Hyde Housing Association Limited (202417706)

Background

1. The resident lives in a terraced house with a small front garden. She reported anti-social behaviour (ASB) from her neighbour and was also involved in a boundary dispute with them about the front garden. The resident was dissatisfied with how the landlord handled her boundary query and ASB reports.

What the complaint is about

2. The landlord’s handling of:
   1. the resident’s boundary query
   2. the resident’s reports of ASB
   3. the complaint

Our decision (determination)

3. We found the landlord responsible for:
   1. service failure in its handling of the resident’s boundary query
   2. service failure in its handling of the resident’s reports of ASB
   3. service failure in its complaints handling.

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

Summary of reasons

Boundary query

4. The landlord failed to attempt early interventions to stop the issue escalating, it also failed to provide written communication regarding the boundary as promised.

ASB

5. The landlord delayed its communication with the resident and failed to provide written confirmation that it had closed the ASB case.

The complaint

6. The landlord had not responded in line with its complaint policy of the Code.

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.

What we won’t investigate

7. We cannot determine where the boundary for a resident’s property starts and ends. This is because we can’t issue a binding decision about a dispute concerning an interpretation of the lease, as this is a matter for the courts. However, we can investigate how the landlord investigated and responded to complaints about the boundary.

What we will investigate

8. The dispute about the resident’s front garden boundary began in October 2023. The resident said the neighbour was placing garden items on land she believed was hers. Records show that the landlord referred the dispute for mediation during that month, but there is no evidence it was progressed. This was a missed opportunity for the landlord to resolve the boundary issue and prevent the situation from escalating.
9. There was an open ASB case between the resident and her neighbour due to other incidents. It was reasonable that the landlord did not initially treat the boundary issue as ASB, because there was no evidence that it met the landlord’s ASB policy. As the ASB officer was already in contact with her, it was appropriate that he confirmed he would seek specialist advice from the legal team to clarify the boundary position. He made internal enquiries between November 2023 and February 2024.
10. The landlord visited the area on 14 February 2024. It provided a printed plot of the area showing the boundary of properties to be between the downpipes. This was different to what it had previously advised her. The landlord’s records show it visited each affected property, including that of the resident. This demonstrated that the landlord was committed to clarify the situation.
11. She was unhappy with the change of boundary, as she had a letter from the landlord in 2021 showing the boundary to be different. She explained she felt she should not have to change anything or spend money to change it. The landlord showed it took her concerns seriously and re-visited with a member of its property team to clarify the situation on 22 February 2024. It confirmed the revised boundary that she would need to adhere to.
12. When the resident complained on 7 March 2024 the landlord did not log a formal complaint. But it provided a response via the ASB officer on 11 March 2024, and apologised for the delay. It confirmed she should raise the boundary query as a tenancy matter with its property team. It explained that an official letter outlining the new boundaries was being prepared. Although this was not a formal complaint response, it gave some assurance it was addressing her concerns. However, this was a missed opportunity for the landlord to complete a full investigation into the matter.
13. On 18 March 2024, the resident reported that the neighbour had altered the boundary and provided video footage. She said the neighbour had removed rocks, dumped garden cuttings on her property, and trespassed onto her path. She said she was also unhappy with the landlord’s response from 11 March 2024, and asked to escalate the matter. The landlord did not log this as a formal complaint, but again followed it up as a service request and identified it as a tenancy issue. This likely caused confusion for as she felt she had made a complaint and was escalating her concerns. This was another missed opportunity for the landlord to complete a full investigation.
14. Although the boundary dispute was not ASB, under the landlord’s policy, the resident’s reports indicated that the neighbour’s actions were causing her alarm and distress. Given that other ASB reports were ongoing, the landlord could have considered this under its ASB policy, and apply its early-stage interventions. Its policy allows options such as mediation. While it made a referral in October 2023 this was not progressed or reconsidered. There was scope for the landlord to take action that might have resolved the matter sooner.
15. She continued to chase the landlord regarding the boundary query, and received further conflicting advice regarding what the boundary should be. This caused further frustration and inconvenience, resulting in her approaching us due to how the landlord handled the matter. We requested the landlord to respond to her concerns at stage 1.
16. At stage 1, the landlord appropriately apologised for the delay in responding to her boundary query. It clarified what the boundary should be and explained that this was a tenancy matter rather than an ASB issue. In its stage 1 response, the landlord could have offered further assistance instead of simply signposting her to the tenancy team. This would have shown that, while it did not deem the matter as ASB, the landlord understood the impact on her relationship with her neighbour.
17. The compensation offered recognised the effort, delay, and inconvenience she experienced while waiting for a response. The landlord also confirmed its learning from the complaint by introducing a new communication tracker to enable quicker responses. This provided reassurance that the landlord had taken the complaint seriously and identified steps to prevent similar issues in the future.
18. The landlord confirmed in stage 2 that its complaint policy allows discretion regarding matters older than 12 months. However, it said it wouldn’t consider her evidence from 2021. This was unreasonable, as this context was relevant to the current complaint. It was understandable that she was unhappy about the change from what was agreed in 2021, and felt the landlord should be responsible for any necessary changes. Its lack of response on this point likely caused further frustration for her.
19. It was appropriate the landlord provided a further apology. It increased the compensation offered originally for its failings and time taken. While the response provided further clarity on the boundary, the response disregarded her requested for boundary letters to go out to all residents. She recently explained to us, this has still not happened, which caused further frustration.
20. The boundary dispute added to the strained relationship with her neighbour and caused inconvenience and frustration. Although the landlord clarified the boundary and apologised for delays, its responses were late and did not address earlier advice that shaped her expectations. Through its complaint responses, the landlord acknowledged its failings and offered compensation proportionate to the delay and inconvenience.
21. However, it did not consider early interventions that might have resolved the dispute, nor did it provide the promised letter confirming the boundary to all residents. These failings contributed to her distress and did not demonstrate a fair and reasonable approach. The response did not go far enough to put things right, so we have ordered additional compensation in line with the landlord’s policy to fully address the impact on the resident.

What we will not investigate

22. Our role is not to establish whether the ASB reported was occurring, or not. Our role is to establish whether the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of ASB was in line with its legal and policy obligations. This investigation has considered whether its response was fair in all the circumstances of the case, and whether there were any failings that caused the resident avoidable distress and inconvenience.
23. The resident said during the complaints process that the ASB had been ongoing for some time. While past issues provide context, this investigation looks only at how the landlord handled the ASB concerns addressed in its complaint responses. Residents should raise complaints within 12 months of the issue arising. This allows the landlord to deal with matters while they are still current, and evidence is available to reach an informed decision. 

What we will investigate

24. The resident expressed dissatisfaction with how the landlord was dealing with the ASB from her neighbour, on 30 January 2024. The landlord directed this to the ASB team as a service request. This was not appropriate. This was a missed opportunity for the landlord to investigate her concerns and provide a detailed response.
25. The landlord conducted visits in February 2024 with regards to the boundary issue. During these visits, she reported further instances of ASB and enquired about a move during these visits. In line with its ASB policy it recorded her concerns, provided advice regarding a move and contact details to report any further incidents.
26. The landlord’s ASB policy states it will keep residents updated, but she had to chase the landlord for a response to her report from January 2024. This caused frustration and inconvenience. It responded on 11 March 2024, but via its ASB officer, which provided her with an apology for the delayed response. It confirmed it asked the neighbour to remove hanging baskets, and it had warned them about the dog fouling and cannabis. It stated if the neighbour’s behaviour continued, it would take tenancy action, but evidence was essential. This response would have provided reassurance that her reports had been addressed. It set expectations as to what the landlord could do to going forward.
27. The landlord completed a risk assessment in April 2024, in line with its policy in relation to the reports of the neighbour using cannabis. The landlord followed its ASB procedure and maintained contact with her in May and June. A visit on 26 June 2024 confirmed she had no further ASB to report. She did confirm a ‘pulsating noise’ coming from the neighbour’s ventilation system. As this was not ASB, it was appropriate the landlord followed this up with its surveyor.
28. When the landlord contacted her on 2 September 2024, she confirmed she had no further ASB to report. In line with its policy the landlord confirmed it would be closing the case if there were no further issues. However, its ASB policy said it would confirm this in writing to all relevant parties within 5 working days of the decision. We have not seen any evidence the landlord did this. Not providing written confirmation of the case closure may have caused uncertainty for her about the case status. It left her without a formal record of when the landlord considered the matter resolved, and reduced transparency in line with the landlord’s policy.
29. When we asked the landlord to investigate the resident’s complaint at stage 1, it did not make any reference to her initial complaint email on 30 January 2024, which detailed the impact the ASB was having on her. This would have caused frustration as her concerns were not formally addressed.
30. In its stage 2 response, the landlord confirmed it had handled the resident’s ASB reports in line with policy. The landlord made joint visits with the police, collected diary sheets, and historically arranged mediation in 2020. More recently, in February 2024, it visited her and issued warnings to the neighbour. The stage 2 response confirmed it had closed the case as agreed with her. However, it did not acknowledge delays in its communication about the ASB, and its failure to provide written confirmation when closing the ASB case, contrary to its policy. These failings caused uncertainty and frustration for her and missed opportunities for earlier resolution.
31. There were failings by the landlord in the service it provided regarding her ASB, and it did not appropriately acknowledge these and put them right. We have ordered compensation in line with the landlord’s compensation policy to recognise the impact on the resident and put things right.

32. The Housing Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code) sets out when and how a landlord should respond to complaints. The relevant Code in this case is the April 2024 edition. Our findings are:
33. The landlord has a published complaints policy that complies with the Code in respect of timescales.
34. The resident raised a complaint about the landlord’s response to ASB on 30 January 2024. Although the landlord responded, it did not follow its policy by logging the matter as a formal complaint.
35. She complained to the landlord about a boundary issue on 7 March 2024. The landlord made contact but did not provide a full response to her concerns, in line with its complaints policy.
36. The delay in formally logging the complaint was not appropriate. It prevented the landlord from investigating and resolving the issues promptly. Had it acted sooner, it could have avoided further escalation. The delay likely caused frustration and inconvenience, as the resident had to chase the landlord and approach us for assistance.
37. After we intervened, the landlord logged the complaint on 10 September 2024. It acknowledged the complaint within 5 working days. It contacted her on 4 October 2024 to confirm it until the 11 October 2024 to send a response. The stage 1 response was issued on 10 October 2024, 17 working days after the acknowledgement. This caused a minimal impact on the resident
38. When she requested escalation to stage 2, the landlord acknowledged this 8 working days later. It did not offer any redress for its delay, but this caused minimal impact to on the resident. It sent its response within 16 days.
39. The landlord did not address the ASB in its stage 1. This was not in line with the Code, which requires landlords to address all issues raised and provide a clear reason for its decisions. This failure resulted in the resident not receiving a full response to her concerns and created unnecessary time and trouble.
40. Although the landlord offered compensation for the ASB and boundary issues, it did not confirm that any amount related to its delay in handling the complaint, which its policy allows. It failed to acknowledge and remedy this aspect.
41. Considering the landlord’s failure to follow its complaints policy and the Code, we have found service failure.

Learning

42. It is important for landlords to adhere to both its complaint handling policy and the Code. Failing to do so resulted in a delayed response, and it impacted the resident in this case.  
43. Where the landlord commits to an action to resolve a resident’s query, it should complete this. Failing to send the promised formal boundary letter undermined the resident’s trust and confidence in the landlord.

Knowledge information management (record keeping)

44. The landlord should provide written confirmation when closing ASB cases, as required by policy. This would have ensured the resident had a formal record and clarity on the case status.

Communication

45. The landlord should communicate clearly and promptly with residents about complaint progress and expected timescales. Delays and lack of updates caused unnecessary inconvenience in this case.