Freebridge Community Housing Limited (202217964)
REPORT
COMPLAINT 202217964
Freebridge Community Housing Limited
29 November 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
- The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of the residents’:
- The Ombudsman has also considered the landlord’s complaint handling.
Background
- The residents are joint assured tenants of the landlord, a housing association. The property is a bungalow. The residents at points have been represented by a family member. In this report, both residents are referred to as ‘the resident,’ and the family member is referred to as ‘the residents’ representative.’
- From at least May 2021, the resident raised concerns about the condition of a fence bordering his property and an empty next door property. The landlord’s records note that internal chasers were made in May, June and July 2021 to landlord staff who were investigating the ownership of the next door property.
- In July 2021, the resident reported that when it rained, water overflowed from guttering down a wall and onto an external boiler, after which a repair was raised for the gutters, including to clean them. The landlord’s records indicate that an appointment was made for 1 September 2021, however in late August it was noted that this could not be attended and the job would be passed to a contractor who would contact the resident directly. The resident’s account says that an operative initially carried out repairs to gutter joints, but this was bodged, and a contractor later attended who said the gutter needed replacing.
- From at least September 2021, the resident reported that their neighbour and family member were driving and parking on grass areas between bungalows, making this slippery to walk on. They also reported that the neighbour had annexed part of a communal area to make their garden bigger. In September 2021, the landlord wrote to residents and asked them to stop parking on grass.
- In November 2021, the landlord visited, observed issues and spoke to another individual who raised concerns about the parking. The same month it wrote to the neighbour and asked them to stop parking on grass, explaining this damaged grass and could be a danger to others.
- In January 2022, the landlord visited the resident and observed parking on grass. It said it would contact the neighbour. It also noted that it had proposed to install bollards to deny vehicle access, and it would contact the resident when installation of these had been agreed. The following month, the landlord internally discussed installation of bollards and a works order was referred for manager approval.
- In April 2022, the landlord wrote to the neighbour and asked them to stop parking on grass. It also provided the resident with diary sheets to record when this occurred.
- In May 2022, the landlord noted that the resident still reported parking on grass, and wrote to the neighbour again and asked them to stop parking on grass. The same month, it internally discussed installing posts in the grass area.
- On 4 July 2022, the landlord met with the resident and raised a complaint for issues with their neighbour and parking, and delays repairing soffits, facias, guttering and fencing. It is understood that an issue also raised concerned a vehicle that a family member of the neighbour had left parked for a long period.
- In late July 2022, the landlord informed the resident that works to install bollards would be progressed and carried out in upcoming months.
- In August 2022, the landlord internally noted that landlord staff had accepted the neighbour’s extra garden.
- On 22 August 2022, the landlord provided a stage 1 response. It said that there was not enough evidence for issues with neighbours, but it would support mediation between them. It said that a job to assess if replacement of the gutter was required was cancelled in November 2021 with the mutual consent of the resident, and it could re-raise this if required. It said that it did not object if a tenant wanted to extend their land if this was kept maintained. It said installation of bollards should be completed the following month. It said it had no control over who parked in a communal parking area and referred the resident to the police. It acknowledged communication issues and a delay in its response, and awarded £25.
- On 1 September 2022, the residents’ representative responded to the landlord. They queried actions in respect to the neighbours and visitors shouting. They noted that staff had said the fence issue would be sorted but it had not been for 2 years. They said that the residents were told that works to the soffits, facias and guttering would be done after April under a “better homes scheme,” but they were still waiting, and the residents had not cancelled works at any point. They queried the neighbour being able to take land and make it their own. They queried the neighbour’s visitors being allowed to park car where they did as the residents had been informed this was a breach of tenancy. They said that a car related to a neighbour was untaxed and had a Statutory Off Road Notification, and they queried why it was a police issue when the landlord’s policy said it would remove such vehicles.
- The residents’ representative chased a response in September 2022, after which they and the residents contacted the Ombudsman in November and December 2022. The landlord subsequently contacted the resident in early March 2023, after contact from the Ombudsman, and said it would take action and keep them updated.
- On 25 May 2023, the information provided advises that fencing repair was completed, and later in May the landlord said it would visit the resident. This happened on 2 June 2023, and on 19 June 2023 the residents’ representative updated the Ombudsman about the outcome. They noted that the landlord wanted to look at alternatives to bollards. They noted that gutter repairs were being done that day. They noted that the landlord was going to look into land the neighbour had claimed, and review the land registry.
- On 7 July 2023, the landlord provided a stage 2 response. It noted that it had visited on 2 June 2023. It noted that it had asked for the work to the soffits, facias and guttering to be prioritised and this was now complete. It apologised for the time this took. It noted that fencing was completed in May. It noted staff had discussed a process it could follow for noise nuisance if the resident wanted to consider this. It said that installation of bollards had not happened due to concerns about emergency vehicle access and communication failings. It apologised for this and failing to deliver something the resident believed had been agreed. It said that instead of installing a bollard, it intended to ensure that the neighbour stopped parking where they were not permitted, and would be visiting the neighbour that day. It acknowledged that the resident had experienced delays in works and complaint responses, and awarded £200, comprising £25 for complaint handling and £175 for distress and inconvenience caused by repairs delays.
- The same month, the landlord’s records show that it spoke to the neighbour about parking on the grass and noise being made by children. The following month, the landlord visited the resident and the neighbour. It noted that the neighbour’s visitors were no longer parking on the grass, the neighbour had moved the fence back, and the neighbour was trying to keep the children quiet. It noted that the neighbour was willing to do mediation but the resident was not.
- In October 2023, the landlord told the Ombudsman that the neighbour had now put the garden back to the size it should be, with correct boundaries and appropriate fencing. It confirmed that the car parked for over a year had been moved and no longer presented an issue after tenancy enforcement action. It said that while occasional delivery drivers may park on the grass, it believed the general issue had ceased after a manager had spoken to the neighbour. It said that it would keep in contact with the resident to address his concerns, and was happy to revisit the matter in the future.
- In November 2023, the landlord subsequently approved ‘no parking’ signs to be erected, after concerns being raised about vehicles still driving along the footpath. These were manufactured at the end of November 2023 and erected on 31 January 2024.
- The resident has subsequently raised issues with a gap in the hedge that have arisen after the neighbour reinstated their fence to its original position.
Assessment and findings
Scope of the investigation
- In correspondence, the residents’ representative has raised issues about when the residents moved into the property, the boiler, and members of the public using a gap in the hedge after extended land was put back to how it was. These were not the focus of the original complaint and the complaint responses and so are not investigated here. The residents have the option to ask the landlord to progress a complaint about these issues through its complaint procedure. It should be noted that complaints are normally expected to be made within 12 months of when issues occurred, so it is possible the landlord may not consider a complaint about when the residents moved into the property in 2020.
Repairs to soffits, facias and guttering
- The resident reported issues with the gutter in July 2021, after which they say an operative carried out a repair, and a contractor then attended who said the gutter needed replacing. The landlord said in its August 2022 stage 1 response that a repair was cancelled in November 2021 by mutual agreement with the resident, and repairs were subsequently completed on 19 June 2023.
- The landlord’s handling of the repairs was clearly delayed. It could have also been more pro-active to progress the repairs, as inviting the resident to re-raise the repairs in the August 2022 stage 1 response does not seem entirely reasonable since he had complained about them being outstanding.
- The landlord acknowledged that there were delays and communication issues for the repairs, and awarded £175 for the distress and inconvenience caused by these. This equates to compensation of £87.50 if sharing the £175 compensation between these repairs and the fencing.
- In the Ombudsman’s view, this constitutes reasonable redress for the complaint. The resident says they consider the repairs issues to be resolved, the compensation seems in line with the landlord’s policy, and it is not evident that the repairs delays resulted in any more significant detriment to merit more compensation.
Repairs to fencing
- The resident raised concerns from at least May 2021 about the condition of the fence between their property and an empty next door property. The landlord internally chased staff in May, June and July 2021 about investigations into the ownership of the next door property. The repairs were subsequently completed in May 2023.
- The landlord’s handling of the repairs was clearly delayed. It should have been more mindful of its obligations to its tenants and health and safety, and not allowed the issue to become so protracted. Its stage 1 response also failed to address the fencing, and the repair was not done until 9 months later.
- The landlord acknowledged that there were delays and communication issues for the repairs, and awarded £175 for the distress and inconvenience caused by these. This equates to compensation of £87.50 if sharing the £175 compensation between this repair and the soffits, facias and guttering.
- In the Ombudsman’s view, this constitutes reasonable redress for the complaint. The resident says they consider the repairs issues to be resolved, the compensation seems in line with the landlord’s policy, and it is not evident that the repair delay resulted in any more significant detriment to merit more compensation.
ASB and noise
- The residents’ representative queried, after the stage 1 response, what the landlord was doing about shouting from the neighbours and children.
- The landlord’s ASB records for reports about issues such as shouting are limited, and there is no clear reference to these apart from the representative’s email in September 2022 and reports in July 2023. The landlord did not note that such issues were raised in the complaint when it met with the residents on 4 July 2022. Given this, it seems reasonable that the stage 1 response did not address such issues in detail.
- The resident raised issues with noise from the neighbours and children around the time of the landlord’s July 2023 stage 2 response. The evidence shows that in response to this, the landlord discussed this with the neighbour more than once, confirmed that the neighbour was trying to address the noise, and invited the parties involved to participate in mediation. The resident has also not disputed the stage 2 response’s statement that they were informed about a process that could be followed for noise nuisance if the resident wanted to consider this.
- The landlord’s response to ASB and noise seems overall satisfactory. The landlord demonstrates that it took reasonable action for evidenced reports, to speak with the neighbour about noise. It is also not disputed that it explained a process that could be followed if noise continued to be an issue and the resident wanted further action.
Parking issues
- The resident reported driving and parking on grass areas from at least September 2021, which was leading to concerns that the grass was becoming a slip hazard. Following this, between September 2021 and May 2022, the landlord visited and asked residents on multiple occasions verbally and in writing not to park on the grass. In July 2022, the landlord then said it intended to install bollards, and gave the impression this would be done in September 2022. However, in June 2023 it said it intended to ensure that the neighbour stopped parking where they were not permitted. In September 2023, the landlord confirmed that the neighbour had stopped parking on the grass, and in November 2023 the landlord also took steps to arrange for ‘no parking’ signage.
- The resident also raised, from at least July 2022, a vehicle that a family member of the neighbour had left parked for a long period. From at least September 2022, the landlord was informed this was untaxed and had a Statutory Off Road Notification. The landlord said in its August 2022 stage 1 response that it had no control over who parked in a communal parking area, and referred the resident to the police for further issues with the parking. In July 2023, the landlord committed to ensuring that the neighbour stopped parking where they were not permitted, and in September 2023 it subsequently confirmed that the issue had been dealt with through enforcement action.
- The evidence shows that there are tenant obligations to only park on a hardstanding area, and parking on grass areas is not permitted. In addition, untaxed and unroadworthy vehicles are not permitted and will be towed away after notice has been given.
- The evidence shows that the landlord took some reasonable action about the parking on grass between September 2021 and May 2022 to inform the neighbour of their obligations. However, actions in respect to the parking on grass then seemed to completely cease until around July 2023, 14 months later. This was a lengthy delay.
- The evidence shows that the landlord had an unclear approach to the vehicle that a family member of the neighbour had left parked for a long period. Its August 2022 referral of the resident to the police does not seem reasonable, given the information provided states it will take action if a vehicle on its land is untaxed or unroadworthy. The landlord should have demonstrated that it considered if the vehicle met criteria for action early on, and demonstrated a clearer position and approach to the issue. It is not evident that effective action was taken for the issue until around July 2023, 12 months later. This was again a lengthy delay.
- Overall, while the landlord has taken recent appropriate steps to try to resolve them, its handling of parking issues was not satisfactory. The landlord initially took reasonable steps to try to encourage the neighbour not to park on the grass through actions such as warnings, but there was a lack of clarity about how to progress the issue when it continued. This led to commitments about bollards that were not met, which may have been avoided if there was internal escalation of the issue and effective discussions about enforcement around July 2022. The landlord also had a confused approach about the vehicle left parked for a long period, and a lack of clarity about the landlord’s obligations and powers for this.
- While it is not evident that the issues had a more significant impact on the residents, the handling will have caused frustration and undermined their confidence in the landlord. The landlord does not clearly demonstrate that it has acknowledged that its handling contributed to delayed progression of the issues, or that it has taken steps to try to improve service and avoid similar delays in future. This leads the Ombudsman to find a service failure in the landlord’s handling of the parking issues.
A neighbour extending their land
- The resident reported from at least September 2021 that their neighbour had annexed part of a communal area to make their garden bigger, before they complained in July 2022. In August 2022, the landlord internally noted that staff had accepted the neighbour’s extra garden, and its stage 1 response the same month said it did not object if a tenant wanted to extend their land if it was maintained. In June 2023, the landlord visited and told the resident that it was going to review the land registry and look into the issue further. The landlord took action so that by September 2023 boundaries had been put back to where they were.
- The information provided advises that generally, if a tenant or leaseholder wishes to make alterations, they must obtain the landlord’s permission. It is unclear the neighbour obtained this before extending their garden, but the landlord would be reasonable to not object to the neighbour extending their land, because if it is the freeholder it will have discretion about what it allows.
- There are some concerns about the landlord’s handling of the issue, however, and it is not clear that it initially appropriately considered the issue. The landlord’s consideration of the issue between September 2021 and August 2022 is unclear from the evidence. The landlord indicated in August 2022 that staff had authorised the extension of the garden, however it is unclear when this was, or if the staff had relevant authority on behalf of the landlord to allow permission for such alterations.
- The ownership of the land that the neighbour extended to also seems unclear, and correspondence from the resident indicates that it may have been land not owned by the landlord. The events after the landlord’s consideration of the matter from June 2023, which involved the neighbour restoring their garden to how it was, also undermines whether the issue was effectively considered previously.
- Overall, the landlord’s handling of the neighbour extending their land was not satisfactory. However, given the limited frequency that the issue was raised, and no significant impact being evidence, in the Ombudsman’s view the landlord has reasonably resolved the issue through its subsequent actions. While this is the case, the Ombudsman has made some recommendations in respect to the issue.
Complaint handling
- The landlord’s August 2022 stage 1 response was provided over a month late, while the July 2023 stage 2 was provided almost 2 months late, after the Ombudsman requested escalation in April 2023. The landlord acknowledged delays in its responses and the compensation it awarded included a total of £50 for complaint delays. This was appropriate, however the evidence shows there were additional issues in the landlord’s complaint handling.
- The residents’ representative contacted the sender of the stage 1 response as the response invited, but did not receive a reply. This seems to have led to the resident feeling they had to contact the Ombudsman to progress the complaint. It is unclear whether the landlord had authorisation to discuss the residents’ issues with the representative, but if this was not the case, the Ombudsman would have expected the landlord to explain this to the representative and detail what the residents needed to do in order for the representative to discuss issues on their behalf.
- The landlord’s July 2022 complaint acknowledgement detailed issues, understood to reflect a meeting with the resident, which included the fencing. The stage 1 response did not address the fencing. The landlord also told the Ombudsman in October 2023 its stage 2 response committed to resolving the issue of the neighbour extending the garden. The resident’s account confirms the landlord said at a visit that it would follow this up, and the landlord has detailed subsequent actions, however the July 2023 stage 2 makes no reference to the extension of the garden or the commitments in respect to this.
- The Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code has, since 2020, set out that landlords should confirm their understanding of complaints, address all points, provide clear reasons for decisions, and detail outstanding actions. The landlord’s stage 1 and 2 responses did not clearly meet these aims. The responses, particularly the stage 1 response, would have benefited from more detail about aspects such as the 2 distinct parking issues, more regard to tenant and landlord obligations, and more detail about its intended actions and commitments. This is beneficial for the understanding of the issues by the landlord and residents as well as external parties such as the Ombudsman. The landlord would also be expected to ensure it meets commitments, and effective monitoring of the stage 1 commitment for the bollards may have avoided some issues being so protracted.
- Overall, while the landlord acknowledged and compensated for complaint response delays, other aspects of its complaint handling was not satisfactory, and it does not demonstrate that it did all it could to avoid issues being so protracted. It did not address the fencing in its stage 1, lacked a policy based approach for issues such as parking, and lacked sufficient detail at points about the issues and commitments it was making. This leads the Ombudsman to find a service failure in the landlord’s complaint handling.
Determination
- In accordance with paragraph 53.b. of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was reasonable redress in the landlord’s handling of the residents’:
- Reports about repairs to soffits, facias and guttering
- Reports about fencing.
- Reports about a neighbour extending their land.
- In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was:
- No maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the residents’ reports about antisocial behaviour and noise.
- Service failure in the landlord’s handling of the residents’ reports about parking issues.
- Service failure in the landlord’s complaint handling.
Orders and recommendations
- The landlord is ordered to, within 4 weeks, pay the residents £50 for the issues identified, in recognition of any distress and inconvenience caused them. This is in addition to the total £225 it previously awarded, which it should take steps to pay if it has not already.
- The landlord is ordered to, within 6 weeks, review its staff training needs and processes in respect to internally escalating and discussing further actions where tenancy-related issues continue after multiple warnings.
- The landlord is recommended to liaise with the residents to review their concerns about issues with a gap in the hedge that have arisen after the neighbour reinstated their garden, to consider if it can take any action to help resolve these.
- The landlord is recommended to review its processes and staff training needs in respect to considerations of permissions for alterations to land and properties.
- The landlord is recommended to review its processes and staff training needs for ensuring complaint responses summarise and address complaint issues to a sufficient level of detail.
- The landlord is recommended to liaise with the residents and discuss authorising their daughter to discuss issues on their behalf, if it has not already done so.