Kirklees Metropolitan Borough Council (202426287)

Background

1. The resident lived in the property which was a 1-bedroom flat.

What the complaint is about

2. The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of:
   1. The antisocial behaviour (ASB).
   2. The allocation and use of garden space.
   3. The complaint.

Our decision (determination)

3. We have found there was:
   1. No maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the ASB.
   2. Service failure in the landlord’s handling of the allocation and use of garden space.
   3. Maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the complaint.

We have made orders for the landlord to put things right.

Summary of reasons

The handling of the ASB

4. The landlord has demonstrated it handled the resident’s reports in line with its ASB policy. It was appropriate for it to adopt a multi-agency approach and the actions taken were proportionate to the concerns raised.

The handling of the allocation and use of garden space

5. The landlord demonstrated it carried out appropriate enquiries into the allocation and use of the garden space. However, the landlord did not address the concerns raised by the resident regarding its previous advice and position on the matter. This likely caused the resident distress and inconvenience in having to repeatedly raise the issue.

The handling of the complaint

6. The landlord did not acknowledge the delays in providing its stage 2 response. It also failed to respond to the resident’s report of discrimination by the landlord and show due regard to its obligations under the Equality Act 2010. These omissions likely caused the resident distress and inconvenience.

Putting things right

Where we find service failure, maladministration or severe maladministration we can make orders for the landlord to put things right. We have the discretion to make recommendations in all other cases within our jurisdiction.

Orders

Landlords must comply with our orders in the manner and timescales we specify. The landlord must provide documentary evidence of compliance with our orders by the due date set.

Recommendations

Our recommendations are not binding, and a landlord may decide not to follow them.

Our investigation

The complaint procedure

What we found and why

The circumstances of this complaint are well known by the parties involved, so it is not necessary to detail everything that’s happened or comment on all the information we’ve reviewed. We’ve only included the key information that forms the basis of our decision of whether the landlord is responsible for maladministration.

7. The landlord has demonstrated that its initial response to the resident’s report of ASB was reasonable and in line with its policy. It contacted her the next day to discuss the incident which had taken place, it opened a case, and it liaised with the police to obtain further information. It noted the resident was not staying at the property and that she had an appointment in relation to her mental health. The landlord also visited the neighbour to obtain their version of events. It was reasonable for the landlord to await the outcome of the police investigation and to review the CCTV footage before it considered tenancy action against the neighbour.
8. The landlord met with the resident on 13 August 2024. It said the footage showed the neighbour using racist language towards the resident and behaving in a very threatening way. It said the resident was very upset and shaking when showing the footage. It said it would refer the case to its community safety partnerships team and it would discuss a possible management move for the resident. It informed the neighbour that after reviewing the footage and the police charging them with racially aggravated public order, their tenancy was now at risk. It arranged to visit the neighbour on 27 August 2024 and sent them a warning letter.
9. The landlord’s actions were again reasonable and in line with expectations. The landlord noted the resident did not want to complete a vulnerability matrix. However, it showed it had considered the impact on the resident by noting what support she was receiving, considering a management move, and referring the case to the community partnerships team. The community safety partnerships team utilise a multi – agency approach to address safety issues which are reported to it. The landlord’s ASB policy states that the team can offer bespoke support packages and target hardening measures to support individuals.
10. The landlord attended a multi-agency meeting on 9 September 2024 to discuss the case. The outcomes were to visit both the resident and neighbour again, and to liaise with the police regarding their continued investigation. On 19 September 2024 the neighbour’s introductory tenancy was extended as a result of the ASB. The neighbour was told that if there were no further incidents, then no further action would be taken. In a visit with the resident on 24 September 2024, the landlord outlined the action taken against the neighbour and that as it was a one-off incident it would not be evicting them. The resident agreed there had not been any further incidents but was unhappy with the outcome.
11. On 27 September 2024, the resident reported loud music from the neighbour’s property and that someone who had visited the neighbour’s property had made a hand gesture towards her property. The landlord said it could make a referral to its noise pollution team but the resident said it was not necessary as there was hardly any loud music. It met with the neighbour and discussed the gesture made towards the resident from someone at their home. It explained that even if the person was not a member of the household, the neighbour was still responsible for their actions. It said if it continued then their tenancy would be at risk. It also raised the issues of noise nuisance and litter. The landlord’s actions were fair and proportionate to the concerns raised.
12. It was reasonable for the landlord to consider a management move for the resident. It explained in an email dated 14 August 2024 that it would need to put a case together for the resident for approval by a panel of managers. It asked if the resident was interested in a move and suggested she obtain supporting letters to evidence the impact on her. It also spoke to the local councillor about providing a letter to support a move for the resident. It discussed the matter with the resident again on 24 September 2024 and 2 October 2024. At the time of the stage 2 response, the landlord had not received further information from the resident to proceed with the case. The landlord’s actions up to that point were appropriate.
13. Overall, while we do not dispute the incident likely caused significant distress and inconvenience to the resident, we have not found any maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the case. It would have been helpful for it to have expanded on all the actions it had taken in its stage 2 response. This may have reassured the resident it was taking her reports seriously and that it was acting in line with its policy.

14. It appears the initial dispute between the resident and her neighbour was the result of a disagreement about the use of the garden space. Following the incident on 20 July 2024 the resident asked the landlord to no longer agree to her neighbour using the washing line in the back garden and entering the back garden. The landlord visited the neighbour the next day. The neighbour agreed to stay out of the resident’s way but said they wanted to continue to hang their washing in the back garden. The landlord agreed to look into the allocation of the garden space for both the resident and the neighbour.
15. The resident’s tenancy agreement did not clarify what areas in the gardens she could use. It simply stated she must cultivate and look after the garden. We have not seen a copy of the neighbour’s tenancy agreement but we assume that it did not provide clarification either. We are not able to provide a legal position on the allocation of garden space, should the resident disagree with the landlord’s current position, she may wish to seek legal advice on the matter. However, the landlord demonstrated it conducted reasonable investigations to determine the allocation of the garden space. It concluded that both properties should have a section of the rear garden each.
16. While the landlord was entitled to rely on the most recent evidence available to it, it was not appropriate that it did not consider the resident’s concerns when responding to her. In her stage 2 escalation she referred to previous letters she had received from the landlord in which it said she had sole responsibility for the back garden, with the caveat that her neighbour could use the washing line. The resident has provided a copy of the letter from 2017 which supports this. She has also provided a copy of a letter from the landlord in 2013 advising her that the garden was overgrown and she needed to carry out the work to get it to a reasonable standard.
17. The landlord’s stage 2 response said it would discuss with the resident which area would be for her use. It said it would ask the neighbour to no longer use her washing line. It was positive the landlord sought to meet with both the resident and the neighbour to set out the boundaries of the shared space. But it was understandable that its change in position likely caused the resident distress and inconvenience.
18. It would have been reasonable for the landlord to have acknowledged its previous communication regarding the boundaries, consider the reasons why it provided that information at the time, and to outline any learning as a result of it. By not doing so, it has not demonstrated that it addressed that aspect of the resident’s complaint or attempted to put things right.
19. To conclude, while the landlord appropriately looked into the rights to the garden, it failed to address the resident’s complaint about its previous position on the garden and the impact caused to her as a result. The resident would like the landlord to reimburse her for the time in which she was responsible for maintaining the back garden. We would not order the landlord to reimburse her for that as there was no evidence she experienced any loss of full use and enjoyment of the back garden within that period.

20. The landlord provided its stage 1 acknowledgement within 4 working days of the formal complaint. It then provided its stage 2 response within 6 working days. The landlord has evidenced that on this occasion it acted in line with its complaints policy and the Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code)
21. The landlord provided its stage 2 acknowledgement within 5 working days which was reasonable. It did not then provide the stage 2 response until 41 working days later, which was not appropriate or in line with the Code. There is no evidence of the landlord contacting the resident to extend the deadline to respond or acknowledging the delays, which was not appropriate.
22. In her stage 2 escalation, the resident stated that she felt the landlord’s treatment of her was xenophobic. This was a serious allegation which the landlord failed to respond to. The Ombudsman has no legal power to decide whether a landlord has breached the Equality Act 2010– the courts can only do this. However, we can decide whether the landlord had properly considered its duties in responding to the resident.
23. We consider that by not responding to this aspect of the resident’s complaint, the landlord failed to demonstrate it considered the impact its decisions had on the resident. We have not seen any evidence which would indicate discrimination against the resident within the landlord’s records. However, it would have been reasonable for it to have outlined to the resident how its actions were in line with its obligations and consider any steps it could take to remedy the landlord tenant relationship.
24. To conclude, the landlord failed to acknowledge its delays in responding to the complaint at stage 2 and its lack of response to the resident’s reports of discrimination was not appropriate. The complaints procedure was an opportunity for the landlord to address all aspects of the resident’s complaint and to put things right for the resident, and it did not do so. This likely caused the resident distress and inconvenience.