Decision report 201202149

Summary

Mr C said that the fence between his and his elderly neighbour's garden blew down during the storms of January 2012. In June 2012 he noticed that other tenants whose fences had blown down at the same time were having these repaired. On making enquiries he said he was told his fence was not going to be repaired at that time. He was unhappy about this and made a formal complaint. Mr C was not happy that he had been assessed as being a priority two for the work, and only tenants assessed as priority one were having their fences repaired at that time. He said he felt discriminated against because the association were repairing fences for other tenants and he considered that the fact he shared his fence with an elderly neighbour meant that it should have been classed as priority one.

We did not uphold the complaint. We found that Mr C's fence was inspected when it was damaged. A works order was immediately raised to remove the damaged fence and gate, as they were a danger to the public, and this was done a week later. The replacement of his fence was, therefore, assessed as being a priority two, as, although the fence was removed for safety reasons, it was decided that renewal would be part of a future fencing programme. At that time, only priority one work was being undertaken. We were satisfied that the association assessed Mr C's priority for the repairs to be undertaken according to their criteria. However, during our consideration of Mr C's complaint the association undertook a review of the type of work they are able to undertake within their repairs service and decided to suspend the renewal of fences until further notice.