City of York Council (202204432)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202204432

York City Council

3 January 2023


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 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:
    1. response to the resident’s reports about her neighbour and their dog’s behaviour;
    2. complaints handling.

Background

  1. The resident is a secure tenant of the landlord. The landlord is a local authority. The property is a bungalow and has a shared communal footpath and garden areas with the neighbouring property. Prior to the period of the complaint, the neighbouring property was let to a new tenant.
  2. The resident suffers from both mental and physical disabilities, of which the landlord is aware. The resident has submitted her complaint through approved third parties. For clarity, they are collectively referred to as the ‘resident’ in this report.
  3. Throughout 2021, the resident reported several disturbances from both her neighbour and their dog. She reported that the dog was off its lead and had been left unattended in communal spaces. She also reported the dog had entered her garden and property uninvited on several occasions. She further reported that the shared accessway had been blocked by the neighbour’s bins and there had also been noise disturbances from the neighbour socialising outside the property.
  4. As part of her reports, the resident also expressed concerns about the behaviour and gender of her neighbour. She considered that the landlord should have advertised the neighbouring property as a ‘sensitive let’ given her vulnerabilities.
  5. In its stage one response, the landlord informed the resident it had spoken to the neighbour about her reports. It reminded the neighbour about their tenancy obligations to keep the dog on a lead when accessing or using communal areas, and asked the neighbour not to speak/engage with the resident, unless she initiated contact. It agreed to fund and install a low fence and gate to the rear of her property, as well as a pet gate and fencing at the neighbouring property. It also agreed that the resident could modify and install her own footpath, at her own expense, in order to avoid further disturbances with the neighbour.
  6. The landlord also reassured the resident that the neighbouring property was let in accordance with its policy standards, and that it would not be able to discriminate between prospective tenants based on gender.
  7. In its stage two response, the landlord informed the resident that it could take no further actions against the neighbour as it did not have sufficient evidence they were in breach of their tenancy agreement. The landlord encouraged the resident to continue to report any further issues.
  8. The landlord also informed the resident that potential lettings were not discussed with residents, as they are unable to consider letting properties on whether or not a neighbouring resident would approve. It also advised that as the resident had not previously reported any anti-social behaviour (ASB) prior to the new neighbour moving in, it had not included this as part of its letting procedure.
  9. The resident remained dissatisfied with this outcome, escalating it to the attention of this service. She raised concerns over the way she has been treated, and that she considered her medical conditions had been directly affected by the ongoing dispute. She stated that the neighbour’s dog continued to be off the lead, unattended, and causing further noise disturbances in both the shared areas and the resident’s front garden.
  10. The resident has requested a formal apology for the way the neighbouring property was let and wants the landlord to acknowledge that this was not a “one-off incident” as stated in the landlord’s stage one reply.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

  1. The resident has expressed concern that the distress of the ongoing dispute with the landlord and the neighbour has directly impacted her health conditions. While this service does not doubt the resident’s comments regarding her medical conditions, this service is unable to draw conclusions on the causation of, or liability for, impacts on health and wellbeing. However, this service can consider the general distress and inconvenience which the situation may have caused the resident, as well as consider if the landlord’s actions and responses appropriately considered the resident’s vulnerabilities.
  2. The Ombudsman notes that it cannot investigate complaints that are outside of the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction. Under paragraph 42(k) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the Ombudsman cannot investigate complaints that fall within the jurisdiction of another Ombudsman service. Complaints relating to the lettings procedures of local authority landlords fall within the jurisdiction of the Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman (LGSCO). The resident’s concerns that the landlord misapplied its lettings policy by failing to take into account her vulnerabilities when letting the neighbouring property to the neighbour are therefore outside of the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction. The resident should refer this element of the complaint to the LGSCO.
  3. Additionally, the Ombudsman notes that the resident has raised concerns about the landlord’s staff member’s use of language when discussing her complaint. It is evident that these concerns relate to incidents which have occurred after the resident raised her initial complaint. She has also raised further reports of noise disturbance from the neighbour, and their dog, after the landlord’s final response.
  4. In accordance with paragraph 42(a) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the Ombudsman cannot investigate concerns that have not been yet exhausted a landlord’s internal complaints procedure. As these issues have not yet been raised as a formal complaint, nor investigated by the landlord as part of its internal complaints procedure, they have not been included in this investigation. It is evident, however, that the landlord is aware of these concerns and so a recommendation has been made below for it to contact the resident, to give her the opportunity to raise these concerns as a separate complaint where appropriate.

Policies and procedures

  1. The resident’s tenancy agreement notes that tenants are required to keep pets restrained, or on a lead when out in the community or accessing, and passing through shared areas. The tenancy agreement also highlights that tenants must not allow the pet to become a nuisance, or cause annoyance to other neighbours, tenants or anyone living in the surrounding area.
  2. The landlord operates an ASB policy. The policy notes the landlord is required to investigate any noise complaints and disturbances. As part of this investigation, the landlord may remind the subject of their contractual obligations as a warning; and monitor any further instances of disturbance before further action can be taken.
  3. The landlord operates a two stage complaints policy. The policy notes the landlord is obligated to respond with its stage one formal response, upon receipt of a complaint, within 20 working days. At stage two, upon receipt of a complaint escalation, to issue its final response within 30 working days. Where any delays are present these are to be communicated with the resident as soon as possible.

Reports about the neighbour and their dog

  1. Following the resident’s reports of disturbance caused by the neighbour, it was necessary for the landlord to respond to her concerns and act in accordance with its ASB policy. This would include assessing reports, contacting the resident and neighbour, discussing the disturbances with neighbour where appropriate, and considering any applicable further action.
  2. The landlord responded to the resident’s concerns on 24 August 2021 and informed her that it would speak to the neighbour about the concerns and ask them not to contact or engage unless she initiated first. The landlord also noted the resident’s concerns about the neighbour approaching her and sought to reassure her by explaining that the neighbour had only wished to introduce themself. This was fair, as it shows the landlord had looked to explain, and mediate any initial concerns the resident had in regard to the neighbour, but also considered actions it could take in consideration of the resident’s vulnerabilities.
  3. In response to the resident’s concerns about the ability for the dog to come onto her property, the landlord initially agreed to allow the resident to install a fence at her own expense. Given the distress the resident had experienced, the landlord later installed the fencing and gate at its own expense. The Ombudsman notes that fencing/gate installations would normally be the responsibility of each tenant to fund, as per the tenancy agreement, and as such, the landlord went above and beyond its contractual obligation to resolve the resident’s concerns.
  4. The Ombudsman notes that the landlord has also provided permission for the landlord to adjust her footpath at her own expense. The alteration of the footpath would be considered an improvement to the property, and as with above, the landlord would not be required to fund such an improvement. The resident has expressed she would have difficulty covering such a cost, and given her vulnerabilities, a recommendation has been made below for the landlord to signpost the resident to any organisations who may be able to assist.
  5. The landlord also took appropriate steps to investigate the resident’s reports of ASB by considering the resident’s written reports, attending the property, and discussing the reports with the neighbour. Its subsequent action of issuing the neighbour with a warning and reminding them of their tenancy obligations were in line with the landlord’s ASB policy and with what the Ombudsman would consider best practice in such circumstances. The landlord also appropriately managed the resident’s expectations by articulating that the neighbour had a right to keep a dog at the property and that it would be unable to take further steps based on the current evidence. It also appropriately encouraged her to continue to make reports of any additional incidences.
  6. While this service acknowledges that the resident’s experiences would have been distressing, the landlord’s actions were nevertheless reasonable and proportionate in the circumstances, and were in line with its policy and best practice.
  7. The Ombudsman notes that the resident has expressed dissatisfaction with the way the landlord has communicated and handled the matter. Aside from delays with complaints handling, discussed further below, based on the evidence provided to this service, the landlord interacted with the resident in a reasonable manner and in line with its ASB policy. It provided the resident with comprehensive explanations of its position, and given the findings above, this service determines an overall finding of no maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the matter.

Complaints handling

  1. The resident first raised a formal complaint on 30 September 2021. The landlord issued its acknowledgement of the complaint on 20 October 2021, 10 working days later than it was obligated. It issued its stage one response on 26 November 2021, a further eight working days later. The resident escalated her complaint on 13 December 2021, with the landlord issuing its stage two response on 10 March 2022, a further 32 days later than it was obligated to do so. This resulted in the resident experiencing an unreasonable delay of 50 working days in her complaint responses.
  2. While the Ombudsman understands that some delays can be reasonable, the Ombudsman expects a landlord to provide an explanation for such delays, and an indicative timeframe for its delayed response. The landlord did not do this in this instance, nor did it address the delays in either complaint response. The delays also led to the resident expending time and trouble in chasing the landlord for its response throughout October 2021, and again in January and February 2022.
  3. While the delays did not affect the outcome of the complaint, they were nevertheless unreasonable, were contrary to the landlord’s complaints policy, and caused distress to the resident as it left her unclear as to how her complaint would be resolved. In the circumstances, this amounted to service failure, for which £50 compensation is appropriate to reflect the distress caused to the resident, as well as for her time and trouble chasing the responses.
  4. This service also notes that the timeframes for responses noted in the landlord’s complaints policy are not in line with the Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code, which specifies 10 working days for a stage one response, and 20 for stage two; and against which member landlords are required to self-assess their compliance. A recommendation has therefore been made below for the landlord to complete a self-assessment and in particular consider whether it should amend its complaint response times.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration by the landlord in respect of its response to the resident’s reports about her neighbour and their dog’s behaviour.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure by the landlord for its complaints handling.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

  1. The Ombudsman orders the landlord to pay compensation of £50 for any distress and inconvenience caused to the resident by its ineffective complaints handling.
  2. This amount must be paid within four weeks of the date of this determination.

Recommendations

  1. The landlord is recommended to:
    1. Contact the resident to discuss her concerns about its staff’s behaviour, raising this as a separate complaint if appropriate.
    2. Contact the resident to discuss the further disturbances from both the neighbour, and their dog, raising this as a separate complaint if appropriate.
    3. Contact the resident in regards to adaptations to the shared passageway to the property to seek out any alternative funding, or solutions where appropriate.
    4. Self-assess its complaints policy against this Service’s Complaint Handling Code, to ensure it is compliant with all complaint responses moving forward. This can be found at https://www.housing-ombudsman.org.uk/landlords-info/complaint-handling-code/.