Audley Group Ltd (202110878)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202110878

Audley Group Ltd

28 June 2022

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:
   1. The resident’s reports of noise nuisance and aggressive behaviour by his neighbour’s dog.
   2. The associated complaint handling.

Background

2. The resident is a leaseholder of the landlord, living within a retirement village.
3. The resident initially reported that he was concerned about his neighbour’s dog’s behaviour on 25 September 2020, due to barking in the early morning. The resident later reported that the dog was presenting aggressive behaviour while on a lead and wanted it to be removed from the property. The landlord said it would discuss the issue with the neighbour and monitor the dog’s behaviour.
4. In the landlord’s final complaint response, it said that the dog had been referred to a trainer and it had been determined that it did not display signs of aggressive behaviour. The dog was taking calming tablets, had completed dog training and the landlord would continue to monitor its behaviour while it settled into the property. It recommended that the resident engaged in mediation with the neighbour. The landlord concluded that it was satisfied that the dog did not pose a threat to any residents or staff so it would not be removed from the property.
5. In the resident’s complaint to this Service, he said that he remained dissatisfied that the landlord had not enforced the lease conditions or removed the dog from the property. He also wanted the landlord to “instigate a robust vetting procedure prior to animals moving in”.

Assessment and findings 

Reports of the dog’s behaviour

6. The resident’s lease agreement states that the resident must not “keep any animal bird or reptile in the property except with the prior written consent of the Management Company which may be revoked at the discretion of the Management Company if the animal bird or reptile becomes a nuisance”. Whilst this is specific to the resident’s lease, it is accepted by all parties that a similar clause would be present for the neighbour. As a result, the landlord was obliged to investigate the resident’s reports that his neighbour’s dog was causing a nuisance, due to barking and displaying aggressive behaviour. The landlord promptly responded to the resident’s report and said that it would discuss the issue with his neighbour. Upon further reports, it advised it had written to the neighbour and a specialist would observe the dog’s behaviour. In the letter to the neighbour, the landlord reminded her of the terms of the tenancy agreement and asked her to keep the dog on a short leash while around the complex.
7. The landlord had observed the dog for a week-long period from the adjacent flat, and it determined that although there were instances of barking, the neighbour had demonstrated that she could keep the dog quiet while in the property. It also attended a further time unannounced, to further assess the dog’s behaviour. As explained in its complaint response, the landlord has to consider evidence provided by both the resident and the neighbour, so it was reasonable that it extended the observation period, while the dog settled into the property, given the neighbour had recently moved in. A dog trainer had also observed the dog and only witnessed one instance of barking over a two-hour period. She also concluded that the dog did not display signs of aggression and stated that the neighbour was able to keep control of the dog.
8. While it is acknowledged that the barking would cause disruption to the resident, the landlord had investigated the issue and determined that the dog was not aggressive or a threat to any residents or staff and the barking was not considered frequent enough to be considered a nuisance. The landlord was therefore limited in the actions it could take, as the actions must be proportionate to the evidence the landlord has available. Given that the landlord had observed the dog’s behaviour for a significant amount of time, had engaged a specialist and then relied on the opinion, the conclusion it reached was reasonable. Although the resident had completed diary entries documenting the frequency of barking, in order to take tenancy action, the landlord would be expected to gather independent evidence, and the independent evidence, did not support the resident’s assertion.
9. The resident had said to the landlord that he thought the dog met the legal definition of a dangerous and nuisance dog, however, there is no evidence to suggest that any instances of the dog being aggressive had led to injury or damage, or that it had been reported to the police. As such, the landlord would be unable to make any legally binding decisions without merit. If the resident felt that the neighbour was in breach of the Dangerous Dogs Act, given this would be a criminal matter, it would be reasonable that he reports this to the police and the landlord would then be able to consider any further action following the outcome of that investigation.
10. Despite the fact it could not take tenancy action, the landlord still took steps to support the resident. The landlord said on 12 November 2020, that the neighbour’s dog would receive a minimum of four weeks of training with a dog trainer and it was taking calming tablets, to reduce the level of barking. The landlord had also offered mediation to the resident, however, the resident declined as he said it was not a neighbour dispute. It had also demonstrated that it would continue to consider any further reports the resident made, following completion of the complaints process. It would have been helpful, if the landlord had discussed with the resident whether it had a vetting procedure, before allowing pets to move in, and demonstrated that it had assessed it to ensure it was adequate, however, not doing so did not amount to a failing.
11. Overall, the landlord took reasonable steps to investigate the resident’s reports and manage the reported behaviour to limit the impact on the resident.

Complaint handling

12. The landlord’s complaint handling policy states that it will issue an initial response to complaints within five calendar days from the general manager. If the resident remains dissatisfied, they can then escalate the complaint to the Group Operations Director, who will respond within five calendar days. If the resident still remains dissatisfied, they can escalate it to the Chief Executive Officer, who will provide a final decision within 56 calendar days.
13. The landlord’s complaint responses are not clearly labelled, so it was difficult to identify its official responses, however the complaint was handled by four different members of staff. This Service’s complaint handling code states that the landlord should advise the resident of the complaint stage within each response; this is to make the complaint process clear to residents.
14. It is unclear when the resident raised a complaint or whether the landlord took the resident’s initial report on 25 September 2020 as such. However, the landlord did state on 15 October 2020 that it had “Now progressed with formal measures and an investigation”. It then issued its first response on 31 December 2020. The complaint was then escalated on 5 January 2021 and the landlord issued its second response on 22 March 2021. The complaint was further escalated on 24 March 2021 and a response was issued on 21 April 2021. It is unclear why there was three complaint responses prior to the final response, however, the landlord significantly exceeded the five-calendar day response timeframe at each of these stages, which therefore prolonged the time taken to resolve the complaint. The resident also had to chase the outcome of the complaint on several occasions. The complaint was further escalated on 24 May 2021 and a final response was issued on 3 June 2021; the landlord adhered to its 56-calendar day response timeframe at this stage. Although the delays would have caused inconvenience to the resident, the landlord did regularly update him and provide reasons for the delays on several occasions.
15. From 31 December 2020, landlords who are members of the Ombudsman Scheme, were expected to assess their complaint handling codes, and bring them in line with the Ombudsman code. As such, the landlord is expected to have a two-stage complaint procedure, with a ten working day response timeframe at stage one, and 20 working days at stage two, with a third stage only being utilised if it is deemed to be “absolutely necessary”. The Ombudsman’s complaint handling code states that “A landlord may choose to set shorter response times for each stage of the complaints procedure, but response times must not exceed those set out above”. Therefore, a response timeframe of 56 calendar days for the final response is not appropriate. It was also unreasonable to issue four complaint responses and as such the landlord should assess its complaints policy, to ensure that it brings it in line with this Service’s code. If the landlord deems it appropriate to have shorter response timeframes within its complaints policy, it should ensure these timeframes can be met in order to appropriately manage the resident’s expectations.
16. The landlord also failed to signpost the resident to this Service in its final stage response on 3 June 2021. As a result, the resident pursued the issue for several more months, until the landlord sent a letter on 1 December 2021, following intervention from this Service, in which it confirmed it had completed the internal complaints procedure and signposted the resident to this Service.
17. As the landlord did not identify any issues with its complaint handling within its responses, this particular issue remains unresolved. In line with this Service’s remedy guidance, awards of £50-£250 are appropriate in cases where service failure has had some impact on the resident, including failure to meet service standards for actions and responses. In this case, the landlord’s delayed complaint responses, failure to clearly label its complaint responses and failure to signpost the resident to this Service, caused additional time and trouble to the resident. Therefore, an award of £150 is appropriate in light of the above failings.

Determination

18. In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration by the landlord in respect of its handling of the resident’s reports of noise nuisance and aggressive behaviour by his neighbour’s dog.
19. In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure by the landlord in the way it handled the complaint.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

20. In light of its complaint handling failures, the landlord is ordered to pay £150 to the resident.

Recommendations

21. It is recommended that the landlord reviews its complaints policy to bring it in line with the Ombudsman’s Complaints Handling Code. It is also recommended that the landlord reviews its staff’s training needs in relation to their application of its complaints policy.
22. It is recommended that the landlord confirms to the resident whether it has a vetting process for allowing pets to live in its properties.
23. The landlord should contact this Service within four weeks to confirm that it has complied with the above order and whether it will follow the above recommendations.