Raven Housing Trust Limited (202313484)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202313484

Raven Housing Trust Limited

24 February 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 regarding the removal of ivy and fencing work.

Background

2. The resident is an assured tenant of the landlord, a housing association. The property is a 3-bedroom house with a rear garden. The tenancy commenced in March 2002.
3. On 4 June 2023 the resident submitted her complaint to the landlord. She was dissatisfied with the fencing work carried out during April 2023 and May 2023. She told the landlord she had asked it to “cut back” ivy, but it had removed too much. She was dissatisfied with the uneven height of the fence panels, the quality, and a gap. She said her kitchen and garden would have been visible from the neighbour’s property. She raised concerns about health and safety due to fencing work.
4. The landlord issued its stage 1 complaint response to the resident on 22 June 2023. It included photographs from the completed works and photographs from before starting the repairs. It did not uphold the resident’s complaint. It said the following to the resident:
   1. There would have been a difference of a few centimetres with the height of the fence panels.
   2. The landlord was satisfied with the quality of the fencing, and it had no damage.
   3. The fence panels were pre-treated for outdoor use.
   4. Birds would have been protected during the repairs. It acknowledged there are offences under the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 and it would have stopped repairs if it discovered bird nests.
   5. The landlord asked the resident to provide images of gaps in the panel due to the resident’s health and safety concerns, or it could arrange an inspection.
5. The resident was dissatisfied with the landlord’s stage 1 complaint response, so requested her complaint to be escalated on 11 July 2023 by letter. She said the following to the landlord:
   1. The photographs would not show the density of the ivy before and after works.
   2. She had photographs from previous years showing the extent of the ivy and flowers.
   3. The height difference in the fence panels were a concern to her, and it was not discussed by its contractors with her beforehand.
   4. She had concerns about bird’s nests.
6. On 8 August 2023 the landlord sent its stage 2 complaint response to the resident. The landlord made the following points to the resident:
   1. The ivy needed to be removed to allow its contractors to carry out the boundary fence replacement. It only removed what was necessary.
   2. The ivy removed was damaging the previous fence.
   3. It was satisfied it had provided a good standard of fencing.
   4. No bird nests were found during the work.
   5. It committed to arranging an inspection of the works to investigate the resident’s concerns at a convenient time.
   6. It offered £20 in garden vouchers so the resident could buy plants and flowers for her garden.
7. The landlord inspected the fencing works on 3 October 2023. It also arranged to visit the neighbour’s property by 10 October 2023. Following the inspection, it decided to carry out further works based on the resident’s concerns. The works were completed on 27 October 2023. The resident told the landlord she was satisfied with the repairs on 30 October 2023.
8. On 18 December 2023 the resident confirmed to this Service that she wanted us to investigate her complaint. She remained dissatisfied with the quality of the fencing works and said the landlord had removed too much of the ivy.

Assessment and findings

9. The landlord accepts that its repair responsibility extends to the boundary walls, gates, and fences owned by it. Part of the resident’s complaint is that she disputes the quality of fencing work undertaken by the landlord.
10. The landlord completed the works in May 2023. Although the landlord said it was satisfied with the completed works, it committed to carrying out a post work inspection because of the resident’s complaint. It was reasonable for the landlord to rely on the expert opinion of its staff and contractors in how to carry out repair or replacement works to the resident’s fence. It was advised by its inspections and assessment of photographs that the fence was replaced to its repair standards. It reassured the resident that the fence was weather treated.
11. The landlord also confirmed to the resident in its complaint responses that had it identified bird’s nests, it would have stopped the fence replacement. It said this would have been in accordance with the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981. The Ombudsman is satisfied its communication to the resident regarding this was clear.
12. However, when a resident reports that fencing poses a health and safety risk, the landlord would be expected to investigate accordingly. An inspection was mutually arranged for 3 October 2023. This also demonstrated the landlord was taking the resident’s concerns seriously.
13. Following the post work inspection, the landlord decided to carry out further fence repairs to address the resident’s concerns regarding quality. This was reasonable action by the landlord and showed it was willing to go above its obligations. The evidence shows that the landlord appropriately completed the following on 27 October 2023:
    1. Lifted and cut the fence panels.
    2. Installed gravel boards.
    3. Fixed the gap in the fencing the resident was dissatisfied with.
14. There is also evidence the resident emailed the landlord on 30 October 2023 saying she was satisfied with the works completed by the landlord.
15. Further, the resident was dissatisfied that the landlord had removed too much of the ivy from her garden when carrying out the initial fence replacement. It is unclear from the evidence whether the resident submitted any photographs of the ivy before works were completed to the landlord. Under the tenancy agreement, it is the resident’s responsibility to maintain the ivy. If it becomes overgrown, the landlord may take action.
16. While we acknowledge the resident’s dissatisfaction about the removal of ivy, the evidence shows the landlord obtained the resident’s consent before removal. The landlord also confirmed to the resident in its final response that it had not removed excess ivy. It also told the resident that the ivy had become overgrown and was damaging the fence prior to repairs. Therefore, this was in line with the tenancy agreement and appropriate action by the landlord.
17. The landlord offered £20 garden vouchers in its final response to the resident. This was a goodwill gesture from the landlord as the resident said she lost flowers during the ivy removal. It was reasonable for the landlord to use its discretion in this regard. It also showed a willingness to maintain the landlord and tenant relationship, despite it identifying no service failures.
18. Overall, this Service cannot conclude that the landlord has not followed its obligations, policies and procedures. The evidence shows the landlord used its discretion and acted reasonably in the circumstances of the complaint. Considering this, we find no maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s concerns regarding the removal of ivy and fencing work.

Determination

19. In accordance with paragraph 52. of the Scheme, there was no maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s concerns regarding the removal of ivy and fencing work.