A WIGAN grandad is locked in a bitter dispute with Wigan and Leigh Housing over a concrete fence.
Gerry Eccles is furious that his wooden panels have not been replaced by the council-linked company, while the vacant property next door has had new, sturdy ones erected.
He claims that the fences around his garden are brittle and break easily but Wigan and Leigh housing bosses are refusing to replace them.
Mr Eccles’s next door neighbour on Avondale Street, Standish, moved out and the concrete ones were installed and when he requested the same for his property, his request was rejected.
“This house next door has been empty for a couple of months,” he said.
“When the occupant left, they’ve moved in and put these new fences in.
“Mine are falling to pieces but when I’ve asked for a new one, the council has said they don’t do fences.
“But it is plain that they do.
“Next door has these brand new concrete ones, so why can’t I have them too?
“The Wigan and Leigh Housing inspector who came round to see me was a really nice bloke and even he couldn’t understand it.
“It’s not on, I’ve got five grandchildren and it is very unsafe.
“They won’t give me an explanation.
“I pay my rent so why is my house not maintained in the same way?”
However, a Wigan and Leigh Housing spokesman has refuted Mr Eccles’s claims that his fences were in a state of disrepair.
Mr Eccles appealed this decision but this was also rejected.
The WALH spokesman said: “It is the policy of Wigan and Leigh Housing to only undertake repairs to rear fencing where the garden adjoins an open space, public footpath or road. Fencing was provided at Mr Eccles’s neighbour’s when the property became void because the existing fencing was broken.
“In these specific circumstances the fence was replaced because the rear garden is on two levels, there being a height difference of approximately 1.5m between the upper and lower level.
“The fence has been erected to provide a safe garden area to protect the new tenants from falling over the edge of the garden.
“Mr Eccles enquired as to whether he could have a new fence.
“An inspection was undertaken on February 7.
“Mr Eccles was advised that the rear fence to his home did not require replacement. Mr Eccles appealed against this decision and the Repairs Manager undertook a further inspection on February 12 which found the same.
“Mr Eccles was informed that the fence did not require replacement.”