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

Waltham Forest Council (202103705)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202103705

Waltham Forest Council

25 August 2021


Our approach

What we can and cannot consider is called the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction and is governed by the Housing Ombudsman Scheme. The Ombudsman must determine whether a complaint comes within their jurisdiction. The Ombudsman seeks to resolve disputes wherever possible but cannot investigate complaints that fall outside of this. 

In deciding whether a complaint falls within their jurisdiction, the Ombudsman will carefully consider all the evidence provided by the parties and the circumstances of the case.

The complaint

  1. The complaint is about the landlord’s decision to decline a request for reimbursement of costs for fencing works. 

Determination (jurisdictional decision)

  1. When a complaint is brought to the Ombudsman, we must consider all the circumstances of the case as there are sometimes reasons why a complaint will not be investigated.
  2. After carefully considering all the evidence, I have determined that the complaint, as set out above, is not within the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction.

Summary of events

  1. On 13 April 2021 the resident complained to the landlord as she was unhappy that several years earlier it declined to replace damaged fencing at her property, yet the landlord was in the process of replacing fencing at a neighbouring property. The resident said that she felt her neighbour was getting preferential treatment and she wanted the landlord to reimburse her nearly £1,000 for the fencing works she had carried out.
  2. The landlord’s stage 1 complaint response of 19 April 2021 declined reimbursement on the basis that no service failure had occurred, and it referred the resident to a section of her tenancy that sets out responsibility for fence maintenance in sole-use gardens. The response also explained why fencing works were needed in the neighbouring property and why they did not feel any preferential treatment had been given.
  3. The resident was unhappy with the landlord’s response so asked to escalate her complaint and the landlord issued a stage 2 final response on 4 May 2021. The landlord’s final complaint response repeated the section of her tenancy setting out responsibility for fence maintenance, explained that they could not investigate events from several years beforehand as their complaints process contained a 12-month rule, and explained that it could offer no assessment on the extent of the fencing works carried out at the neighbour’s property.
  4. On 14 May 2021 the resident contacted this service on the basis that she had exhausted the landlord’s complaints process and felt it unfair that the landlord had renewed garden fencing in the neighbouring property, yet she had gone into debt to fix her own fencing.
  5. On 24 May 2021 the resident’s Member of Parliament asked this service to investigate as the resident was unhappy that the landlord had declined reimbursement.

Reasons

  1. Para 36 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme notes that the person complaining, or on whose behalf a complaint is made must have been, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, adversely affected by those actions or omissions in respect of their application for, or occupation of, property.
  2. Paragraph 39(e) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme notes that the Ombudsman will not investigate complaints which were not brought to the attention of the landlord within a reasonable period which would normally be within six months of the matters arising.
  3. The resident’s complaint turns on who was responsible for paying for fencing when it was installed at their property several years ago.
  4. This Service understands that the complaint was brought when the resident became aware that the landlord had paid for a neighbour’s fencing – the resident complaining that she felt it unfair as they should have paid for her fencing when installed several years ago. Whether or not a neighbour of the resident is liable for the cost of improvements at their property is not a matter that the Ombudsman can consider as part of the complaint, as it does not relate to the resident’s occupation of their property.
  5. While this Service understands that it is the occurrence of recent events that has prompted this complaint, the fact remains that it has been several years since the resident chose to install and pay for fencing at their property. If the resident considered this unfair, a complaint should have been brought to the landlord at the time. I am therefore satisfied that the Ombudsman cannot consider this part of the complaint, as several years passed before it was brought to the landlord.