B3 Living Limited (202307898)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202307898

B3 Living Limited

15 August 2024

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 the resident’s concerns about the neighbour’s dog fouling.

Background

2. The resident holds a fixed term assured shorthold tenancy with the landlord in a 2-bedroom house.
3. On 13 July 2022 the resident reported to the landlord concerns about her neighbour’s dog, including fouling in the neighbour’s garden. She said the fouling was attracting rats and mice and requested that the landlord take action and respond to her in writing. On 24 August 2022 the landlord’s neighbourhood advisor (NA) wrote to the resident stating they had spoken to her neighbour regarding her concerns, which included the dog fouling.
4. On 12 October 2022 the resident reported her neighbour’s dogs acting aggressively and barking viciously. She added that she was concerned that the dogs posed a serious danger and were trying to climb her fence. The same day the landlord’s NA informed the resident that they had warned the neighbour about the incident and encouraged her to report any further noise issues via its noise app.
5. On 9 November 2022 the local authority’s environmental health team (EH) informed the resident that they had spoken with the landlord’s NA, who had explained they were dealing with the barking and fouling, and that the NA would contact her regarding any further updates. On 28 February 2023, the resident questioned why she had not received any feedback following EH’s email in November 2022. In response, the NA informed her that it had contacted her neighbour regarding the issues and there were no updates. The resident queried why there had been no feedback regarding the dog fouling and explained that the email the NA had recently sent to her had no relevance to this issue.
6. In March 2023 EH visited the neighbour’s property and found a large amount of dog faeces in their back garden. The landlord’s NA subsequently sent a warning letter to the neighbour and followed up with a home visit which found no faeces in the neighbour’s garden.
7. On 26 March 2023 the resident raised a formal complaint with the landlord. In summary, she said she had raised concerns about her neighbour’s dog fouling (over the phone to her NA in October 2022) but they did not provide any feedback, despite EH informing her that they would. She added that when she chased the NA in February 2023, they told her they had resolved the issue, which she felt was untrue. Further, she explained that her NA had provided her with an unrelated email as proof, and having challenged this, she had not heard anything back. As a resolution, she wanted the landlord to investigate the matter, for the NA to receive disciplinary action and the landlord to contact her neighbour about the dog fouling.
8. The landlord responded to the complaint at stage 1 of its complaints process on 6 April 2023. It did not uphold the complaint. In summary, it said:
   1. Following the resident’s report on 13 July 2022, the NA followed this up with her on 1 August 2022 and left a voicemail message.
   2. That while the NA’s emails to the resident in October 2022 had not specifically mentioned dog faeces, they had advised that this discussion also took place at the time.
   3. The resident’s neighbour received a verbal warning regarding their tenancy.
   4. That EH had advised the resident that the NA would contact her regarding any further updates, but they had already responded to her.
   5. There were no new reports concerning dog fouling and it had responded to all contact from her within a reasonable timescale.
9. In the resident’s escalation request of 10 April 2023, she said she did not receive a voicemail from her NA in August 2022. She added that if the NA had not specifically mentioned the dog faces in her responses, she felt it was obvious they had not provided any feedback about the issue and that there was no evidence they had tried to resolve the dog fouling. On 4 May 2023 the landlord issued its stage 2 final response. It did not uphold the complaint. In summary, it said:
   1. Its phone records only went back 30 days, and therefore it could not check whether the NA called her in August 2022, but it had been assured they had.
   2. In its letter to her in August 2022, the NA told the resident they had spoken to her neighbour about both the dogs barking and fouling.
   3. The letter to her neighbour did not specifically mention dog fouling but the NA had raised this issue with the neighbour over the phone.
10. The resident referred her complaint to this Service on 5 June 2023 as she felt the landlord had done nothing to resolve the issue and was concerned the dog faeces were attracting rats and mice. Further, she explained she could not spend quality time in her garden due to the smell. As a resolution, she wanted the landlord to stop the dog fouling, provide feedback on any action taken, an apology, and her NA to receive disciplinary action and be re-trained.
11. After the final complaint response, the landlord reviewed the resident’s complaint and acknowledged that the communication may not have been satisfactory. It informed this Service that it provided an apology letter to the resident on 5 February 2024. It said that this situation had highlighted that the communication had been vague, and it had since implemented training programmes focused on communication skills.

Assessment and findings

12. When investigating a complaint, the Ombudsman applies its Dispute Resolution Principles. This is high level good practice guidance developed from the Ombudsman’s experience of resolving disputes, for use by everyone involved in the complaints process. There are three principles driving effective dispute resolution:
    1. Be fair – treat people fairly and follow fair processes.
    2. Put things right.
    3. Learn from outcomes.
13. The Ombudsman must first consider whether a failing on the part of the landlord occurred and, if so, whether this led to any adverse effect or detriment to the resident. If it is found that a failing did lead to an adverse effect, the investigation will then consider whether the landlord has taken enough action to ‘put things right’ and ‘learn from outcomes’.
14. When a resident raises a concern with a landlord, the Ombudsman expects the landlord to consider this, and provide a timely clear response, setting out its position. It is the Ombudsman’s role is to assess whether the landlord has adequately investigated the reported issues and taken appropriate and proportionate action in line with its policies and procedures.
15. The landlord’s antisocial behaviour (ASB) policy states that it will take a holistic and robust, reasonable and proportionate approach to preventing and reducing instances of ASB. It adds that it will take seriously and record all reported incidents and will work with relevant statutory agencies such as EH. Its policy states it will speedily intervene by making prompt contact with alleged perpetrators. Further, it lists written warnings as a power available to it.
16. The landlord did not respond to the resident’s 13 July 2022 report within a reasonable timescale. Although the landlord said in its stage 1 response that its NA had tried to contact the resident via phone on 1 August 2022 to follow up on her concerns, the resident disputed this. Further, this Service has seen no evidence such as a call log/note to reconcile the landlord’s assertions. While this may indicate issues with the landlord’s record-keeping, this Service can only conclude that the landlord failed to provide a timely response to the resident’s concerns.
17. The landlord’s records indicate that it was not until around the middle of August 2022, that it spoke with the resident about her concerns. Following this, the landlord acted fairly by confirming what action it said it had taken, in writing to the resident. The letter stated it had contacted the resident’s neighbour about her concerns, including dog fouling. However, this Service has seen no evidence to support this. In any case, the landlord’s final response indicated that it had viewed the letter sent to the neighbour and acknowledged this had not mentioned dog fouling. Instead, it said it had raised this issue with the neighbour over the phone. While it was reasonable and proportionate for it to do so, this Service has seen no evidence to confirm that this conversation took place. This again likely indicates issues with the landlord’s record keeping and a recommendation is made below. Furthermore, the landlord should have included the dog fouling issue in its subsequent letter to the neighbour. Its failure to do so was a shortcoming on the landlord’s part and it is unclear whether it actually addressed the dog fouling issue with the neighbour at this time.
18. In October 2022 the resident reported concerns about aggressive behaviour from her neighbour’s dogs. The landlord acted appropriately by responding to these reports immediately and verbally warning the neighbour. It also updated the resident that same day. The landlord acted quickly, proportionately and in line with its policy in this respect.
19. In November 2022 EH informed the resident that they had discussed her concerns regarding barking/fouling with her NA and said they would contact her regarding any further updates. In February 2023 the resident chased the landlord for an update, stating that she was yet to hear anything from it following EH’s November 2022 email. Again, the landlord’s NA responded promptly and advised the resident that there was no further update following its October 2022 conversation with her neighbour.
20. The resident subsequently questioned if the NA had provided her with any feedback in respect of her dog fouling concerns. The NA appeared to provide a copy of an email to the resident which she stated was not relevant to the dog fouling issue. While this Service has not seen a copy of this email, there was no evidence that the resident raised the dog fouling issue with the landlord in October 2022. Instead, the resident’s reports at that time were about aggressive and noisy behaviour. Furthermore, it is unclear if the landlord was even aware of EH’s emails to the resident in November 2022. This Service considers that given the information available, the NA was entitled to believe that they did not need to provide any further update to the resident following her October 2022 report, which they had addressed appropriately at the time.
21. Nonetheless, the NA’s February 2023 email responses to the resident could have been clearer. One email read as if they had addressed the dog fouling issue with the neighbour following the resident’s October 2022 report. Although the landlord’s stage 1 response suggested this was the case, there was no evidence to support this and the NA’s responses to the resident were unclear in this respect. This would have caused frustration to the resident who would have likely been confused about what issues the landlord had addressed with her neighbour.
22. In March 2023, EH, following contact from the resident, carried out a home visit to the neighbour’s property. Upon inspection, they found a large amount of dog faeces in their back garden. EH subsequently informed the landlord of this. In response, the landlord’s NA acted swiftly by telephoning the neighbour and issuing a warning letter within a reasonable time. In addition, it carried out a follow-up home visit to the neighbour around 2 weeks later to ensure they had acted to resolve the fouling. The landlord acted appropriately and demonstrated that it was taking the situation seriously. Further, its use of a warning letter was reasonable and proportionate to the circumstances. It acted fairly by taking a balanced and robust approach and using its available power, in line with its policy. However, it did not appear to update the resident on what action it had taken. This was a failing on the part of the landlord that would have caused further frustration to the resident who would have likely believed it had failed to act on her concerns.
23. While the landlord broadly acted in line with its policy when handling the resident’s concerns about dog fouling, there were minor failures in communication. Indeed, the landlord’s later review of the complaint acknowledged that some of the communication may have been unsatisfactory and apologised to the resident for this. Further, the landlord demonstrated that it had learnt lessons from its failings and committed to staff training and service improvements to prevent this from happening again. While this is welcomed, it did not negate the fact that the resolutions offered could have been provided sooner, and within the landlord’s internal complaints process. As such, they are not considered sufficient to avoid a finding of service failure and an order of compensation is made below.

Determination

24. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure by the landlord in respect of its handling of the resident’s concerns about the neighbour’s dog fouling.

Order

25. Within the next 4 weeks, the landlord must pay the resident compensation of £75 for the frustration caused by its handling of her concerns about the neighbour’s dog fouling.
26. The landlord should provide this Service with evidence of compliance with this order within the timescale set out above.

Recommendation

27. The landlord should review the Ombudsman’s Spotlight report of Knowledge and Information Management (available at: KIM-report-v2-100523.pdf (housing-ombudsman.org.uk).

[DT1]To the neighbour?