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

The Riverside Group Limited (202225303)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202225303

The Riverside Group Limited

11 March 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 resident’s complaint is about how the landlord has handled his reports about outstanding repairs to a boundary fence.

Background

  1. The resident holds an assured non-shorthold tenancy with the landlord. The property is a 4 bedroom house and there are 6 occupants.
  2. The resident reported gaps in the boundary fence on 28 March 2022. He was concerned about the dangers this would have presented for his children. The landlord attended the property to “make safe” the fence on 27 June and 8 July 2022. Following the repair appointments, the landlord noted that the fence needed to be replaced “asap” and there was “loads of stuff” behind the fence pushing it over. The landlord noted that 4 concrete posts were needed and 3 fence panels were required to resolve the issue.
  3. The resident raised a formal complaint by phone on 25 July 2022. He was unhappy with the length of time the landlord was taking to complete the fence repair. He said the landlord’s inspector had told him that the fence was “dangerous” and required to be replaced.
  4. Internal logs show the resident’s housing officer had sorted out the area behind the fence on 11 August 2022. The officer noted it would be cleared and ready for the works to be carried out by 12 August 2022. The resident reported the issue again on 12 August 2022 and the landlord raised works to “renew vertical board” which was completed on 15 August 2022.
  5. The landlord acknowledged the resident’s complaint on 26 July 2022 and its stage 1 response was issued on 14 August 2022. The response said that the fence repair was delayed because the surrounding area needed to be cleared beforehand. In addition, the area was now cleared and the fence repairs were due to be completed on 25 August 2022.
  6. The resident escalated the complaint to stage 2 on 25 August 2022. He said, despite contractors attending to carry out the repairs, they were unable to do so due to the amount of mud at the back of the garden. The resident felt the landlord was already aware of the mud. He was growing increasingly concerned about his children being unable to use the garden.
  7. The landlord issued a stage 2 response on 12 September 2022. It explained that the gaps in the fence were caused by soil and debris pressing against the resident’s fence from the other side. The landlord said it did not own the land on the other side of the fence. However, the resident’s housing officer had arranged for the debris to be removed. In the meantime, the landlord would replace the gravel boards to hold back the soil. Subsequently, it would replace any damaged fence panels. These works would be booked in separately. The landlord offered a £200 goodwill gesture in recognition of the distress and inconvenience caused.
  8. The resident referred his complaint to the Ombudsman on 25 January 2023. He said the fence had not been replaced and the garden remained unusable.
  9. Internal logs indicate, that following contact from the resident on 12 April 2023, the landlord subsequently raised new repair orders for the fence. The landlord informed this service on 7 March 2024 that 3 “board panels” were replaced. The landlord did not provide the date these repairs took place, nor is it aware of any further outstanding repairs to the fence.
  10. The resident told this Service on 14 February 2024 and 7 March 2024 that he considers the repair to still be outstanding. He stated that although the fence panels were replaced, the fence posts have not been replaced and the debris on the land behind the fence had built up again. The resident explained that the fence posts were unstable and being held up by “mud only” as confirmed by contractors. As a resolution the resident would like for the landlord to replace the fence posts and clear the land behind the fence to prevent the issue from reoccurring.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

  1. The resident had said the fence was in poor condition for the last 5 years. However, our investigation has focused on the issues raised in the resident’s formal complaint, following his request for repair in March 2022. This is because these are the events that were considered in the landlord’s formal complaint responses, and which the landlord has had a reasonable opportunity to comment on.

The landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of outstanding repairs to a boundary fence

  1. The landlord’s repairs policy shows the landlord is responsible for repairing boundary fences which includes fences that lead onto a public right of way such as a road, field waterway or car park.
  2. The policy also shows, emergency repairs are to be completed within 12 hours, urgent repairs within 5 days and routine repairs within 28 days. The landlord’s policy states that it seeks to ‘avoid any health and safety concerns for its customers’.
  3. The Housing Health and Safety Rating System (HHSRS) concerns hazards which the landlord has a duty to protect against. Under the HHSRS the landlord has a duty to ensure the property is secure. This includes the boundary of the property. The landlord also has a duty to protect against ‘danger by an intruder’.
  4. Following the resident’s report on 28 March 2022, the landlord did not attend the fence until 27 June 2022. Its visit was prompted by a further report from the resident on 24 June 2022. As the landlord input a target date of 25 April 2022 to complete the repair, it is reasonable to conclude the landlord considered this to be a routine repair to be completed within 28 days. Given the landlord’s obligation to ensure the property was secure, the delay between March and June 2022 was inappropriate. The timeline shows it took the landlord around 92 days to make the fence safe, this was outside of the timescales set out in its policy to complete the repair. Given the resident’s safety concerns, it is reasonable to conclude the delay was distressing. In addition, chasing the repair likely caused him avoidable inconvenience.
  5. The landlord’s internal note on 26 June 2022 following the repair appointment shows that it was aware that the fence needed to be replaced as a matter of urgency due to its condition. The photographs provided by the landlord show there were large gaps in the fence and the panels were uneven. Since making the fence safe was only a temporary solution, the landlord should have responded to the subsequent repair issues within its routine response timescale. This is likely to have caused further frustration for the resident who was inconvenienced by having to repeatedly make reports to the landlord every time the fence fell into a state of disrepair again.
  6. In its stage 1 response the landlord reassured the resident that the fence repair was scheduled to take place as the wasteland behind the fence had been cleared which was corroborated by the housing officer’s notes. It is understandable that the resident was frustrated when despite these assurances the repair could not be carried out due to level of mud behind the fence. It is reasonable to conclude the landlord should have been aware of this based on its previous inspections. The landlord’s failure to adequately clear and prepare this space prior to the repair appointment caused a further delay. This was a failure by the landlord.
  7. In its stage 2 response, the landlord said it did not own the land behind the fence, however, the landlord did not indicate that this would impact its ability to repair the boundary fence. Given that the landlord had previously cleared this land and reassured the resident that the debris would be cleared and the works would be completed, it was reasonable for the resident to assume that the landlord had taken responsibility to repair the fence regardless of who owned the land behind it. When the landlord accepts responsibility for a repair, it should complete that repair within its timescales as per its repairs policy.
  8. The evidence suggests the landlord has sought information to confirm whether it owns the land behind the fence. If the landlord believed that its duty to repair the boundary fence would be impacted by who owned the land, this should have been explained to the resident in advance including the implications and what the landlord proposed to do next to resolve the matter and contingencies be considered. Any timescales should have also been communicated to the resident. It was unfair for the resident to be left indefinitely without a permanent repair to the boundary fence especially in consideration of the presence of children. 
  9. Despite carrying out partial repairs such as installing gravel boards to hold back the soil, and replacing 3 of the fence panels the resident states the fence remains in a state of disrepair due to the condition of the fence posts and the build-up of debris behind the fence. As the landlord had previously identified that “4 fence posts” needed to be replaced to resolve the issue, it was a failure to not carry out this repair.
  10. The landlord awarded the resident £200 compensation in its stage 2 response in recognition of the distress and inconvenience caused by the delay in completing the repair.
  11. In relation to the failures identified, the Ombudsman’s role is to consider whether the redress offered by the landlord put things right and resolved the resident’s complaint satisfactorily in the circumstances. In considering this the Ombudsman takes into account whether the landlord’s offer of redress was in line with the Ombudsman’s Dispute Resolution Principles: Be Fair, Put Things Right and Learn from Outcomes as well as our own guidance on remedies.
  12. In consideration of the above, there was maladministration by the landlord in its handling of the residents reports of an outstanding fence repair. Based on the timing of this assessment, the timeline points to delays of approximately 23 months since the residents initial report about the fence. It is concerning that the matter has not progressed to full completion and the landlord has failed to take proactive action to adhere to its repair obligations. The landlord is ordered to pay the resident an additional £300 to the £200 offered in its stage 2 response. This is in recognition of the failures identified in this report and the continuing impact on the resident and his household.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was maladministration by the landlord in its handling of the resident’s reports of outstanding repairs to a boundary fence.

Orders

  1. The landlord shall take the following action within four weeks of the date of this report and provide the Ombudsman with evidence of compliance with these orders:
    1. The landlord is ordered to apologise to the resident in writing for the failings identified in this report.
    2. Pay the resident an additional £300 compensation to the £200 offered in its stage 2 response.
    3. The landlord is ordered to allocate supervision of the outstanding fence repair to a senior leader. It is to set out a schedule of works to repair the fence posts and provide the resident and this service with monthly updates until the repair is complete.
    4. The landlord is ordered to take necessary steps to establish ownership of the land next to the resident’s fence, and by either being proactive as has been achieved previously, or in consultation with the established landowner, take the necessary steps to permanently clear the land or ensure debris does not affect the resident’s fence. The landlord is to set out its plan to achieve this to the resident and this service.
    5. If the landlord states it is unable to complete the repair due to a disputes over the boundary or the responsibility to clear the affected area, the landlord should write to the resident and this Service explaining this and set out what its plan of action is to ensure the property’s garden is secured whilst the dispute is ongoing and provide a solution which still allows the resident enjoyment of the garden space. This should include clear timeframes.