We are updating our systems this weekend. You will be unable to submit an online complaint form from Friday 3 April until Monday 6 April.

Normal services will resume on Tuesday 7 April.

Thank you for your patience.

Tendring District Council (202326805)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202326805

Tendring District Council

23 September 2024


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 handling of anti-social behaviour reports.

Background

  1. The resident has a secure tenancy which began on 19 November 2015. The property is a 1-bed first floor flat.
  2. The landlord said that it does not have any record of any vulnerabilities for the resident.
  3. The resident has raised several anti-social behaviour (ASB) reports relating to her neighbours since they moved into the adjoining property in 2022. During this time, the resident said that her neighbours’ actions should be considered ‘harassment’.
  4. On 6 September 2023, the resident raised an ASB report with the landlord about her neighbour, as he was “encouraging pigeons” by feeding them. She said this was causing them to poo on her garden and her bins. The landlord investigated this and closed the case as it found no evidence of the reported behaviour.
  5. On 24 September 2023, the resident reported her neighbours to the police for “harassment”. The police confirmed that they would investigate her concerns. The landlord discussed these claims with the resident on 10 October 2023 and agreed to look into them. The resident said that there were issues with noise, harassment and use of the communal garden. Following its investigation, the landlord closed the ASB case with no enforcement action being taken.
  6. The resident and her neighbour made counter claims against each other in November 2023. The resident claimed that her neighbour was recording her with a camera, causing noise nuisance and intimidating her. The landlord advised that it could not issue a warning without any evidence of ASB but agreed to request removal of the camera.
  7. In January 2024, the resident raised a stage 1 complaint as she was not happy with the landlord’s handling of ASB since her neighbours moved in. She advised that it was affecting her health both physically and mentally and asked that it evict her neighbours. The landlord responded on 5 February 2024 and detailed each ASB report made by the resident. It said that it had not received sufficient evidence of ASB during that time, so it was unable to take any form of significant enforcement action.
  8. The resident escalated the complaint to stage 2, as she disputed a claim made by the landlord in the stage 1 response. In its response, the landlord acknowledged its failure to consider evidence recently submitted. It said it had offered a home visit and mediation but the resident had refused its offers. It explained that despite the evidence provided, it would not be proportionate enforcement to seek to evict her neighbours.  

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

  1. It is acknowledged that the resident’s complaint expressed concerns around the management of ASB reports going back 20 months. However, this investigation will focus on the ASB reports made within the 12 months prior to the complaint being raised.
  2. This is in accordance with paragraph 42c of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, which says that we may not consider complaints that were not brought to the attention of the landlord within 12 months of the matter arising. Therefore, this review will only make a determination of the landlord’s actions for the period between January 2023 and the end of the complaint process (in March 2024).
  3. Events prior to this period may be referenced within this report, however, this will be for context purposes only. 

The landlord’s handling of ASB reports

  1. During the period under review, the resident raised an ASB report on 6 September 2023. The resident raised concern that her neighbour had been feeding pigeons in the communal garden area and this had led to excessive bird poo around her property and her bins. This escalated in October 2023 as the resident claimed that her neighbour was harassing her.
  2. In line with its ASB policy, the landlord should have contacted the resident within 14 working days of her initial report. This is reasonable given that bird feeding would be considered as ‘less serious behaviour’ under the policy. The landlord met this timeframe as it contacted the resident to discuss the matter in detail 10 working days after the report.
  3. The landlord then visited the property on 21 September 2023 and found bird feeders and a bird bath at the property but there was no evidence of the issues reported by the resident. It also noted that it discussed the matter with another neighbour who said there were “no issues with large amounts of birds”. Given that it could not verify the resident’s claims of a nuisance, its decision to advise her it would be closing the report was reasonable.
  4. After the resident escalated the issue on 10 October 2023, and claimed she was being harassed, it was understandable that the landlord referred this matter to the police. When the police confirmed that they would speak to the neighbour but would not be pursuing any charges against them, it was then reasonable for the landlord to close the case again.  
  5. The next report of ASB related to the resident – on 11 December 2023 – was a counter claim following her neighbour raising concerns of her taking photographs of their window. Most of the resident’s noted allegations were similar to those made previously but she did raise a concern around the placement of a camera. The landlord acknowledged the concerns and provided diary sheets for the resident to record any potential ASB. It said it could not issue any warnings without evidence but it did agree to write to her neighbour about the camera.
  6. Given that the police had recently investigated the resident’s claims of harassment and did not proceed with any charges, it was reasonable for the landlord to request evidence for any further reports of ASB. It acted on the information about the camera installed at the neighbour’s property and appropriately wrote to them following its meeting with the resident.
  7. Following receipt of the diary pages from the resident, the landlord considered these and wrote to explain that the information provided was not sufficient cause for any enforcement action. It wrote to the resident on 18 January 2024 and asked for further and more detailed accounts of the incidents in question. 
  8. Through the complaint process, the landlord acknowledged the resident’s recent and historical reports of ASB. Its responses to the complaints showed an understanding of the issues raised and detailed its actions in each instance. It is understandable that the resident was unhappy with the lack of any enforcement action in each instance. However, the landlord had made it clear that there was a lack of evidence on each occasion, which meant it was unable to take any further steps outside of those it had already carried out.
  9. Throughout the resident’s reports of ASB and the complaints, she requested that the landlord take enforcement action by evicting or moving her neighbours. Given the severity of the enforcement action requested by the resident, there would need to be significant evidence of continued ASB for court action to be successful. The landlord had set the resident’s expectations throughout the process, advising that this form of enforcement action would be unlikely.
  10. It is clear that during the period under review, and in regard to previous reports of ASB, the landlord acknowledged and investigated the resident’s concerns. It discussed ASB reports with the resident, visited the properties and spoke to the neighbours in an attempt to mediate each situation. It sought evidence itself and requested evidence from the resident too. Although it did not consider the evidence it received to be adequate for enforcement action, it did offer mediation and discussed with both parties the option to seek a transfer. It followed up on the ASB reports, only closing them once it had no further avenues to explore. The actions taken by the landlord are in line with those set out in its ASB policy and therefore this Service finds no maladministration in its handling of the ASB reports.

Determination (decision)

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration in the landlord’s handling of anti-social behaviour reports.