Paradigm Housing Group Limited (202014177)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202014177

Paradigm Housing Group Limited

29 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

The complaint is about the:
1. Support given by the landlord to the resident following her giving notice to quit the tenancy and the landlord’s application of its breach of tenancy policy.
2. Level of redress offered by the landlord in relation to:
  1. The shrubs destroyed by the neighbour.
  2. Its response to the resident’s reports about access to her gas meter.
3. Landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of anti-social behaviour (ASB).
4. Landlord’s decision not to supply a new path in the resident’sgarden.

Background and summary of events

The resident is an assured tenant of a one and a half bedroom upstairs maisonette owned and managed by the landlord.
The resident’s tenancy agreement says that the resident agrees to live in the property as the resident’s only or main home and to let the landlord know in advance if she intends to be away from the property for more than 28 days in a row.
The tenancy agreement also says that the landlord will keep the structure and exterior of the property in good repair, including pathways and residents have the right to carry out changes to their home, but they must get the landlord’s written permission before starting work.
The landlord’s ASB policy says that the landlord recognises the importance of resolving ASB cases swiftly and one of the ways it will do this is by using early intervention tools including advisory and warning letters and by using an independent mediation service. The policy also says that the landlord commits to taking decisive and swift action, engaging complainants and victims at each step of the case management process.
The resident’s downstairs neighbour lived with her partner during the relevant time period. For ease of reference, we have referred to both the neighbour and her partner as “the neighbour” in this report.
In properties such as the resident’s the upstairs maisonette normally has a garden to the side of the property at the front and at the back and, to the left at the back, so it does not overlook the downstairs. In 2007 the resident agreed with the previous downstairs neighbour to “swap” the front gardens
In June 2019 the landlord visited the property following the resident reporting that the neighbour had cut back some of the resident’s trees. On 14 June 2019 the landlord wrote to the resident saying it had explained to the neighbour that they should not have gone into the resident’s garden to cut the tree back. However, the neighbour had told the landlord that they had asked the resident to cut the tree back as it was growing against the wall of their maisonette and the branches were banging against the window and making their property dark. The landlord said that it had noticed that some of the resident’s trees and bushes needed to be trimmed back and it would be grateful if the resident could maintain this area as agreed
In August 2019 the resident informed the landlord that the neighbour had “hacked back” two of the resident’s bushes in her garden. There is evidence that the landlord tried unsuccessfully to speak to the neighbour. On 21 October 2019 the resident told the landlord that she had reported the damage to the bushes as criminal damage to the police. The same day the landlord wrote to the neighbour.
On the 17 February 2020 the resident discovered that her car, which had been parked outside the property, had been keyed. She reported this to the police who asked her if she was having any problems with her neighbours and then referred the resident and the neighbour to mediation.
On 17 March 2020 the resident telephoned the landlord to report a verbal altercation with the neighbour in the garden concerning the neighbour’s dogs.
On 22 June 2020 the resident sent the landlord an email containing a notice to quit, and the landlord confirmed the same day that the tenancy would therefore come to an end on 19 July 2020.
On 19 July 2020 the resident returned to the property to discover that the neighbour had cut back the shrubs in the resident’s front garden and she reported this to the landlord.
On 20 July 2020 the resident sent an email to the landlord saying that as the landlord was aware there had been friction between her and the neighbour and because of this she had tendered her notice to quit. However, having had time to reflect on the situation while staying away from the property she had decided that she wanted to stay in the property and was revoking her notice to quit.
On 28 July 2020 the landlord sent an email to the resident saying that it had spoken to the neighbour. The neighbour had agreed that she should not have cut back the shrubs but had thought the property was empty and that the resident had moved out. The landlord said that it had not received recent complaints from the resident and that it understood that she and the neighbour were resolving problems through the mediation that the police had arranged. The neighbour was happy to engage with mediation now that the resident was back in the property.
The resident replied to the landlord on 5 August 2020 saying that although she had spoken to the mediation service earlier in the year, she hadn’t heard any further.
On 7 August 2020 the landlord sent an email to the resident saying that it understood that she was staying with a friend on a temporary basis. If she wanted to move away the landlord suggested she consider a mutual exchange. The landlord also suggested she try registering with the local authority to apply to transfer to another property. The landlord said that she needed to return to live at the property whilst applying to move unless she had supporting evidence from the police or another agency that it was unsafe for her to return. The landlord referred the resident to the occupation obligations in the tenancy agreement and asked the resident to let it know when she intended to return to live at the property.
On 11 August 2020 the resident sent the landlord an email with two police crime reference numbers saying that “The reasons for not moving back at the moment is that I do not consider it is a safe place for me to live as a single woman and I am using my summer holiday to have a break.” The landlord replied the following day saying that the resident needed to provide the evidence from the police that it was unsafe for her to return to the property.
On 12 August 2020 the resident sent an email to the landlord attaching a letter from her GP dated the same day that said “[The resident] is unable to return to her current housing association property due to the impact on her health from anti-social behaviour from neighbours. Her physical and mental health and well-being have both been affected by this stress.”
On 13 August 2020 the resident sent the landlord an email saying she was terminating her tenancy because of lack of support from the landlord in dealing with the neighbour’s ASB. The resident said that the continued stress had had a detrimental effect on both her physical and mental well-being to the point that it was unsafe for her to remain in the property.
On 20 August 2020 the landlord emailed the resident saying that it had advised her that she needed to provide evidence from the police that it was unsafe for her to return to the property. Whilst the resident had sent the landlord two crime reference numbers on 11 August 2020, the police had confirmed to the landlord that they did not have reason to believe that the resident was in any danger living at the property.
The landlord also said that the GP’s letter dated 12 August 2020 did not say that it was unsafe for the resident to return to the property, only that living there had an impact on her health and “This would suggest the issue is a medical one. We would therefore expect you to be living in the property as your ‘main and principle (sic)’ home whilst seeking advice and looking for other properties via [mutual exchange or the local authority].” The landlord suggested that the resident speak to Citizens Advice who might be able to provide her with advice and assistance in the matter.
On 2 September 2020 the resident sent the landlord an email saying:
1. She had asked the mediation team for an update and had been told that the neighbour had pulled out of the mediation process.
2. She had not reported any ASB to the landlord during the Covid 19 lockdown period because the mediation process was ongoing.
3. She had visited the property the previous day to collect her post and found a handwritten note from the neighbour dated 1 September 2020 saying that the landlord had confirmed to the neighbour that the “swapped” part of the front garden was actually theirs. The neighbour said that it was arranging for a gardener to sort out the front garden within the next couple of weeks and if the resident wanted any of her plants from that part of the front garden could she let the neighbour know and she would save them for her.
The landlord replied to the resident on 3 September 2020 saying that it noted that the neighbour had pulled out of the mediation process earlier in the year and that the resident felt she was unable to report any incidents during that time. It understood that the “swapped” front garden was currently the resident’s responsibility. It confirmed that the resident’s tenancy would come to an end on 13 September 2020.
On 4 September 2020 the resident sent an email to the landlord asking it to confirm in writing that it had not agreed to any changes to her garden with the neighbour.
On 7 September 2020 the resident sent the landlord an email saying that she had arrived at the property that afternoon to collect her post to find the neighbour in the front garden with the resident’s shrubs “completely decimated”. The resident’s bins had been moved so she moved them back and the neighbour had “aggressively shouted ‘Don’t move those bins back because the gardener hasn’t finished.’” The resident said she had found this very distressing as she was still the tenant and had not agreed to any swapping back of the gardens.
On 9 September 2020 the landlord sent an email to the resident saying that the piece of garden that had been ‘decimated’ if swapped back would be the responsibility of the resident but was currently the responsibility of the neighbour.
On 10 September 2020 the resident withdrew her notice to quit the property.
The landlord liaised with the police and asked that now the resident was not ending her tenancy whether the police could chase up the mediation process.
On 18 September 2020 the resident wrote to the landlord clarifying that the garden that had been “decimated” on 7 September 2020 was the “swapped” part of the front garden that she had maintained since 2007. She also said that she had reported an ASB incident to the police that had occurred on 14 September 2020 when she had been moving her bins back to their normal place after having the grass cut. The resident said that the neighbour had grabbed the bins, threw them on the ground and shouted, “This is not your area you stupid little troll.”
On 29 September 2020 the landlord sent an email to the resident saying that:
1. It had spoken to the neighbour about the incident with the bins. The neighbour said that they had asked the resident not to place the bins where she had as they were working on that area of the garden, but the resident had done so and then got in her car and left.
2. It understood that the police had been in contact with the resident and were arranging for mediation to recommence.
3. Mediation was the first step in resolving the differences between the resident and the neighbour and it would not be taking any action against the neighbour at this stage.
4. In order that it could have a clear picture of what was going on and take appropriate action, it was attaching ASB logs for the resident to complete. It asked that the resident kept the logs up to date and said that it would be asking the neighbour to do the same.
5. It had concerns that the resident was not living at the property and hadn’t done so since the first time she gave notice in July 2020. This was a serious breach of the resident’s tenancy, and she must be living in the property as her main and principal home. The landlord had been informed that it was safe for her to live at the property and the landlord would not be offering alternative housing. Unless the resident moved back in within the next week it would have no alternative than to serve a notice to bring the tenancy to an end.
On 2 October 2020 an advice service acting on behalf of the resident emailed the landlord asking how the landlord intended to resolve the issue about which areas of the garden belonged to which property. The advice service also said that it had seen the landlord’s demand that the resident immediately reoccupy her home and asked if the landlord was “aware of the effect this would have on her health”. It said that it was “seeking to help [the resident] resolve what seems to be a very longstanding matter without causing even greater harm to her by making her completely homeless.”
The landlord replied to the advice service on 7 October 2020 saying that following a conversation with its Deeds Officer a plan had been drawn up outlining which gardens are the responsibility of the two tenants. The landlord said that the garden ‘swap’ did not seem to be in the best interests of the current tenants, and it therefore intended to ask both sets of tenants to ‘swap back’ the gardens and to only use the gardens marked on the attached plan as part of their property. The resident and the neighbour would be allowed to remove any of their plants from their current garden and replant them in the gardens allocated to their property. Ideally, the landlord would look to solve any issues rather than facilitate a move. However, the resident could look to do a mutual exchange if she wished to move to another property.
In response to enquiries from the resident via the advice service the landlord sent further emails to the advice service on 9 October 2020 and 15 October 2020 saying:
1. Both the resident and the neighbour felt intimidated and upset by the other.
2. The decision to change the gardens back to the usual layout for maisonettes had been made by the landlord, with no input from either tenant.
3. The problems between the resident and the neighbour had been mainly around the gardens and swapping back would go a long way to solving the problems between the tenants.
4. Under the new plan both gardens would be separate from the other, with no chance of any plants growing over the other parties’ property or garden which had been a large part of the problem in the past.
5. The neighbour was responsible for their dogs and would be asked to keep them on a lead when using the communal path from their door to the front gate. Their rear garden would be fenced off so that the dogs could not enter the communal area.
6. The current arrangement was clearly not working, so the landlord was rescinding any permissions that had been granted and believed this would resolve the problems between the neighbour. The landlord said that it could not continue to be dealing with the matter without taking practical steps to resolve it.
7. It was a social housing provider and there were long waiting lists for its properties. It could not allow its properties to stand empty when there are many families in need of accommodation. As the resident had not moved back into her property a Notice of Seeking Possession would be served. To avoid this the resident needed to return to her property and let it know that she had done so.
On 19 October 2020 the resident sent the landlord a letter from her GP saying that the resident was suffering with acute anxiety and distress and “that in view of the above symptoms and complication you will look on favorably her on review to move her on medical grounds because her current home is having a severe impact on her health and re-housing her to more suitable accommodation.”
On 21 October 2020, in a virtual meeting with the resident and the advice service, the landlord said that the resident needed to return to the property, otherwise the landlord would serve a notice to quit requiring possession of the property in 28 days.
On 30 October 2020 the landlord met with the resident at the property to discuss where it would place fencing in the garden following the return of the “swapped” parts of the garden. The landlord followed the meeting up with a letter the same day. In the letter the landlord said that it had discussed the possibility of a management move with the resident. The landlord said that it had advised the resident that it wished to resolve the problem rather than move her, and if it was to pay for expensive fencing it would not be able to move her via the management move route. The landlord said that it had agreed with the resident that she would let the landlord know by 5 November 2020 whether she wanted the landlord to provide fencing in the garden, following the “swap back” of the garden or a management move.
On 1 November 2020 the resident sent an email to the landlord with details of the fencing she wanted the landlord to consider. She said that her gas meter was on the side of the building next to the neighbour’s front door so she would need clear access to read it. The resident also said that the floors were poorly sound proofedin the property. She had slightly moved a table on a wood floor three days earlier and the neighbour had shouted from downstairs, “shut up you noisy bitch.”
The landlord replied to the resident on 4 November 2020 saying that:
1. It had spoken to the neighbour who admitted shouting at the resident and had apologised to the landlord who had advised her not to swear in future.
2. The neighbour had told the landlord that there had been a lot of noise from the resident’s property as the resident had been sanding down floors in the property. The landlord asked the resident to make sure that she did not do any DIY or move furniture before 8am or after 7pm.
3. When the fencing was erected, she would be able to access her gas meter via the communal path.
4. It was settling the proposals for the fencing. However, work on the fencing could not start until:
  1. She had moved back to the property.
  2. The outcome of her housing appeal was known.
  3. She had confirmed to the landlord that she did not want to apply for a management move.
On 11 November 2020 the resident wrote to the landlord saying that, despite the anxiety she felt at the property she was staying away fewer nights and had never been away for more than 28 days. Her housing appeal had been successful, so she was now able to bid for suitable properties although there would be a long wait for a suitable one. She confirmed that she would prefer to stay at the property with the proposed fencing and withdrew her management move request.
On 12 November 2020 the landlord wrote to the resident saying that as she was currently not living at the property and therefore breaching her tenancy agreement, it was unable to move forward with the proposed changes to the garden and the fencing. The landlord asked the resident to confirm, by return when she would be moving back to the property permanently.
The resident replied to the landlord on 17 November 2020 saying that she believed that she was complying with the terms of her tenancy agreement as she had been increasing the number of nights she slept at the property. If the landlord required her to do more to retain her tenancy she asked that it make it clearer what it required.
On 20 November 2020 the landlord spoke with a member of its legal team. The notes of the conversation say that the member of the legal team “explained that there is no legislation to say how many nights you need to be in your property, just that you have the intention to return and your possessions need to be in the property, so we cannot evict on those grounds.”
On 20 November 2020 the landlord wrote to the resident:
1. Saying that it had consulted its legal team and as long as she was staying at the property and her possessions were in the property then she was not in breach of her tenancy.
2. Asking if the landlord was able to obtain the funding to erect the fencing whether the resident then intended to live in the property full time.
3. Saying that it hoped that the mediation with the neighbour would now go ahead.
4. Noting that the resident had informed it that she was suffering with anxiety and asking if there was anything it could do to help.
5. Suggesting that it might be helpful for her to talk to the local MIND and offering to give her the contact details.
6. Saying that that it was there to help her in any way it could.
The new fencing was erected on 28 January 2021 and the garden swap took place that day.
On 1 February 2021 the resident’s advice service sent the landlord an email saying that, following the fencing works, the neighbour had closed off access to the resident’s gas meter by installing a gate at the entrance to the new side passage with an internal bolt. There were also often obstructions placed in front of the meter housing door. The resident needed access as she had to provide a monthly meter reading to her gas supplier. If it was essential that the gate was locked the advice service suggested that the bolt could be replaced with a lock for which resident be given a key and that, in the meantime, the gate not be bolted.
The landlord replied to the advice service on 3 February 2021 saying that any arrangements that needed to be made for access to the meter, including the possibility of a duplicate key to the gate, should be discussed during mediation. This was not something that the landlord could get involved in.
On 9 February 2021 the resident sent the landlord an email saying that she did not think the issue of access to the meter should be dealt with via mediation with her neighbour as the landlord should provide her with the access.
On 12 February 2021 the landlord wrote to the resident saying that:
1. It had spoken to the neighbour who had cleared the items in front of the meter and understood she should not store any items in front of the meters going forward.
2. The neighbour had informed the landlord that she had needed to lock the gate recently, as it is rattling in the wind. The neighbour would get the gate fixed within the next month.
3. It understood that the resident should be able to access the communal footpath and so it was getting a quote for having a key lock and handle fitted to the gate so that the resident and the neighbour could both have a key. In the meantime, the resident should ring the neighbour’s bell to gain access if the gate is locked.
On 23 February 2021 the landlord installed concrete hard standing in front of the gate which led to the resident’s side and back garden. Whilst the landlord’s operatives were on site the resident telephoned the landlord saying that she had thought that the work would include installing a path from the gate to garden. The resident said that the ground was so muddy it was a health and safety issue for her to access her garden safely. The resident sent the landlord an email the same day saying asking the landlord to reconsider laying a path.
On 23 February 2021 the resident made a formal complaint to the landlord. In her complaint the resident said:
1. That when she was not staying in the property full time the landlord applied its breach of tenancy policy harshly.
2. On both occasions when she had given notice to quit her tenancy, she felt that she should have received more support from the landlord.
3. She wanted an apology and £1000 compensation for the cost of replacing the plants removed by the neighbours on 7 September 2020 as she felt the situation could have been avoided if the landlord had contacted her at the time.
4. The landlord could have taken more action against the neighbour under its ASB policy.
5. She was unhappy that she was asked to reach an agreement in mediation with the neighbour about access to her utility meter, via the neighbour’s garden, once the new fencing was erected. The resident felt that the landlord should have led on this matter.
6. She wanted the landlord to review its decision not to supply a new path in her garden from the gate to join up with the existing hardstanding in the garden.
On 11 March 2021 the landlord installed a new lock on the gate providing access to the gas meter and provided the resident with the key.
On 11 March 2021 the landlord sent its stage one complaint response to the resident. In its response the landlord said that:
1. The landlord had provided the correct advice and was empathetic when handling the resident’s potential breaches due to non-occupancy of her property. The tenancy agreement said that the resident must use the property as her principal home and to inform it if she intended to be away from the property longer than 28 days. The landlord had raised the issue of non-occupation with the resident several weeks before informing her that it was considering serving a notice, giving her time to make the necessary arrangements to move back into the property. It had been flexible and acted as a responsible social landlord to ensure that the resident was not made intentionally homeless, as it would be hard to access social housing again.
2. On both occasion that the resident gave notice to quit, she was given the correct advice and level of support.
3. The neighbour had spoken to a member of staff who hadn’t been aware of the garden “swap” arrangement prior to the neighbour removing the shrubs on 7 September 2020. The landlord acknowledged that a phone call or email to the resident could have prevented any misunderstanding about responsibility for the “swapped area” of the garden. The landlord offered the resident £50 compensation as a gesture of goodwill in recognition of the distress the damage to the shrubs had caused her.
4. The ASB had been managed appropriately and the neighbour had been contacted in a timely manner with the appropriate level of investigation into her complaints. It understood that experiencing issues with the neighbour was unsettling but the action it could take must be proportionate to the severity of the reported incidents. It could not share details of the actions it had taken with the neighbour, due to data protection. In order to resolve the issues about the gardens the landlord had made decision to reinstate the original garden allocation. The landlord had also provided a gate and good quality privacy fencing and had spent early £3000 for these improvements.
5. The landlord had identified a solution regarding access to the gas meter and would be providing a lock for the gate with a key for both parties.
6. It had considered the resident’s request to review the decision declining her request for a path from the gate to the concreted area, in line with its repairs policy and tenant improvement policy. The landlord confirmed that this was not work it would undertake. If the resident wished to have a path in the garden, she could complete a tenant improvement form on its website.
On 19 March 2021 the resident escalated her complaint with the landlord, via this Service.
The landlord issued its stage two complaint response on 19 April 2021. In its response the landlord said that:
1. It appreciated the impact that the ASB had had on the resident but confirmed that the case has been managed appropriately in line with the evidence it had available.
2. It did not generally lay footpaths to provide access through a garden to a hard standing and would only consider doing so if the changes were supported by an Occupational Therapist due to mobility reasons. As previously advised the resident could apply for permission to undertake this work herself.
3. It agreed that it should have taken a more proactive approach to managing the resident’s request for unimpeded access to the gas meter and advising her to raise this issue during mediation was not helpful. The landlord apologised for the additional effort the resident had to go to in order to resolve this issue and the delays that resulted from the landlord’s advice.
4. It had not identified any failings in its service regarding her decisions to terminate her tenancy nor identified any additional support she had requested or was available to it, that it did not signpost her to.
5. It was satisfied that it managed the resident’s potential breach of tenancy sensitively, allowing her additional time to return to the property before raising the issues of potential legal action.
6. In addition to the £50 goodwill gesture offered at stage one, it offered her a further £200 in recognition of:
  1. the inconvenience caused by its advice to resolve the issue of access to the gas meter via mediation.
  2. The distress caused by the neighbour removing her plants, which may have been avoided with better communication from the landlord.
7. The landlord had launched a specialist ASB team on 6 April 2021 and the resident’s case was now being managed by them.
8. The landlord had asked the resident to obtain quotes for installing carpets in the property so it could consider what funding could be provided.
9. It had added the property to its soundproofing programme for the financial year 2022/2023.
10. The resident had informed the landlord that she found it difficult to receive emails from the landlord about allegations of noise being experienced by the neighbour. The landlord confirmed that it would only contact her about any complaints it received which did not relate to day-to-day living.
11. It would attend the property on 26 April 2021 to see what works were required to the floorboards at the property to reduce noise.
The landlord’s letter dated 19 April 2021 was its final response to the complaint confirming that its internal complaints process had been exhausted.
The neighbours moved from their property in mid-December 2021. Whilst the downstairs property was empty the landlord installed sound proofing on the ceiling.

Assessment and findings

In reaching decisions about the resident’s complaints, we consider whether the landlord has kept to the law, followed proper procedure and good practice, and acted in a reasonable way. Our duty is to determine complaints by reference to what is, in this Service’s opinion, fair in all the circumstances of the case.

The support given by the landlord to the resident following her giving notice to quit the tenancy and its application of its breach of tenancy policy

The landlord acted reasonably in providing the following support to the resident following her initially giving notice to quit the tenancy:
1. Liaising with the police to confirm whether it was safe for the resident to live at the property.
2. Considering the contents of the resident’s GP’s letter dated 12 August 2020 as to whether it was safe for the resident to live at the property.
3. Accepting the resident’s decisions to retract the notices to quit in July and September 2020, even though it was under no obligation to do so.
There is therefore some evidence of the landlord providing support to the resident following her giving notice to quit. However, the landlord acted unreasonably and failed to demonstrate a victim focused approach when it informed the resident on 20 August 2020 that it would expect her to be living in the property as her main and principal home whilst seeking advice and looking for other properties via mutual exchange or the local authority.
Once the resident retracted the notice to quit in September 2020 the landlord’s actions were very heavy handed as:
1. It informed the resident on at least four occasions during September and October 2020 that she was in breach of the tenancy agreement, and it would be issuing a notice seeking possession for breach of tenancy unless she reoccupied the property.
2. It did not seek legal advice as to whether the resident was in fact in breach of the tenancy agreement until 20 November 2020, when it was informed that she was not.
3. It had been informed by both the resident and her GP that she was experiencing anxiety about her living situation yet continued to threaten her with eviction from the property.
The landlord therefore acted unreasonably in informing the resident that she was in breach of her tenancy agreement and that it would be seeking possession. This amounts to maladministration by the landlord.
The Ombudsman has made an order for compensation below and it is noted that the Ombudsman’s Guidance on Remedies says that examples of cases where the Ombudsman would make remedies in the region of £700 or above could include an erroneous or premature threat of eviction.
In considering the level of compensation the Ombudsman has considered the following:
1. The distress and inconvenience experienced by the resident as a result of the landlord’s actions, including at the possibility of becoming homeless.
2. The time and trouble incurred by the resident in having to consult an advice service.
3. The length of time during which the resident experienced the distress and inconvenience and incurred the time and trouble (September 2020 to November 2020).

The level of redress offered by the landlord in relation to the shrubs destroyed by the neighbour and its response to the resident’s reports about access to her gas meter

The landlord has admitted the followings service failures:
1. Not contacting the resident to clarify the responsibility for the “swapped area” of the garden prior to the neighbour removing the shrubs on 7 September 2020.
2. Not taking a more proactive approach to managing the resident’s request for unimpeded access to the gas meter and advising her to raise this issue during mediation.
When there are acknowledged failings by a landlord, as is the case here, the Ombudsman’s will consider whether the redress offered by the landlord (apology, compensation and installing a new lock) put things right and resolved the resident’s complaint satisfactorily in the circumstances. In considering this the Ombudsman takes into account whether the landlord’s offer of redress was in line with the Ombudsman’s Dispute Resolution Principles; be fair, put things right and learn from outcomes.
The landlord acted fairly by acknowledging and apologising for the service failures set out in paragraph 65 above.
The landlord put right the issue with access to the gas meter by installing a new lock on the gate and providing the resident with the key.
The landlord also offered the resident a goodwill gesture of £250, although it did not specify how this was split between the two complaints.
The landlord’s compensation policy does not provide any guidance as to how it should calculate goodwill gesture payments.
The Ombudsman’s guidance on remedies says that compensation of £250 is at the high end of the range of compensation that may be used where there has been a service failure which had an impact on the resident but was of short duration and may not have significantly affected the overall outcome for the resident. The impact experienced by the complainant could include distress and inconvenience, time and trouble, disappointment, loss of confidence, and delays in getting matters resolved.
Whilst it is evident that the resident found the destruction of the shrubs distressing, it is noted that at the time this occurred the resident was due to leave the property six days later and the impact on the resident was therefore of a short duration and did not significantly affect the overall outcome for the resident.
The resident informed the landlord on 1 February 2021 that she did not have access to her gas meter and the landlord informed her on 3 February 2021 that she should discuss the matter during meditation. However, on 12 February 2021, 9 days later the landlord informed the resident that it was getting a quote for having a key lock fitted to the gate so that the resident and the neighbour could both have a key.
Whilst the landlord has acknowledged that its initial response was unhelpful, and it should have been more proactive in resolving the issue the impact on the resident was of a short duration and did not significantly affect the overall outcome for the resident
Therefore, the compensation offered by the landlord was proportionate to the impact that its failures had on the resident in incurring distress and inconvenience as a result of its service failures.
The combination of the landlord’s apology, works carried out and compensation awarded represented appropriate redress for the service failures identified in the landlord not contacting the resident to clarify the responsibility for the “swapped area” of the garden and not taking a more proactive approach to deal with the access to the meter. In accordance with the Ombudsman’s Dispute Resolution Principles, the landlord was fair in its assessment of the service failures and took steps to put things right.
The landlord did not demonstrate that it had learnt from outcomes, however, overall, its response was fair.

The landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of ASB

It is evident that this situation has been distressing to the resident. It may help to firstly explain that the Ombudsman’s role is not to decide if the actions of the neighbour amounted to ASB, but rather, whether the landlord dealt with the resident’s reports about this appropriately and reasonably.
In its responses to the resident’s reports of ASB the landlord:
1. Visited the property and spoke to both the resident and the neighbour about the issues.
2. Was in contact with the neighbour about the resident’s ASB reports.
3. Liaised with the police about mediation.
4. Liaised with the police about whether it was safe for the resident to stay at the property.
5. Sent both the resident and the neighbour ASB logs to complete.
6. Discussed the possibility of a management move with the resident.
7. Advised the resident about her options for moving via mutual exchange or registering with the local authority for a transfer.
8. Signposted the resident to MIND.
9. Arranged for the gardens to be swapped back, installed a new gate in the garden and installed new privacy fencing at a cost of £3000.
10. Added the property to its sound proofing programme and inspected the floorboards for repairs.
The landlord’s actions set out in the previous paragraph demonstrate that, once it was engaged with the resident and the neighbour about the ASB reports, it took steps to consider how to resolve the ASB reports. However, there is evidence that, following the resident’s reports of ASB in August 2019, the landlord did not write to the neighbour until 21 October 2019. There is also no evidence that the landlord took any action following the resident’s reports of ASB on 17 March 2020. These responses by the landlord were inappropriate and not in accordance with its ASB policy that it commits to taking decisive and swift action, engaging complainants and victims at each step. This represents service failure by the landlord.

The landlord’s decision not to supply a new path in the resident’s garden.

The landlord’s decision not to supply a new path was appropriate as:
1. It had not received a recommendation for an occupational therapist that a path was needed for mobility reasons.
2. Whilst the tenancy agreement says that the landlord will keep any pathways at the property in good repair, it is under no obligation to install any pathways.
3. The landlord correctly informed the resident that, as set out in the tenancy agreement, she could apply for permission to install a path herself.
There is no evidence of service failure by the landlord in relation to this aspect of the complaint.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord in respect of the complaint about the support given by the landlord to the resident following her giving notice to quit the tenancy and the landlord’s application of its breach of tenancy policy.
In accordance with paragraph 55 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the landlord has offered reasonable redress for the failures identified in its response to the complaints about:
1. The shrubs destroyed by the neighbour.
2. Its response to the resident’s reports about access to her gas meter.
In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was service failure by the landlord in respect of the complaint about the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of ASB.
In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration by the landlord in respect of the complaints about the landlord’s decision not to supply a new path in the resident’s garden.

Reasons

The landlord acted unreasonably in informing the resident that she was in breach of her tenancy agreement, and it would be issuing a notice seeking possession on multiple occasions.
The landlord has made redress to the resident which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, satisfactorily resolves the complaints about the shrubs destroyed by the neighbour and the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports about access to her gas meter.
There is evidence that once the landlord was engaged with the resident and the neighbour, it took steps to consider how to resolve the ASB reports. However, the landlord’s responses to the resident’s ASB reports in August 2019 and March 2020were inappropriate.
The landlord’s decision not to supply a new path in the resident’s garden was appropriate.

Orders

The landlord is ordered within four weeks of the date of this report to pay the resident £850 compensation in total made up as follows:
1. £750 for the distress and inconvenience and time and trouble incurred by the resident as a result of the landlord informing her that she was in breach of her tenancy agreement, and it would be issuing a notice seeking possession on multiple occasions.
2. £100 for the delays in responding to her reports of ASB.
The landlord must update this Service when payment has been made.

Recommendation

It is recommended that within four weeks of the date of this report the landlord pay the resident the £250 compensation previously offered if it has not already done so.