Sovereign Network Group (202331437)

Background

1. The resident lived in a flat with a communal entrance. She reported issues to her landlord regarding missing post. She has also raised a complaint about her neighbour’s dog. She said that the dog was causing noise nuisance, and that it affected her health due to allergies which she has. The resident has since moved properties; however, she remains a tenant of the landlord.

What the complaint is about

2. The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of:
   1. Reports of missing post.
   2. Reports of antisocial behaviour (ASB).
   3. The complaint.

Our decision (determination)

3. There was no maladministration in the landlord’s handling of:
   1. Reports of missing post.
   2. Reports of ASB.
4. There was maladministration in the landlord’s complaints handling.

We have made orders for the landlord to put things right.

Summary of reasons

The landlord’s handling of reports of missing post.

5. The landlord initially advised the resident to report missing post to the police or to the sender. This was reasonable, in line with the landlord’s ASB policy. The landlord has since installed individual post boxes for each resident to minimise any post going missing.

The landlord’s handling of reports of ASB.

6. The landlord has investigated the resident’s concerns regarding noise nuisance from the neighbour’s dog, in line with its noise nuisance policy. It found no evidence that the dog was causing a nuisance. The landlord asked the resident for a medical report regarding how the dog affected her. The resident did not provide this. The landlord has investigated the noise nuisance in line with its policies and has not found evidence of nuisance. It explained this to the resident.

The landlord’s handling of the complaint.

7. The landlord had more than one opportunity to recognise an expression of dissatisfaction from the resident and log the complaint in line with its complaints policy. It did not do this. This resulted in an overall delay in the resident getting a response to her complaint.

Putting things right

Where we find service failure, maladministration or severe maladministration we can make orders for the landlord to put things right. We have the discretion to make recommendations in all other cases within our jurisdiction.

Orders

Landlords must comply with our orders in the manner and timescales we specify. The landlord must provide documentary evidence of compliance with our orders by the due date set.

Our investigation

The complaint procedure

What we found and why

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

8. On 6 March 2023, the resident told the landlord she had not had any post in 4 weeks. She believed that her neighbours were stealing her post. The landlord responded on 10 March 2023. It recommended that the resident contact the police if she believed her post was stolen, or the sender if she thought the post was lost. The landlord’s ASB policy says that where there is criminal activity the resident has a responsibility to report this to the police. As theft of post is a crime, it was reasonable to advise the resident to contact the police if she believed her neighbours were stealing her post. It was also reasonable for the landlord to suggest the resident contact the sender of any post that she thought had gone missing.
9. In its response on 10 March 2023 the landlord had said it would not install individual storage boxes for post. It said it had previously advised the resident of this. We have not seen the previous correspondence regarding the decision not to install individual storage boxes. As we have not seen the previous correspondence, it is unclear why the landlord held this position on installing storage boxes. However, we note there is nothing in the landlord’s policies, or in the resident’s tenancy agreement which says the landlord was obliged to install individual storage boxes for post. As such we consider the installation of post boxes to be at the landlord’s discretion.
10. On 19 October 2023 the landlord said it had reconsidered its position on installing post boxes and would install individual post boxes for each resident. It said it had done this after speaking to other residents in the property. We have not seen evidence of the exact date the landlord installed the post boxes. However, on 21 November 2023 the landlord asked the resident if she was happy with the new post box installation. As such we have concluded that the landlord upheld its promise to install individual post boxes.
11. The landlord initially signposted the resident to the correct organisations in relation to missing post. It later reconsidered its decision on installing post boxes. It installed these, which is likely to have been beneficial regarding any concerns surrounding the security of the resident’s post. The landlord’s actions in relation to reports of missing post were reasonable. As such there was no maladministration.

What we did not consider

12. The resident has said that the neighbour painted her door without permission. We understand there were subsequent allegations from both the neighbour and the resident that paint was thrown at doors and in the communal hallway. In the landlord’s stage 2 response it says this was part of a complaint from “a few years ago”. The evidence indicates this incident occurred in 2020. We have not seen the complaint from when the incident occurred. However, as per our Scheme we may not consider complaints which have been brought to our attention more than 12 months after the complaint exhausted the landlord’s complaints procedure. Due to the age of this matter, we have not investigated this incident further.
13. The resident has raised that the neighbour’s daughter has moved out and as such there is under occupancy in the property. Our Scheme says that we look at complaints in which the landlord’s actions have affected the resident. In the stage 1 response the landlord acknowledged the residents report of under occupancy. However, it said this was between it and the neighbour. We have not established any detrimental impact to the resident that would be caused by under occupancy in a neighbouring property. As such we have not considered this further.
14. The Ombudsman previously investigated a complaint from the resident regarding the neighbour having a dog. We issued a report on 21 January 2021. As per our Scheme we would not re-investigate any matters which we have already decided on. However, we can look at the landlord’s newest stage 1 and stage 2 complaint regarding the resident’s complaint about the dog and consider the reasonableness of these responses.

What we did consider.

15. On 6 and 8 March 2023, the resident spoke with the landlord about it allowing her neighbour to have a dog. She said that this had an impact on her health due to allergies and noise nuisance. The landlord said it had investigated this previously and would not respond to the complaint. We have considered the reasonableness of this in the complaint handling section of this report.
16. The resident raised her concerns regarding the dog again on 12 October 2023. On 16 October 2023 and 7 November 2023, the landlord requested a doctor’s report confirming that the dog was the cause of the allergic reaction. We have seen an undated picture that the resident said she sent to the landlord showing medications she was using. It is unclear from the evidence when she sent this image. However, we note there is no specific information regarding how the dog might be exacerbating her health condition. As such we do not feel it would be reasonable for the landlord to know from these pictures alone, whether there were medical implications for the resident due to the dog.
17. In the stage 1 response the landlord outlined its position regarding the neighbour’s dog. The resident had raised it was a breach of the tenancy agreement. The landlord said it could make exceptions which would allow residents to own dogs. The resident’s tenancy agreement says that resident’s require written permission to own a dog. It also says that the landlord will not withhold consent to own a dog, unreasonably. It was reasonable for the landlord to consider the neighbour’s request to keep a dog. The landlord has advised it will not share the reasons it agreed to the request. However, the landlord has provided evidence to us that it considered the neighbours circumstances and based its decision to allow the dog on her circumstances. It has acted in line with the tenancy agreement.
18. The resident’s tenancy agreement says that if a dog is permitted, it must not cause a nuisance to other people. In the stage 1 response the landlord said it had previously investigated noise complaints about the dog and had not found evidence it was causing a nuisance. It said it would open a new investigation into the resident’s reports of noise nuisance. This was reasonable in line with its noise nuisance policy.
19. The landlord agreed to do a number of visits to investigate the alleged noise nuisance from the dog. Its noise nuisance policy states that it will conduct visits to assess the level of noise being complained about. In the stage 2 response the landlord said it had made 7 visits to the property between 23 November 2023 and 16 January 2024. The landlord acted in line with its noise nuisance policy.
20. The landlord’s noise nuisance policy states that investigations must find evidence that the noise is having a significant effect on others. The landlord said in its stage 2 response that the resident may wish to use the noise app to gather further evidence. It had also advised the resident to use this previously. The landlord said it had not identified any noise nuisance from its investigations. Its noise nuisance policy says it will close the case once there are no reasonable actions it can take. The landlord has advised the resident that it cannot take further action. This is in line with its noise nuisance policy.
21. In the stage 1 response the landlord said an allegation had been made from a neighbour that the resident owned a dog. The resident was unhappy with this allegation.
22. The landlord responded in line with the tenancy agreement, regarding the ownership of the neighbour’s dog. It investigated the resident’s concerns that the dog was causing a nuisance to her. However, it found no evidence to support the resident’s concerns. The landlord’s response to the complaint about nuisance from the neighbour’s dog was reasonable. As such there was no maladministration.

23. On 6 and 8 March 2023, the resident raised a complaint regarding the landlord permitting her neighbour to keep a dog. She stated that this affected her health due to allergies and that the dog caused noise nuisance. The landlord declined to investigate, stating the matter had already been considered through its complaints process in 2021. At the time of the 2021 complaint the landlord had said the neighbour was not allowed to keep the dog.
24. The resident’s 2023 complaint focused on the neighbour still having the dog and her dissatisfaction as the landlord had changed its position and said the neighbour could keep the dog. The landlord’s complaints policy says it will not investigate things which have already completed the complaints process. While it was reasonable for the landlord to avoid reopening issues previously addressed, in this case the landlord’s position regarding the dog ownership had changed. Therefore, opening a new complaint at this time would have been appropriate. We note the landlord subsequently raised a complaint, when the resident re-raised the matter about the dog ownership and noise nuisance. However, not opening a complaint in March 2023, has caused delays in the complaints process.
25. We also note the resident raised a complaint about her post going missing in the March 2023 complaints. There is no evidence the matter regarding post had previously been through the complaints process. As such a new complaint should have been raised at this time. It was later investigated when the resident re-raised the matter. However, as with the complaint regarding the nuisance from the dog, not opening a complaint at the earliest opportunity has resulted in delays in the complaints process.
26. The landlord’s complaints policy says it considers a complaint to be an expression of dissatisfaction. This complies with our complaint handling code (the Code). On 16 October 2023 the resident said she felt the landlord was ignoring her and that she would take legal action if the landlord did not respond to her concerns. It would have been reasonable for the landlord to consider this as an expression of dissatisfaction. The landlord did not log a complaint at this time. This was not in line with its complaints policy.
27. The resident raised the issues regarding the missing post and concerns about the dog again, on 22 November 2023. This time, the landlord recognised the resident’s dissatisfaction and logged a formal complaint. The landlord’s complaints policy says it will acknowledge stage 1 and stage 2 complaints within 5 working days. It says it will respond to stage 1 complaints within 10 working days and stage 2 complaints within 20 working days. This complies with our Code.
28. We have not seen that the landlord issued a stage 1 acknowledgement letter. It responded to the stage 1 complaint in 11 working days. While the landlord has not evidenced it followed its complaints policy as it did not send an acknowledgement letter, we do not consider this to have been detrimental to the resident. This is because the complaint was issued in under 15 working days.
29. The landlord acknowledged the stage 2 complaint in 5 working days. It issued the response in 22 working days. This is outside of the timescales in the landlord’s policy. However, we note the delay is short, and unlikely to have caused detriment to the resident.
30. The landlord had an opportunity in March 2023 and again in October 2023 to recognise dissatisfaction from the resident regarding complaints about the neighbour’s dog and complaints about missing post. As such, in line with its complaints policy, it would have been appropriate for the landlord to log a complaint at these times. It did not do this.  In relation to the resident’s post complaint, it is unclear why the landlord did not open a complaint, upon receiving expressions of dissatisfaction. In relation to the complaints regarding a neighbour’s dog, the landlord said the matter had been through the complaints process in 2021. However, we have identified that there had been substantial changes to the facts since the 2021 complaints response. As such it would have been appropriate to open a new complaint.
31. Once the landlord recognised and logged the complaint it acted in line with its complaints policy to respond to the resident. However, failing to identify the earlier expressions of dissatisfaction resulted in the resident needing to raise her complaint more than once over a 6-month period, to get a response. We consider this is likely to have caused frustration to the resident.
32. We consider a compensation payment for this failing to be appropriate. In line with our remedies guidance for maladministration, where there is likely to have been distress and inconvenience but no permanent impact, we have awarded £150.

Learning

33. The landlord responded in line with the terms of the resident’s tenancy agreement in relation to dog ownership. It also showed it considered possible solutions to the resident’s issue with the missing post. However, we consider the landlord could have provided a full response to the resident’s complaints earlier. This would have ensured the resident felt heard, and prevented frustration caused by her needing to raise the matter more than once.

Knowledge information management (record keeping)

34. The landlord kept sufficient records. We identified a piece of missing evidence, and the landlord provided this to us once we requested it. We would encourage the landlord to ensure it provides all relevant to records to us, at the earliest opportunity.

Communication

35. Although the landlord did not respond officially to the resident’s complaint as early as it could, we have seen that it was in regular communication regarding her concerns. The landlord has signposted the resident appropriately to services which might be able to support her. We consider there was good communication with the resident throughout the complaint.