Cambridge City Council (202001801)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202001801

Cambridge City Council

29 July 2021

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 reports of his neighbour’s barking dog.

Background and summary of events

2. The resident is a tenant of the landlord. The landlord is a local authority.
3. The landlord’s records show the resident first reported the barking to it in 2013. He continued to make similar reports throughout the following years. In 2019 he reported it to Environmental Health (EH). EH installed noise recording equipment in the resident’s home, and later confirmed that it had not found a statutory noise nuisance.
4. On 27 May 2020 the resident again reported the barking to the landlord. The landlord suggested he consider its Neighbourhood Resolution Panel (NRP) to resolve the dispute with his neighbour (a mediation service which encourages all parties involved to work together and find a resolution) The landlord called the resident on 2 June. The landlord’s call notes show he explained that he was hypersensitive to noise, and that the barking had a great impact on him due to the pitch.
5. The landlord called the neighbour on 3 June 2020 to discuss the report. It sent the neighbour a letter to advise them of the resident’s concerns in June or July (the exact date is unknown). It called the resident on 15 June, and he explained that he was considering moving homes due to the barking. The landlord offered to explain how to register to move. The landlord met with the neighbour on 28 July, and then with the resident on 18 August to further discuss the issue.
6. The resident raised a formal complaint to the landlord on 26 September 2020. He said he had “rights as a council tenant and clearly [his] concern for the dog owners behaviour [was] clearly a breach of [their] council tenancy agreement”. He said the landlord’s tenancy agreement had a section relevant to dog owners, and asked why it had not taken action against the neighbour for breaching the agreement.
7. The landlord issued its stage one complaint response on 13 October 2020. It summarised the resident’s complaint to be that his neighbour’s dog would bark in their garden for short intervals every morning and evening. It reiterated what EH had previously found. It said that it had written to, and met the neighbour to discuss his concerns. It said it had referred his complaint to its Tenancy Enforcement Panel (TEP) who considered whether enforcement action, such as serving a Notice of Seeking Possession (NoSP) would be a reasonable resolution to the antisocial behaviour (ASB) reported. The panel decided against it because of what EH had determined. It said there was insufficient evidence to take to court to support a NoSP. It reiterated its suggestion of its NRP. It concluded by explaining how the resident could escalate his complaint if he remained dissatisfied.
8. On 11 January 2021 the resident escalated his complaint. He said the landlord should have “punished” the neighbour in accordance with its ASB policy. He said the landlord had a duty of care towards him, and that “as a public servant [it was] paid to enforce the regulations on antisocial behaviour”, and he believed it had sidestepped his case.
9. The landlord issued its stage two complaint response on 27 January 2021. It acknowledged that the resident was sensitive to the barking, and that he and his wife worked shifts. It said it had offered to support him with an application to move homes. It reiterated what its TEP had determined. It said that there was no further action it could take in terms of investigation, or enforcement action, as EH had not found a statutory noise nuisance. It concluded by explaining how the resident could refer his complaint to this Service if he remained dissatisfied.

Assessment and findings

10. The landlord’s tenancy agreement allows residents to have dogs. It classes dog barking as a potential nuisance, and says residents must ensure they do not cause a nuisance. Its ASB procedure sets out that when it receives reports of ASB it will contact, and arrange to meet the alleged perpetrator. It will consider all the evidence, and decide the best course of action. Such actions can include written warnings, acceptable behaviour contracts, a referral to its NRP, and issuing a NoSP. It must first consult its TEP before issuing a NoSP.
11. There appears to be no dispute that the dog would bark. The resident was dissatisfied that the landlord had not taken formal action against the neighbour for what he believed was her breaching her tenancy agreement. The evidence shows the landlord took the resident’s reports seriously. It liaised with the neighbour, and referred the complaint to its TEP. It also suggested mediation. This was a reasonable option given the ongoing dispute between both parties. It would have ideally reduced tensions, and possibly allowed them to reach an amicable resolution.
12. The landlord decided not to pursue tenancy enforcement action against the neighbour. It based its decision on the fact that EH had not found a statutory noise nuisance. For a landlord to be able to take formal action in respect of ASB it needs to robustly evidence the alleged behaviour. A finding of a statutory noise nuisance would have been significant, and allowed the landlord to consider more robust options. However, in this case, there was insufficient evidence to warrant it. The landlord explained this clearly to the resident, and set his expectations that there were no further steps it could take to investigate, or resolve the noise.
13. The barking was clearly distressing for the resident, and his frustration is understandable. Nonetheless, owning a dog is not against the tenancy, and it is for the landlord to decide if the tenancy terms are being broken. In this case the landlord acted in line with its ASB procedure, it considered the reports and the situation, interviewed the two parties, and considered the potential for formal action. Based on the evidence and advice it had, it concluded that the tenancy was not being breached, and that there was no appropriate formal action to take. It clearly explained its decision to the resident, and offered alternative solutions, such as mediation, or moving assistance. Its actions were reasonable, and proportionate to the issue being reported.

Determination (decision)

14. In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration in respect of the complaint.

Reasons

15. As EH had previously determined that there was no statutory noise nuisance, there were limited steps the landlord could have taken in terms of formal action against the neighbour. Nonetheless, its actions, and suggestion of mediation were reasonable.