health.
  5. On 18 October 2023 the landlord issued a stage 1 response. It:
    1. apologised for its delayed response.
    2. confirmed it approved the fence in November 2022.
    3. said it was arguable that the fence blocked some light.
    4. said the resident and her neighbour had agreed to mediation to come to an agreement about the fence, which it thought was the only way forward.
    5. said it would revisit the fence dispute after mediation.
  6. On 8 January 2024 we asked the landlord to respond to the resident’s request to escalate her complaint. We said the complaint was about its handling of a garden dispute between the resident and her neighbour and the landlord’s complaint handling delays. We said the resident wanted the landlord to provide a resolution to the garden dispute and issue a stage 2 complaint response.
  7. On 15 January 2024 the landlord issued a stage 2 response. It:
    1. said its records showed it had proposed to increase the boundary of her neighbour’s garden so they could have a small gap between their bedroom door and the fence.
    2. said mediation could not go ahead as one of the parties had withdrawn.
    3. apologised that it had not fully investigated her complaint before.
    4. partially upheld her complaint. It offered compensation of £650 for time trouble and inconvenience, £300 for financial hardship, and £150 for complaint handling.
  8. In referring the complaint to this Service, the resident said she was unhappy with the landlord’s response and felt it had not made its position on the fence clear. She said this caused her anxiety and worsened the dispute with her neighbour. She said she but said she wanted the landlord to make its position on the fence clear.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

  1. The resident raised issues which the landlord responded to in its stage 1 response including reports of ASB and a neighbour’s CCTV camera. These issues did not exhaust the landlord’s complaints procedure and were not brought to this Service. This investigation therefore focuses on the dispute about a garden fence. We have also focussed on events from 12 September 2023, when the landlord asked the resident to move the fence. Any reference to events before this date is for context only.
  2. It is noted that since the landlord issued its stage 2 response on 15 January 2024, a gate has been installed in the fence and the resident said the landlord had confirmed she did not need to move the fence. The resident said the landlord recently told her that it plans to move the fence to divide the garden equally. This investigation will not consider issues that have arisen after 15 January 2024. This is because the landlord has not had an opportunity to investigate and respond to a complaint about those events. The resident may wish to raise any new issues with the landlord directly or raise a new complaint if necessary.
  3. The Ombudsman cannot make a finding about where the fence line should lie. This is a legal matter that should be properly determined by inspection of the land and with reference to any documents held by the Land Registry, the landlord and the tenancy agreement. However, we have assessed how the landlord dealt with the matter, and what steps were taken to investigate the fence dispute.

Garden fence dispute

  1. The resident’s tenancy agreement provides a description of the premises which clearly includes access to a garden. However, the tenancy is unclear on whether exclusive or shared use of the back garden is granted. The tenancy agreement does not address how the garden is split. The landlord has internally confirmed that its division of the garden in 2019 had no legal basis.
  2. The landlord does not have a policy on boundary disputes. Its ASB policy said it encouraged customers to take responsibility for solving personal disputes between themselves where appropriate, including mediation. It said it would use preventative measures, early intervention, and signposting to mediation services to tackle ASB. 
  3. The Tenant Involvement and Empowerment Standard 2017 said that landlords should provide residents with choices, information and communication that is appropriate.
  4. The Complaint Handling Code 2022 (the Code) said that landlords must address all points raised in the complaint definition and provide clear reasons for any decisions, referencing the relevant policy, law and good practice where appropriate.
  5. Our Spotlight Report on Knowledge and Information Management outlines the importance of landlords having standard data recording requirements to ensure good records. Once information has been created, it should be stored and maintained appropriately.
  6. The landlord’s explanation when it requested the resident to move her fence on 12 September 2023 would have likely been confusing for her. This is because it had confirmed the fence was not in breach of fire safety regulations in 2022 and provided no evidence supporting its new position. Nor has it provided any evidence to support this position to this Service. This was unreasonable in the circumstances.
  7. On 12 September 2023 the resident forwarded the landlord an email it sent her on 3 November 2022 confirming she did not need to move the fence as there were no fire safety concerns. The landlord internally discussed whether the fence should be moved to provide equal garden access to both the resident and her neighbour. The landlord did not acknowledge its previous position, confirm or explain to the resident why this had changed, which was unreasonable.
  8. On 15 September 2023 the resident asked the landlord to confirm that she did not need to move the fence. On 18 September 2023, the landlord said it had not seen evidence of how the fence was initially divided. On the same day, the resident asked the landlord to look at its correspondence of 27 November 2019 which confirmed how the landlord had agreed to divide the garden. The resident offered to provide a copy of this letter. The landlord did not respond to this, which was unreasonable.
  9. The resident contacted the landlord again on 22 September 2023 and said she had tried to send it evidence of its letters to her confirming its previous position on the fence. She said she was still confused about why it was asking her to move the fence. It would have been reasonable for the landlord to discuss the letters the resident was referring to and confirm its position and reasoning. That it did not was unreasonable.
  10. The resident requested an update on 27 September 2023. The landlord suggested mediation on 28 September 2023 and sent a referral on 3 October 2023. The resident and her neighbour initially agreed to mediation. It is acknowledged that the landlord dealt with the fence dispute in the context of reports of ongoing low level ASB between the resident and her neighbour. It was therefore appropriate for the landlord to consider mediation as an early intervention tool.
  11. However, given that the landlord had changed its position on the fence, it would have been reasonable for it to respond to the resident’s queries about this. Not doing so and leaving the fence dispute to be resolved by the resident and her neighbour in mediation was unreasonable. This may have impacted the dispute between the resident and her neighbour which escalated in September 2023.
  12. The resident asked the landlord if it had read the correspondence confirming its previous position again on 29 September 2023 and 3 October 2023. On 5 October 2023 the landlord told her it understood her reservations about the fence. It said it was asking her to move it so that her neighbour could have a small gap between their bedroom door and the fence. However, it also said that it was open to discussing potential solutions, accommodating both the resident and her neighbour. The landlord’s lack of clarity about its position was unreasonable.
  13. The landlord received reports that the fence blocked the light in the neighbour’s property. The landlord visited the resident on 13 October 2023 to inspect the garden. The landlord has not provided any evidence to confirm what it inspected during this visit, or what its conclusions were. In its stage 1 response, the landlord said the fence blocked some light. We do not have sufficient evidence to be able to assess whether the fence blocked the neighbour’s light, or whether the landlord’s actions in relation to this were reasonable, which is a record keeping failure.
  14. In the landlord’s stage 1 response, it was appropriate for it to acknowledge it had approved the fence in November 2022. It was unreasonable for the landlord not to make its position and reasoning clear and to rely on the resident and her neighbour coming to an agreement to resolve the issue. The landlord did not acknowledge or consider the impact of its failure to respond to the resident’s queries, provide an update, or explain its position.
  15. In the landlord’s stage 2 response, it said it had previously proposed to move the fence but did not confirm that this was its current position or confirm why, or by when the resident had to move the fence. It also failed to provide clear reasons for its change of position. It apologised and offered redress for the resident’s time trouble, inconvenience and financial loss but failed to identify or show any learning from its failures in line with our dispute resolution principles.
  16. In summary, the landlord:
    1. delayed in responding to the resident’s concerns about its change in position.
    2. failed to provide the resident or this Service with evidence of any inspections or other factors that impacted its decision to ask the resident to move the fence.
    3. failed to provide clear information or reasons for its decisions.
    4. failed to acknowledge, consider the impact of, apologise for or set out any learning from its failures of service.
  17. The resident said the landlord’s response to her concerns about the fence made the situation with her neighbour worse. She said this had a significant impact on her wellbeing. The landlord has made some attempt to put things right with its offer of compensation, but it failed to acknowledge or show learning from all the failures identified. Further, the issue raised by the resident was not resolved in the landlord’s complaints process, as it did not make its position on the fence clear or explain its reasoning. The issue remains outstanding as the resident said she is still unclear about the landlord’s position and reasons for this.
  18. We have therefore found maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint. The landlord’s offer of £950 compensation was reasonable and in line with its compensation policy and our remedies guidance. We have therefore not ordered any further compensation. However, we have ordered the landlord to pay the £950 compensation it previously offered if it has not already paid this. We have also ordered the landlord to confirm and explain its position about the fence in writing, to apologise to the resident and to set out learning from its handling of the resident’s dispute about the fence. This is in line with our Dispute Resolution Principles of be fair, put things right and learn from outcomes.

Complaint handling

  1. The landlord’s complaints policy was in line with the Code and said it would:
    1. log stage 1 complaints within 5 working days and respond to them within 10 working days.
    2. respond to stage 2 complaints within 20 working days of receiving an escalation request.
    3. provide an explanation with a clear timeframe if it needed more time at stage 1 or 2. This should not exceed a further 10 days without good reason.
  2. It was appropriate for the landlord to recognise the resident’s dissatisfaction as a complaint on 12 September 2023. The resident requested an update on 22 September 2023. The landlord did not acknowledge the complaint until 24 September 2023, 9 working days after she raised it. This was not in line with its complaints policy.
  3. In its acknowledgement, the landlord said it would issue a complaint response by 26 September 2023. It said it would inform the resident if it took longer. The resident requested an update on 27 September and 3 October 2023. On 5 October 2023, the landlord apologised that it had not contacted her about the complaint. Having not responded in line with its complaints policy timescales, the landlord did not provide an explanation or timeline for responding to the complaint, which was unreasonable.
  4. The resident contacted this Service on 9 October 2023. On 11 October 2023, the landlord told the resident it would wait until after its visit to the property on 13 October 2023 to respond to her complaint, which was reasonable. The landlord issued a response on 18 October 2023, 26 days after the complaint was raised. This was not in line with its complaints policy timescales.
  5. The resident requested to escalate her complaint to stage 2 on 26 October 2023. However, the request was sent to this Service, not the landlord. The resident contacted us and on 8 January 2024 we asked the landlord to respond to the resident’s stage 2 request. The landlord acknowledged the stage 2 request the same day, and responded 7 working days after, which was in line with its complaints policy timescales.
  6. The landlord apologised for the delay in its stage 1 response. At stage 2 it apologised that it had not fully investigated the resident’s complaint previously. It set out some learning to prevent future delays and improve its stage 1 complaints, which was in line with our dispute resolution principle of learning from outcomes. It also made an attempt to put things right with its offer of compensation.
  7. However, after setting out a timeline of events in its stage 2 response, the landlord did not confirm or explain its position on the fence or provide clear reasons for its decisions, referencing the relevant policy, law and good practice in line with the Code. Nor did it confirm what it was going to do to put things right, aside from compensation. This was not in line with our dispute resolution principles.
  8. We have therefore found service failure in the landlord’s complaint handling. The £150 compensation the landlord offered for its complaint handling failures was in line with its compensation policy and our remedies guidance and we have therefore not ordered any further compensation. We have ordered it to pay the £150 compensation it previously offered if it has not already paid this and to confirm its position on the fence.

Determination

  1. In line with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s dispute about a garden fence.
  2. In line with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was service failure in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint.

Orders

  1. Within 28 days of the date of this report, we order the landlord to:
    1. provide a written apology for the failures identified in this investigation.
    2. write to the resident and:
      1. confirm and explain its position on the position of the garden fence, with reference to any relevant surveys, law, policies or good practice.
      2. set out what it has learnt from the failures identified in this report in relation to its handling of the resident’s dispute about a garden fence. And set out what actions it will take to prevent the same failures from happening again in the future.
    3. pay the resident a total of £1,100 compensation, made up of:
      1. the £950 it previously offered for the distress and inconvenience caused by its handling of the resident’s dispute about a garden fence.
      2. the £150 it previously offered for the distress and inconvenience caused by the landlord’s handling of the complaint.
      3. the landlord may deduct the £1,100 it offered at stage 2 if it can provide evidence that it has already paid this.
  2. The landlord is to provide evidence of compliance with the above orders to this Service within 28 days of the date of this report.