A2Dominion Housing Group Limited (202343567)

Background

1. The resident had an ongoing dispute with her neighbour for several years. The issue that led her to raise a complaint to the landlord was a disagreement about the placement of plant pots. Both the resident and her neighbour reported they were unhappy with where the other had positioned their pots.

What the complaint is about

2. The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of:
   1. Its request for the resident to move her plant pots.
   2. The resident’s complaint.

Our decision (determination)

3. We have found no maladministration in the landlord’s handling of its request for the resident to move her plant pots.
4. We have found service failure in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint.

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

Summary of reasons

5. The landlord acted appropriately when it asked the resident to move her plant pots. It listened to the resident’s concerns, monitored the situation, and adjusted its requests. The landlord took a reasonable and resolution-focused approach to the complaint.
6. The landlord acknowledged the resident’s complaint and answered the stage 2 response within its timeframes. However, its stage 1 response was delayed and it did not recognise this in either of its complaint responses.

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.

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 wrote to the resident on 11 April 2022 after it received a report of an incident that related to the use of communal spaces and plant pots. The resident’s tenancy agreement says that she should use any communal spaces with due regard to the safety and convenience of other residents. Given the reports it had received, it was reasonable of the landlord to write to the resident as it was reminding her of her tenancy obligations.
8. The resident said that the incident related to an ongoing dispute with her neighbour. It would have been reasonable for the landlord to look into her concerns, but there is no evidence that it did so. The landlord’s communications show it offered mediation and signposted the resident to its support services throughout the complaint. These were reasonable steps. However, the lack of a clear records confirming that the landlord discussed her concerns reduces its ability to evidence how it responded at the time.
9. The landlord’s position was that the plant pots were in a communal area and were the cause of the current dispute. The landlord wrote to the resident on 9 June 2022 and asked her to remove the plant pots from the front of the property. It also suggested an alternative location for them. Given what is set out in the tenancy agreement, this request was reasonable. The landlord acted appropriately in the circumstances.
10. The resident objected to moving the plant pots. The landlord wrote to her on 11 November 2022 and repeated its request but also suggested alternative locations she could put them. This showed that the landlord considered the resident’s objections and adjusted its approach. This was a reasonable response.
11. The landlord wrote to the resident on 4 occasions between 11 November 2022 and the resident’s stage 1 complaint on 19 July 2023. Instead of disposing of the plant pots, it extended the deadline for the resident to remove them. The evidence shows it communicated clearly with the resident. It was reasonable for the landlord to take a flexible approach to avoid disposing of the items, and its actions were proportionate in the circumstances.
12. The resident had raised concerns that she was being treated differently from her other neighbours. The landlord also said it would advise all residents in the close about the requirement for flame-retardant plant pots. This was a reasonable step and showed that the landlord listened and took action to respond to her concerns.
13. After the complaints process ended, the landlord proposed installing a fence between the resident’s property and her neighbour’. This would allow both parties to keep their plant pots, provided they were flame retardant. The resident later raised concerns about the fence’s impact on parking. The landlord responded by adding temporary hazard tape, arranging a reflective strip, and installing a wheel stop. As the landlord had no obligation to carry out this work and it fell outside the original complaint, any dissatisfaction with the fence is a separate matter and not part of this investigation.
14. In its complaint responses, the landlord explained that the resident and her neighbour could not agree. Because of this, it believed the only option was for both parties to remove the items causing the issue. The landlord considered the resident’s objections and suggested alternative locations for the plant pots. After the complaints process ended, it proposed further solutions, including installing a fence that it had no obligation to provide. It then adapted this solution after listening to the resident’s concerns. The landlord acted appropriately and maintained a resolution‑focused approach. We therefore find no maladministration.

15. The landlord has a 2-stage complaint process. It aims to acknowledge complaints in 5 working days. The landlord’s complaints policy says a resident should receive a formal response to stage 1 complaints within 10 working days and stage 2 complaints within 20 working days.
16. The landlord acknowledged the resident’s complaint in 1 working day. It sent its stage 1 response in 21 working days. While it acknowledged the complaint appropriately, the response fell outside of the timescales for response.
17. The landlord acknowledged the resident’s stage 2 escalation on the same day. It sent its stage 2 response in 14 working days. The evidence shows the landlord sent both its stage 2 acknowledgement and response on time.
18. The landlord followed the timescales in its policy, apart from its stage 1 response. It did not acknowledge or apologise for this delay in either complaint response. Without recognising this failure, the landlord cannot show that it followed our dispute resolution principles, including putting things right and learning from outcomes. The delay had a minor impact on the resident, but the absence of acknowledgement or apology meant the failure was not addressed. We therefore find service failure in the landlord’s complaint handling. In line with our remedies guidance, the landlord is ordered to pay the resident £25 and to provide an apology.

Learning

Knowledge information management (record keeping)

19. The landlord’s record keeping was largely detailed and showed good practice. This level of detail supports transparency and is a positive. However, it could have kept clearer records of its efforts to mediate between the resident and her neighbour at the start of the dispute. The evidence indicates that the landlord attempted this, but it has not provided direct records of its actions. It also has no record of the resident’s stage 1 complaint. Not recording such information risks the landlord not being able to evidence the actions it has taken in relation to a complaint.

Communication

20. The landlord communicated appropriately with the resident throughout the dispute and the complaint. The evidence shows it largely responding in a reasonable time, as well as listening to and answering the concerns the resident raised.