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

Poplar Housing And Regeneration Community Association Limited (202316792)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202316792

Poplar Housing And Regeneration Community Association Limited

26 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 handling of the resident’s concerns about the garden fence.

Background

  1. The resident is an assured tenant of the landlord, which is a housing association. The property is a 2-bedroom maisonette on the ground floor of a converted terraced property. It has a garden which is separated from the neighbouring property by a fence. The landlord completed void work to the property in June 2021. The landlord accepted the resident’s request to move into the property earlier than intended. His tenancy began in October 2021.
  2. It was not clear exactly when, but the resident raised concerns the garden was overgrown around the time he moved in. The landlord replied by email on 7 October 2021 and said:
    1. Gardens were usually cleared before the property is re-let.
    2. It may have become overgrown in the meantime.
    3. It would “ask… [staff] to return.”
  3. There was no evidence of any further contact until 31 August 2022. The resident asked to be reimbursed for costs incurred addressing the garden. He had cleared the garden and also said “the existing garden fence was already… there” and he had “only replaced it.”
  4. In February 2023 the resident’s neighbour contacted the landlord. The neighbour said the resident had taken down the fence without asking and put it back incorrectly. She emailed again in May 2023 and said the fence had encroached on her garden space. The landlord attended both properties on 24 May 2023 to carry out an inspection. The resident emailed the landlord the next day and said:
    1. He had raised the fence issue with the landlord on 7 October 2021. It said it would raise a repair, but he did not hear anything.
    2. His builders installed a new fence that was in the same position as it was before he accepted the property and signed the tenancy agreement.
    3. He repaired the fences at his own cost because the structure was damaged and not safe.
    4. He could not risk waiting for the landlord to respond because he has a child with special needs.
    5. His neighbour should have been aware of the boundary and should have informed the landlord the fence was incorrectly positioned at an earlier date.
  5. The landlord spoke to the resident on 6 June 2023 and emailed on 26 June 2023 to say the fence would need to be moved to its original position. After the resident said he would seek legal advice, the landlord contacted its solicitor. The solicitor wrote to the resident on 21 July 2023 and said “it is clear that the new fence is not in the position as set out in the Title Plan” and the fence would need to be moved.
  6. The resident raised a complaint on 22 July 2023. The landlord sent its stage 1 response on 7 August 2023 where it partially upheld the complaint in relation to the garden being overgrown. It said:
    1. It apologised for the length of time the matter had gone on for.
    2. Going forward, it would emphasise to its staff to follow its lettings standard before properties are let.
    3. It had looked at documentation and photos and the fence was not put back in its original position.
    4. It offered £250 compensation as a goodwill gesture to recognise the property was let below standard, and for any inconvenience caused as a result.
  7. The resident requested to escalate the complaint the next day. He said:
    1. He wanted full compensation for the cost of repairing the garden.
    2. The fence position (boundary line) was not altered by him.
    3. It was the landlord’s responsibility to correct the fence position.
  8. The landlord issued its stage 2 response on 21 September 2023 and partially upheld the complaint. It said:
    1. It accepted the garden was not up to its lettings standard when he moved in.
    2. There was poor communication between its housing and voids teams.
    3. It had offered £250 previously. This was made up of:
      1. £125 for the garden not meeting lettings standard.
      2. £125 for poor communication.
    4. It would not reimburse costs incurred for garden expenses.
    5. Its complaints team could not comment on legal proceedings taking place and cost to move the fence.

Events after the end of the landlord’s complaints process

  1. The resident moved the fence around 5 October 2023. A surveyor attended on 31 October 2023 and noted he was of the opinion that the fence was “put back into the same (original) position.”

Assessment and findings

  1. The resident’s tenancy agreement says the resident must:
    1. Tell the landlord promptly about any faults or damage it is responsible to repair.
    2. Maintain fences, but must not remove them without the landlord’s prior written permission.
  2. The landlord’s repairs policy says:
    1. It is responsible for boundary walls and fences.
    2. It will respond to non-emergency repairs, including to fences, within 10 working days.
  3. The evidence showed the resident raised concerns with the garden being overgrown around 7 October 2021. Pictures and a video provided to us show the garden overgrown and fence between his property and his neighbour’s property covered in foliage. There was no evidence the resident raised concerns about the fence condition at this point. The landlord said it would “ask… [staff] to return.” However, there was no evidence it did so. Had the landlord attended and cleared the garden at this point, the fence condition would have become apparent. It could then have assessed whether the fencing should be replaced, or if repairs were needed.
  4. It was not clear exactly when the resident cleared the garden. But there was no evidence of any contact with the landlord until August 2022 (10 months after he moved in) when he requested compensation for the work completed. He also said he had replaced the garden fence. However, once the garden was cleared, there was no evidence the resident contacted the landlord to raise fence repairs as outlined the tenancy agreement. The landlord therefore did not have the opportunity to address the fence condition as a service request prior to the resident replacing it.
  5. After receiving emails from the neighbour, the landlord compared photographs of the fence with the land registry documents. An internal landlord email said “the pictures and the plans do not match.” It promptly arranged to attend both properties to complete an inspection. This was a reasonable approach to take. The evidence showed it then asked the resident at least twice to move the fence, which was reasonable. It then contacted its solicitor after the resident did not move the fence and said he would get legal advice. This was also reasonable given the circumstances and potential boundary dispute.
  6. The landlord’s complaint responses acknowledge its communication failings. It was therefore appropriate to award compensation. However, once aware the fence had been changed and the resident’s neighbour had taken issue with this, it:
    1. Compared pictures of the fence with the land registry documents which showed the property boundaries.
    2. Attended to complete an inspection.
    3. Asked the resident to move the fence at least twice.
    4. Contacted its solicitor who told the resident to move the fence.
    5. Accepted the resident’s request for further time to move the fence.
    6. Sent a surveyor to assess the fence once it had been moved.

These were all reasonable steps to take. We acknowledge the resident’s frustration and that he did not intend to encroach on the neighbour’s garden. He said that his builders put the fence exactly where the old fence was. However, there was no evidence provided to support this. The landlord could only deal with the boundary issue at the point the neighbour brought it to its attention, which was after the fence was changed. Overall the landlord acted reasonably. There was therefore no maladministration. 

Determination

  1. In accordance with Paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was no maladministration in relation to the landlord’s handling of the resident’s garden fence concerns.