Gateway Housing Association Limited (202431390)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202431390

Gateway Housing Association Limited

27 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

  1. The complaint is about the landlord’s response to
    1. Reports of anti-social behaviour (ASB) from a neighbour.
    2. A boundary dispute between the resident and the neighbour.

Background

  1. The resident is an assured tenant of a 3-bedroom house with a garden. She has been a tenant since 1992.
  2. The resident’s representative raised a complaint on 31 July 2024. They advised that they had been unable to get in touch with the resident’s housing officer since 29 July 2024. They said the situation was an emergency. They advised that a neighbour had been abusive to the resident. They said they had reported this many times, and that the police were aware.
  3. The landlord responded to the complaint at stage 1 on 13 August 2024. It advised it had only received a report of ASB on 31 July 2024. It advised it would open a new ASB case and someone from the landlord would visit the resident on 16 August 2024.
  4. The representative responded on 14 August 2024 to say that the response to the ASB had taken too long. They said that the landlord only responded once they had made a complaint. They requested the landlord escalate the case to stage 2.
  5. The landlord issued its stage 2 response on 21 August 2024. It outlined what actions it intended to take, including investigating where the boundary wall should be, exploring mediation and considering any recent police reports. On 9 September 2024 the representative said that the landlord had not acted on any commitments made in the stage 2 response.
  6. On 18 October 2024 the landlord wrote to the resident. This was following interviews with both the resident and her neighbour. It stated that due to the boundary dispute, it needed to send a surveyor and check the boundaries. It advised the boundary dispute was the underlying cause of the ASB allegations.
  7. Following the survey, the landlord wrote to the resident on 7 November 2024. It confirmed that the resident’s garden encroached on the neighbour’s boundary. It said that the resident needed to remove all items from the garden so the boundary fence could be reinstated on 1 December 2024. It also offered a mediation appointment between the resident and the neighbour on 4 December 2024.
  8. The landlord issued a stage 1 response relating to the boundary issue on 2 December 2024. It confirmed that the boundary wall was in the incorrect position, as per the title deeds. It did not uphold the complaint.
  9. The representative escalated the case on 26 November 2024. They said that the neighbour had moved into the property with the boundary wall in the current position. They requested a more amicable resolution, such as splitting the garden equally. The landlord responded at stage 2 on 13 December 2024. It said that following mediation it investigated the boundary issue. On discovering that the boundary was in the incorrect place, it said it was legally entitled to move it back as the freeholder. It did not uphold the complaint.

Assessment and findings

Scope

  1. The resident has made two separate complaints to the landlord, which have both completed the landlord’s internal complaints procedure. The resident raised the first complaint on 31 July 2024, and it completed the complaints procedure on 21 August 2024.  The second complaint was raised on 9 September 2024 and completed the complaints procedure on 13 December 2024.
  2. The first complaint was regarding concerns of ASB from a neighbour. As part of the resolution, the landlord agreed that it needed to investigate a boundary wall, which appeared to be an underlying cause of the ASB dispute. The resident’s second complaint was raised because the resident did not feel that the landlord had taken the actions agreed in the stage 2 response.
  3. The details of both complaints overlap and are closely linked with each other. The Ombudsman has therefore considered both complaints in this investigation.
  4. As per paragraph 42c of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, we do not normally consider complaints which were not bought to the landlord within 12 months of the matter occurring. As such we will not consider events that occurred prior to 31 July 2023 which is 12 months prior to when the resident first raised a complaint.

The landlord’s response to reports of anti-social behaviour (ASB) from a neighbour.

  1. When the representative first raised the complaint, they advised that they had reported ASB on 29 July and had not had a response. We have not seen the report from 29 July 2024, however we understand that the report was regarding alleged abusive behaviour from the neighbour between 26 July 2024 and 27 July 2024. The landlord’s ASB policy says that it will investigate serious crime within 24 hours and less serious crime within 5 working days. The landlord’s policy defines serious and less serious crime. The reported ASB was regarding verbal abuse, which would fall into the less serious crime category. While we recognise that the representative had reported the matter as urgent, as per the ASB policy, we would expect the landlord to respond within 5 working days. We consider that it was not unreasonable that the landlord had not responded to the reports of ASB at the time the resident raised the complaint.
  2. We have seen correspondence between the landlord and representative between the 6 August 2024 and 7 August 2024. This was to arrange a meeting between the landlord and the resident to investigate the allegations. We understand that this meeting was postponed due to the representative wanting to be present at that meeting and being unavailable at that time. We consider that the landlord took appropriate actions within a reasonable time frame to investigate the resident’s concerns.
  3. In their escalation email, the representative stated that the complaint was due to the time taken for the ASB to be investigated. They said that they had to raise a complaint for the landlord to issue any response. We have not seen evidence of earlier attempts to raise concerns with ASB. Therefore, we consider that the landlord responded in appropriate timescales.
  4. The landlord’s stage 2 response provided a detailed action plan of how it would investigate the resident’s reports of ASB. This included investigating the boundary wall concerns, speaking with the police and agreeing regular contact with the resident. It confirmed it would contact the resident within 48 hours to investigate. The landlord considered a range of methods to tackle any ASB concerns and provided the resident with an action plan, as per its ASB policy.
  5. The Ombudsman has not seen evidence that the landlord contacted the resident within 48 hours of the stage 2 response. The resident’s representative subsequently raised a new complaint, advising that the landlord had not adhered to its commitments at stage 2. As the landlord has not demonstrated that it honoured its commitments from stage 2, there was a service failure by the landlord.
  6. On 18 September 2024, the landlord sent a letter to the resident to advise that it would interview her on 26 September 2024. The landlord sent a letter on 26 September 2024, summarising this meeting. It advised the resident to keep diary sheets of any ASB. It offered mediation. It also asked the resident’s representative for evidence they said they had in relation to the boundary location. It confirmed it would interview the neighbour in relation to the allegations. The landlord considered all appropriate actions to investigate the ASB and provided the resident with clarity on how it would handle the case moving forward.
  7. We have seen evidence that the landlord interviewed the neighbour and that it completed mediation between both parties. The neighbour denied the allegations.  The outcome of the landlord’s investigation was that the source of the dispute was due to a boundary wall location. It advised it needed to investigate and resolve this to tackle the underlying causes of any ASB.
  8. The landlord has demonstrated that it considered several options and conducted a thorough investigation into the ASB. Through this it was able to establish an underlying dispute which it committed to act on. However, the Ombudsman has identified that the landlord did not contact the resident within the agreed timescales as per the stage 2 response. As such there was service failure in the landlord’s handling of reports of ASB.
  9. While we recognise that the landlord’s failure to contact the resident within the agreed timescales was frustrating for the resident and her representative, we consider that the delay was a minor impact. As per our remedies guidance, it is appropriate that the landlord offer an apology for failing to adhere to its commitments.

The landlord’s response to a boundary dispute between the resident and the neighbour.

  1. On 26 September 2024 the resident’s representative advised the landlord they had information from the land registry which supported that the boundary wall was in the correct place. The landlord asked for this to be provided. It followed up with the representative on 10 October 2024 as it had not received the information. The representative later confirmed that they did not have this information. The landlord took the appropriate actions to allow the resident and her representative to provide supporting evidence.
  2. Internal emails from the landlord on 17 October 2024 stated that the land registry showed that the boundary wall was encroaching on the neighbour’s garden. This was confirmed in a survey visit to the property, completed by the landlord on 7 November 2024. The landlord took appropriate actions to investigate where the boundary was located. 
  3. The resident has stated that the boundary wall has been in place for many years. The representative has provided the Ombudsman with photos which they say show the wall in situ from several years back. While we do not dispute that the wall may have been located in the same place for some time, we cannot verify the dates or gain an accurate location from the photos.
  4. The landlord wrote to the resident on 7 November 2024 to advise the boundary wall would be reinstated as per land registry. This was to take place on 1 December 2024. The landlord has said this would result in 90% of the resident’s garden being lost. In internal communications the landlord has stated that the resident had “gained” part of her neighbour’s garden. The Ombudsman has seen no supporting evidence that the resident moved the boundary, and we have been unable to establish how long the boundary has been in the incorrect position. In the absence of evidence that the resident deliberately moved the boundary wall, the landlord should consider the language it uses to ensure that it does not place blame on the resident.
  5. The Ombudsman recognises that the boundary dispute is challenging. We also recognise that this caused issues between the resident and her neighbour. The representative has raised that the resident has paid for the maintenance of the garden for the 32 years that she has lived there. They have also described that the dispute has impacted on the resident’s wellbeing. As the freeholder of the property and given the length of time that the boundary may have been incorrectly installed, it may have been appropriate for the landlord to seek legal advice. This may have allowed the landlord to establish whether a solution with less of an impact on the resident could have been agreed, and to demonstrate that it had explored all available options.
  6. Whilst we recognise that the matter is upsetting for the resident, and that the landlord could have sought further advice, the landlord has demonstrated that it investigated the matter once it was raised. It has informed the resident of its decision and the reasons for it. As such, we consider there to be no maladministration in the landlord’s response to a boundary wall dispute between the resident and the neighbour.

 

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was:
    1. Service failure in the landlord’s response to reports of anti-social behaviour (ASB) from the neighbour.
    2. No maladministration in the landlord’s response to a boundary dispute between the resident and her neighbour.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

  1. The landlord is ordered to issue an apology to the resident for failing to contact the resident within 48 hours of the stage 2 response, dated 21 August 2024.

Recommendations.

  1. It is recommended that the landlord seek legal advice to ensure that it has explored all possibilities in reaching a fair outcome which minimally impacts on all parties in the dispute.