Portsmouth City Council (202527928)

Background

1. The resident was unhappy with how the landlord handled her reports of antisocial behaviour (ASB) caused by her neighbours’ dogs accessing her garden. She said she was concerned for her safety as the dogs could be aggressive. She requested it install a fence high enough to prevent the dogs from gaining access.

What the complaint is about

2. The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of the resident’s:
   1. Reports of ASB and request to install a fence.
   2. Associated complaint.

Our decision (determination)

3. We have found:
   1. No maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the residents reports of ASB and request to install a fence.
   2. No maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the associated complaint.
4. We have not made orders for the landlord to put things right.

Summary of reasons

Reports of ASB and request to install a fence

5. The landlord investigated the resident’s ASB reports, contacted the neighbour, and offered mediation in response to her concerns. It considered her request for a higher fence and used its repairs policy to inform its decision. It explained its position and outlined the actions it could and could not take.

Associated complaint

6. The landlord provided its stage 1 and 2 complaint responses within its policy timescales.

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 resident raised concerns in July 2023 about her neighbours’ dogs entering her garden. She did not want the landlord to contact the neighbour at that stage and instead asked it to install a higher fence. In response, it referred to its repairs policy and explained it would not replace fencing that it considered adequate, but it would arrange an inspection to determine whether any repairs were needed. It is unclear whether the inspection took place. It should ensure that where it commits to offering a remedy, that it follows through with the identified actions.
8. The resident raised further concerns in July 2024 about the dogs entering her garden and fouling. The landlord visited her within 3 working days and explained it could not provide a higher fence but could speak to the neighbour about the issue. Although it attempted to contact the neighbour that day, it is unclear whether it made any further attempts. It had previously advised her to contact the dog warden, but she declined because she was concerned the neighbour would know she had made the report. With no further reports or complaints, it closed the case in line with its ASB policy. This was reasonable as the policy permits closure where there is insufficient evidence to support further action.
9. On 3 July 2025, the resident reported that her new neighbours’ dogs had jumped the fence. Although she initially said she did not want the landlord to take any action, she contacted it again the following day about the same issue. It offered to visit both properties, which she agreed to, and it completed the visit within 4 working days. This was in line with its ASB policy, which allows it to conduct interviews, home visits and offer mediation. It also suggested she obtain quotes if she wished to carry out the fencing work herself, which was consistent with her tenancy agreement that places responsibility for keeping garden fences in good repair on the resident.
10. The landlord spoke with the neighbour and suggested measures to prevent the dogs from escaping when left unsupervised. This was in line with its ASB policy, which encourages neighbours to resolve issues themselves where possible and supports the use of interviews to explore resolution options.
11. On 11 July 2025, the landlord contacted its estate management team to establish whether it could install fencing in response to the concerns about the dogs. The estate management team confirmed it would not provide the fencing but would likely grant permission if the resident wished to install it herself. It also liaised with the environmental health team, which confirmed it had previously received a report about the matter. Environmental health requested it manage the issue under its ASB policy, although agreed to work jointly where appropriate. It was reasonable for it to confirm details with relevant departments to ensure it provided accurate information.
12. In its stage 1 complaint response, the landlord said its repairs policy had been updated with effect from 1 June 2025. Under the revised policy, it would only carry out repairs to existing timber fencing and, where replacement was necessary, it would install a standard 3 foot chain link fence. It was reasonable for it to rely on its policy when making its decision.
13. The landlord explained it could not comment on another neighbour’s fencing arrangements due to confidentiality. It confirmed that any works had taken place before the policy change. It further confirmed it had granted the resident permission to install higher fencing at her own expense. This was reasonable, as it explained the actions it could and could not take and provided the resident with information about available options.
14. On 19 August 2025, the resident said she felt the landlord had treated her unfairly because other neighbours had received new fencing. She asked it to cancel the planned mediation with the neighbour, as she did not believe it would resolve the issue. It acknowledged her request, confirmed it had cancelled the mediation, noted that she did not want any further action, and closed the ASB case. This was reasonable, as it acted in line with its ASB policy, which allows it to close a case when the complainant withdraws the complaint.
15. In its stage 2 complaint response, the landlord restated it had acted in accordance with its revised repairs policy and could not install a 6 foot fence. It explained it had attempted to arrange an inspection of the existing fence to determine whether any repairs were required but had been unable to contact the resident. It advised her to get in touch if she wished to arrange an inspection and signposted her to her housing officer if she remained concerned about the dogs.
16. The landlord acted reasonably in explaining why it could not install the requested fencing and offering an inspection of the existing fence. However, there was no evidence it had previously attempted to contact the resident to arrange an inspection. As such, it is unclear what steps it took to arrange an inspection before issuing its stage 2 response.
17. That said, overall, it followed its policies and guidance in its handling of the ASB reports and requests for installing a higher fence. We have, therefore, made a finding of no maladministration.

18. The landlord’s complaint policy at the time of the complaint complied with the definition of a complaint within the Complaint Handling Code (the Code April 2024). The timescales in the landlord’s complaint procedure complied with the Code. It aims to acknowledge complaints within 5 working days. It will respond to stage 1 complaints within 10 working days and stage 2 complaints within 20 working days of the complaint acknowledgement.
19. The landlord acknowledged and issued both complaint responses within its policy timescales. We have, therefore, found no failings in its handling of the complaint.

Learning

20. When handling an ASB case, the landlord would benefit from making more than one attempt to contact neighbours involved in the complaint. Taking this approach would reassure residents that it has taken the necessary steps to investigate and resolve the dispute.

Knowledge information management (record keeping)

21. Good record keeping requires the landlord to document all contact with residents, this includes attempted contact. It may wish to review our Spotlight Report on Knowledge and Information Management.

Communication

22. Overall, communication was reasonable. The landlord responded to reports quickly and maintained contact throughout.