Grand Union Housing Group Limited (202204738)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202204738

Grand Union Housing Group Limited

7 November 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 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 a neighbour dispute regarding her right of access.
2. This Service has also considered the landlord’s complaint handling.

Background

3. The resident is an assured tenant of the landlord. The resident has right of access through her neighbour’s garden. The neighbour is not a tenant of the landlord.
4. On 29 October 2020, the resident advised the landlord that she had a dispute with her neighbour regarding her right of access through their property. On 4 December 2020, the landlord advised the resident it had sent a copy of the deeds of the property to the neighbour, outlining that she required uninterrupted access for fire escape from her property. The landlord subsequently referred the resident to mediation in December 2020.
5. The resident requested to raise a complaint on 25 February 2021, as she was dissatisfied with the landlord’s handling of her right of access issues. In the landlord’s complaint responses, it stated it was satisfied it had taken reasonable steps to resolve the issue and it was appropriate to try to resolve the dispute through mediation before taking legal action. It had instructed its solicitor to send a letter to her neighbour on 13 May 2021 setting out the terms of her right of access and the resident was granted access through use of a keypad lock.
6. The resident raised a complaint to this Service as she remained dissatisfied with the landlord’s handling of the right of access issues and she wanted it to take legal action against her neighbours. She requested compensation for the impact of the access issues, which included the financial costs of making adjustments to the property, time and trouble pursuing the issue, moving properties, her bail conditions and health implications. She also requested £60,000 compensation for loss of income due to her conviction for assault of battery.
7. Following referral to this Service, the resident raised a further complaint on 6 June 2022, which the landlord accepted for investigation. She was dissatisfied with the staff member’s handling of the access concerns as she had not been informed her neighbour was undertaking works, which meant she had to reschedule repair appointments. She also said she had been arrested as a result of the access issues. In her complaint escalation, she requested to be moved from the property and compensation for various costs she had incurred due to the landlord’s handling of the right of access issues.
8. In the landlord’s final response, it said it had not received sufficient prior notice from the neighbour to notify the resident of the works and it was unable to enforce the neighbour to provide notice as they owned the property. It had supported the resident to find a new property, which it had agreed to decorate and pay for the moving costs. The landlord stated it was not responsible for any police action that had contributed to her conviction or any subsequent loss of income. It acknowledged that its Tenancy Enforcement Officer could explore ways to improve her communication with you in the future. The landlord confirmed that it had discussed this issue with its member of staff.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

9. The Ombudsman notes the resident’s assertion that the landlord’s handling of this case has negatively impacted her health. While the Ombudsman is sorry to hear this, it is beyond the expertise of this Service to determine a causal link between the landlord’s actions (or lack thereof) and the impact on the resident’s health.
10. Often, when there is a dispute over whether someone has been injured or a health condition has been made worse, the courts are able to rely on expert evidence in the form of a medico-legal report. This will give an expert opinion of the cause of any injury or deterioration of a condition. This would be a more appropriate and effective means of considering such an allegation and so should the resident wish to pursue this matter, she should do so via this route. This investigation will only consider whether the landlord acted in accordance with its policy / its legal obligations, and fairly in the circumstance.
11. The resident has also raised concerns regarding the landlord’s handling of her reports of repair issues in her new property. In the interest of fairness, the scope of this investigation is limited to the issues raised during the resident’s formal complaint. This is because the landlord needs to be given a fair opportunity to investigate and respond to any reported dissatisfaction with its actions prior to the involvement of this Service. Any new issues that have not been subject to a formal complaint can be addressed directly with the landlord and progressed as a new formal complaint if required.

The neighbour dispute regarding the resident’s right of access

12. The resident states that she shared the deeds and her right of access letter with both her neighbours and the landlord in September 2020. The resident initially raised concerns regarding a dispute with her neighbour about her right of access through their garden in October 2020. The landlord’s website states that it does not consider right of way disputes under its anti-social behaviour (ASB) policy, and it expects residents to discuss such issues with their neighbours. However, in this case, as the resident advised she had discussed her right of access concerns with her neighbour and the issue had not been resolved, it was reasonable that the landlord took steps to support her. The landlord took appropriate action as it also sent a copy of the property deeds to the neighbour, outlining the resident’s right of access.
13. It is acknowledged that the landlord was limited in the actions it could take as the neighbour was a homeowner, not a tenant of the landlord. The landlord clearly managed the resident’s expectations as it advised although it would take steps to ensure she had access, it was unable to take action against the neighbour’s behaviour. It was therefore appropriate that it signposted her to the police in instances when it was more suitable for them to handle the issues, such as reports of harassment.
14. As the issue remained unresolved, it was appropriate that the landlord acted in line with its ASB policy and referred the issue to a mediation service in December 2020. Mediation can be a useful tool to resolve neighbour disputes and it was reasonable that the landlord took this step before considering legal action. In this case, it was unfortunate that a solution was not mutually agreed on, which delayed a resolution to the issue.
15. The landlord visited the resident’s property to discuss the issues on 12 May 2021, and noted that a lock was on the gate, which the neighbour had been previously instructed to remove. As the landlord had evidence that the neighbour was restricting access to the resident, it was appropriate that it considered legal solutions. The landlord’s solicitor sent a letter to the neighbour on 13 May 2021, setting out the terms of the resident’s right of access and warning legal action if they failed to comply. The landlord noted that access was subsequently granted as a keypad was fitted to access the gate and the resident was provided with the code.
16. In addition to mediation and referring the matter for legal advice, the landlord took numerous steps in attempt to resolve the reported issues. On 6 July 2021, the landlord agreed to amend the gate and replace the waist height fence between the resident’s and neighbour’s properties with a six-foot fence, to prevent further disputes. Although the resident had to chase the landlord on a number of occasions to get the work completed correctly, the work exceeded its obligations as the resident was responsible for works to the dividing fences between the properties. The landlord also facilitated a property move in November 2022, which was reasonable given the deterioration of the relationship between the resident and the neighbour. The landlord supported the resident with moving costs and decorated the new property, which would typically be the resident’s responsibility.
17. However, given the bail conditions that had been set in January 2022, the landlord should have considered an urgent referral for rehousing. Its internal correspondence indicates that it did not consider this until 13 July 2022. As such, there was an unnecessary delay in providing rehousing support between January 2022 and July 2022. The landlord was aware of the bail conditions, the failure of multiple mediation attempts and that the resident wanted to move, but it took more than five months to act. The landlord’s allocation policy confirms that it will prioritise residents for rehousing in exceptional circumstances. The landlord should have assessed whether the resident qualified for a priority move in January/February 2022. Its failure to undertake this step until July 2022 is a shortfall in service.
18. The resident raised further concerns in her second complaint that her neighbour did not provide sufficient notice of repair works, which prevented her access. On 14 January 2022, the neighbours called the landlord to inform it that they were undertaking work on the path (replacing slabs like for like) and this would impact the shared access route. The resident called the landlord on 17 and 21 January 2022 to highlight that work had started on the path and she had not been informed. A similar issue occurred in May 2022 when the resident’s gardener was unable to access the shared path because cement was drying. The resident noted that she had been assured by the neighbours (via the landlord) that access would be possible. The neighbours informed the landlord of the work via email on 28 May 2022. However, this was a Saturday and the message was not relayed to the resident by the landlord until 30 May 2022.
19. The landlord’s failure to contact the resident to confirm that works were taking place in January 2022 was a shortfall in service. However, in May 2022, it was not responsible for the delay in informing the resident of the work as the notification was sent outside of normal business hours. The resident also raised concerns about the specific staff member’s handling of the issue, reporting that she was disrespectful. The landlord took reasonable steps to address her concerns as it reviewed the correspondence and “explored ways to improve her communication”. 
20. It is noted that the resident had restricted access due to bail conditions implemented by the police. Although it is acknowledged that the involvement of the police and the resident’s subsequent arrest caused her significant distress, there was no evidence that her conviction was caused due to a failure by the landlord. It is also important to note that it is outside of this Service’s remit to assess the actions of the police. The landlord reasonably managed the resident’s expectations regarding the actions it could take in the situation as it stated it could not change the bail conditions and advised her to seek independent legal advice. It also stated it would instruct its solicitor to remind the neighbour of the property deeds regarding her right of access once the bail conditions were lifted.
21. In her complaint to this Service, the resident requested compensation for loss of income due to employment issues following her conviction. The landlord’s compensation procedure outlines that it will consider offering compensation in instances where it has failed to meet its service standards. As the landlord took reasonable steps to support the resident with the access issues, it cannot be held accountable for any subsequent police action. This Service has been unable to see that the landlord was responsible for a loss of wages as it did not result from its failing.
22. The resident also requested compensation for costs she had incurred. Her email dated 6 July 2021 detailed the following:
    1. Outside bin storage – £250.
    2. Fencing, Tools – £100.
    3. Ring doorbell and motion camera – £178 and £50 annual subscription.
    4. Cable for outside motion camera – £35.code
    5. Wi-fi extender – £25
    6. Hedge cutter – £45
    7. Flowers that had to be removed – £45.
23. In line with its compensation procedure, the landlord should consider offering compensation if the resident has incurred a specific financial loss. However, in this case, the landlord was not responsible for the costs incurred by the resident. The resident also did not discuss the costs with the landlord before purchasing the items or provide evidence, such as receipts, of the incurred costs. This is requirement is confirmed in the landlord’s compensation policy: ‘For a compensation request to be considered, proof of the specific loss is required’. As a result, the landlord would not be required to offer compensation.
24. It is concerning that the landlord advised the resident on multiple occasions that it was unable to act in response to her ASB complaints about the neighbours. Although the alleged perpetrators were not tenants of the landlord, this does not absolve a landlord of the requirement to investigate and explore suitable preventative measures. However, the message the resident received from some landlord staff was that it could not do anything and she should refer your concerns to the police. The Victims Commissioner’s report on ASB has highlighted that the police, local authorities and social housing landlords all have responsibility to tackle ASB by working together to help victims. Too often, victims are being passed from one body to the other and feeling as if no one is listening.
25. The nature of ASB is such that it may require many agencies to be involved in investigating and resolving it. It is accepted that the landlord’s resources are limited and responsibility for dealing with ASB is shared with the police, but the landlord should not dismiss residents’ ASB complaints about non-tenants. This is a failing in the landlord’s handling of this matter.
26. Thankfully, not all landlord staff dismissed the resident’s concerns and the landlord did refer her to mediation on more than one occasion, as well as taking preventative measures with the gates and fencing changes. Although the dispute remained unresolved, the landlord ensured the resident had access through use of the keypad lock. Overall, the landlord took reasonable steps to support the resident in an attempt to resolve the neighbour dispute regarding the access issues. However, this report has identified failings and a finding of service failure is appropriate. The landlord has not acknowledged these shortfalls in service and did not take steps to put them right. This has adversely affected the resident and caused inconvenience and distress. A compensation order of £150 has been made for these failures.

Complaint handling

27. The landlord’s complaint handling policy states that it will respond to stage one complaints within ten working days and stage two complaints within 20 working days. It also states that “all complaints must be registered straight away and investigated”.
28. The resident initially requested to raise a complaint during a phone call on 25 February 2021 and the landlord advised her to send the complaint by email for it to be considered. This was unreasonable as the resident had clearly expressed that she wanted to raise a complaint and had provided her reasons. The landlord should ensure that it accepts complaints in all forms, in order to ensure its complaints process is accessible.
29. The landlord advised that it had raised a complaint on 26 March 2021, however, it subsequently stated it was unable to due to the ongoing ASB case regarding the issue. This is contrary to this Service’s complaint handling code which outlines that landlord’s must “clearly set out the circumstances in which a matter will not be considered, and these circumstances should be fair and reasonable to residents”. It was unreasonable for the landlord to decline access to the complaints process due to the ongoing ASB case, particularly as the issue had already been ongoing for several months and the resident was not satisfied with the resolution. Furthermore, the landlord’s complaint policy does not stipulate an ongoing ASB case as a reason to refuse to consider a complaint.
30. The resident raised a further complaint on 14 May 2021 and the landlord issued its stage one response on 1 June 2021, thus in line with its complaint timeframe. It handled the resident’s subsequent escalation and second complaint in line with its complaint policy and the relevant response timeframes.
31. As the landlord failed to consider the complaint when the resident initially raised it, there was a three-month delay in the resident accessing the complaint’s process. This resulted in additional time and effort from the resident in pursuing the complaint. The landlord failed to recognise its complaint handling failures, so compensation is warranted. In line with this Service’s remedies guidance (published on our website), compensation of £150 is appropriate as the landlord failed to acknowledge its faults and made no attempt to put things right.

Determination

32. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure by the landlord in the way it handled the resident’s reports of a neighbour dispute regarding her right of access.
33. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure by the landlord in the way it handled the complaint.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

34. The landlord is ordered to pay the resident £300 in compensation. The landlord should provide proof of the payment to this Service within four weeks of this report. The compensation is comprised of:
    1. £150 for its failures in relation to its handling of the resident’s reports of a neighbour dispute regarding her right of access.
    2. £150 for its failures in relation to its complaint handling.

Recommendations

35. It is recommended that the landlord reviews its staff training requirements regarding complaint handling to ensure that complaints are properly considered when initially raised.