Summary
Miss C raised a number of issues relating to the association's handling of her request for a higher fence between her property and that of her neighbour. In particular, Miss C believed that the association had unreasonably paid more attention to the demands of her neighbour and had failed to discuss the details of the positioning of the fence with Miss C before starting work, especially as Miss C had indicated that part of the cost of the fence could be met from her son's social work fund. Miss C also raised concerns about the association's handling of the funding for the erection of the fence.
Our investigation found that the association had accepted that they could have progressed this more quickly and, because of the delay, had agreed to meet the full cost of the fence. They also accepted that communication with Miss C could have been better. However, we found no evidence that the association had treated her neighbour more favourably. We also found no evidence of fault in the association's handling of the funding for the fence and were satisfied that they had reasonably explored various avenues of funding.
Recommendations
We recommended that the association: apologise to Miss C for the delay in progressing matters in this case and for the lack of communication with her; and consider putting in place a policy on dividing fences.
Related reading
View Decision Report 201201082 as a PDF (13 KB) Updated: March 13, 2018