New Forest District Council (202536454)

Background

1. The resident reported food waste was being left in the communal garden and that he was experiencing noise nuisance from a neighbour. He was dissatisfied with the landlord’s response to his reports.

What the complaint is about

2. The complaint is about the landlord’s response to:
   1. Reports of antisocial behaviour.
   2. The resident’s complaint.

Our decision (determination)

3. We have found that:
   1. There was reasonable redress in how the landlord responded to reports of antisocial behaviour.
   2. There was no maladministration in the landlord’s response to the resident’s complaint.

We have not made orders for the landlord to put things right.

Summary of reasons

Reports of antisocial behaviour

4. The landlord identified its failings in its stage 1 response. It made an appropriate offer of redress for the failings by apologising to the resident and offering to meet him.

Complaint handling

5. The landlord responded to the resident’s complaint in line with its complaints policy and our Complaint Handling Code (the Code).

Our investigation

The complaint procedure

What we found and why

The circumstances of this complaint are well known by the parties involved, so it is not necessary to detail everything that’s happened or comment on all the information we’ve reviewed. We’ve only included the key information that forms the basis of our decision of whether the landlord is responsible for maladministration.

6. The resident told us that the landlord’s handling of the antisocial behaviour was affecting his mental health and wellbeing. It would be fairer, more reasonable and more effective for the resident to make a personal injury claim for any injury caused. The courts are best placed to deal with this type of dispute as they will have the benefit of independent medical advice to decide on the cause of any injury and how long it will last. We’ve not investigated this further. We can decide if a landlord should pay compensation for distress and inconvenience.
7. This investigation will only address the matters that have exhausted the landlord’s internal complaints procedure. We will not look at any new issues that have arisen since the landlord’s stage 2 response as these have not exhausted the landlord’s internal complaints procedure.
8. We are not able to investigate the actions of the resident’s neighbours or determine if antisocial behaviour has occurred. Our role is to consider how the landlord handled reports of antisocial behaviour and whether this was in line with any applicable policies and best practice.
9. We are not able to investigate issues in extensive detail over a long historical period, nor are we able to provide answers to every question about a landlord’s past actions. Our remit is focused on assessing whether the landlord acted fairly and reasonably in response to the issues raised at the point of complaint, based on information available at that time.
10. The landlord identified failings in its handling of the resident’s reports of door slamming and food waste being left in the garden in its stage 1 response, although the date of the first report for the door slamming was inaccurate. This demonstrated effective complaint investigation and was an appropriate step to acknowledge it had not handled the resident’s reports in line with its expected service levels.
11. Due to the circumstances of this case and the sensitive nature of the complaint issues, this report does not disclose some of the details. However, we have seen evidence of the action the landlord took to investigate the door slamming. We are satisfied that appropriate and reasonable steps were taken, in line with its ASB policy, to address the door slamming with the neighbour.
12. The landlord did not provide the resident with a response on how it was dealing with his reports. This was not in line with its ASB policy in place at the time, which stated it would involve all parties in discussions about an action plan to resolve the issues and keep them informed of any developments.
13. The landlord investigated the food waste being left in the garden in September 2024. However, it did not keep the resident informed about the matters he had raised.
14. The resident raised his concerns about a neighbour’s use of the garden on 1 September 2024. The evidence showed the landlord responded to the resident’s concerns the following day by telephone. There was no answer, so it left a voicemail which was reasonable in the circumstances.
15. This response was in line with its ASB policy that was in place at the time which stated the landlord would make contact within 7 working days of the initial report.
16. The landlord followed up by email on 17 September 2024. It said it would visit on 24 September 2024 to investigate the matters. The landlord appropriately managed the resident’s expectations by advising that the property the resident had referenced was not one it managed. It said it was happy to gather evidence and pass on to the appropriate department.
17. When the resident said he was unable to meet, the landlord reassured him that it could still visit and investigate. It said it had already sought advice on where land boundaries laid. The resident was not updated further on the matter.
18. The resident raised the problem with food waste again on 11 November 2024. The landlord logged a case for the report on 18 November 2024. This was in line with its ASB policy and the timescales within the policy. It wrote to the resident on 19 November 2024 setting out the next steps in managing the case. The landlord asked to meet with the resident on 26 November 2024. It also met with a neighbour. The resident was not updated further on the matter.
19. The resident contacted the landlord again on 27 January 2025. The landlord apologised for not providing an update or an explanation for the delay. It offered to call the resident to discuss the matters. The resident requested communication be in writing which the landlord did.
20. In its stage 1 response, the landlord acknowledged it had closed the food waste case it had investigated in September 2024 without communicating with the resident. It identified this was a failing and apologised for this.
21. The landlord said the resident had not been updated in December 2024 because the member of staff involved had unexpectedly been off work. It acknowledged that the resident had not received the expected level of service and had not been updated with an outcome within an acceptable timescale.
22. The landlord apologised in its stage 1 response that the resident had not been kept informed on the matters he had raised. In addition to apologising, the landlord offered to put this right by contacting the resident to discuss the matters. The landlord made appropriate apologies and offers of contact to remedy its failings identified in its stage 1 response.
23. On 13 March 2025 the landlord acknowledged the resident’s escalation request and offered to speak to the resident over the phone. The landlord called the resident on 14 March 2025. The resident told the landlord that he no longer wanted it involved in his current disputes.
24. As the resident did not want to discuss the problems he was experiencing with his neighbours, the landlord was unable to investigate the matters further. In its stage 2 response the landlord acknowledged the resident did not want to discuss matters. This meant there were no active ASB cases open at the time for the landlord to manage.
25. It appropriately signposted the resident to how to report ASB should circumstances change. The landlord also referenced a referral for an independent assessment with a mediation organisation. This was something the resident was free to accept or decline.
26. On the 8 April 2025, it contacted the resident to clarify the situation about the referral. The landlord explained a referral had not yet taken place as it needed the resident’s consent to refer him for a mediation assessment. The resident declined this on the same day.
27. The evidence showed the resident has reported further problems with his neighbours since the landlord’s final response. The landlord has offered to meet with the resident on multiple occasions, which has demonstrated a willingness to appropriately manage the situation. However, the resident has continued to decline these offers.
28. The resident referred to vulnerabilities in some of his communications with the landlord. We are satisfied that the landlord has appropriately logged and managed these in line with its policies and obligations.
29. During the period of the resident’s complaint, the landlord restructured how it managed reports of ASB and neighbour problems. It also implemented a new ASB policy and a new Good Neighbourhood Management policy.
30. Both of these policies require engagement from all parties involved for the matters raised to be addressed and resolved. It was reasonable that the landlord has not been able to progress the matters further without the resident’s engagement.
31. The landlord identified during the complaints process that it could have handled the resident’s reports of ASB better. It provided an appropriate apology and demonstrated learning from the failings it had found. This was proportionate and in line with relevant guidance.

32. The landlord’s complaints policy, including complaint definition and timescales, were compliant with the Code.
33. All acknowledgements and responses were issued within the correct timescales in line with the landlord’s complaints policy and the Code.

Learning

Knowledge information management (record keeping) & communication

34. The failings the landlord identified in its stage 1 response may have been prevented if there had been better record keeping and communication. We would encourage the landlord to review the recommendations in our Spotlight Report on knowledge and information management and our Spotlight Report on noise complaints. This is to decide if it needs to take any action to improve its record keeping and communication.