Sage Housing Limited (SHL) (202306928)
REPORT
COMPLAINT 202306928
Sage Housing Limited (SHL)
27 September 2024
Our approach
The Housing Ombudsman’s approach to investigating and determining complaints is to decide what is fair in all the circumstances of the case. This is set out in the Housing Act 1996 and the Housing Ombudsman Scheme (the Scheme). The Ombudsman considers the evidence and looks to see if there has been any ‘maladministration’, for example, whether the landlord has failed to keep to the law, followed proper procedure, followed good practice, or behaved in a reasonable and competent manner.
Both the resident and the landlord have submitted information to the Ombudsman, and this has been carefully considered. Their accounts of what has happened are summarised below. This report is not an exhaustive description of all the events that have occurred in relation to this case, but an outline of the key issues as a background to the investigation’s findings.
The complaint
- The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of the resident’s:
- Reports of the neighbours’ inconsiderate parking.
- Reports of the neighbours’ dog being let out without a lead.
- Concerns for the welfare of the neighbours’ cats and dog, and the nuisance they were causing.
- Reports of anti-social behaviour (ASB) caused by the neighbours.
- Concerns about the placement of a hedge.
- Formal complaint.
Background and summary of events
Background
- The resident is a shared ownership leaseholder of the property, which is a house. The landlord is a for profit housing provider. For ease of reading, the resident and her husband will both be referred to as the resident in this report.
- The property is part of a new-build estate. It is located on a small row of houses on a private access road with a small ‘turning area’ at the end, and parking spaces allocated one per house. There is a pathway in front of each house before the parking spaces. The lease grants a right of way for all residents over the path and access road. The complaint concerns the resident’s next-door neighbours who are also shared owners.
- Under the lease residents must not cause or permit a nuisance, annoyance or disturbance to other residents, or cause any form of harassment to others. Residents must not park any vehicle anywhere on the estate except for the parking space allocated to the property and are not to obstruct access. Resident’s pets must not cause a nuisance. The lease grants a right of way over footpaths or driveways required for access.
- The landlord describes ASB under its policy as “actions by a person or group of people that unreasonably interfere with a person’s use and enjoyment of their home, garden, or neighbourhood.” It says it will take a victim-centred approach, and its actions will be proportionate to the seriousness, impact, level of risk, frequency and evidence available. It will take a fair and reasonable approach to noise nuisance. It will also work with other agencies, such as the police, when appropriate. It will contact residents within 5 working days of an ASB report and will carry out a risk assessment and action plan. It will consider all proportionate options based on the level of risk, including mediation, visits, and warnings.
- Under its complaints policy the landlord defines a complaint as per paragraph 1.2 of the Housing Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code). It operates a 2 stage complaints process. It will acknowledge complaints within 2 working days. It will respond to stage 1 complaints within 10 working days and stage 2 complaints within 20 working days. If it is unable to meet these timeframes it will agree an extension of time with the resident in particularly complex cases. The extension will be no longer than a further 10 working days after the response timeframe. The policy says it may exclude a complaint if the issue has been raised for the first time as a service request, and it will be dealt with as such rather than as a complaint.
- The Code in use at the time sets out how a landlord should respond to complaints. Under paragraph 5.1 a landlord should respond to a stage 1 complaint within 10 working days. If it needs a further 10 working days in exceptional circumstances, it must contact the resident to explain this. Any further delay beyond this must be agreed with the resident. It should escalate the complaint if asked to do so by the resident (paragraph 5.9) and should respond within 20 working days (paragraph 5.13).
- The landlord has a compensation policy which says it can consider offering compensation, or a ‘goodwill gesture’, for service failure causing delay, distress or inconvenience for the resident. The policy lists factors it will consider to determine whether there was low, medium, or high impact and gives suggested compensation ranges.
Scope of investigation
- During and following the landlord’s complaints process the resident has raised several further issues. This investigation concerns the matters which were raised as part of the formal complaints process. This is because the Ombudsman cannot consider complaints which have not completed the landlord’s complaints process under paragraph 42(a) of the Scheme.
- Additionally, due to the volume of evidence provided, and the length and complexity of some of the documents, the below summary does not contain every event, communication, or detail of what took place and lengthy documents have been summarised for brevity where needed. Instead, it is a summary of key points and events.
Summary of events
- On 19 April 2023 the landlord emailed the estate’s developer to ask about a hedge which was due to be planted along the edge of the estate. It said a resident had raised with it that the hedge was going to cut through their property boundary. It asked if the developer could reconsider its plan. The developer replied on 25 April 2023 and said the hedge was required under the agreed plans for the estate. The landlord and resident exchanged emails and disagreed about whether the hedge had been planted in the correct place. It suggested she contact the developer about the issue as it had been their decision.
- The resident emailed the landlord on 3 May 2023 attaching a 17-page letter. Within the letter she set out multiple issues she was having with her neighbours. These included:
- Having been visited by the police on 25 April 2023 after the neighbours had called them. She had told them that it was her who had been experiencing ASB and the neighbours had been bullying and intimidating her including by calling the police.
- The neighbours having a video doorbell which recorded images and audio.
- The neighbours and their visitors parking cars on the turning area and their response that it belonged to them.
- There was an incident where the neighbours swore at her and would stare at her outside.
- The neighbours let their young child play outside the front of their house and along the communal path.
- The neighbours smoking in their back garden by her fence and swearing.
- There had been a previous disagreement over when the neighbours used their washing machine at night.
- As the neighbours’ allocated parking space was outside the property, they would cause a nuisance in how they parked, drove, the time of day and way they came and went.
- The neighbours’ cats being a nuisance by coming into the property. She was also concerned for their welfare. They also had a dog, which barked but “isn’t that loud”, and her concerns for its welfare.
- On 7 May 2023 the resident emailed the landlord to report fly tipping on land near the property, owned by the developer, and that she suspected the neighbours of having done this.
- The landlord emailed the resident on 10 May 2023 to reply to her letter. It said it would investigate reports of ASB but that the majority of her concerns were not ASB. It suggested mediation as a way forward to resolve differences of lifestyle and asked if she would like to consider this. She emailed the landlord as she was dissatisfied with its response, and it sent a further response on 11 May 2023. It again encouraged the use of mediation and said regarding its limits to investigating ASB:
- It would not consider cats roaming freely to be ASB and advised her to report welfare concerns to an animal welfare charity or the RSPCA.
- She had said the dog was not making enough noise to warrant reporting to the council as noise nuisance, however if this changed it could provide her with a noise app to report this.
- It did not investigate parking as ASB.
- It did not consider children playing to be ASB and any concerns for welfare should be reported to the police or the council.
- It could investigate the neighbours swearing if there was evidence this was a persistent issue and done with intent to cause her harm.
- It did not consider the neighbours starting up their car to drive to work as being unreasonable or ASB.
- On 12 May 2023 the resident and landlord exchanged further emails about the hedge. The resident said it had been planted in the wrong place meaning some of her land had been taken back by the developer. It replied that it thought the hedge was in the correct place after looking at the plans. However, it said she could contact the developer about this. She replied that it should be taking up the issue with the developer.
- The resident and landlord discussed mediation in emails between 11 and 15 May 2023. The resident asked what would happen if the neighbours refused, or if they agreed would an agreement be drawn up. It replied that both parties had to agree and want to take part for it to work and offered to have the mediator explain the process to her. It also said, in answer to her question, that the issues she had raised did not meet the threshold for formal action under its ASB policy or the lease.
- On 17 May 2023 the resident emailed the landlord, and attached a 9-page letter, to make a stage 1 complaint which was about:
- The way the landlord, and a named member of its staff, had handled her concerns, including by saying the issues were not ASB. She said it was patronising and dismissive including during a call with her. She also was concerned with its response about not being able to take formal action and its suggesting that she obtains evidence of ASB from the police.
- That it had not addressed the issues she had raised which included:
- The neighbours’ parking, car noise and headlights shining into the property.
- The neighbours parking on the turning area and its refusal to consider this.
- The child playing on the path was a trip hazard.
- The neighbours’ cats were a nuisance as they were coming into the property looking for food and shelter. Their dog being left alone for long periods causing it to howl.
- Fly tipping.
- The neighbours smoking and swearing in their garden.
- The hedge and its response to her concerns.
- The resident emailed the landlord on 19 and 25 May 2023 to chase an acknowledgement of her complaint. It replied on 25 May 2023 to acknowledge the complaint and said it would respond within 10 working days. She replied that this timeframe was from the date of the complaint. Between 30 and 31 May 2023 the landlord emailed the resident to say it needed an extension of time of no greater than 20 working days as it was gathering evidence. She replied and said this was contrary to its complaints policy and that any extension should have been agreed with her.
- On 6 June 2023 the police emailed the landlord and said they had attended the property the previous day regarding an incident. They had spoken to the resident and the neighbours and advised both to contact it. It called and emailed the neighbour on 8 June 2023.
- Between 6 and 9 June 2023 the landlord and an animal welfare charity exchanged emails about the resident’s, and other residents’, concerns for the welfare of the neighbours’ cats and dog. The landlord said it had advised the resident to report concerns for welfare to appropriate agencies but that it did not investigate this as the landlord. It said it had advised it could investigate noise complaints from dogs barking if these were raised. On 9 June 2023 the resident emailed the landlord and said she had contacted the RSPCA with her welfare concerns. She said they had visited but did not get access to speak to the neighbours but had opened a case.
- The resident emailed the landlord twice on 11 June 2023 to report that the neighbours’ dog had been allowed to run around outside the row of houses without a lead. She also said the neighbours’ cats had been left outside and there was a storm, and they were on holiday.
- On 12 June 2023 the resident emailed the landlord to report ASB. She said she felt unsafe and wanted it to ask the neighbours to leave. She said a man had driven up and visited next door’s house, and let the dog run loose outside. He then got in his car and started shouting at her as she was standing at her kitchen sink looking out of the window. She said he was swearing at her as he reversed and drove away. She had been afraid and had called the police.
- The resident emailed the landlord on 15 June 2023 and said it had exceeded its 20-working day timeframe to provide its stage 1 response and she wanted to escalate to stage 2.
- On 16 June 2023 the landlord emailed the police to arrange a call. It spoke to them on 19 June 2023 but did not note the outcome of the call. The police said in an email to it that they were not taking any action.
- The resident emailed the landlord on 20 June 2023 and said she had received a voicemail from it on 16 June 2023 asking to discuss the complaint outcome, but she had not wanted to do this. She set out further issues including her neighbours, and their visitors, had been drinking in their garden at the weekend, making noise, and she had reported visitors to the police for drink driving. She repeated her concerns about the dog and cats, their smoking and parking. She also said she had reported the neighbours’ visitor to the police for threatening behaviour but did not have any evidence to provide. It replied the next day and apologised for its delay in providing a stage 1 response, which it said it would address in its response. It also said it could not escalate the complaint until it had provided its stage 1 response.
- On 23 June 2023 the resident emailed the landlord and said she was still waiting for her complaint response. She also reported that the neighbour’s dog had been allowed to run around without a lead again and had been chasing cats. She also said they had got a video doorbell as suggested by the police. It replied and said it had emailed her on 30 May 2023 to say it needed more time due to the complexity of the complaint and would respond by 27 June 2023. It said since then she had sent multiple further emails adding to her complaint which it would address in its response. It also confirmed it would speak to the neighbours about the dog not being on a lead but that this was not ASB.
- The resident replied to the landlord’s email on 25 June 2023. She said she had not received a request for more time from it but had been told. She was not happy that she had not received her case reference number until now and maintained she had not received an acknowledgement. She also said that the neighbours’ dog running loose without a lead was ASB.
- On 26 June 2023 the landlord sent an email to all residents of the street to ask them to park considerately, and not to park in the turning area so as not to block access. The resident emailed it to thank it for sending the email but said it should have done this months ago. She also said the neighbours will ignore it and had told her before that the turning area belonged to them. She also recounted a previous disagreement she had had with the neighbours about them using their washing machine at night. The resident emailed it 2 further times that day to report the dog without a lead and neighbours parking in the turning area.
- On 27 June 2023 the landlord emailed the neighbours to ask again if they would consider mediation. It also said it had received a report of the dog not being on a lead. The resident emailed it to report car noise at 5:30am caused by the neighbours, them being parked in the turning area and the dog being off a lead. It replied and repeated its position regarding the extension of time but apologised if it had been unclear. It also pointed out that she had sent it 9 emails in the last 3 days and asked if she could condense her communications so that it could effectively address her concerns. She replied and said the reason for the number of emails was because it had failed to address her concerns.
- On the same day the landlord provided its stage 1 response in which it:
- Apologised for the delay in response, set out the complaint issues the resident had raised and her desired outcomes.
- Asked that she aim to condense future communication to enable an efficient investigation.
- Said the named member of staff complained about had taken appropriate action, and its inability to take further action had been due to a lack of evidence of any actual ASB. However, it apologised as it could have been more empathetic in its communication on some occasions.
- Said the placement of the hedge was the developer’s responsibility and it had addressed this as far as it could.
- Said it needed more information to understand her complaint about children playing outside.
- Regarding her concerns about the welfare of the neighbours’ cats said it had raised this with the animal welfare charity.
- Explained why it had suggested mediation to resolve the issues between her and the neighbours. It also explained that it could not take any action as it did not have evidence of ASB, but suggested use of the noise app if the dog barking was causing a noise nuisance.
- Said it could not prove who was parking on the turning area and so had asked all residents and their visitors not to park there.
- Explained it had asked her to provide evidence from the police as it did not have any evidence of ASB. It could only act if it had this and would do so if it received evidence.
- Apologised for not acknowledging her complaint within its timeframe and offered £25 compensation for this.
- Regarding its extension of time said “Whilst I understand that the term ‘agree a new response date with you’ may suggest a consultation with yourself as the complainant, this is not the usual procedure”.
- Did not uphold the complaint.
- Suggested arranging a meeting between it, the resident, and the police, to discuss what it could and could not do regarding her issues.
- Set out how she could escalate the complaint if she remained dissatisfied.
- The resident emailed the landlord on 7 July 2023 and said the neighbours were still parking on the turning area. She emailed it a second time and attached a 19-page letter asking to escalate her complaint and set out in detail the reasons for her request. She said it needed to write to the neighbours to tell them they were in breach of their lease and could face eviction. She set out 40 bullet pointed reasons she was not satisfied with the stage 1 response, which included:
- Not being told what was and was not ASB, or what evidence would be required.
- The landlord not having done a risk assessment.
- No resolution to the issues.
- It not following its policy for an extension and not raised a new complaint for the further issues she had raised.
- That it was not a neighbour dispute.
- The member of staff who investigated the complaint was too familiar with the member of staff complained about as she used her first name.
- Its offer of compensation was an insult, patronising and offensive.
- On 8 July 2023 the resident emailed the landlord twice to report the neighbours’ dog being out without a lead and parking on the turning area. It replied on 10 July 2023 and asked if she wanted to escalate her complaint. She replied and said she had already done this, and it should know this.
- In an internal email on 17 July 2023 the landlord said it had reviewed videos the resident had sent it and noted there were no visible parking restrictions such as double yellow lines, vehicles did not appear to be blocking any spaces and the dog was being supervised. The resident emailed the landlord 3 times between 19 and 25 July 2023 about the neighbours’ parking and dog. She also complained that the neighbours had a skip in their allocated parking space which had been there for a few weeks.
- Between 26 and 28 July 2023 the landlord and resident exchanged emails about her stage 2 complaint. The landlord asked for an extension of time until 11 August 2023 due to the complexity of the complaint and offered to have a face-to-face meeting with her. The resident agreed to the extension and meeting, which took place on 9 August 2023. Following the meeting, it wrote to her on 11 August 2023 to acknowledge escalation and clarify the scope of it stage 2 response. It said it would respond to her complaint about its handling of ASB and the complaint. It would not respond to her concerns about the hedge (no further response), cats (not regarded as ASB), the dog, or parking issues (both to be monitored as service requests).
- The resident emailed the landlord on 18 August 2023 and set out her notes of the meeting they had had. She also offered it a further extension of time until 22 August 2023.
- On 22 August 2023 the landlord provided it stage 2 response in which it:
- Set out the stage 1 complaint, escalation, and repeated its letter of 11 August 2023 scoping the complaint.
- Regarding its complaint handling it:
- Admitted that its stage 1 response had been late being provided after 29 working days. It apologised that its communication was not clear and raised this internally as a learning outcome. It increased its compensation offer to £75 to reflect this.
- Said its staff regularly refer to colleagues by their first names and this did not mean the investigation had not been impartial.
- Said it had tried to speak to her by telephone to clarify her complaint and not to try to avoid written communication.
- Regarding its handling of reports of ASB it:
- Said it must take a proportionate response, and it is not possible to say what is and is not ASB with certainty because “some behaviour, even though it may cause nuisance to individuals, may not be possible to address or manage through our ASB service or through tenancy enforcement.”
- Said it needed evidence and suggesting use of the noise app was appropriate. Suggesting trying mediation was also done as it was an effective tool. It had also raised the issues with the neighbours.
- Accepted it should have acknowledged all the issues she raised with it and managed expectations. This was a service failure, and it offered £25 compensation.
- Confirmed it risk assesses all reports of ASB, and having assessed the issues as a neighbour dispute, in partnership with the police, suggested mediation as the only possible step.
- Determined its staff had acted appropriately.
- Explained it could not offer the compensation the resident had requested and reiterated that the issues she had reported were not ASB. However, it did offer £50 further compensation for stress and inconvenience.
- Offered total compensation of £150 but said the complaint had not been upheld.
- Said how she could contact this Service if she remained dissatisfied.
Events after the end of the landlord’s complaints process
- The following day the landlord emailed the developer to query the position of the hedge in relation to the development plans. The developer replied on 5 September 2023 and said, after reviewing the plans, they had planted the hedge in the wrong place. They said there was a discrepancy between the land registry ‘red line’ plan and its landscaping plan.
- The landlord chased the developer between 6 and 27 November 2023 when they said the new hedge was now in the correct place. The resident and landlord exchanged emails on 8 January 2024, and she told it the new hedge was incomplete and the original hedge had not been removed. It emailed the developer, which replied on 29 January 2024 to confirm the landscaping works had been completed.
Assessment and findings
The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of the neighbours’ inconsiderate parking
- The leases for both the resident and neighbours grant a right of way over the access road and pathway which runs the length of the road, which ends at a ‘turning area’. The access road is private, and not a through road or public right of way. Therefore, it is reasonable to conclude that the right of access was included in the lease so that each shared owner could reach their respective house and allocated parking space. This was required as the access road runs through each demised property, meaning that each shared owner owns a part of the access road under their lease.
- Due to the design of the allocated parking the neighbours’ space is outside the property. This has the effect that if they drive into the space, which is as reasonable as reversing into it, car headlights may shine into the property and the driver and resident, if at her kitchen window, will see each other. The location of the space also means that it is possible to hear engine noises and car doors closing from inside the property. While this may be disturbing, it is a design feature of the estate, and beyond the control of the landlord or the neighbours.
- The resident raised as part of her complaint that the landlord had not dealt with the manner in which the neighbours used their parking space, which she considered to be ASB, and that they parked on the turning area. The landlord said it did not consider the way in which the neighbours used their space could be considered ASB. It had made a judgment that this did not meet its definition of ASB under its policy which was reasonable. It is not clear whether the landlord considered the lease clause that residents “must not cause or permit a nuisance, annoyance or disturbance”, however, the matters complained about were ordinary day-to-day activities and there was no evidence the neighbours were intentionally causing a nuisance. There was a difference of lifestyle, and the landlord suggested mediation as a way forward, which was appropriate and in line with its ASB policy.
- Regarding parking in the turning area, within its stage 1 response the landlord said it had written to all residents about inconsiderate parking, which it had. It said it had done this as it could not prove who had been doing this. It could only act on what it had been told and had no way of checking which car belonged to who, so its approach was fair in the circumstances. When the resident escalated her complaint she said the landlord had not resolved this issue, and she continued to report the neighbours parking in the turning area. It excluded this from its stage 2 complaint response (which will be considered below) and said it would monitor it as a service request.
- Under their lease, as can be seen in the red line plan included, the neighbours own (as shared owners) the land on which the turning area is located. Also, under the lease there is a clause which says residents must not park anywhere other than in their allocated parking space. Which prevision is superior is a legal matter which the Ombudsman cannot make a determination on, and the resident may wish to seek independent legal advice on this matter. It would appear from the evidence that the neighbours believed that they had the right to park in that area as it was demised to their lease.
- The landlord considered the parking issue by reviewing photographs and videos the resident supplied. It noted there were no visible parking restrictions, although as this is a private access road any would not be enforceable. It also said there appeared not to be any obstruction and having reviewed the photographs, considering the location of the parked cars, and the resident’s allocated parking space, this conclusion was reasonable.
- When considering taking steps to enforce lease conditions the landlord must take a proportionate response. This is stated within its ASB policy but also applies to all decisions where it may need to consider legal action. There is a threshold which needs to be met and it is not always possible for a landlord to enforce all breaches of a lease if one occurs. In the circumstances, the landlord’s decision not to take further action was reasonable. There was no maladministration.
The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of the neighbours’ dog being let out without a lead
- The resident first reported the neighbours’ dog, described as a puppy, being let out without a lead on 11 June 2023. She said it had been allowed to run around the parking and access road area. She reported this again on 23 June 2023 and it said it would speak to the neighbour, but that this would not be ASB under its policy.
- Whether a dog being allowed to roam without a lead would be an unreasonable interference with a resident’s use and enjoyment of the neighbourhood is debatable and likely dependant on the circumstances. This could depend on the breed, size and number of dogs, and any vulnerabilities of the resident reporting. Considering the evidence the landlord’s stance and interpretation of its ASB policy was reasonable.
- Dogs must be kept on a lead on “designated roads” under section 27 Road Traffic Act 1988. However, it is unlikely the private access road or car park is a designated road. At all times dogs must not be allowed to be “dangerously out of control”, doing so is a criminal offence under section 3 Dangerous Dogs Act 1991. Whether or not a dog was dangerously out of control would be a matter for the police and the courts, and the landlord would not have any responsibility for or powers over this matter.
- Following further reports from the resident the landlord emailed the neighbours on 27 June 2023, which was 12 working days after the first report. This delay was a failing, as if the landlord had contacted the neighbours sooner it may have helped resolve the situation and made the resident feel that her concerns were being taken seriously. Its email could have also conveyed that the matter could cause a nuisance, albeit not ASB, in breach of the lease, although its initial gentle approach to the matter was reasonable.
- The landlord did not respond to this element under stage 1 and excluded it from stage 2 of its complaints process (considered below). Despite further and continuing reports from the resident, there is no evidence the landlord raised the issue again with the neighbours which was a failing. While it did review videos it determined the dog was kept under control. However, the matter was clearly causing distress to the resident and the landlord should have done more to address her concerns with the neighbours.
- There was service failure, which caused distress, time and trouble for the resident. To reflect this impact an order has been made that the landlord pay £100 compensation which is in line with our guidance on remedies.
The landlord’s handling of the resident’s concerns for the welfare of the neighbours’ cats and dog, and the nuisance they were causing
- Before and throughout the course of the complaints process the resident has raised concerns with the landlord about the welfare of the neighbours’ cats and dog. She explained the cats were left outside and looked hungry, that they would come into her, and other residents’, houses looking for food and shelter. As well as being concerned she said that this was causing her a nuisance.
- The landlord said on 10 and 11 May 2023 that this did not amount to ASB, but that it could be considered as part of the mediation, along with other issues she had raised, with the neighbours. This was an appropriate suggestion and in line with its policy definition of ASB and ASB policy approach. It also suggested she report welfare concerns to an animal welfare charity or the RSPCA which was a solution focused suggestion. Animal welfare charities may have been able to offer support. The RSPCA has legal powers which enable it to intervene in cases of animal cruelty or neglect, which the landlord does not have.
- The landlord replied to emails from the animal welfare charity and explained the limit of what it could and could not do, which was in line with its ASB policy. It also said it had raised the resident’s concerns with it within its stage 1 response, however, failed to respond to this point within its stage 2 response (considered below).
- Regarding the neighbours’ dog barking due to being left alone for long periods, the landlord said this could be ASB if the noise caused was causing a nuisance. It suggested before, and within its complaint response, that its noise app could be used to gather evidence of this but explained it could not take any action without this. From the resident’s first letter to the landlord she said the noise was not of a level to report, and having reviewed her emails to it her concern was for the dog’s welfare.
- While the resident’s concern for the neighbours’ cats and dog and their welfare was genuine and admirable, it was not the landlord’s responsibility or within its powers to act. It appropriately advised her to report her welfare concerns to the correct organisations, and explained when it could take action for ASB if she supplied evidence of noise nuisance. As distressing as the situation must have been for the resident there was nothing more the landlord could have done and there was no maladministration.
The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of ASB caused by the neighbours
- Within her letter of 3 May 2023, her stage 1 complaint, escalation request, and multiple emails during the complaints process the resident raised multiple different issues and incidents which she considered to be ASB, which have been set out above.
- In its replies to the resident on 10 and 11 May 2023 the landlord said the majority of the issues she raised would not be classed as ASB under its ASB policy, and then explained why, which was appropriate. It is noted that the lease clause on ASB is more widely drafted than the definition under its policy, and it would have been helpful if the landlord had considered this and better managed the resident’s expectations.
- In relation to those issues which could be or become ASB, if there was sufficient evidence, the landlord gave appropriate advice on noise nuisance (considered above), and if the neighbours swearing was persistent and done with intent to cause her harm. In any event, it suggested mediation as the most effective way to resolve matters which was solution focused, appropriate and in line with its policy. When the resident asked what would happen if mediation was refused, it gave an honest and realistic answer about it not being able to take any formal action at that time.
- The landlord also called and emailed the neighbours about the allegations made and issues the resident had raised, and suggested mediation, which again was solution focused.
- On 12 June 2023 the resident reported an ASB incident to the landlord when she felt threatened. There is no record of what, if anything, it did following this report and that was a failing. The landlord should have contacted the resident within its policy’s 5 working day timeframe and carried out a risk assessment.
- The landlord did exchange emails with the police and have a telephone conversation, which was in line with its ASB policy approach of working with other agencies when appropriate. It would have been helpful if it had made a full note of its call and not having done so was a failing. However, from the police’s email to the landlord it is apparent they did not ask or encourage it to take any further action.
- Within its stage 2 response the landlord said it had carried out risk assessments, but it has not provided any evidence of this to this Service. It also accepted that it should have acknowledged all the issues she had raised and better managed her expectations. It offered £25 compensation, and £50 for stress and inconvenience.
- In relation to the failures identified, the Ombudsman’s role is to consider whether the redress offered by the landlord 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, as well as our own guidance on remedies.
- Taking into account the number of different issues raised, the number of emails sent to the landlord, and their length and complexity, the landlord tried to respond to the resident as fully as it could. It could have been clearer about what it could and could not do, and it could have better managed the resident’s expectations. However, this would not have had an impact on how it managed the issues, its categorisation of what was and was not ASB, and the actions it was able to take. While many of the issues complained about could be considered neighbour disputes, the cumulative effect coupled with potential or perceived hostilities could have escalated matters. Its lack of risk assessments, especially when the resident reported she felt threatened enough to call the police, was a significant failing.
- Overall, there was maladministration. To reflect the distress caused an order has been made that the landlord pay £300 compensation, inclusive of the £75 it offered within its stage 2 response.
The landlord’s handling of the resident’s concerns about the placement of a hedge
- In April 2023 the resident raised her concerns about the developer planting a new hedge which she said would cut across her land under the lease. While the landlord was not responsible for the planting or location of the hedge, it correctly contacted the developer to pass on the resident’s concerns. When the developer explained it was part of the estate plans the landlord had no power to change this. It did however suggest the resident speak directly to the developer, which was solution focused. It repeated this suggestion again in May 2023, but said based on the plans it could not see that the hedge was in the wrong place.
- Within its stage 1 response the landlord correctly said the hedge was the developer’s responsibility, and there was nothing more it could do. While it could have raised the issue with the developer again, as the developer had given a definitive answer, it is understandable that it did not as it did not reasonably expect a different outcome. It then excluded the issue from its stage 2 response (considered below).
- However, having visited the resident, the landlord did raise the issue again with the developer. If it had visited her earlier it may have been able to re-raise the issue earlier, although it had not been under any obligation to do so. As the developer then admitted a discrepancy with its plan it is understandable that the landlord had not seen the issue ‘on paper’ before its visit. It then continued to chase the developer until the issue was resolved, which demonstrated it wanted to be fair and put things right, even though these works were outside of its control. There was no maladministration.
The landlord’s handling of the resident’s formal complaint
- The resident made her stage 1 complaint on 17 May 2023. The landlord acknowledged the complaint on 25 May 2023, which was outside of its 2-day complaints policy timeframe and was a failing. It said it would respond within 10 working days, however, this would be from the date the complaint was made under its policy and its acknowledgement was misleading which was a failing.
- On 30 May 2023 the landlord told the resident that it needed an extension of time of not more than 20 working days, due to the complexity of the complaint. The resident questioned this as under its policy it says it would agree an extension with the resident if it needed one.
- The resident chased for a response on 15 June 2023, which was 20 working days after she had made her complaint. The landlord tried to call her the following day to discuss the outcome of her complaint. The resident questioned its approach, but it is not uncommon for landlords to give a courtesy call to discuss a complaint response just before or just after sending one to a resident. However, it did not provide its response then. After the resident chased it further the landlord gave her a date by which to expect its response. It would have been helpful, and clearer, if it had given this date when it first said it needed an extension of time. This would have prevented the resident needing to chase it.
- The landlord provided its stage 1 response on 27 June 2023, which was the date it had given, and was 29 working days after the resident made her complaint. Under its policy it had 10 working days to respond and could agree an extension of not more than 20 working days. Under paragraph 5.1 of the Code, a landlord may extend the 10-working day timeframe by a further 10 working days by providing an explanation and timeframe. If it requires an extension beyond 20 working days, it must agree this with the resident under paragraph 5.2 of the Code.
- Within its stage 1 response the landlord did apologise for its delay in acknowledging the complaint and offered £25 compensation which showed it wanted to put things right. However, regarding its extension of time it said it was not its “usual procedure” to agree an extension of time with a resident despite its policy saying this. This was a clear failing to follow its complaints policy, and breach of paragraph 5.2 of the Code. The landlord also failed to respond to, or exclude, her complaint about its handling of her report of fly tipping, in breach of paragraph 5.6 of the Code.
- Following escalation of the complaint on 7 July 2023 the landlord did not acknowledge this until 26 July 2023, in breach of its policy timeframe. It requested an extension of time, with a clear date and asked the resident if she agreed to this, which was positive and in compliance with paragraph 5.14 of the Code. It also offered to visit her to discuss the complaint which was solution focused. Following the visit the resident offered a further extension, and the landlord provided its stage 2 response in line with this timeframe.
- The landlord correctly admitted that its stage 1 response had been late, and its communication should have been clearer, and offered £75 compensation.
- In a letter on 11 August 2023, before providing its stage 2 response, the landlord set out the scope of its investigation. It repeated its scope within its stage 2 response. It had excluded several complaint elements from its stage 2 response which included her concerns about the hedge, cats, the dog and parking issues. It said it had provided its final response regarding the first 2 elements and would treat the second 2 as service requests.
- Under its complaints policy the landlord can exclude a complaint if it falls into one of its exclusion categories. Having given a stage 1 response already was not a reason to exclude a complaint element from a stage 2 complaint under its policy. Equally to be excluded as a service request it must be a first-time request for an issue to be dealt with, which was not the case regarding issues with the neighbours’ dog and parking. The landlord failed to follow its policy by excluding these 4 complaint elements from its stage 2 response.
- In addition, under paragraph 5.9 of the Code a landlord must escalate all or part of a complaint if the resident remains dissatisfied, unless an exclusion ground then applied. The landlord breached paragraph 5.9 of the Code.
- Within its stage 2 response the landlord said the complaint had not been upheld. However, this was incorrect as it had recognised and accepted there had been some failings, and it offered compensation for this. The complaint should have been found partially upheld and the landlord had failed to fully comply with paragraph 5.16 of the Code.
- Overall, there was maladministration, which caused further inconvenience, time and trouble for the resident in pursuing her complaint. To reflect this an order has been made that the landlord pay £300 compensation, inclusive of the £75 it offered at stage 2, to the resident.
Determination (decision)
- In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s:
- Reports of ASB caused by the neighbours.
- Formal complaint.
- In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was service failure in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of the neighbours’ dog being let out without a lead.
- In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was no maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s:
- Reports of the neighbours’ inconsiderate parking.
- Concerns for the welfare of the neighbours’ cats and dog, and the nuisance they were causing.
- Concerns about the placement of a hedge.
Reasons
- There was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of ASB caused by the neighbours as it failed to carry out, or evidence it had carried out, risk assessments following reports of ASB. It also did not manage the resident’s expectations fully and its communication could have been clearer.
- There was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s formal complaint as it was late in acknowledging the stage 1 complaint and complaint escalation. It mishandled its request for an extension of time for its stage 1 response in breach of its policy and the Code. It failed to recognise this in its stage 2 response. It also inappropriately excluded complaint elements from its stage 2 response, in breach of its policy and the Code.
- There was service failure in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of the neighbours’ dog being let out without a lead as it could have contacted the neighbours sooner and done more to try to resolve the situation.
- There was no maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of the neighbours’ inconsiderate parking as it wrote to all residents about considerate parking. It reviewed the evidence the resident supplied but did not find the neighbours’ parking to be restricting access. It considered that it was not proportionate to take action under the lease which was reasonable.
- There was no maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s concerns for the welfare of the neighbours’ cats and dog, and the nuisance they were causing as it clearly explained what it could and could not do. It offered appropriate advice about her welfare concerns and explained when it could act on noise nuisance if the resident provided evidence.
- There was no maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s concerns about the placement of a hedge as it communicated with the developer on the resident’s behalf, even though it had no say on or control over where the hedge was planted. Once it had visited it appropriately re-raised the issue, and chased the developer until they resolved the issue.
Orders
- Within 4 weeks of the date of this report, the landlord is ordered to:
- Provide a written apology to the resident from a manager or senior member of staff for the failures detailed in this report.
- Pay directly to the resident compensation of £700 made up of:
- £300 (inclusive of its £75 offer) for the distress caused by its failings in handling the resident’s reports of ASB.
- £300 (inclusive of its £75 offer) for the inconvenience, time and trouble caused by its complaint handling failings.
- £100 for the distress, time and trouble caused by its service failure.
- Within 6 weeks of the date of this report, the landlord is ordered to, in accordance with paragraph 54(g) of the Scheme, arrange further training for its complaints handling staff to include acknowledging complaints, handling requests for extensions of time, escalation of complaints and when it is legitimate to exclude a complaint under its policy.
- The landlord is ordered to confirm compliance with these orders to this Service within the stated deadlines.