Two Rivers Housing (202017334)

A picture containing logo

Description automatically generated

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202017334

Two Rivers Housing

17 July 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

The complaint is about the landlord’s:
1. Response to the resident’s concerns about the condition of her neighbour’s garden;
2. Handling of the resident’s reports that her neighbour was engaging in antisocial behaviour (ASB).
This report also considers the landlord’s:
1. Communication;
2. Record keeping;
3. Complaint handling.

Background and summary of events

The landlord’s neighbourhood management policy outlines that the landlord is responsible for dealing effectively with ASB and neighbour nuisance. It states it will carry out regular estate inspections and take reasonable, proportionate action where necessary to enforce tenancy conditions.
The neighbourhood management policy states that residents are responsible for keeping gardens well maintained, removal of their own rubbish, and not causing a disturbance.
The landlord categorises ASB as:
1. Very serious – eg actual or threatened violence and serious criminality. Complainants should be contacted within one working day.
2. Serious – eg “heated verbal abusive arguments” and threatening or intimidating behaviour. Complainants should be contacted within two working days.
3. Minor – eg neighbour disputes and tenancy and estate management breaches. Complainants should be contacted within seven working days.
The ASB policy states that the landlord will take appropriate action against perpetrators and will “keep the victim informed of any appropriate development regarding action taken”.
The landlord operates a two stage complaints process. Its complaints policy was last reviewed in November 2020. It does not provide any further information regarding complaint actions or timeframes. The landlord does however provide a link on its website to a complaints and compliments leaflet which states:
1. Stage one complaints will be acknowledged within five working days and responded to within ten working days.
2. Stage two complaints will be responded to within 20 working days.
The tenant handbook which is also available on the landlord website, states that the landlord operates a three stage complaint process. The third stage is described as a panel hearing by the chief executive and “one or two” board members.
The landlord’s compensation policy states that compensation may be payable where there has been a service failure. It categorises service failures depending on the impact on a resident:
1. Minor – inconvenience of a short duration with no long-term impact. Up to £100 may be paid.
2. Moderate – longer duration of inconvenience and/or a series of failures with significant impact. £100 to £500 may be paid.
3. Severe – serious repeated failures “resulting in prolonged stress, disruption and/or loss of facility”. More than £500 may be paid.
The resident first contacted her landlord to report issues with her neighbour in June 2016, when she first reported the poor condition of their garden. The resident first reported issues with her neighbours parking in December 2017, and with rats entering her property in December 2018. The resident contacted the landlord on 18 occasions between June 2016 and November 2020 to report issues with her neighbour. The issues reported by the resident included:
1. Poor garden condition leading to a rat infestation
2. Parking issues
3. Lean-to in garden
4. Noise nuisance due to domestic arguments and loud music
5. Verbal abuse, offensive language, and threatening behaviour
6. Damage to property
The resident contacted the landlord on 10 November 2020 reporting that she could hear rats in the cavity walls when she was in her lounge. The landlord raised a works order for its contractor to attend, the order status is ‘closed’ however it is not clear that the contractor attended.
On 13 January 2021 the landlord contacted the relevant local authorities environmental health department enquiring whether they were investigating any issues at the neighbour’s property. The evidence shows that environmental health did not respond until 28 April 2021. This Service has not seen evidence that the landlord chased a response during this period.
On 19 January 2021 the landlord wrote to the resident’s neighbour to advise that following its previous inspection of their garden in September 2020, no work had been done to improve the garden condition. The landlord attached an action plan with agreed timescales for completion.
On 9 February 2021 the resident again reported to the landlord that she could hear rats in her cavity walls. She contacted the landlord again on 15 February 2021 stating that rats had damaged her belongings. The file note stated that there was no evidence that the rats had come from her neighbour’s property.
On 17 February 2021 the resident telephoned the landlord chasing a response to her report of rats in her property. The call log stated that that no one was available to take the resident’s call and that there were “notes on task [were] insufficient”.
The resident emailed the landlord on 18 February 2021 advising that her neighbour had not removed the rubbish from their garden and that they were also carrying out car mechanical work on the driveway.
The resident telephoned the landlord on 8 March 2021 as she had not received a response to the above email. The call log again states that no one was available to take her call and that notes on the task were “insufficient”. She telephoned again on 11 March 2021, again chasing a response from the landlord, again the call log demonstrates that no one was available to take her call.
On 15 March 2021 the resident advised the landlord that her neighbour had brought more items into their garden.
The resident telephoned the landlord on 26 March 2021 to report that her neighbour was fly tipping by “throwing mattress’s all over the Close” and had been abusive towards her when she had put the mattresses in front of their property. The landlord emailed the resident on the same day to acknowledge her report.
On 28 March 2021 the resident reported that her neighbour was blocking her car parking bay.
On 29 March 2021 internal landlord communications show that the resident had advised that her neighbours’ rubbish was blocking a public alleyway. The landlord states “she has mentioned threats to kill but there is no police action described to being taken”.
On 30 March 2021 the resident reported that her neighbour was parking in a turning bay and that they were bringing more “junk” into the garden.
On 31 March 2021 the landlord viewed closed circuit television (CCTV) footage provided by the resident and noted “bad language and fly tipping” from the resident’s neighbour and an argument with both parties shouting at each other.
On 8 April 2021 the resident made a formal complaint to the landlord about its handling of her reports of the poor condition of her neighbour’s garden. She stated:
1. She had been making complaints about the issue since January 2018.
2. She was experiencing an infestation of rats as a result of the condition of her neighbour’s garden.
3. The neighbour had piles of household rubbish and “junk” and erected a lean-to in their back garden.
4. The vermin had entered her property through the walls and inside her cavity walls.
5. She was requesting assistance to remove and dispose of all items in her loft that had been contaminated by rats, and reimbursement for the value of these items.
6. Whilst the landlord was now dealing with the issue, she had been forced to chase and push to get any action taken and progress now was slow.
The landlord provided a stage one complaint response on 21 April 2021. The response stated:
1. The landlord acknowledged the resident’s distress.
2. Records confirmed that the resident had been in regular contact about the condition of her neighbour’s garden. The landlord had attempted to contact the neighbour but no follow up action had been taken. The landlord apologised and upheld the resident’s complaint.
3. The garden condition was being dealt with as a breach of tenancy and the neighbour had been given timescales to complete actions.
4. If the neighbour failed to work with the landlord, legal action would be taken. The landlord would keep the resident updated about progress.
5. The neighbour should have requested permission to put up the lean-to. They had been given a deadline of 20 April 2021 to remove it but they had failed to do so. This complaint was “neither upheld or rejected” as it was being dealt with in line with policy but could not be considered resolved until the lean-to had been removed.
6. Records showed that the resident had been regularly reporting the issue of vermin but that the landlord had “failed to deal with your reports in a timely manner”. Items in the resident’s loft had been damaged or lost as a result. The landlord would arrange for the loft to be cleared when the infestation had been resolved and would then consider a compensation claim.
7. The resident had mentioned ongoing ASB which involved “verbal abuse and other issues”. This was being addressed by the landlord.
Records show that the landlord received an email from the local authority environmental health department on 28 April 2021 which stated that the resident had raised a complaint with them regarding her neighbour and had also requested information about the community trigger.
A community trigger is a multi-agency review of an ASB case, which is available when there has been a minimum of three incidents reported within a six-month period. There is no evidence that the resident applied for a community trigger review of her case.
On 2 May 2021 this Service wrote to the landlord outlining the resident’s complaint and advised it to provide the resident with a stage two complaint response within 20 working days. We advised the landlord that the resident wanted:
1. the garden to be cleared and the lean-to removed
2. the ASB to be tackled
3. her neighbour to be evicted if they did not comply with the landlord’s requests
4. the landlord to replace the partition fence that the neighbour had taken down
5. compensation for the loss of use of her loft.
On 3 May 2021 the landlord emailed the resident advising that they had been in contact with her neighbour regarding the fence, it also stated it had contacted its contractor to reset the rat traps.
On 9 May 2021 the resident emailed the landlord stating that her neighbours’ back fence had collapsed into the lane behind the properties. She stated that rubbish was again building up in the garden, the lean-to was still present and rats were still in the cavity walls.
The landlord wrote to the neighbour on 10 May 2021 and advised that it would be carrying out an inspection of their garden on 17 May 2021. The letter stated that the aim was for the neighbour to have their garden free from “items” and replace the “makeshift structure” with a shed. The neighbour was also advised that they must remove the damaged fence that was lying in the lane behind the house.
The Ombudsman contacted the landlord on 27 May 2021 and instructed it to raise a stage two complaint on behalf of the resident. The landlord wrote to the resident on the same date and confirmed that it had raised a stage two complaint and that it would provide a response by 25 June 2021.
On 1 June 2021 the landlord wrote to the resident to confirm the details of a telephone conversation that had taken place that day. It stated:
1. The landlord had given the neighbour four weeks to clear the front and back garden, including the lean-to.
2. It would consider granting permission for the neighbour to install a shed but with conditions attached.
3. The landlord would carry out regular visits to ensure works were being carried out and continue once completed to ensure the condition was maintained to an acceptable level.
4. If the works were not completed by the deadline the landlord would either remove the items and recharge the neighbour or apply to court for an injunction order.
5. The landlord would reinstate the neighbours rear fence.
The landlord’s call logs show that the resident telephoned it on 7 June 2021 chasing an update regarding the situation with her neighbour.
The resident then emailed the landlord on 7 June 2021 to advise that her neighbour was continuing to add more items to their garden. The landlord replied on the same day stating that they were working with the neighbour to resolve the issue and they had until 23 June 2021 to clear the garden.
On 20 June 2021 the resident emailed the landlord to advise that her neighbour was burning rubbish and had been verbally abusive when she asked them to stop.
On 21 June 2021 the resident telephoned and emailed the landlord concerned about her neighbour having bonfires, carrying out car repairs, and allowing more rubbish to build up in the garden. She stated that the neighbour had been verbally abusive and that she had called the Police.
The landlord provided a stage two complaint response on 21 June 2021. It stated:
1. The resident’s complaint regarding the lean-to was upheld on review. The landlord had taken an “unreasonable length of time…in respect of remedial action”.
2. The landlord’s handling of the ASB complaint had fallen below its expected standards. It had not followed its processes, “taken appropriate timely action” or “provided…appropriate advice, support and updates” regarding her complaints about her neighbour.
3. The landlord would review its monitoring measures with regards to ASB.
4. Whilst it understood why the resident wished the landlord to evict her neighbour if they did not comply, eviction was always a last resort. It would first need to demonstrate to a court that all other options had been exhausted and would consider an injunction application initially if required.
5. The landlord offered a discretionary payment of £250.
6. The landlord would arrange for her loft to be cleared and its insurer could then consider a compensation claim for loss or damage to items.
Following the stage two complaint response the landlord completed a ‘complaint learning report’. This document is undated. It identifies a number of improvements that could be made to prevent recurrence of the issues experienced by the resident. The identified improvements included the introduction of “ad-hoc checks to ensure timely and effective actions are taken” and a review of the ASB process to ensure follow up checks were completed to ensure ongoing compliance.
The landlord inspected the neighbours garden on 24 June 2021. It took photographs and listed all items to be removed by its contractor.
Also on 24 June, following the above inspection, the landlord sent an email to the resident providing her with an update. It stated that its contractor would be removing the remaining items from the neighbour’s garden and that they had been spoken to about the impact their bonfires were having on her health and ability to use her garden. The lean-to was also to be removed. The landlord advised it had been in touch with the police who were investigating complaints against the neighbour and that they would contact the resident. These actions were confirmed in writing to the neighbour on 30 June 2021.
On 26 June 2021, the resident contacted the landlord to confirm that she accepted its compensation offer of £250 made in its stage two complaint response.
The resident contacted then landlord on 28 June 2021 to advise that she had contacted the police regarding her neighbour. She had done so because the neighbour was parked blocking access to the private lane behind their property and they had refused to move.
On 2 July 2021 the landlord raised repair works to clear the resident’s loft of items damaged by rats.
The landlord’s contact log shows that the resident telephoned on 8 July 2021. The log states that no one was available to take the call and no evidence has been seen to illustrate that the landlord returned this call.
On 29 July 2021 the resident telephoned the landlord to advise that her neighbour had started bringing more items into their back garden.
The resident telephoned the landlord on 2 August 2021 stating that she was experiencing abusive and threatening behaviour from her neighbour. The call log does not provide further information about the details of the behaviour and states that no one was available to take the resident’s call. No evidence has been seen that demonstrates that the resident was called back.
The resident emailed the landlord on 11 August 2021 reporting that she could hear her neighbours arguing next door. The landlord responded on the same day acknowledging receipt of the report.
On 12 August 2021 the resident telephoned the landlord reporting abusive and threatening behaviour by her neighbour. The call log does not provide any further details.
The resident emailed the landlord on 24 August 2021 complaining that her neighbours parking was blocking her access to her parking spot. This email was acknowledged the following day.
On 25 August 2021, the resident provided the landlord with a list of items that had been removed from her loft and disposed of due to damage by rats.
On 14 September 2021 the landlord telephoned the resident regarding issues that were outstanding following her stage two complaint. She stated that the lean-to had not been removed from her neighbour’s garden and rubbish was starting to accumulate again. The resident also advised there had been incidents of ASB and the neighbour parking in a manner that blocked her car into her parking space. She also enquired about reimbursement for the items disposed of from her loft.
The landlord passed a claim to its insurers on 16 September 2021 in relation to the resident’s claim for compensation for items damaged in her loft due to rats. In its correspondence to the insurer the landlord accepted that its “failure to effectively deal with an ASB case…led to a serious vermin issue at the claimant’s home and resulted in the contents of her loft having to be cleared and dumped”. The insurer settled the claim for £5,000 on 8 March 2022.
On 21 September 2021 the landlord again inspected the neighbour’s property and requested that they remove decking from the front of the property and take down the lean-to. The resident was updated following the inspection.
A further inspection was carried out at the resident’s neighbour’s property on 28 September 2021 to check on progress. No further information was recorded regarding the findings of this inspection.
The resident contacted this Service on 1 November 2021. She stated that only “a few” issues had been addressed since her last contact with us. She advised that the lean-to remained in place, there was still rubbish in her neighbours’ garden, and the rats were coming back.
On 3 November 2021 the landlord carried out an ad-hoc inspection of the neighbour’s garden taking photographs. No further information was recorded regarding this inspection and this Service has not seen the photographs taken.
A further ad-hoc inspection was carried out on 9 November 2021 during which it was noted that the decking had been removed from the front of the property and left stacked up.
On 12 November 2021 the landlord again requested that the neighbour remove the lean-to from their back garden.
The resident emailed the landlord on 16 November 2021 advising that their neighbour had again blocked her parking bay preventing the resident from accessing it. The landlord wrote to the neighbour on 17 November 2021 advising them to stop obstructing the resident’s parking bay.
The landlord wrote to the resident’s neighbour on 19 November 2021 outlining the following actions that were required of them:
1. Remove the lean-to by 18 December 2021 and replace with a shed.
2. Stop blocking the resident’s parking bay.
3. Maintain the garden to a liveable standard.
On 29 November 2021, the landlord emailed the resident. The landlord stated that:
1. It understood that the situation was not fully resolved.
2. A large amount of rubbish had been removed from her neighbour’s garden in July by its contractor.
3. Whilst the lean-to was still in-situ, its size had reduced by 50%.
4. It was unlikely that legal action against the neighbour would be successful as they had completed remedial work and further work was in progress.
5. The resident had raised “new issues” on 21 November 2021 relating to parking and verbal abuse.
6. The landlord noted the resident’s concerns that rats may be in her home again and agreed to arrange for pest control to attend.
7. The landlord would not provide an additional award. Whilst not all actions were complete, there had been improvements and they were working with her neighbour to fully resolve the issues.
On 3 December 2021, the landlord wrote to the resident advising that it would be inspecting her neighbour’s property following her reports that the garden condition had declined again. The letter stated that when the landlord had last visited on 3 November 2021 the condition was much improved. The landlord enclosed a copy of the action plan that her neighbour was required to work towards.
On 7 December 2021 the landlord inspected the neighbour’s garden and noted that it was “OK” and that there was no rubbish built up.
The resident contacted the landlord on 18 January 2022 to discuss her concerns that the lean-to was still in place. The landlord attended her neighbour’s property on the same day to discuss the action plan but no one was at home.
On 20 January 2022 the landlord inspected the neighbour’s property and observed that the decking that had been stacked at the front of the property had been removed. The landlord sent a letter to the neighbour advising them to remove the lean-to.
On 11 February 2022 the resident emailed the landlord to report that her neighbour had hit her car with their car whilst it had been parked in her parking bay. She had CCTV evidence of the incident from her doorbell CCTV camera. The landlord responded to the resident’s email on 14 February 2022 advising that this was an insurance matter but did offer to provide mediation between the resident and her neighbour.
The landlord contacted the resident’s neighbour on 16 February 2022. They denied the allegation. On the same date the landlord wrote to the neighbour stating that it had seen video evidence of them hitting the resident’s car whilst parking. The letter said that the video clearly showed contact being made and a loud bang could be heard. The landlord advised the neighbour that the incident had been reported to the police.
On 8 March 2022 the landlord inspected the neighbour’s property and confirmed that it remained in “OK” condition. The neighbour was reminded that rubbish must not be allowed to build up again. The notes from the visit state that the neighbour continued to deny the allegation that they had hit the resident’s car. The landlord advised the neighbour not to contact the resident.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

The landlord’s records show that the resident has been reporting issues with her neighbour since June 2016 when she first reported the poor condition of the neighbour’s garden. The resident first reported issues with her neighbour’s parking in December 2017.
Whilst it is accepted that the resident had been regularly reporting issues with her neighbour to the landlord since 2016 she did not make a formal complaint until 8 April 2021. Therefore this report has focussed on the events that occurred from October 2020 onwards. This is in accordance with the Ombudsman’s Scheme, which states that the Ombudsman will not consider complaints which were not raised with the landlord as a formal complaint within a reasonable time, which would normally be within six months of the matter arising.
This report has not assessed the landlord’s handling of the resident’s claim for compensation for damage to personal belongings in her loft by rats which was subject to a claim made on the landlord’s liability insurance. The Ombudsman does not determine claims for damage to personal belongings and does not have jurisdiction over insurance companies who are not members of the Scheme.

Response to the resident’s concerns about the condition of her neighbour’s garden

The landlord first became aware of the neighbour’s poor garden condition in June 2016 and its records show that the resident regularly complained about this issue.
This Service has not seen any evidence that the landlord attempted to address the matter with any urgency until the resident made a formal complaint on April 2021. There is no evidence that the landlord provided the resident with a response or took any action following her reports in February 2021 about the condition of her neighbours garden. The landlord had a responsibility under its ASB and neighbourhood management policy to take reasonable action to address the neighbour’s poor garden condition and to keep the resident updates about appropriate developments in the case.
Following the resident’s stage one complaint, the landlord began carrying out inspections of the neighbour’s garden and issuing the neighbour with action plans and deadlines to clear the area up and remove the lean-to.
Following its stage two complaint response in June 2021 the landlord began to take a more proactive approach to managing the neighbour’s garden condition and was carrying out fortnightly inspections to monitor progress. Inspections continued monthly after the garden was deemed to be at an acceptable standard to monitor continued compliance.
In its stage two complaint response, the landlord acknowledged that it had taken an “unreasonable length of time” to resolve the issue of the lean-to. Whilst it is right that the landlord acknowledged this fact, it should also have made attempts to remedy the issue by taking a more robust approach with the resident’s neighbour, having provided an initial deadline of April 2020 for the removal of the lean-to and agreed to explore a legal solution if necessary. The landlord advised the resident’s neighbour, both verbally and in writing, on seven occasions between January 2021 and January 2022 to remove the lean-to in their garden. The neighbour was given deadlines of 20 April 2021, 23 June 2021, and then 18 December 2021. The lean-to remained in place on 20 January 2022.
Also in its stage two complaint response, the landlord acknowledged that it understood why she wanted her neighbour to be evicted but stated that it would first need to demonstrate that all other options had been exhausted. Eviction should indeed be a last resort; however the landlord did not attempt any action except writing to the neighbour and carrying out inspection, to hasten progress. The Ombudsman has seen no evidence that the landlord considered alternative actions such as an acceptable behaviour contract or letters warning of legal action.
The landlord has not demonstrated that it had learned from its previous experience that the neighbour was not doing as they had been asked. The landlord failed to follow through with its warning that it would take further action against the neighbour, instead continuing to give further warnings and provide revised deadlines. It is not therefore unsurprising that the neighbour did not take the landlord’s warnings seriously and take the action they had been told to take in removing the lean-to.
The resident had been raising garden concerns since 2017 and whilst this investigation has not investigated all the landlord’s action since then, it is not disputed that it was not until December 2021 that the garden was considered satisfactory. This caused the resident obvious distress and caused her to have to invest an unreasonable amount of her time in chasing action from the landlord. Therefore, there was maladministration in the time taken by the landlord to manage the poor condition of the garden.

Handling of the resident’s reports that her neighbour was engaging in antisocial behaviour (ASB)

The resident contacted the landlord on five occasions between March 2021 and August 2021 to report that she was being subjected to abusive or threatening behaviour by her neighbour in relation to two incidents. This Service has seen evidence that the landlord extended the neighbours starter tenancy and issued an ABC as part of its ASB investigations into these reports. The landlord had a responsibility under its ASB policy to take action when it believed ASB to be taking place. Whilst the landlord did take some action, it did not do enough to show it was taking the matter seriously and dealing with it accordingly which is unacceptable.
On 29 March 2021, the landlord said that the resident had “mentioned threats to kill but there is no police action described to being taken”. This is an extremely serious allegation and it is of grave concern that there is no evidence that the landlord carried out any further investigations of this report. The landlord noted that no Police action was being taken. Whilst joint working is best practice in managing ASB, a lack of Police action should not preclude the landlord from carrying out its own investigation and, if appropriate, pursuing legal action against the perpetrator. Landlords are subject to the civil burden of proof ‘on the balance of probabilities’ which is lower than the criminal standard of ‘beyond a reasonable doubt’.
The landlord’s stage one complaint response of 21 April 2021 acknowledged that it was aware of ongoing ASB in the form of “verbal abuse and other issues”. It stated that it was working to resolve these issues but provided no detail as to how this was being done.
The Ombudsman advised the landlord on 2 May 2021 that the resident wished it to tackle the ASB she was experiencing. The landlord’s email to the resident dated 29 November 2021 however, described the issues of parking and verbal abuse as “new”, this was not the case as prior reports had been made. This is indicative of a wider issue of poor record keeping which is explored in more detail later in the report.
The resident first reported issues with her neighbour’s parking in December 2017. Between March 2021 and November 2021 the resident reported the neighbour blocking her parking spot and/or parking in the turning bay on six occasions. This Service has not seen any evidence that the landlord addressed the issue with the neighbour until a letter was sent on 16 November 2021 which was an unreasonable delay and demonstrated a lack of urgency to resolve the matter.
On 14 February 2022, following an incident in which the resident’s car was struck by her neighbour’s car, the landlord made an offer of mediation for the two parties. Mediation can be an extremely effective method of conflict resolution, especially in cases involving lower-level nuisance. For mediation to be effective however, it should be offered at the earliest opportunity to prevent issues from escalating. Mediation is not generally considered appropriate where there have been incidents of threatening behaviour.
Whilst mediation may have been an effective method of conflict resolution if offered when the resident first began reporting issues of nuisance in 2016 to 2017, it was too little too late by the time it was offered in 2022.
In summary, the landlord failed to take the following actions in accordance with its own ASB policy:
1. log a ‘serious’ ASB case
2. respond within two working days
3. take appropriate action against the perpetrator
4. keep the victim informed of developments.
The landlord’s efforts focussed on addressing the garden condition and to some extent the parking issues but entirely failed in addressing the serious allegations of threatening behaviour and verbal abuse. The landlord did not adhere to its own policies and it is of significant concern to this Service that no evidence has been seen that any advice or support was offered to the resident regarding the alleged abusive and threatening behaviour she had reported. Therefore, the landlord’s failings constitute severe maladministration and a number of orders have been made accordingly.

Communication

On four occasions between 17 February 2021 and 2 August 2021 the resident telephoned the landlord but its calls logs show that no one was available to take her call. There were also six occasions on which the resident emailed the landlord and the landlord did not respond. The landlord has provided evidence to show it did return the residents calls on the same or next day and warnings were given to the neighbour after follow-ups with the police.
On 18 February 2021, the resident emailed the landlord regarding rubbish in her neighbour’s garden. She chased a response by telephone on 8 March 2021 and 11 March 2021 but the logs show that no one was available to take her call on either occasion. The resident proceeded to email the landlord again on 15 March 2021 and telephone on 26 March 2021 before she received an acknowledgement from the landlord.
On 8 July 2021, the resident telephoned the landlord. The resident again telephoned the landlord on 2 August 2021, this time reporting abusive and threatening behaviour from her neighbour. The landlord did return the calls giving reassurance to the resident that the matter was being dealt with.
Whilst the landlord did return calls and respond to emails, it did not take enough meaningful action to resolve the issues. Consequently the resident was forced to invest an unreasonable amount of time in chasing the landlord for a response to her queries. This would have caused the resident a great deal of frustration and distress. Therefore, this report has found that there was maladministration in the landlord’s communication and has made orders accordingly.

Record keeping

This Service has found multiple incidences of poor record keeping in relation to the resident’s contacts with the landlord.
On 17 February 2021 and 18 March 2021 the landlord’s call logs note that there were “insufficient” notes on the system in relation to the resident’s concerns. On 2 August 2021 and 12 August 2021 the landlord’s call logs demonstrate that the resident telephoned to report that her neighbour had been abusive and threatening. The records however provide no further information of these incidents or details or the specific behaviours displayed by her neighbour.
The scant information recorded by the landlord in relation to the resident’s reports of ASB has limited the ability of this Service to explore the full impact of the alleged verbal abuse and threats on the resident. The Ombudsman accepts however that the adverse impact of such behaviours would undoubtedly have been significant. The landlord’s failure to record the details of specific actions and threats limited its ability to effectively approach and warn the neighbour.
On 28 September 2021 and 3 November 2021 the landlord carried out inspections of the neighbour’s garden. They have failed however to provide any further details regarding what was found during these inspections which again demonstrates a failure in its record keeping.
The landlord, in its 29 November 2021 email to the resident, referred to “new” issues of verbal abuse that she had raised. The issue was not “new” and had been raised by the resident on many occasions. Therefore, the reference to “new” issues indicated that the landlord had not properly understood the complaint which is likely to have added to her distress.
In this case there has been a serious failing in the landlord’s record keeping. The landlord has not kept sufficiently detailed records of what reports were made and when, the type of ASB reported, or the actions it had taken to resolve the ASB This has the landlord investigation of the resident’s ASB complaint. This has also impacted this Service’s investigation as it has been difficult to establish when events occurred and the actions the landlord took in relation to those incidents. Therefore, we have made a finding of severe maladministration and pertinent orders have been made below.

Complaint handling

Paragraph 2.3 of the Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code states that “Landlords must make their complaint policy available in a clear and accessible format for all residents. This will detail the number of stages involved, what will happen at each stage and the timeframes for responding”.
The landlord’s complaints policy is very brief and is lacking in vital information. It described a two-stage complaint process but does not provide timeframes during which residents can expect to receive a response to their complaint. Timescales are available on the landlord’s website, however the tenant handbook (also available on the website) describes a three-stage process which contradicts the two-stages outlined in the policy. This is confusing for residents and may have the impact of limiting their understanding of their rights.
Following the landlord’s stage two complaint response there was a marked improvement in its handling of the poor condition of the neighbour’s garden. Regular inspections were carried out, this demonstrates that the landlord had taken on board the actions it had identified in its complaint learning report to carry out ad-hoc compliance checks. This shows that the landlord had Learned from Outcomes which is in line with the Ombudsman’s dispute resolution principles.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was:
1. Maladministration in relation to the landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns about condition of the neighbour’s garden;
2. Maladministration in relation to the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports that her neighbour was engaging in antisocial behaviour (ASB);
3. Service failure in relation to the landlord’s communication;
4. Severe maladministration in relation to the landlord’s record keeping;
5. Maladministration in relation to the landlord’s complaint handling.

Reasons

The landlord took an unreasonable amount of time to commence a proactive approach in addressing the resident’s concerns about the condition of her neighbour’s garden. The landlord has not refuted that the poor condition of the neighbour’s garden led to an infestation of rats which damaged the resident’s belongings and caused her understandable distress. The landlord’s inaction caused the resident an unreasonable amount of time and trouble in chasing for a response.
The landlord failed to adhere to its own ASB policy. It did log but did not thoroughly investigate the incidents of abusive and threatening behaviour reported by the resident. Though it wrote to the neighbour regarding the parking issues, this action was again belated and despite the letters having no effect, it took no further action. Due to the lack of detail in the records provided, particularly in relation to verbal abuse and threatening behaviour, it has not been possible to explore the full impact of the ASB on the resident which was likely to have been significant.
Due to the landlord’s poor communication, the resident was forced to chase the landlord for a response on many occasions as she was not seeing any meaningful action being taken. She was left on many occasions waiting for things to change despite being informed they would. This no doubt had the impact of compounding her distress.
The landlord has failed to keep an adequate record of the issues reported by the resident. Its own records state that notes of the file were “insufficient”. In this case, the landlord’s failure to keep accurate records has limited its own investigation, and that of this Service, of the full extent of the ASB experienced by the resident.
The landlord’s complaint policy is not in line with the Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code as it fails to provide sufficient detail about the complaint process including the timescales for response at each stage. The policy is also contradicted by information provided to residents in the tenants handbook which describes a three-stage process rather than the two-stage process that the landlord currently operates. This is confusing for residents and may limit their understanding of their rights in relation to making a complaint.

Orders

A senior officer from the landlord to apologise to the resident in person.
The landlord to pay the resident £2,600 comprising:
1. £500 for its failures in responding to the condition of the resident’s neighbour’s garden;
2. £1000 for its ASB handling failures;
3. £250 for its communication failures;
4. £600 for its record keeping failures;
5. £250 for complaint handling failures.
The landlord provide this Service with an explanation of its current approach to the neighbour’s lean-to and whether it intends to take action to remove it.
The landlord to review its ASB and estate management procedures, taking into account its complaint learning report from this case, to ensure:
1. all reports of ASB are logged appropriately.
2. regular inspections and monitoring are carried out during, and for a reasonable period following closure of, cases of poor property condition.
3. Complainants are kept regularly updated and their contacts returned in a timely manner.
If it has not done so within the past six months, the landlord to review staff ASB training materials and conduct staff training ensuring that all relevant staff:
1. understand the landlord’s ASB policy.
2. recognise the importance of keeping an accurate record of ASB reports and actions taken.
3. are aware of the range of actions they can take against an ASB perpetrator.
4. appreciate the importance of keeping the victim informed of developments.
The landlord to review its record keeping practices to ensure it effectively captures residents reports of ASB including full details of the issues they are experiencing.
The landlord to review its complaint policy and make changes to ensure that it is compliant with the Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code. The policy should detail the number of stages involved, what will happen at each stage and the timeframes for responding.
The landlord to review its tenant handbook, ensure that it is up to date and reflects its current policies and procedures and that only agreed and current published versions are on the landlord’s website.
The landlord to provide evidence of compliance with the orders within four weeks of the date of this report.