Home Group Limited (202123009)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202123009

Home Group Limited

10 March 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

The complaint is about the landlord’s:
1. handling of the resident’s reports of anti-social behaviour (ASB);
2. response to the resident’s complaint.

Background

This Service has not seen a copy of the resident’s tenancy agreement. However, the resident has advised that she succeeded the tenancy from her late mother, and has had held a secure tenancy since 2002. The property is a three bedroom house.
The landlord has said it had no vulnerabilities recorded on the resident’s record. It said that it had been verbally told of her health conditions. The resident has told this Service that she was registered disabled with multiple mental and physical health conditions.
The neighbour involved in this case lived in the adjoining property, and was the tenant of a private landlord.
The Ombudsman expects a formal complaint to be made within a reasonable time of the matter complained about, normally within six months. Therefore, whilst the Ombudsman acknowledges that the resident has referred to disputes and incidents with her neighbour over a period of six years, this report focuses on matters that occurred approximately one year prior to the resident making her formal complaint to the landlord. Matters referred to in the report from prior to this time, are included only for the purpose of context.

Complaint policy

The landlord’s complaint policy states that it operates a two stage complaint process. It says that written complaint responses should be provided to residents at stage one and stage two, within 10 and 20 working days respectively.
The policy says that in instances where those deadlines cannot be met, the resident should be advised in writing. It says this should include a reason why the deadline was not met, and advice as to when the resident should expect a complaint decision.

ASB policy and procedure

The landlord’s ASB procedure sets out the steps it should take to ‘record and assess’ a report of ASB. With regard to incidents involving individuals who are not residents of the landlord, it states that it should, “inform the customer that we will not be able to take any direct remedial action and support them to identify positive next steps”.
The landlord’s ASB policy explains its standard for ‘adopting a supportive approach’. It says that, “We offer and provide ongoing support when working with victims, witnesses and perpetrators, including regular contact and referral to other agencies where appropriate”.

Summary of events

The neighbour cut down a tree in the resident’s garden without permission, which the resident reported to the police. The resident said her neighbour told the police the tree was actually within her own boundary, and the police took no further action. It is not clear precisely when this took place. The resident has said the landlord sent someone out to remeasure the boundary months later in 2021. The landlord’s records refer to emails about the matter it sent to the resident in January and February 2021.
The landlord’s records show that it visited the resident’s property to assess the fence boundary and trees on 6 April 2021. It concluded that the fence line was in the correct position, and that the trees and shrubs belong to the resident’s property.
The landlord emailed the local authority on 2 June 2021. It enquired about the provision of mediation for the resident and her neighbour, and whether the police had provided any further details. The local authority replied the same day, stating it had spoken to both parties and they had agreed to mediation. It is not clear if this had been specifically prompted by the incident involving the cut down tree, but the local authority confirmed it had submitted a mediation referral.
The landlord corresponded with the private owner of the neighbour’s property during June 2021. It addressed matters regarding potential vermin issues, and the height of trees and hedges on the boundary of the two properties. The landlord advised it intended to have works completed to reduce the height of the trees. It explained the actions it was taking concerning potential vermin issues on its communal land and at several of its nearby properties, including the resident’s.
The landlord wrote to the resident on 26 June 2021. It advised it had received noise complaints about her property. It said that it realised there are two sides to every story, but that it was important that it investigated. It advised of the methods it may use to gather evidence as part of the investigation, and reminded the resident of the relevant section of her tenancy agreement.
The landlord wrote to the resident regarding works to the trees along the dividing fence, between her and her neighbour’s properties. The letter provided to this Service was undated, but asked the resident to contact the landlord by 4 August 2021. The letter detailed the trees it would be removing, and those that would be reduced in height. It explained that the works were deemed essential, and were the responsibility of the resident. However, it recognised the financial implication of this, and so it had agreed to complete them at its own cost.
The landlord emailed the private owner on 16 August 2021. It confirmed the tree works would be going ahead in September 2021.
The resident’s letter of complaint to the landlord was dated 23 August 2021. The landlord has told this Service it received the letter on 6 September 2021. The letter was 23 pages long and began by stating it had four main elements. Namely, a complaint against the landlord; complaints against two named members of its staff, and a complaint against an unnamed member of its staff. The complaint included a lot of information about the neighbour. The key points of the complaint were as follows:
1. Her neighbour had moved in around six years earlier. They quickly fell out as the neighbour would often complain about the height of the hedges and trees.
2. The neighbour had made various untrue allegations against the resident to the police and landlord. This included complaints that her bird feeding attracted rats. The neighbour had also carried out numerous acts of harassment against the resident and her dog.
3. The landlord’s named housing manager had been biased in favour of the neighbour. She felt the landlord had been entirely unsupportive.
4. The landlord had done little to assist the resident, other than offer to help her move to a bungalow she did not want.
5. The resident was angry that the landlord had let the neighbour get away with cutting her tree down, and not taken court action. The landlord had done nothing, and told her that there was little it could do as the neighbour was not its tenant.
6. She was particularly angry about an incident with another of the landlord’s named managers. The resident said it was the manager’s first visit to her home and described the incident in detail. The resident admitted she had also lost her temper, but said that the manager had behaved unprofessionally. She said the manager had shouted threats to take action against her, knowing the neighbour was in earshot. The resident said she had CCTV and audio footage of the incident.
7. The resident had paid for new fencing to go between her and her neighbour’s back gardens. The neighbour had objected and made it very difficult to get this work done.
8. The same manager had visited her again with tradesmen, regarding the fence. The resident was unhappy that the manager had advised the landlord was willing to erect the fence, but it would only use its own materials and not the panels the resident had bought.
9. The stress of the whole matter was badly affecting her mental and physical health.
The landlord sent its stage one complaint response letter to the resident on 6 October 2021. It said it had discussed the complaint with the resident on 23 September 2021. The key points were as follows:
1. It acknowledged there had been many ASB reports over the previous six years, which the landlord and police had investigated. It said most had been about the neighbour spreading lies and slanderous comments.
2. It stated the police had advised that the neighbour has ‘freedom of speech’, and would not take further action. It advised that as the neighbour was a private tenant, there is little enforcement action the landlord could take using its own policy.
3. It said it had offered to pay to have fencing erected between the back gardens. It explained that the reason it would only use its own materials, was to ensure future repairs would be covered under its repair contract.
4. It said the reason the manager who had visited had said, ‘action would be taken against you’, was due to her feeling threatened and intimidated by the resident blocking her exit.
5. It confirmed its named maintenance surveyor had not given the neighbour permission to chop down the resident’s tree. It explained the reason it did not pursue further action against the neighbour was because the police had investigated the matter and advised they were taking no further action.
6. With regard to the named housing manager being biased, it said he felt he had been extremely supportive. It highlighted the regular contact, and the two offers he had made for her to move to nearby bungalows. It advised it was happy to work with the resident to make any move as stress free as possible.
7. It stated that the resident had previously declined police mediation with the neighbour. It advised it could now provide its own mediation, which it offered.
8. It concluded that it had acted appropriately according to its policy and procedures.
The landlord’s internal emails note that it received a voicemail message from the resident requesting her complaint be escalated to stage two, on 8 October 2021.
The landlord sent the resident a breach of tenancy warning letter on 12 October 2021. The breach concerned an act of aggression by the resident towards the landlord’s repairs operatives, that occurred on 8 October 2021.
The landlord spoke with the resident on 15 October 2021. It discussed the incident with the operatives that had led to the warning letter being issued to her. The landlord noted that the incident had come about due to the resident mistakenly believing the landlord was carrying out work to the neighbour’s property.
The resident emailed the landlord on 18 October 2021. The landlord replied the same day, and responded point by point as follows:
1. The resident said she did not want to speak to or meet the landlord. She had been trying to find someone to do this on her behalf, but without success.
  1. The landlord said it would like to support and work with her. It offered that she get in touch if there was any way it could help.
2. The resident warned the landlord against removing the tree stump from her garden. She said the landlord had allowed the neighbour to cut the tree down, without repercussions.
  1. The landlord replied that it was only notified the tree had been chopped down, after the event. It said it had liaised with the police, who took no further action against the neighbour. As such, the landlord was not taking further action.
3. The resident warned the landlord against taking down her rear garden fence.
  1. The landlord explained that the rear garden fence posts belong to the neighbour’s property. It said it had spoken with the property owner. It advised he could put up his own fence if he chose to, without damaging the resident’s fence.
4. The resident said several neighbours had noisy dogs, but her dog was the only one that was complained about.
  1. The landlord replied that it had no live noise reports regarding her dogs. It offered that if she wished to report noise, it would open an ASB case and support her to use the “noise app”.
The resident replied to the landlord 18 October 2021. She reiterated her anger that the landlord had not taken action against the neighbour for cutting down her tree. She raised queries about the tree stump, her fairy lights and the private owner’s intention to build a wall.
The landlord replied the same day. It confirmed the tree stump was staying, and her fairy lights were fine, both in line with her wishes. It said that if the private owner built a wall, it must be on his side of the boundary.
The landlord held a multi-agency meeting to discuss the resident’s welfare, on 3 November 2021. It was agreed that each agency would submit safeguarding referrals when they felt there was a concern.
The landlord’s stage two complaint response letter stated that it discussed the complaint with the resident on 10 November 2021. It summarised the resident’s outstanding concerns as follows:
1. The resident’s complaint against the three named members of the landlord’s staff.
2. “The ongoing situation with your neighbours, and how the case is being managed”.
The landlord sent its stage two complaint response letter on 15 November 2021. The key points were as follows:
1. It reiterated that in dealing with cases such as this, it is reliant on its tenancy agreements. This meant that in cases involving non-tenants, it was reliant on the police.
2. It said that the police had determined not to take further action against the neighbour for cutting down the tree. It explained that it had to accept the view of the police and, as such, “there is little else we can do”.
3. It stated that the resident had complained that it had taken one of the named members of staff six months to provide an update about the tree incident. The landlord disputed this, highlighting it had seen emails from the staff member providing updates to the resident in January and February 2021.
4. It explained again the reasons, relating to future repairs, why it had said it would only use its own materials to erect a fence for the resident. It said it had been unable to substantiate the resident’s comments about the second named member of its staff.
5. It said the resident had questioned the fairness of the landlord’s investigation of rat issues. It advised it had discussed this with the resident, brought in an external pest control team, and found there was no issue with rats at her property.
6. It addressed the resident’s complaint about the conduct of its manager when she made her first visit to the resident’s property. It stated that the resident had said she did not feel that she had blocked the manager from leaving. It said that the manager’s, “perceptions of this situation are very different to what you outlined”. It said the manager had felt at risk and had removed herself from the situation. It was satisfied with the manager’s account of the matter.
7. It concluded that it could not uphold the resident’s complaint. It encouraged the resident to continue to work with the landlord if she had any further concerns.
8. It referred the resident to this Service if she remained dissatisfied.
The resident has subsequently provided further complaint information to this Service. Included within this was a complaint regarding the time the landlord had taken to close a noise report ASB case against the resident, and the lack of explanation it had offered. The Ombudsman has noted this information but, as it was not considered during the landlord’s complaint process, it does not form part of the assessment.
Upon providing evidence to this Service, the landlord advised it had not received any further reports of ASB from either the resident or the neighbour for several months.

Assessment and findings

The landlord’s handling of the ASB case

In cases such as this, it is not the Ombudsman’s role to assess the behaviour or actions of the neighbour, rather it is to assess how the landlord responded to the resident’s reports; whether its response was in accordance with its policy, and whether it was appropriate and reasonable in all of the circumstances.
The Ombudsman acknowledges the anger and distress the resident has described herself as feeling, with the actions and behaviour of her neighbour. The impact of this, and the overall matter, would have been worsened still further by the mental health issues the resident has described.
The Ombudsman also recognises the resident’s frustration with the landlord’s explanation, that it was limited in what enforcement action it could take with an individual it does not hold a tenancy agreement with. However, the neighbour was not a tenant of the landlord, and so this was consistent with the landlord’s policy referred to in paragraph eight. It was therefore reasonable for the landlord, to accept the police’s view that they would not take further action, and to advise the resident accordingly.
Where the landlord is unable to take action for this reason, its policy states it should support residents to identify positive next steps. The landlord’s policy for ‘adopting a supportive approach’, is detailed in paragraph nine.
The landlord evidenced its contact with the resident and liaison work with the police and local authority concerning the resident’s reports, and its efforts to promote positive outcomes. It was appropriate for the landlord to encourage the use of mediation services, initially via the police and local authority. Once they were available, it was reasonable for the landlord to offer its own mediation services, which it did in its stage one complaint response.
It was appropriate for the landlord to offer to support the resident in completing a move to another property if she wished, and to offer nearby properties.
It was also reasonable for the landlord to complete, or offer to complete, works to the trees and boundary of the properties, which had played a key part in the disputes, but were beyond what the landlord was responsible for.
Further, it was appropriate for the landlord to instigate, and participate in, the multi-agency meeting held on 3 November 2021, to support the resident’s welfare and consider safeguarding referrals.
As such, the Ombudsman is satisfied the landlord complied with its policy and procedure and acted reasonably in its handling of the resident’s reports of ASB.

The landlord’s response to the complaint

The landlord’s complaint policy says that stage one complaint responses should be sent within 10 working days of receiving the complaint. It states that where this is not possible, it will write to the resident within this timeframe to explain why, and to advise when the full response will be sent.
The landlord has explained that, although the resident’s complaint letter was dated 23 August 2021, it did not receive it until 6 September 2021. The landlord has said it discussed the complaint with the resident 13 working days later, on 23 September 2021. Given the length and detail of the resident’s complaint letter, it would not have been unreasonable for the landlord to determine that it would need more than the 10 working days its policy allowed for it to investigate and respond. In that instance, the landlord should have written to the tenant to explain this, in line with its policy. It is not reasonable that the Ombudsman has seen no evidence that the landlord wrote to the resident within 10 working days, either with a response, or to advise of the delay.
The landlord sent its stage one complaint response to the resident on 6 October 2021, 23 working days after it said it had received her complaint. The landlord also took 25 working days from when the resident’s escalation request was received, to issue its stage two complaint response. It was not reasonable that the landlord failed to comply with its own policy regarding the timeframes for its complaint responses. In particular this represented a failure of service as the landlord was aware of the resident’s distress, and of the vulnerabilities she had described.
The resident made clear, to both the landlord and this Service, that the conduct of the landlord’s manager, during her first visit to the resident, was a significant part of her complaint. It was reasonable for the landlord to discuss the matter with the relevant manager as part of its complaint investigation. The landlord’s complaint response explained that the manager’s version of events differed significantly from the residents. It said it was satisfied with the manager’s account.
However, the resident advised in her complaint that she had CCTV footage of the incident, along with a separate audio recording. As this evidence is not referred to in either of the landlord’s complaint responses, it is assumed it did not form part of its investigation. It would have been appropriate for the landlord to ask the resident if she would provide this evidence. If the resident was willing to do this, it would have been reasonable for the landlord to consider this evidence as part of a thorough investigation.
The Ombudsman has not heard the separate audio recording, but has viewed the CCTV footage. It is not the role of the Ombudsman to assess the contents of the footage, but what is visible is consistent with the resident’s description of the incident. The Ombudsman has made an order below, concerning this specific element of the resident’s complaint.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration by the landlord in its handling of the resident’s report of antisocial behaviour (ASB).
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in respect of the landlord’s response to the resident’s associated complaint.

Reasons

ASB

Whilst the resident’s frustrations with the landlord’s inability to take action against her neighbour were understandable, the landlord acted in line with its policy and the powers available to it. It also followed the standards of its policy in terms of its offers and provision of support, and its interactions with other relevant agencies.

Complaint

The delays caused by the landlord’s failure to follow its own policy, will have caused the resident additional undue distress. It also failed to undertake a sufficiently thorough investigation by failing to reference potentially significant evidence it had been made aware was available.

Orders

The Ombudsman orders that the landlord:
1. pays the resident £100 for the distress caused to her by the delays and service failures identified in its response to her complaint;
2. writes to the resident and offers to review the CCTV and audio evidence of the named manager’s first visit to the property;
3. if the resident agrees to this:
  1. include this evidence in a further investigation of that specific element of the complaint;
  2. write again to the resident with an updated response and resolution, appropriate to the findings of its investigation.

The landlord should confirm compliance with these orders to this Service within four weeks of the date of this report.