Trent & Dove Housing Limited (202122328)

Back to Top

 

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202122328

Trent & Dove Housing Limited

21 March 2023

 

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:
    1. handling of reports of anti-social behaviour, and ;
    2. complaint handling.

Background

  1. The resident is an assured shorthold tenant. The property is a one bed ground floor flat.
  2. The resident has had previous disputes with his neighbour, who is a private tenant. On 21 February 2022, the resident made a complaint to the landlord. The complaint described how a contractor, employed by the resident’s neighbour, had left conifer trimmings on the resident’s path. The resident wanted the landlord to treat this as an incident of anti-social behaviour (ASB) and take action against the neighbour. The landlord acknowledged the complaint and responded on the same day, explaining that it was unable to regulate the work of an outside contractor. The landlord also said that due to high winds on the day of the incident, it was not unreasonable that some trimmings were left on the resident’s path.
  3. The resident expressed dissatisfaction with the response, and the landlord escalated the matter through its complaints procedure, providing a response on  4 March 2022. It explained that it would not treat the incident as ASB, nor investigate the incident as a complaint, in line with its policies.
  4. Following contact from the resident, this Service asked the landlord to provide a final response to the matter, which it did on 11 March 2022, maintaining its position. The landlord further added that due to previous issues, it had taken responsibility for maintenance of the hedge, and would now write to the neighbour, making clear that the neighbour’s contractor did not need to trim it in future. It also noted that via previous complaints, it had already outlined the action it could and could not take on such matters.

Assessment and findings

The decision not to treat the incident as ASB

  1. The landlord’s ASB policy defines ASB as “Conduct which is capable of causing housing-related nuisance (or) annoyance to any person.” The policy goes on to state that “where the behaviour reported to us meets the above definition, we will then consider whether the behaviour is unreasonable. Only where we determine something to meet the definition AND be unreasonable will we deem it to be ASB.” The policy says that if the landlord decides that there is no reasonable action that can be taken to deal with the issue reported, it will inform the resident and provide an explanation.
  2. In the landlord’s initial response to the resident’s concerns on 21 February 2022, it clearly set out its position that the debris left at the property “cannot be considered unreasonable”. In its 4 March 2022 email it explained “the neighbours contractor has cleared up the majority of the cuttings and it appears the remaining cuttings are due to being too small to pick up, and may have blown down from the trees after they left the site. We feel the cuttings will either blow away, or it is not unreasonable for us to request you brush them up.”
  3. The ASB policy obliges the landlord to make a decision on whether or not the behaviour of the neighbour was unreasonable before deciding to treat it as an incident of ASB. In this instance it has assessed the report, and been clear that the behaviour was not unreasonable. The landlord has therefore followed the policy correctly by deciding not to treat the incident as ASB. It went on to provide an explanation to the resident on its position, in line with the policy.
  4. The landlord subsequently made the decision to write to the neighbour explaining that they did not need to maintain that particular hedge in future. This was a considered approach to try and prevent further issues of this nature from arising. The landlord exceeded its obligations to the resident in this instance.
  5. Overall, there was no maladministration on the part of the landlord in its handling of this matter.

The decision not to escalate the complaint through the formal process

  1. The landlord’s complaints policy states that it cannot investigate “anything that is outside Trent & Dove’s reasonable ability to legally control or influence. This includes actions undertaken by private individuals, members of the public or other organisations who are not customers of Trent & Dove or with whom Trent & Dove does not have a legal or contractual relationship.” As the neighbour was a private tenant, the landlord’s decision not to treat the matter as a formal complaint was in line with this policy. Further, the evidence available shows that the resident has previously been informed that as the neighbour was not a tenant of the landlord, there was very limited action the landlord could take on his concerns.
  2. The landlord has been consistent in its approach and has adhered to its complaint policy. There was no maladministration on the part of the landlord here.
  3. Having said this, it should have provided the resident with details of how to escalate the matter to the Ombudsman when it declined to investigate the matter. That it didn’t did not impact the resident, as they were in contact with this Service already. However, a recommendation is made below to prevent a recurrence.

Determination (decision)

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration in the landlord’s handling of reports of anti-social behaviour.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration in the landlord’s complaint handling.

Recommendation

  1. In cases where the landlord declines to investigate a complaint, it should provide this decision as a written ‘final response’ and give details of how to escalate the matter to the Ombudsman.