Newcastle City Council (202309838)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202309838

Newcastle City Council

8 May 2025

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

The complaint is about the landlord’s:
1. Handling of fencing works.
2. Response to the resident’s reports of antisocial behaviour.
The Ombudsman has also considered the landlord’s complaint handling.

Background

The resident has a secure tenancy with the landlord which is a local authority. An Arms-Length Management Organisation is responsible for managing its housing stock on its behalf. The tenancy commenced on 9 December 2019.
On 29 April 2025 the resident emailed us to advise that she has moved to a new property.
The resident’s property is a 3 bedroom house which is at the end of a terrace of 3 houses. The neighbour living in the middle property has a right of way over the path which runs along the rear of the resident’s property. The tenancy agreement notes that the “neighbour has rights to cross shared area at the rear.”
The landlord’s records note that the resident has depression and anxiety. They also show that she has experienced domestic abuse in a previous relationship.
On 27 February 2023 the resident contacted her MP to report that she felt intimidated by her next door neighbour. She said they were abusing their right of access by bringing their friends and dog through her garden.
During May 2023 the landlord carried out fencing works which raised the height of the fence to the rear of the property from 3 feet to 6 feet. It installed a gate to maintain her neighbour’s rights of access.
On 1 May 2023 the resident made a stage 1 complaint. She said the gate was installed without her knowledge leaving her feeling “betrayed and ignored.”
The landlord issued its stage 1 complaint response on 7 June 2023, as follows:
1. It did not uphold the complaint.
2. Work to the rear fence started on 20 May and was completed on 22 May.
3. The original fence that was in place was lower and the access gate was closed off to next door.
4. The new fence was 6 feet high which gave the resident more privacy. It had to install a gate in line with its estate standards and with other properties in the street to provide rear access for her neighbour. Therefore, it could not be altered.
5. The resident reported issues with her next door neighbour which had been reported to the housing team. They had been investigated but she requested that it did not take further action as it might aggravate the situation.
6. During its recent visit to the resident they discussed the fence and issues with her neighbour. She asked to leave things as they were as she was bidding on properties for a move. It asked her to report or reraise any further issues about her neighbour by contacting her housing officer.
7. It apologised for “unnecessary delays and poor communication” adding that on this occasion it had “failed to meet your expectations.” It said it used the complaint “to highlight ways in which we can improve our service in the future.”
A file note dated 6 July 2023 said that the resident had withdrawn her reports of Antisocial Behaviour (ASB) caused by her neighbour and did not want further action to be taken.
During July 2023 the resident continued to report ASB caused by her neighbour. This related to noise from drilling, items being thrown into her garden and intimidating behaviour. She felt the installation of the gate had made the situation worse.
On 29 July 2023 the resident emailed the landlord to set out her dissatisfaction with its response, as follows:
1. Despite knowing she was suffering intimidation and harassment from her neighbour it installed a gate in the new fence giving them access which had not existed before.
2. She said she did not know there was a right of way and there was no mention of it during the fencing works. She reported that the installation of the gate had made the situation with the neighbour “much worse.”
3. She had asked to be rehoused and said this was now even more important.
4. She had previously asked it not to deal with her neighbour because she feared this would also make situation worse and she wanted to be moved instead.
On 31 July 2023 the landlord agreed to discuss the situation with the resident’s neighbour.
During August 2023 the resident reported that the key issues were ongoing. On 10 August she emailed the landlord to report a verbal altercation with her neighbour around the issue of access. On 16 August the landlord spoke with the neighbour who denied the allegations.
On 18 August 2023 the resident emailed the landlord to set out her ongoing dissatisfaction with its response, particularly in relation to the access issue.
Following our intervention the landlord provided a stage 2 complaint response on 6 November 2023, the main points being:
1. It upheld the complaint due to “unnecessary delays and poor communication which fell below our expected high standards of service.”
2. The fence and gate needed to remain to give rear access to the property next door.
3. It had arranged to visit the resident on 8 November to discuss ongoing reports of ASB. It had suggested the possibility of putting a small fence across her back garden so that her neighbour was restricted to the footpath and would not enter the garden itself. However, she did not think it would resolve the issue so it was not progressed.
4. The resident had submitted a transfer application which had been assessed in September 2023. The resident has been given priority band C in recognition of the impact the resident’s home was having on her health. The resident’s request to appeal the banding was being assessed at that time.
On 20 November 2023 the resident contacted us to set out her dissatisfaction with the landlord’s handling of the access issue and associated ASB. She said she was “depressed and stressed.” The complaint became one we could investigate on 23 May 2024.

Assessment and findings

Landlord’s obligations, policies and procedures.

The resident’s tenancy agreement says that if they occupy a property with a shared area they must allow access to any person with a right to use the area.
The landlord’s Safe Living Policy states that:
1. It believes residents are entitled to live in safe, well managed homes where they feel good about themselves and their communities.
2. The welfare, safety and wellbeing of complainants are its main consideration of every stage of its process. It will take reasonable and proportionate action to tackle ASB.
3. When a case is first opened it will complete a risk assessment using a risk assessment matrix.
4. In cases which are not assessed as high priority it will consider early intervention tools and techniques. It may explore mediation as a way to restore community relations.
Its Complaints and Compliments Procedure (complaints procedure) says that it will:
1. Acknowledge complaints within 2 working days of receipt.
2. Respond to stage 1 complaints within 10 working days and to stage 2 complaints within 20 working days.
3. Consider a request to escalate to stage 2 if the request is made within 20 working days of the date of its stage 1 response.
4. Arrange for an independent manager to provide the stage 1 response. Stage 2 responses will be considered by an Assistant Director or equivalent.

The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of fencing works.

The landlord’s repair logs show that on 28 January 2022 it raised a works order to survey the boundary fence which had suffered storm damage. Follow on works were ordered to renew the rear fence and side gate which were booked in for 1 February. A further works order was raised on 24 June 2022 to install a dividing gate on the boundary fence between the gardens. It is unclear if or when the gate was installed because the log shows the job outcome as “cancelled” and there is no booking date or time. This is a record keeping failure.
The landlord’s file note of its telephone conversation with the resident on 9 March 2023 noted that the height of the fence seemed to be the “crux of it all.” It noted that the resident had offered to pay for a new fence and said “hopefully somebody will be in touch with her soon with regards to that.” It noted that it had requested an update be given. However, there is no evidence that the resident’s request to carry out works at her own cost was progressed which was inappropriate.
The resident expressed her frustration in her email to the landlord of 16 May 2023 in which she said she felt “discriminated, betrayed and ignored.” Furthermore, she said it had installed the gate without her knowledge. There is no evidence that the landlord communicated with the resident to advise her that it intended to install a gate. This was a failure which caused her distress.
The landlord’s stage 1 complaint response of 7 June 2023 refers to works to install a new and higher fence between 20 and 22 May. It said the previous fence was lower and the access gate was closed off. We have not been provided with any evidence relating to these works, including entries on the repair logs. It is therefore unclear why the landlord decided to carry out works and what communication took place with the resident. This is a record keeping failure.
In an email to us on 30 April 2025 the landlord provided a copy of a letter issued to the resident which it said was dated 30 April. However, it did not confirm which year. The letter confirmed that a gate was not installed previously but that it had installed a gate which allows access across the rear of her property due to a shared right of way. Given that the provision of access to her neighbour had been a new arrangement its lack of communication around the installation of the gate was particularly inappropriate causing distress to the resident.
The failures set out above amount to maladministration because they had an adverse effect on the resident. The landlord has been ordered to pay the resident £150 which is in line with the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance where the landlord failed to acknowledge its failings.

The complaint is about the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of antisocial behaviour.

On 27 February 2023 the resident emailed her MP to set out the issues she was experiencing because of her neighbour passing through her garden to get to theirs. She said they were bringing their friends and their dog through with “random people” passing by her back door and window.
The landlord’s file note of its telephone call with the resident on 9 March 2023 said that her relationship with her neighbour had changed. She said they intimidated her by staring at her. She also reported that they came out into the garden when she went out there, sometimes bringing their dog which barked at her. Their children were also cutting across her garden. As set out above, the landlord felt that raising the height of the fence would resolve the issues.
It discussed the limitations of opening an ASB case based on her report. The landlord logged an ASB case as “neutral logged for information.” It appropriately managed the resident’s expectations around its response. However, there is no evidence that it completed a risk assessment matrix in line with its Safe Living Policy which was inappropriate.
On 16 May 2023 the resident emailed the landlord to say that her neighbour’s access to her garden was impacting on her mental health. She said it was not listening to her. She described feeling “unsafe, worried and anxious.” She reported that the situation was impacting her children’s schooling and her ability to work. She reiterated her concerns that her neighbour was walking their dog past her back door and window.
There is no evidence that the landlord responded to the email which was inappropriate. Furthermore, its inaction compounded the resident’s belief that it was not listening to her.
The landlord’s stage 1 complaint response of 7 June 2023 stated that the resident had asked it not to take further action regarding her reports of ASB. We have not been provided with ‘live’ evidence of this discussion or the visit which took place which is a record keeping failure.
On 6 July 2023 the landlord logged a new ASB case in response to the residents reports of noise caused by her neighbour drilling. The outcome was recorded as “neutral – complaint withdrawn.” The accompanying file note recorded that during a telephone call with the resident that day she said she did not wish to complain.
The landlord logged a new ASB complaint on 14 July 2023. Its records show that it spoke to the resident that same day. However, there is no evidence that it carried out a risk assessment in line with its Safe Living Policy.
The resident reported that her neighbour was drilling on a nightly basis which was disrupting her son’s sleep. She felt the dog barking was directed at her as it did not bark at the other neighbour. She also said her neighbour was throwing items into her garden and that she could provide photos.
The landlord’s records showed that it closed the case, also on 14 July, because the ASB was not substantiated. However, there is no evidence that the landlord asked the resident to provide the photos for review which was inappropriate.
The resident emailed the landlord on 16 July 2023 to say she had managed to make a recording of her neighbour drilling the previous night. She also said she had videoed her neighbour’s son jumping over her plants and flowers that day. The email said she had attached the evidence. However, there is no evidence that the landlord responded to the resident’s email or that it listened to the recording she provided which was inappropriate.
The resident emailed the landlord again, on 17 July 2023, to report that issues with the garden and drilling were ongoing. The landlord’s records show that it tried to call the resident on 21, 25 and 26 July but was not successful. It therefore closed the case.
In the resident’s email to the landlord of 29 July 2023 she said the ASB was made worse by its decision to install a gate. She said she did not know that her neighbour had a right of access and asked to be moved. The landlord spoke to the resident on 31 July. It appropriately managed her expectations regarding action it could take regarding her reports of ASB. It was agreed that it would discuss her concerns with her neighbour.
However, there is no evidence that it considered opening an ASB case or that it carried out a risk assessment. Given that it had agreed to contact the resident’s neighbour this would have been appropriate.
On 7 August 2023 the landlord appropriately updated the resident to say it had been unable to speak to her neighbour therefore it had written to them instead.
The resident emailed the landlord on 9 August 2023 to query her neighbour’s rights of access. She said she had been told it was for emergencies and to take out the rubbish. However, her neighbour was using it “whenever they wanted.” She found their behaviour intimidating and said it was “killing her mentally and physically.” Her concerns were reasonable however, there is no evidence that the landlord responded. This was a failure which compounded the distress caused to the resident.
On 10 August 2023 the resident emailed the landlord to report that she had been involved in a verbal altercation with her neighbour and that they were using it like a “public path.” On 12 August the resident emailed the landlord to report that she had recorded her neighbour drilling that afternoon for a “very long time.” She said it was attached to the email.
During a telephone call to the resident dated 16 August 2023 the landlord said it had spoken to her neighbour who denied causing the drilling noise. The neighbour had told the landlord they understood it was a shared path over which they had a right of access. There is no evidence that the landlord took the opportunity to clarify the rights of access or give the neighbour words of advice regarding use of the shared area. This would have been appropriate in the circumstances.
Later that day the landlord emailed the resident to say it would visit to inspect the path and establish access rights. While this was positive it came late in the process. Furthermore, there is also no evidence that the visit took place which was a failure.
An internal email dated 29 August 2023 asked the housing officer to address the arrangements regarding the shared path. It emailed the resident on the same day to update her accordingly.
On 28 September 2023 the landlord emailed the resident to set out that it could not act in respect of her allegations that her neighbour was staring at her or that the dog was barking at her. It asked the resident to make recordings of the noise. However, there is no evidence that it considered the recordings she had already provided which was inappropriate.
In the resident’s email to the landlord of 24 October 2023 she once again queried her neighbour’s rights of access. She felt her neighbour should not be able to use it to “harass or intimidate” her. She had provided evidence of drilling and a video of the neighbour “jumping over plants” but it had ignored it. She said she wanted to move for peace of mind. A file note dated 3 November recorded that a joint visit would be carried out by the safe homes and housing team.
The landlord’s stage 2 complaint response dated 6 November 2023 referred to its discussion with the resident where she had declined its offer to install a small fence to restrict her neighbour’s access to the garden. This investigation has not seen ‘live evidence’ relating to the discussion which is a record keeping failure.
The wording on the resident’s tenancy agreement is acknowledged. It is also accepted that there were limitations regarding action the landlord could take in relation to some aspects of the ASB reports. However there is no evidence that the landlord considered alternative early interventions in line with its Safe Living Policy. This could have included mediation to try to reduce the tensions between the resident and her neighbour.
There is also no evidence that the landlord wrote to both parties to clarify what the rights of access were and when they could be exercised. This would have been appropriate to manage the expectations. This would have been in line with its Safe Living Policy’s aim to help residents live in well managed homes where they felt good about themselves.
The Ombudsman would expect a landlord to keep a robust record of contacts and repairs, yet the evidence has not been comprehensive in this case. It is vital that landlords keep clear, accurate and easily accessible records to provide an audit trail. If we investigate a complaint, we will ask for the landlord’s records. If there is disputed evidence and no audit trail, we may not be able to conclude that an action took place or that the landlord followed its own policies and procedures.
The failures above amount to maladministration because they had an adverse effect on the resident. The landlord has been ordered to pay the resident £250 which is in line with the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance where the landlord failed to acknowledge its failings.

The Ombudsman has also considered the landlord’s complaint handling.

The resident made a stage 1 complaint on 1 May 2023. There is no evidence that the landlord acknowledged the complaint in line with its complaints procedure. It provided its response on 7 June which was 24 working days after the complaint was received and 14 days over target.
The landlord’s response failed to acknowledge the delay which was inappropriate. Furthermore, although it did not uphold the complaint it later apologised for unidentified failures. Its response therefore lacked clarity.
On 29 July 2023 the resident emailed the landlord to express her ongoing dissatisfaction with its response. On 1 August the landlord emailed the resident to advise that it would not investigate the complaint because the request had been made outside of the 20 day escalation period. Its response was in line with its complaints procedure.
Following our intervention on 10 October 2023 the landlord used its discretion to issue a stage 2 complaint response on 6 November. It upheld the complaint however, it failed again to provide further detail so it is unclear what exactly the failings were and when they occurred. It therefore repeated the error made at stage 1.
This is concerning because it demonstrates that it did not carry out a thorough review of its stage 1 response at stage 2. Furthermore, the stage 1 response was issued by a services manager and the stage 2 response by a senior manager. Therefore there was no escalation in seniority as set out in its complaints procedure.
The landlord’s failures amount to maladministration because they had an adverse effect on the resident. The landlord has been ordered to pay the resident £125 which is in line with the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance where there was no permanent impact.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of fencing works.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was maladministration in the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of antisocial behaviour.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was maladministration in the landlord’s complaint handling.

Orders

Within 4 weeks of the date of the determination the landlord is ordered to:
1. Write to the resident to apologise for the failures identified in this report.
2. Pay the resident £525 compensation comprised of:
  1. £150 for the distress and inconvenience caused by its failures in its handling of fencing works.
  2. £250 for the distress and inconvenience caused by its failures in its response to the resident’s reports of antisocial behaviour.
  3. £125 for the inconvenience caused by its failures in its complaint handling.
3. The landlord is ordered to provide evidence of compliance with the orders above also within 4 weeks of the date of the determination.

Recommendations

The landlord should consider writing to the resident’s neighbour to clarify when and how the shared area should be used to help prevent any issues with the new occupant of the property.