Derwent Housing Association Limited (202103153)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202103153

Derwent Housing Association Limited

28 April 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

This complaint is about:
1. The landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint of 31 May 2019 regarding her reports of anti-social behaviour (ASB) by her neighbours, fencing and other issues.
2. The resident’s complaint of 16 June 2020 about:
  1. How the landlord handled her reports, between 4 June 2019 and 16 June 2020, that she was being harassed by Neighbour A and that her housing officer was treating her less favourably than her neighbours.
  2. The lack of progress with regards to the removal of neighbour A’s shed that was overhanging her fence.
  3. The landlord advising the resident to remove the fence she had erected alongside Neighbour B’s fence.
3. The landlord’s complaint handling.

Jurisdiction

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint of 31 May 2019 regarding her reports of anti-social behaviour (ASB) by her neighbours, fencing and other issues.

What we can and cannot consider is called the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction. This is governed by the Housing Ombudsman Scheme. When a complaint is brought to the Ombudsman, we must consider all the circumstances of the case as there are sometimes reasons why a complaint will not be investigated.

Paragraph 39(a) of the Scheme states that the Ombudsman will not investigate complaints which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion are made prior to having exhausted a member’s complaints procedure.
On 31 May 2019, the resident raised a formal complaint with the landlord regarding:
1. One of her neighbours reporting her to RSPCA for the treatment of her dogs
2. Her car being scratched down one side which she reported to the Police.
3. Ornaments stolen from the front of her property that she reported to the Police.
4. Screws and nails in her car tyres.
5. Her neighbour came round ‘intoxicated and very abusive’ claiming that the fence contractor had left a stone on his lawn that flicked up when he mowed his lawn.
6. That her neighbour’s shed was overhanging a fence she recently installed.
7. Her neighbours reporting her to:
1. Environmental health in 2017 and 2018
2. The Police for allegedly watching the neighbour’s children via her CCTV.
3. The landlord on numerous occasions regarding cats, rats, cat sick and faeces and mice.
1. One of her neighbours intimidating her every time she left and returned to her property.
2. Constantly being accused of blocking drains and a neighbour entering her garden to rod the drains without her permission.
3. Beer cans and nub ends pushed under her fence and large stones thrown on her lawn which damage her mower when she mowed her lawn.
4. Problems with parking.
5. Private workman entering her garden from her neighbour’s property and using her outside water tap for the concrete for their fence.
6. Letters sent from the landlord to all resident’s regarding inappropriate parking, feeding wild animals and disposal of rubbish.
The landlord responded on 4 June 2019. In its response the landlord referred to the historic nature of many of the issues the resident had raised, and that she had not contacted it to provide any specific details of any incidents of alleged anti-social behaviour for an extended period of time. The landlord said that it found the resident’s assertion that there has been a lack of action in its dealing with anti-social behaviour to be unreasonable as it did not have evidence that the issues she was reporting were malicious or amounted to ASB.
The landlord said that this would appear to be a difference in lifestyle, rather than anti-social behaviour and that it would help facilitate a compromise through its housing team and the provision of mediation, but that it would not take enforcement action without substantial and ongoing evidence of breaches of tenancy or anti-social behaviour. The landlord also said that it would assess any new information provided and then contact the resident to agree a way forward.
In accordance with paragraph 39(a) this complaint is outside the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction because following the landlord’s initial response of 4 June 2019, the resident did not pursue the complaint at the time by asking for an escalation to the next stage of the landlord’s complaints process. As the resident acknowledged in her formal complaint to the landlord in June 2020, a year later, her complaint of 31 May 2019 had not exhausted the landlord’s complaints process.
It is noted that the resident continued to report issues to her landlord after 31 May 2019 and that the landlord has considered those matters in its response to the resident’s subsequent formal complaint of 16 June 2020.

Background and summary of events

Background

The resident is an assured tenant of the landlord. The tenancy commended on 29 March 2010. The property is a 2-bedroom mid-terrace house in a row of three, built in 1998, set in a countryside location.
The resident’s complaint concerns both her neighbours, who will be referred to in this report and Neighbour A and Neighbour B.
The resident submitted the formal complaint considered in this report on 16 June 2020. Under its complaints policy, the landlord used its discretion to extend the period considered back to June 2019, one year before the resident’s formal complaint of 16 June 2020 and immediately after the resident’s previous formal complaint of 31 May 2019.
As this service can only consider complaints which have exhausted that process, this investigation will therefore focus on the following:
1. How the landlord handled the resident’s reports, between 4 June 2019 and 16 June 2020 that she was harassed by Neighbour A and that her housing officer was treating her less favourably than her neighbours.
2. The lack of progress with regards to the removal of Neighbour A’s shed that was overhanging her fence.
3. The landlord advising the resident to remove the fence she had erected alongside the fence recently installed by Neighbour B.

Summary of events

On 4 June 2019, the resident’s reported that Neighbour A had been verbally abusive towards her about a feral cat. The landlord responded to the resident on 4 June 2019, confirming that her report would be referred to her housing officer to investigate and respond as appropriate.
On 6 June 2019, the resident’s housing officer emailed the resident to confirm that they had spoken to Neighbour A to remind them to be more mindful when parking their vehicles but could not see that Neighbour B was causing an obstruction. The housing officer said that they would send a letter to all three properties to remind them all to be mindful of where they park. That they had discussed the issue of the shed with Neighbour A who was looking into this to see whether it can be moved and if not, it would have to be removed, and that they would keep the resident updated. The housing officer also said that they had discussed mediation with Neighbour A, who were willing to do this and asked whether this was something the resident would consider.
The resident replied to the landlord the same day to say that she felt mediation was unnecessary at that time.
On the 11 June 2019, the Police contacted the landlord about a report it had received from the resident about Neighbour A shouting at her through his window on 4 June 2019 about cleaning up after a cat. The Police said that the resident had told them that she had reported it to the landlord, and they were making the landlord aware so that it could deal with the matter.
There was further correspondence between the landlord, the resident and the Police, between 11 and 24 June 2019. On 18 June 2019, the resident attended the landlord’s office to share a video of Neighbour A shouting ‘it’s all your fault’’ and to ‘‘take the camera off’’ at her on 4 June 2019. On 24 June 2019 the housing officer spoke to Neighbour A. The landlord also contacted the Police who advised that it would be down to the landlord, and not the Police, to action as necessary. The Police also noted that if mediation had been offered this would suffice.
On 25 June 2019, the housing officer emailed the resident to update her on the shed. The housing officer said that Neighbour A had asked for some information from its asset management team regarding the position of the fence and to prevent any future costs, and whilst they were unable to provide a specific timescale, they would try to resolve this as soon as possible.
On 15 July 2019 the resident emailed the landlord regarding a further complaint made to Environmental Health (EH) by her neighbours regarding her feeding feral cats and that EH had confirmed that no further action would be taken. The resident also asked for an update on Neighbour A’s shed overhanging her fence.
On 4 March 2020, the resident emailed her new housing officer about continued animosity towards her by her neighbours. The resident said that Neighbour A had recorded her on their mobile phone on 27 October 2019, which she had reported to the Police, that on 21 and 8 February 2020 the same neighbour had placed a mobile phone in their front window. That on 25 January 2020 she and an acquaintance were stared at by Neighbour A when she returned home, which she said she found intimidating. The resident said that she suspected that Neighbour A may be acting in that way as they had been told to gain evidence and that unless mediation could force her neighbours to change their dislike for certain animals then it was meaningless and unhelpful.
On 16 June 2020, the resident submitted a formal complaint to the landlord, the resident said that:
1. She was harassed by Neighbour A, which she linked to the landlord asking her neighbours for evidence regarding the cats.
2. That in July 2019 she had emailed the landlord to report that she had been reported to EH by her neighbours for the third time with regards to her feeding feral cats.
3. There had been no progress with regards to the removal of Neighbour A’s shed.
4. Her housing officer had treated her less favourably than her neighbours because the daughter of Neighbour B was a police officer, and Neighbour B had also used this to intimidate her.

The resident also reported that:

Neighbour A had removed the fencing from the rear of their property and where now using the access path to the rear of her garden to extend the size of their garden.
That she had been attacked verbally by Neighbour B in her own rear garden on 24 May 2020.
That Neighbour B had replaced the rear fencing on 13 June 2020, that the old fence posts had been left exposed which the resident said was dangerous, that the new fence invaded her privacy as privacy panels had been removed and the fence now sat lower than the previous fence at the back door and so Neighbour B could now see directly into her home, and that she had had Asset Management intervention regarding the fence she installed.
Neighbour A had been told about keeping dogs on leads in the communal area but had let them off to chase her cats on 1 June 2020.

On 22 June 2020, the resident emailed the landlord a photo dated 17 June 2020 of an open gate at Neighbour A (9) which she said was enabling their dogs to roam freely on the path due to the fencing issue.
On 25 June 2020, the resident emailed landlord to report that she had tried to mow her lawn that day but was unable to move her wheelie bin as Neighbour A was using the pathway as an extension to their garden, having taken down the fence.
On 9 July 2020, the resident emailed the landlord to chase its response to her complaint.
On 16 July 2020, the landlord emailed resident to apologise for the delay in responding to her complaint, explaining that they were in the process of gathering their findings and was also waiting for further information from her housing officer so that they could conclude their investigation. The complaints officer said that they hoped to have this done by the end of the following day.
The resident also emailed the landlord on 16 July 2020 to report Neighbour A swilling down their garden slabs into her garden which contained dog hair and urine, and general waste, and was giving off a bad smell.
On 17 July 2020, the landlord issued its stage one response. With regards to:
1. The resident’s report on 4 June 2019, the landlord said that it had found that the matter was investigated thoroughly by her housing officer and the correct actions taken.
2. The resident’s concerns about neighbours recording her movements, the landlord said that the resident’s housing officer had asked her to contact them if this continues to be something she was worried about.
3. The parking, the landlord said that it did not find any failure in the manner this had been dealt with by either the resident’s current or previous housing officer.
4. The feeding of feral cats, the landlord noted that since email of 15 July 2019 there had been no further complaints about her feeding feral cats outside her property until recently. This situation would continue to be monitored by her housing officer and would be picked up again were substantive evidence be provided by her neighbours.
5. Neighbour A’s shed overhanging the resident’s fence, the landlord acknowledged that this had been ongoing for over a year and said that it understood this must have been very frustrating for the resident. That the matter was to be resolved by a workman cutting the corner off Neighbour A’s shed, which would take place on 20 July 2020. The landlord acknowledged that a breakdown in communication led to this matter taking so long to reach a conclusion, apologised and offered the resident £30 for this failing
The landlord also:
1. Acknowledged that the resident’s allegation of unfavourable treatment by her housing officer was a serious allegation, which it had put to both the resident’s housing officer and their manager. The landlord said that it could find no evidence that the resident was being treated any differently from her neighbours and it was sorry that she felt that she was.
2. Said that mediation had been offered on several occasions and that the resident had not responded to their most recent invitations to take part. The landlord also said that it had also read the letter from the resident’s neighbours asking that ‘‘bygones be bygones’’ and asking that both parties try again with their relationship. The landlord encouraged the resident to accept offers of mediation to allow her to build a more positive relationship with her neighbours.
On 10 August 2020, the landlord wrote to the resident advising that it had been made aware that she had erected a fence alongside Neighbour B’s new fence, for which Neighbour B had been granted permission, but she had not. The landlord said that the fence the resident had erected had resulted in there being a potential ‘’no-man’s land’’ between the two fences and that she was to remove the fence within the next four weeks.
The resident wrote to the landlord on 11, 12 and 13 August 2020 to escalate her complaint on the basis that:
1. She was being harassed by her neighbours ‘‘aided by the landlord discriminating’’ against her and that the issue of her being treated less favourably had not been addressed.
2. She had been advised to remove the fence she had recently erected alongside the fence, also recently installed, by Neighbour B. The resident said that felt the email from her housing officer was threatening.
3. With regards to her neighbours shed overhanging her fence, the resident said the landlord had confirmed that her fence followed the correct boundary but, until 20 July 2020, had done nothing for a year about the neighbours shed sitting on top of her fence, that she had paid for.
On 7 September 2020, the landlord issued its Stage two and final response.
1. With regards to the residents allegation on 4 June 2019 that Neighbour A had been verbally abusive towards her about a feral cat, the landlord noted that the original investigation had considered this and noted that the Tenancy Sustainment Manager had offered to meet with the resident previously, to discuss her concerns, and that this offer was still available to her.
2. With regards to its request for the resident to remove her fence, the landlord said that whilst it appreciated the resident had said she had discussed the erection of the fence with her previous housing officer, her tenancy required that requests are made in writing and there was no record of a written request being made. However, the resident did have the option to apply for retrospective permission on the basis that she would ensure that weeds or plants were not allowed to grow in the space between the fences.
3. With regards to the content of the email requesting the resident remove the fence, the landlord said that the contents were factual, and it did not find any evidence to support the resident’s claims about that content.
4. The landlord made no further reference to Neighbour A’s shed overhanging the resident’s fence.
When the resident contacted this service on 10 May 2021, she raised further complaints and was advised by this service on 22 September 2021 that the following matters would not be included in this investigation as they have not exhausted the landlord’s complaints process:
1. Neighbour A using the rear of her garden as they had removed their fence and their dogs were loose.
2. Harassment from her housing officer in their email of 28 July 2020 regarding reports from neighbours regarding her CCTV.
3. Contact from a PCSO 4 August 2020 regarding her feeding feral cats on the communal path, which Neoghbour A had alleged had poisoned their dog, which the resident called a ‘serious false allegation’.
4. Washing line, bees and parking.
On 27 October 2021 the landlord advised this service that there was no outstanding issue in relation to the two fences installed side-by-side, between the resident’s and Neighbour B’s properties, as the resident had been allowed to keep the fence she installed. The overhanging shed had been moved by Neighbour A and the resident had made no further reports about this matter for over a year.

Assessment and findings

Key agreements, policy and procedures.

The landlord’s ASB Policy and Procedure states that:
1. Dependent on the type of ASB, the resident should be supported with methods of reporting incidents such as log/diary sheets. If a one off incident is reported, the officer should take a statement rather sending diary sheets.
2. Where there is little or no evidence of anti-social behaviour, allegations, and counter allegations and/or implications showing there is a clash of lifestyle or a neighbour dispute, the landlord will not take enforcement action.
3. The landlord will promote an attitude of understanding and tolerance between neighbours in these circumstances and signpost to support services and offer mediation where appropriate. Beyond initial enquiries, these instances will not be treated as anti-social behaviour.
Under the terms of the tenancy agreement the resident is responsible for the maintenance of gardens, hedges, fences and other outbuilding at their home. The tenancy agreement also says that the tenant must not make any improvements, alterations or additions to their home without first getting the landlord’s permission in writing.
The landlord has a two stage complaints process. At stage one the complaint is to be responded to within 10 working days and at stage two within 20 working days. The policy allows for an extension to the time in exceptional circumstances, residents will be advised of the reason for the extension and when they can expect a response.
The landlord’s complaints policy states that:
1. When a resident first reports an issue to the landlord this will be dealt with as a service request and not a complaint.
2. Complaints where customers and other interested parties have become entrenched in their position, may require a different approach to resolving the matter, such as mediation or conciliation to try to resolve the matter and to reduce the risk of the complaint escalating further.
The landlord’s compensation policy allows for compensation to be considered where there is an unreasonable delay in the landlord resolving a query or issue and the customer has not been kept informed. The policy allows for payments of £50 for lack of communication with regards to distress/inconvenience/time and trouble.

Assessment

How the landlord handled the resident’s reports, between 4 June 2019 and 16 June 2020, that she was being harassed by Neighbour A and that her housing officer was treating her less favourably than her neighbours.

It is noted that there is a history of disputes between the resident and her neighbours regarding a number of issues including the resident’s allegations that her neighbours were intimidating her and that they were reporting her to both environmental health and the landlord about her feeding feral cats.
It is important to note that it is not the purpose of this report to investigate any of the alleged ASB itself, to apportion blame or to assess the credibility of the reports made by the resident. The Ombudsman’s role is to consider whether the landlord responded appropriately to the resident’s reports by adhering to its policies, procedures, and any agreements with the resident, and that the landlord behaved reasonably, taking account of what is fair in all the circumstances of the case.
As the resident had reported that her neighbour had been verbally abusive towards her on 4 June 2019 it was appropriate for the landlord to refer her report for investigation. In accordance with the landlord’s ASB policy, the landlord made contact with the resident within 10 working days of their report. Between 11 and 24 June 2019, there is evidence of the landlord liaising with the Police and the resident, on 18 June 2019 the resident attended the landlord’s officer to provide their video evidence and on 24 June 2019, four working days, later the landlord spoke to Neighbour A. It is also noted that during at this time the Police confirmed that they would not be taking any further action and that if mediation had been offered this would suffice.
Around the same time, whilst the resident’s reports have not been seen by this service, it appears the resident had also contacted the landlord about her neighbours inconsiderate parking, which the landlord spoke to Neighbour A about on 6 June 2019, reminding them to be more considerate. The landlord also advised the resident that they would send letters to all three properties regarding this. These were all appropriate steps for the landlord to take to try and resolve the dispute and evidence that the landlord had taken the resident’s concerns seriously. It is also evident that at that time the landlord had discussed the possibility of mediation with Neighbour A and the resident. However, whilst Neighbour A had indicated their willingness to try mediation, this was declined by the resident.
Following this, with the exception of the resident contacting the landlord on 15 July 2019 to advise that her neighbours had again reported her to EH, this service has seen no evidence of any further reports of ASB made by the resident until 4 March 2020, when the resident contacted her new housing officer to report that Neighbour A had been recording her on their mobile phone on 27 October 2019, 21 and 28 February 2020 and then stared at her when she returned home on 25 January 2020. There is no evidence of the landlord taking any action in response to the resident’s contact at that time. However, it is noted that again the resident declined mediation.
In its stage one response, the landlord said that it was satisfied that both the resident’s report of 4 June 2019 and the parking issue had been dealt with appropriately. Having considered the evidence I am satisfied that that was indeed the case, the landlord having discussed the resident’s concerns with her, spoken to the neighbours, sent letters to all parties and having spoken to the Police. The landlord also spoke about the resident continuing to report her concerns about her neighbours and that it would monitor the situation with regards to the reports made about her regarding the feral cats.
There is no doubt that there had clearly been a breakdown in the relationship between the resident and her neighbours, however, given that there was no clear evidence to suggest that there had been a breach of tenancy and as the police had confirmed that they would be taking no further action, there were limited steps the landlord could take.
In such cases mediation can be an effective way of resolving an issue by bringing all parties together and can prevent a dispute from escalating into a more serious disturbance. There is evidence of the landlord offering mediation to both parties on at least two occasions, which was a fair and reasonable step to take.
In her complaint to the landlord the resident also claimed that her housing officer was treating her less favourably than her neighbours.
The landlord acted appropriately in response to the resident’s claims by carrying out an investigation and discussing the matter with both the resident’s housing officer and their manager.
Whilst the resident felt that the landlord had treated her less favourably than her neighbours this service has also seen no evidence to support the resident’s claims. The landlord did; however, demonstrate that it attempted to put things right by apologising to the resident for any upset caused. This Service is therefore satisfied that the landlord took reasonable steps to address the resident’s concerns.

The lack of progress with regards to the removal of Neighbour A’s shed.

There is evidence of the resident reporting that Neighbour A’s shed was overhanging her fence as early as May 2019.
The landlord’s initial response to the resident’s concerns was reasonable, the housing officer emailed the resident on 25 June 2019 to advise that Neighbour A had asked for some information from its asset management team and that whilst they were unable to provide a specific timescale they would try to ensure the issue was resolve as soon as possible. It is noted that under the terms of the tenancy agreement any outbuilding, including the shed, was the responsibility of Neighbour A and not the landlord.
On 15 July 2019, the resident asked for an update on Neighbour A’s shed overhanging her fence. However, there is no evidence of any further correspondence with regards to the fence until the resident submitted her formal complaint on 16 June 2020. This was an unreasonably long time for the resident to have to wait for both the issue to be progressed by Neighbour A and to receive updates from the landlord.
It was therefore appropriate for the landlord to apologise to the resident in its stage one response, to provide the resident with an update, confirming that the issue would be resolved by Neighbour A by 20 July 2020, and to offer the resident £30 compensation for its failure to communicate effectively with the resident regarding this matter between June 2019 and June 2020. It is noted that in her escalation request to the landlord the resident confirmed that the matter had been resolved on 20 July 2020.

The landlord advising the resident to remove the fence she had erected alongside the fence recently installed by Neighbour B.

At some point on or around 10 August 2020, the resident installed a new fence alongside a new fence also recently installed by Neighbour B.
As both the tenancy agreement and the landlord’s Repairs and Maintenance Procedures state the resident is responsible for the maintenance of fences at their home and as the tenancy agreement also states that the resident must first getting the landlord’s permission in writing, it was reasonable for the landlord to expect the resident to seek permission to install her new fence prior to her doing do.
Whilst the resident was clearly upset by the landlord’s letter of 10 August 2020, as she had not sought permission to install the fence it was reasonable for the landlord to remind her of her obligations under her tenancy.
In its final response, the landlord acknowledged that, whilst there was no record of any written request being made, the resident had said that she had discussed this with her previous housing officer. In order to resolve the complaint the landlord provided the resident with the option of applying for retrospective permission for the fence. This was a reasonable approach for the landlord to take and in an update to this service in October 2021 the landlord advised that the resident had been allowed to keep the fence she installed.
In her complaint the resident also raised concerns about the email from her housing officer being threatening. In its final response landlord acknowledged that the resident believed that to be the case, however, said that the contents were factual, and it did not find any evidence to support the resident’s claims. Having reviewed the email itself, whilst I appreciate that being advised that the content may have been upsetting, I am satisfied that the landlord’s position was reasonable, the contents were factual and there is no evidence of the email being threatening.

The landlord’s complaint handling

The Housing Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code expects landlords to recognise the difference between a report and a complaint. A report being a request from the resident to their landlord requiring action to be taken to put something right. A complaint should be raised when the resident raises dissatisfaction with the landlord’s response to such reports.
Following her complaint to the landlord on 16 June 2020, the resident reported a number of new issues to the landlord. In its complaint responses the landlord explained that whilst it may have provided her with an update with regards to some of her new reports in its complaint responses, it had not considered them under its formal complaints process as it had not first had the opportunity to put them right. This was a reasonable position for the landlord to take and in accordance with both the Housing Ombudsman’s Complaints Handling Code and the landlord’s complaints policy. These new issues included the reports made in:
1. The resident’s formal complaint of 16 June 2020, that:
  1. Neighbour A had removed the fencing from the rear of their property.
  2. She had been ‘‘verbally attacked’’ by Neighbour B in her own rear garden on 24 May 2020.
  3. Neighbour B had replaced their fencing on 13 June 2020, that the old fence posts had been left exposed and that the new fence invaded her privacy as privacy panels had been removed.
  4. Neighbour A being told about keeping dogs on leads in the communal area but had let them off to chase her cats on 1 June 2020.
1. The resident’s emails of:
  1. 22 June 2020 that Neighbour A had left a gate open enabling their dogs to roam freely.
  2. 25 June 2020 that the removal of Neighbour A’s fence had prevented her from moving her wheelie bin.
  3. 16 July 2020 that Neighbour A was swilling down their garden slabs into her garden.
Whilst the resident’s complaint about the landlord advising her to remove the fence was made during the complaints process, as this was a complaint about the actions of the landlord rather than a report that the landlord would first have to investigate it was reasonable for the landlord to respond to the resident’s complaint about this matter in its final response.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was no maladministration in how the landlord handled the resident’s reports, between 4 June 2019 and 16 June 2020, that she was being harassed by Neighbour A and that her housing officer was treating her less favourably than her neighbours.
In accordance with paragraph 55(b) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was reasonable redress by the landlord in respect of its response to the resident’s concerns about the lack of progress with regards to the removal Neighbour A’s shed that was overhanging her fence.
In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was no maladministration by the landlord in respect of it advising the resident to remove the fence she had erected alongside a fence recently installed by Neighbour B .
In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was no maladministration in respect of the landlord’s complaint handling.

Reasons

The landlord responded to the resident’s reports in accordance with its ASB policy, speaking to the resident, the alleged perpetrator and the police. Having been unable to evidence any ASB that would amount to a breach of tenancy, with the Police having advised that there was no further action it could take and given the history of disputes between the resident and her neighbours, the landlord acted appropriately by inviting both parties to take part in mediation. The evidence suggests that the neighbours agreed to engage with mediation but that this was declined by the resident on at least two occasions.
The landlord acknowledged that it had failed to communicate with the resident in a timely manner with regards to Neighbour A’s fence overhanging her fence and offered the resident compensation that was fair and proportionate to level of service failure by the landlord, given that, under the tenancy terms and conditions the shed was the responsibility of Neighbour A and not the landlord.
Whilst the resident was clearly upset by the landlord’s email of 10 August 2020 advising her that she would need to remove the fence she had recently installed, the landlord was entitled to advise the resident to do so as she had not previously obtained the written permission, she was obliged to under the terms of her tenancy agreement. To resolve this the landlord provided the resident with the opportunity to apply for retrospective permission and the resident was ultimately given permission for her fence to remain. Whilst it was perceived to be so by the resident, there is also no evidence to substantiate her claim that the landlord’s email of 10 August 2020 was threatening.
It was reasonable and in accordance with the landlord’s complaints policy and the Housing Ombudsman Complaint handling code for the landlord to not consider new reports made by the resident during the complaints process under its formal complaints process as it had not first had the opportunity to put them right.