Sanctuary Housing Association (202226735)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202226735

Sanctuary Housing Association

10 July 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

  1. The complaint is about the landlord’s response to reports of:
    1. Antisocial behaviour by the resident’s neighbour.
    2. The resident’s neighbour feeding birds excessively.
  2. The investigation has also taken the landlord’s handling of the associated complaint into consideration.

Background

  1. The resident occupies a two-bedroom semi-detached house with an assured tenancy. The tenancy, which started on 17 March 2003, is shared with her mother. The neighbour who is the subject of the resident’s reports is also a tenant of the landlord.
  2. Although not within the scope of this assessment, the resident has stated she has reported excessive bird feeding and antisocial behaviour (ASB) from her neighbour since 2016. The resident has said the ongoing issue has affected her and her mother’s health.
  3. Throughout July 2022, the resident emailed the landlord about the bird feeding and associated issues. She said she had put slug pellets at the front door, but the neighbour had removed them without permission – the neighbour confirmed this via a note through her door. This happened on a further 2 occasions and the resident reported her neighbour to the police. A crime reference was provided but no further action was taken by the police. The landlord logged an ASB case, visited the resident, offered mediation, and suggested she contact the environmental health team at the local authority. It sent a letter to the neighbour, and verbally asked for food to be put in her garden only and on the bird table. On 29 July 2022, the resident asked for a formal complaint to be raised as she said the problem continued and the landlord had failed to act.
  4. On 1 August 2022, the resident asked again for a formal complaint to be raised. She also said she had been verbally abused by the neighbour while shutting her door. The landlord confirmed it had logged a complaint against the ASB case and had written to the neighbour about the slug pellets and the bird feeding. It said it needed more information about the verbal abuse, or it could not intervene. The resident continued to email the landlord throughout August 2022 about the bird feeding, trespassing, the theft of slug pellets and verbal abuse. She contacted the local authority and confirmed the police had said it was the landlord’s responsibility to manage. The landlord said it had contacted the neighbour, but it could not stop them feeding the birds entirely.
  5. On 18 October 2022, the resident told the landlord it had failed to resolve the issues and asked for the complaint to be escalated to stage 2. The landlord advised it would respond by 1 November 2022.
  6. The landlord responded to the complaint on 3 November 2022. It explained that it had not been logged at stage 2 as the previous complaint had been investigated under the ASB policy. It confirmed its actions and contact with the neighbour but explained it could not stop them feeding birds altogether. It recommended mediation and suggested she contact the local authority as it had done all it could. It told the resident to contact the police if she felt threatened by her neighbour. The complaint was not upheld, but the landlord agreed to open a new ASB case as the issues continued.
  7. The resident escalated the complaint on 3 November 2022, stating the issue had not been rectified. The landlord acknowledged receipt on 29 November 2022, and said it would respond by 23 December 2022.
  8. The landlord provided its final complaint response on 15 December 2022. It confirmed the action taken in August 2022, and advised it had been managed correctly. It reaffirmed the action taken with the neighbour and confirmed it had raised a repair to install anti-bird spikes to the ridge and hip tiles, install hedgehog strips to the gutters, and clean all gutters, downpipes and facias. In response to the verbal abuse, it confirmed no further action would be taken as it was ‘one word against the other,’ and no further incidents had been reported. The landlord confirmed it was satisfied the action taken was proportionate and in line with its policies and procedures. It awarded compensation of £50 for poor complaint handling and £70 for delayed communications in regard to it not responding to some emails.

Post completion of complaint process

  1. It is evident that the resident remained dissatisfied with the landlord’s response, and all offers of compensation were refused due to the continuation of the problem. There is evidence to confirm further complaints have since been made to the landlord regarding the bird feeding and the resident’s dissatisfaction with the deterrent work completed by the landlord.
  2. There is also evidence to confirm that in June 2023, the landlord visited the site with an environmental health representative. The site was monitored by environmental health at various times and days over the period of a week. It concluded that a variety of birds were seen in the area, but were not solely on the roof of the resident. It confirmed the deterrent work completed by the landlord was appropriate, and there were no restrictions in place for bird feeding.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

  1. The resident has referred to the impact the ongoing issues have had on the health of herself and her mother. While we do not doubt this, the Ombudsman is unable to draw conclusions on the causation of, or liability for, impacts on health and wellbeing. Nonetheless, consideration has been given to the general distress and inconvenience which the situation may have caused.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 42(l) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, we may not consider complaints which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, seek to raise again matters which the Housing Ombudsman or any other Ombudsman has already decided upon. Following case 202210918, which the Ombudsman determined in November 2023, this report will not cover the issues raised and assessed within that investigation, namely the landlord’s handling of proposed deterrent measures to resolve the issue with excessive birds between March and November 2022.
  3. It is noted that the resident has stated she has experienced issues with her neighbour for many years. In accordance with paragraph 42(b) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, we may not consider complaints which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, were not brought to the Ombudsman’s attention normally more than 12 months after they exhausted the member’s complaints procedure. As such, this report will focus on the events from July 2022, exclusive of the issues raised through case reference 202210918.
  4. Records show that additional issues have been raised which are being investigated separately under case reference 202214078. This relates to a complaint that exhausted the landlord’s complaints process in September 2022. For clarity, this case will not address or assess any of the issues raised within that case.

Antisocial behaviour (ASB)

  1. Once the landlord had been notified of the verbal abuse incident in August 2022, it responded within a reasonable timeframe and confirmed it had logged the complaint against a live case. In the Ombudsman’s opinion, while this was the correct approach to take in line with the landlord’s ASB procedure, it is evident the resident believed the report had been logged as a formal complaint, as requested. The landlord’s communication was open to misinterpretation by the resident and consequently led to her spending unnecessary time and effort repeating her emails to the landlord in attempt to obtain a complaint response. The Ombudsman finds this unreasonable as the landlord’s communication was not clear.
  2. The landlord asked the resident for more information about the incident, and the resident responded the same day. This was an appropriate step to take as it helped the landlord determine what action it could take, if any. The Ombudsman has seen evidence which demonstrated the landlord completed a vulnerability matrix with the resident. The procedure states this should be done by the staff member who received the initial report to enable the correct categorisation of the case and to inform the investigating team. The evidence suggests this did not happen as the assessment was not completed until 16 August 2022, after it was passed to the investigating officer. In the Ombudsman’s opinion, this highlights a service failure of the landlord.
  3. The landlord informed the resident it was not taking any further action regarding the incident as it was ‘one word against the other.’ With no independent witnesses, and in line with its evidence led approach to investigating alleged ASB, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, this was the appropriate response from the landlord. No further incidents were reported, and the police confirmed they were not taking any further action, so there was no obligation on the landlord to progress the ASB case further.
  4. Overall, the Ombudsman finds service failure in relation to the landlord’s response to reports of ASB by the resident’s neighbour. This finding is primarily due to the ineffective communication with the resident when the incident was reported, and the formal complaint was requested. The unclear communication when the case was logged led the resident to believe her complaint had been logged and this is likely to have caused further confusion and frustration when she asked for the complaint to be escalated. The finding is also due to the delay in the completion of the vulnerability assessment which was not completed in line with procedure.

Bird feeding

  1. Prior to July 2022, and in connection with a previous complaint, there is evidence to confirm the landlord wrote to the neighbour regarding the feeding of birds and other wildlife. The landlord asked the neighbour to refrain from putting food on the ground in a bid to stop attracting unwanted vermin.
  2. Following the resident’s further report in July 2022, the landlord confirmed its previous contact with the neighbour, and agreed to visit the resident to discuss the issue. During the visit, the landlord suggested mediation, but this was refused by the resident due to previous incidents. Following the removal of the slug pellets from the resident’s property, the landlord contacted the neighbour again. It told the neighbour not to put notes through the resident’s door, to stop removing the slug pellets and to only leave food in the boundary of her own back garden and on the bird table. In the Ombudsman’s opinion, this was a reasonable response from the landlord.
  3. As the issue continued, the landlord again confirmed its contact with the neighbour, but told the resident it could not stop the neighbour feeding the birds entirely. The resident told the landlord her health and her mother’s health were affected. She said they could not sit in the garden due to the amount of excrement. She said they were woken early in the morning by the birds, and they left the property most days as they could not stay at home due to the number of birds and noise. The resident said this was ASB and the landlord should manage it under its policies and procedures. The landlord suggested the resident contacted the environmental health team which she did in August 2022. Although not a service failure, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, the landlord could have considered contacting the environmental health team directly to seek advice on the issue. This would have demonstrated collaborative working with external partners to see if there was anything more it could do.
  4. In the Ombudsman’s opinion, there was no maladministration in relation to the landlord’s response to reports of the resident’s neighbour feeding birds excessively. The landlord visited the site and contacted the neighbour on 4 occasions to reduce the feeding of the birds. The landlord arranged for deterrent measures to be installed which were deemed as appropriate and proportionate. It confirmed to the resident that it could not stop the neighbour feeding the birds, which was confirmed by environmental health.

The associated complaint

  1. When the resident asked for her complaint to be logged on 18 October 2022, she said the landlord told her on 27 October 2022 that it had been forwarded to the complaint team. The Ombudsman has not seen evidence of this communication therefore it cannot assess if the landlord complied with the policy to acknowledge a complaint within 5 working days. This raises a potential record keeping and communication concern.
  2. A further email was sent to the resident confirming the landlord would respond by 1 November 2022, but the response was not sent until 3 November 2022. While this is not excessively over the timescale to respond, it would have been reasonable for the landlord to confirm this delay with the resident. In doing so, it would have complied with the complaint policy. It is however noted that the landlord acknowledged the delay in the response and offered £50 compensation. This was a reasonable offer to make and was in line with the compensation policy.
  3. The landlord’s response was a timeline of events which confirmed the actions taken, the offers of mediation and signposting advice. In the Ombudsman’s opinion, the landlord did not take the opportunity to provide an explanation as to why it could not stop the neighbour feeding the birds. Although its internal notes confirm it was not a breach of tenancy, this was not explained to the resident and there was no reference to the ASB procedure which the resident had implied the landlord had failed to follow. In the Ombudsman’s opinion, this information could have provided clarity and confirmation regarding the landlord’s position and powers on managing the situation.
  4. Upon receipt of the escalation request, it took the landlord 18 working days to acknowledge and 30 working days to provide its final response letter. The landlord failed to comply with the complaint policy on both accounts. This was however acknowledged by the landlord who offered £50 for the delay and £70 for the delays in communication. This was a reasonable offer and was in line with the compensation policy.
  5. As with first response, the final complaint response was a timeline of events and actions taken. As stated previously, the landlord missed a further opportunity to explain and confirm its position and powers as to what action it could take against the neighbour. Without the additional justification or explanation so to why it could not stop the neighbour from feeding the birds, this likely led to further frustration and uncertainty for the resident who believed the landlord was not following the ASB procedure. The Ombudsman finds the lack of explanation unreasonable.
  6. Overall, the Ombudsman finds service failure with the landlord’s handling of the associated complaint. This finding is based on the landlord’s failure to address the complaint in full and the lack of explanation around the actions it could and could not take against the neighbour. The delays in the complaint responses are noted, however in the Ombudsman’s opinion, this was acknowledged by the landlord and appropriate compensation was offered for these. Without this acknowledgement and offer of redress, the Ombudsman would have made a determination of maladministration.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, the Ombudsman finds service failure in relation to the landlord’s response to reports of antisocial behaviour by the resident’s neighbour.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, the Ombudsman finds no maladministration in relation to the landlord’s response to reports of the resident’s neighbour feeding birds excessively.
  3. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, the Ombudsman finds service failure in relation to the landlord’s handling of the associated complaint.

Orders

  1. Within 4 weeks of the date of this report, the landlord should:
    1. Write to the resident to apologise for the failures identified in this report.
    2. Pay the resident compensation of:
      1. £170 that was offered as part of the stage 1 and stage 2 complaint responses;
      2. £75 for the failings identified in the ASB case management;
      3. The payment should be made directly to the resident and not offset against any debt that may be owed.
  2. The landlord should provide this Service with evidence to confirm it has complied with the orders made within the specified timescale.

Recommendations

  1. The landlord should consider:
    1. sending a reminder to staff on the importance of completing the vulnerability matrix at the time an incident is reported;
    2. ensuring that it makes it clear to residents in future how it intends to manage a case, so it is clear whether it is doing so through the ASB or complaints policy, or both.
  2. Within 4 weeks of the date of this report, the landlord should inform this Service of is intentions against the recommendations made.