Sandwell Metropolitan Borough Council (202403922)

Background

1. The resident lives in a flat. The flats share communal drying facilities. The resident has raised concerns about antisocial behaviour (ASB) and concerns regarding the location of a rotary washing line. She has said the rotary line invades her privacy and impacts on her mental health.

What the complaint is about

2. The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of the resident’s:
   1. Reports of ASB.
   2. Concerns about the communal drying area, including maintenance issues and the location of a rotary washing line.
   3. Complaint

Our decision (determination)

3. There was service failure in the landlord’s handling of reports of ASB.
4. There was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of concerns about the communal drying area, including maintenance issues and the location of a rotary washing line.
5. There was service failure in the landlord’s handling of the complaint.

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

Summary of reasons

The landlord’s handling of reports of ASB.

6. The landlord said there was insufficient evidence to support the resident’s ASB allegations against her neighbours. Its ASB policy said it will provide an explanation if it does not consider something to be ASB. Its explanations to the resident were insufficient to understand why it did not consider the resident’s evidence to be ASB.

The landlord’s handling about the communal drying area, including maintenance issues and the location of a rotary washing line

7. The landlord did not remove the dead tree within the timescale it set in the stage 2 response. It also failed to update the resident when that timescale changed. This created uncertainty and affected her ability to use the drying area. It did not investigate the resident’s privacy concerns about the rotary washing line in a thorough or reliable way. It used an inaccurate measurement, gave contradictory information about when the line was installed, and did not consider the resident’s individual concerns when it consulted other residents. These failures meant the landlord did not respond to the resident’s concerns appropriately.

The landlord’s handling of the complaint.

8. The landlord took positive action as it visited the resident at both stages of the complaint process. This was to ensure it fully understood the complaint. However, in the stage 2 response the landlord used language which was inappropriate and may have come across as unsympathetic. This is not in line with the Complaints Handling Code (the Code), as the tone may have negatively impacted on the landlord/resident relationship.

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.

9. The landlord has told us there has been numerous reports of ASB from the resident and her neighbours over a number of years. We have not seen evidence that the resident raised concerns of ASB in her stage 1 complaint, or in her initial escalation email. However, the landlord visited the resident on 21 March 2023, as part of the stage 2 complaints process. In the stage 2 response the landlord subsequently referred to ASB matters raised by the resident, during the landlord’s visit. There are no additional records of these ASB allegations. We have therefore had to base our investigation of the landlord’s handling of ASB solely on the information in the stage 2 response. We also note that it is not our role to determine if ASB occurred. Our role is to assess the landlord’s response to any reports of ASB.
10. The landlord said the resident complained the neighbour was leaving “carcases” out for their cat, which could attract vermin. It said she showed it photos, dated September 2023, of small dishes with food in them near the communal drying area. It said the resident had alleged that the neighbour was feeding the cat with food other than cat food. We note the communal areas are used by leaseholders and tenants of the landlord. Leasehold agreements and tenancy agreements have different terms and conditions. However, in both agreements, there is a responsibility on residents to keep communal areas clean and tidy. The landlord said the photos were not evidence of a breach of tenancy. Its ASB policy says if it does not consider something to be ASB, it will ensure it gives an explanation to the resident. We have not seen that the landlord gave reasons that the photo was not evidence of a breach of tenancy. The landlord has not followed its ASB policy.
11. The landlord said the resident raised concerns that the neighbour was allowing their dog to foul in the garden area outside her home. The landlord said the resident showed it a photo of dog fouling in her garden. The landlord explained that the photo did not show evidence of the dog, or any owner and therefore was insufficient evidence that the neighbour was responsible. The landlord has explained the reasons it did not accept the evidence. This was reasonable in line with its ASB policy.
12. The resident told the landlord neighbours were recording her when she went outside. The landlord’s ASB policy says that ASB is behaviour which may constitute harassment or alarm. The landlord said the police had been involved in ASB issues 3 times. It did not give further detail about what ASB issues the police were involved in, or whether the police had been involved in the resident’s allegations she was being recorded. Although the landlord acknowledged the resident had said she had been recorded, the landlord did not provide a response to this allegation. Its ASB policy says it will take allegations of ASB seriously and will treat reports of ASB professionally. The landlord’s response is insufficient to demonstrate it took the resident’s concerns seriously. However, we also note that the ASB policy says the landlord can only act when there is evidence of ASB. We have not seen that the resident gave the landlord evidence her neighbours were recording her.
13. The landlord’s stage 2 response acknowledged the ongoing allegations and counter allegations being made by multiple residents in the area. It suggested mediation. This was reasonable in line with actions it may take to tackle ASB as per its ASB policy.
14. In the stage 2 response the landlord noted what the allegations were. It said it did not consider the allegations to be ASB. We note the landlord may have had insufficient evidence to act on the resident’s allegations. However, we consider it should have given a clear explanation when it made a decision not to treat an allegation as ASB. As such there was service failure.
15. In considering our remedies, we have considered how the landlord can put things right. In this instance, we consider it appropriate for the landlord to expand on the reasons it has not considered the evidence provided by the resident to be evidence of ASB. We have also considered a compensation payment. We have awarded £50. This is in line with our remedies guidance for service failure, where there is no permanent impact.

Maintenance and condition of the communal drying area

16. The resident pays a service charge for estate management. She reported rubbish and dead leaves in the drying area. The landlord visited on 7 March 2024, agreed the area needed attention, and asked the estates team to attend. The team cleared the area on 13 March 2024. The landlord’s repairs policy does not give timescales for specific repairs. However, we consider attending a non-urgent repair in 6 days to be reasonable.
17. The resident also reported uneven slabs in the drying area. The landlord asked the resident to raise this repair through the repairs portal. We have not been provided with the landlord’s repairs policy so cannot confirm if the landlord should have raised the repair itself. However, it provided clear instructions on how to report the repair. This was reasonable.
18. The resident reported that a dead tree was overhanging the drying area. She said it prevented her from using the space. The landlord investigated and confirmed the tree was dead and needed removal. Its initial response was reasonable.
19. In its stage 2 response, the landlord said it would remove the tree within 6 to 8 weeks. The resident later said the landlord told her it would take 12 months. We have not seen evidence the landlord removed the tree or updated the resident with an explanation for the delay. The landlord did not meet the timescale it set or manage the resident’s expectations. This was a failing in its handling of the maintenance issues.

Location of a rotary washing line.

20. The resident has raised concerns regarding a rotary washing line, which she said is in front of her bedroom window. She has said this infringes on her privacy and that she has to keep her curtains closed at all times. It would have been reasonable for the landlord to consider and respond to, the resident’s concern that her privacy was being infringed upon.
21. In internal communications dated 18 March 2023, the landlord said it felt it needed to have a consultation with all resident’s regarding communal drying facilities. It was reasonable to identify that the facilities were communal and as such any changes may affect other residents. However, we have not seen that the landlord considered the resident’s individual concern. It would have been appropriate to consider both the resident’s concerns and any impact on other residents.
22. An internal email dated 17 April 2024 said that the landlord had measured the distance between the rotary drier and the resident’s flat. However, it noted the person investigating used their own feet to measure the distance, which we would consider to be an unreliable method of measuring. Further, although it said it had measured the distance, it made no comment on whether the rotary line was close to the property, or whether it infringed on the resident’s privacy. The landlord has not demonstrated that it reasonably investigated the resident’s concerns that the location of the rotary line was invading her privacy.
23. The landlord sent all resident’s a letter on 26 April 2024 with the outcome of its consultation regarding the drying line. The stage 2 response committed to issuing a response by 30 April 2024. The landlord has shown it responded in the times committed to in its stage 2 response.
24. The response to the resident regarding the consultation said that the rotary lines had always been in the same place, and as such the landlord would not move them. We have seen internal communications dated 3 April 2024 that say the rotary line outside the resident’s property was “installed last summer”. This contradicts the landlord’s response at stage 2. If the line was installed recently, it would have been reasonable for the landlord to consider if there was any new impact on the resident.
25. The letter noted that the majority of residents were happy with the drying facilities. For data protection reasons this report will not state what other residents said in relation to the drying facilities. However, we note that the majority of residents had an alternative preference for drying facilities, than those that were in place. Based on this, we consider that the landlord’s letter does not properly demonstrate it listened to all resident’s concerns. We note that the suggestions for improvement may not have been practical, and it is for the landlord to consider what is reasonable when making improvements for facilities. However, we expect the landlord to be transparent in its communications.
26. The landlord consulted residents about the drying facilities. However, it did not investigate the privacy concerns thoroughly. It relied on an unreliable measurement, gave contradictory information about the installation of the rotary line, and did not show that it considered all consultation responses. These were failings in its handling of the rotary line issue.
27. It is for the landlord to consider the reasonableness and practicality of moving the rotary line. However, based on our findings, the landlord should re-investigate the resident’s concerns that the rotary line infringes on her privacy. It should also revisit the responses from all residents. It should use this information to decide whether there is any other practical solution to resolve the resident’s concern. It should ensure it gives an explanation to the resident for its decision.

Conclusion

28. The landlord resolved some issues promptly, such as clearing the drying area. However, it failed to remove the dead tree within the timescale it set and did not explain the delay. It also failed to investigate the resident’s privacy concerns properly. It used an unreliable measurement, gave contradictory information about the installation of the rotary line, and did not show that it considered consultation feedback in full. These failures amount to maladministration in its handling of the resident’s concerns about the communal drying area, including maintenance issues and the location of a rotary washing line.
29. The landlord must pay the resident £200. This reflects the distress, inconvenience and uncertainty caused by its failure to investigate the privacy concerns properly and its failure to update her about the tree removal. In line with our remedies guidance, awards in this range are appropriate where the landlord’s actions have had a moderate impact, caused ongoing inconvenience, or resulted in the resident needing to chase responses. The increased award recognises the cumulative effect of the failings and the length of time the issues remained unresolved.

30. The landlord’s complaints policy requires it to acknowledge stage 1 complaints within 3 working days and issue a full response within 10 working days. The policy allows extensions of up to 10 working days, but only when the resident agrees. The timescales are in line with our Code.
31. The landlord issued its stage 1 response in 12 working days, exceeding the required timescale. On 4 March 2024, it apologised for the delay and proposed a visit on 7 March, stating it would issue the response by 15 March 2024. Although the landlord gave a reasonable explanation for the delay, there is no evidence that the resident agreed to the extension. This did not comply with the complaints policy. However, the delay was only 2 working days, and we do not consider it to have caused significant detriment.
32. As part of its stage 1 investigation, the landlord visited the resident to view the drying area and discuss her concerns directly. The complaints policy and the Code do not require such visits, but choosing to do so was a positive step. This approach allowed the landlord to better understand the issues and demonstrated active engagement with the resident.
33. In its stage 2 response, the landlord stated that the resident had shown “dishonesty” by installing her own washing line without seeking permission. While the landlord could reasonably remind the resident to obtain consent for alterations, describing her actions as “dishonesty” was unnecessarily accusatory. Complaint responses should support resolution and help maintain a constructive relationship with the resident, in line with the Code. The choice of language did not support that aim.
34. The stage 2 response also advised the resident that neighbours had made counter‑allegations of “intimidation and harassment”. However, the landlord did not explain whether it had investigated these allegations, whether any evidence supported them, or what steps it was taking. Although the landlord was right to investigate any counter‑allegations and to keep the resident informed, presenting this information without context in a complaint response was inappropriate. Listing the allegations in this way risked giving the impression that the landlord was apportioning blame to the resident, which was unfair and could be perceived as heavy‑handed.
35. The landlord met its timescales at stage 2, but aspects of its communication particularly its tone and its handling of sensitive counter‑allegations did not meet expected standards of fairness, clarity, and resident‑focused communication.
36. The landlord took some positive steps during the complaint process, including visiting the resident at both stages to better understand her concerns. Stage 1 involved a minor procedural issue that did not cause significant detriment. However, at stage 2, the tone of the communication and the way the landlord presented counter‑allegations without explanation fell below the standards set by the Code and risked damaging the landlord/resident relationship. Taken together, these shortcomings amount to service failure in the landlord’s complaint handling.
37. In line with our remedies guidance, we award £100 to reflect the distress and inconvenience caused. An apology is also appropriate to support the rebuilding of the landlord/resident relationship

Learning

We have identified some positive practices from the landlord, such as visiting the resident during the complaints process. However, we also note that there are opportunities for the landlord to improve its complaints handling. This includes being mindful regarding the tone used in the complaint responses.

Knowledge information management (record keeping)

Overall, the record keeping was good. However, we note the landlord had said there were multiple allegations of ASB. We have been provided limited records of the specific allegations. In complex ASB cases the landlord should ensure it keeps clear and robust records. This allows it to manage the ASB cases in line with its policy.

Communication

We have identified areas of improvement regarding communication. This includes being clear in providing explanations when the landlord does not consider something as ASB. This ensures the residents expectations are managed on what the landlord will or won’t follow up on.