The Guinness Partnership Limited (202326438)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202326438

The Guinness Partnership Limited

11 June 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 handling of a dispute between the resident and her neighbours regarding a communal garden.

Background

  1. The resident is an assured tenant of the landlord under a tenancy commencing 14 June 2010. The landlord is a housing association.
  2. The property is a bungalow within a sheltered housing scheme. The estate on which the property is situated also includes a block of flats owned by the same landlord. The resident has access to facilities and gardens which are communal to the block.
  3. The landlord has not recorded any vulnerabilities for the resident.
  4. The landlord is responsible for maintaining the communal gardens. For many years, the resident has taken an active part in helping maintain and enhance the gardens for the benefit of residents, with the permission of the landlord.
  5. In May 2023, a dispute arose between the resident and certain of her neighbours who will be referred to in this report as neighbours A, B and C.
  6. Neighbour A – who was a new resident to the scheme – objected to the resident placing bird feeders on the tree near to his flat. This was because they attracted large numbers of birds which woke him early in the morning. The resident was reluctant to remove the feeders. She explained to neighbour A that May was fledgling month for the birds when they would be noisy. The disagreement led to an incident on 20 May 2023 in which neighbour B removed the feeders and refused to return them. In the altercation which followed, neighbours B and C were allegedly verbally abusive to the resident.
  7. The resident reported the incident to the landlord on 12 June 2023 and provided a recording of it.
  8. The landlord investigated the resident’s report as anti-social behaviour (ASB). In addition to other measures, it offered mediation to all parties involved to try to resolve the dispute. This took place between 27 June 2023 and 26 September 2023 using the services of a third–party mediator. However, it is understood that mediation did not achieve agreement as to the way forward.
  9. The landlord took action regarding various issues which it had identified as the cause of disagreement between the resident and her neighbours. This included asking the resident to re-site the bird feeders away from neighbour A’s flat as well as moving some fruit trees in pots which neighbour A was concerned were attracting fruit flies.
  10. The resident objected but complied with the landlord’s request. She also moved other plants in pots which neighbour A believed posed a fire risk.
  11. On 2 October 2023, the resident logged a formal complaint with the landlord. The main issues raised by the resident were:
    1. She disputed that the fruit trees caused fruit flies or that the plants in pots were a fire risk to neighbour A. She noted that neighbour A had himself fed the birds on the first day that he moved into the property.
    2. She felt that the landlord should have consulted with other residents who used the communal gardens and taken their views into account rather than act on the request of neighbour A who had been a resident for only a few months.
    3. The mediator had told her that other residents had complained that she did not let them go into, or work in, the gardens. The landlord had since told her it had no record of any complaints made against her. The resident expressed concern that the mediator had believed that there were complaints against her when this was not true. She believed that neighbour C said these things about her because of a long-standing grudge.
    4. The resident felt that the landlord should have done something about the theft of the bird feeders by neighbour B.
  12. On 16 October 2023, the landlord issued its Stage 1 response. It did not uphold the complaint:
    1. It explained that it had asked her to move the fruit trees as they were attracting unwanted fruit flies to her neighbour’s home. It had asked her to move them to the other side of the communal garden which was not an unreasonable request.
    2. It had asked her to remove the bird feeders as they were attracting large flocks of birds which disturbed some residents at an early hour. This was also not an unreasonable request.
    3. For data protection reasons, it could not provide details of complaints made by residents where it had not been asked to proceed with action.
    4. The reports of theft were a criminal offence which should be reported to, and managed by, the police.
  13. The resident was not satisfied with the landlord’s response and she asked it to escalate the complaint on 16 October 2023. The landlord provided its Stage 2 response on 20 October 2023. This essentially reiterated and upheld its response at Stage 1.
  14. On 3 November 2023, the resident referred her complaint to this Service.

Assessment and findings

Scope of the investigation

  1. Part of the resident’s complaint concerns statements made to her by the mediator during the mediation arranged by the landlord. According to the resident, the statements were to the effect that other residents had made complaints about her. The resident felt that she should be given details of the complaints. The landlord declined to provide written details of the mediator’s discussion or share details of complaints raised to it by its residents for data protection reasons.
  2. Under paragraph 42(j) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, we may not consider complaints which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, fall properly within the jurisdiction of another Ombudsman, regulator or complaint handling body.
  3. Accordingly, this investigation will not consider issues concerning the resident’s information rights against the landlord and/or the mediator. This more properly falls within the jurisdiction of the Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO) which was set up to deal with concerns about data handling by organisations and to uphold information rights.

The landlord’s handling of a dispute between the resident and her neighbours regarding a communal garden

  1. The landlord has provided this Service with its Estate and Neighbourhood Management Policy. This outlines its approach to the management of its communal areas. It recognises that gardens and green spaces are important for the well-being of its residents.
  2. It has also provided its ASB, Hate Crime and Hate Incidents Policy. This sets out how the landlord will deal with reports of ASB. Under the policy, the landlord has a range of options to tackle ASB. Mediation is one of the actions which the landlord can consider to try to resolve ASB before it escalates.
  3. From the information available, it appears that the disagreement between the resident and her neighbours concerning the bird feeders first came to the attention of the landlord through the resident’s report of the incident which took place on 20 May 2023.
  4. It is clear from the transcript of the recording of the event that the resident experienced verbal abuse during the altercation. She reported to the landlord that she was affected a lot by it. ASB is widely defined under the landlord’s ASB policy to include conduct that has caused, or is likely to cause, harassment, alarm, or distress to any person. The landlord therefore acted appropriately in investigating the incident as ASB.
  5. The landlord’s records indicate that it discussed and agreed an action plan with the resident which it set out in a letter to her dated 12 June 2023. This recorded, amongst other things, that the resident would liaise with the police regarding the theft of the bird feeders (which she had bought from her own money). It agreed that it would contact neighbour B and ask her to return the bird feeders. If she refused to do so, it would leave the matter to be dealt with by the police as it would be classed as theft. The landlord’s actions in this regard were in line with its ASB policy. This encourages residents to report criminal acts to the police.
  6. It is noted from the resident’s complaint that she was dissatisfied that the landlord did not itself take action against neighbour B regarding the theft of her property, in circumstances where the police would consider the matter of too little monetary value. This Service has not been provided with any details of the police investigation or outcome and in any event is not in a position to comment on that aspect of the complaint. As far as the landlord’s actions are concerned, it was reasonable for it to leave the matter in the hands of the police to act as they considered fit, having regard to the fact that it was a criminal matter.
  7. As noted above, following the mediation, the landlord directed the resident to move the bird feeders and fruit trees away from neighbour A’s property.
  8. Although the resident was not happy with the landlord’s decision, the landlord acted reasonably in trying to resolve the dispute between the resident and her neighbours. It did so by removing the cause of the nuisance away from neighbour A’s flat. The decision it took was a pragmatic and proportionate response.
  9. The landlord demonstrated in its complaint responses that it had considered the resident’s objections to this course of action. With regard to the resident’s view that other residents who enjoyed the garden should also have been consulted, it explained that it had asked for the re-siting of the items to a different area of the garden rather than their removal altogether. It considered this was a fair compromise. It also explained that even where only one person was affected by an issue, such as neighbour A, it had to take their concerns seriously and act in response.
  10. Overall, whilst the resident was naturally upset that her efforts to encourage wildlife and improve the communal gardens had not been acceptable to all the residents, there was no maladministration by the landlord in its handling of the matter.

Determination (decision)

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration in the landlord’s handling of a dispute between the resident and her neighbours regarding a communal garden.