Westward Housing Group Limited (202014374)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202014374

Westward Housing

29 November 2022

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

This complaint is about the landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns regarding the:
1. reports of anti-social behaviour (ASB) from Neighbour A.
2. landlord’s communication about the parking bay.
3. the related complaint.

Background and summary of events

Background

The resident’s tenancy commenced on 3 November 2014. The resident is a tenant of the landlord.
The property is described as a two-bedroom bungalow designated for those aged 55 years and older. The property has a garden to the front and rear.
The landlord’s ASB policy defines ASB as “conduct which is capable of causing nuisance, annoyance, harassment, distress or alarm to any person not in the same household and which directly or indirectly relates to or affects the landlord’s housing management functions, neighbours and the local community.”
In addition, the ASB policy states that criminal behaviour should be reported to the police and that it can use interventions such as: mediation, warnings and acceptable behaviour contracts.
The ASB policy expects residents to play an active role in supporting the ASB investigation by keeping diaries and reporting issues to the police. It will refer customers to external agencies and keep in regular contact with the residents. Furthermore, it will adopt a multi-agency approach with its partners such as the police and the local authority.
The landlord’s complaints and complaints procedure sets out that it will investigate complaints within 10 working days at the first and second stage of its complaints procedure. Complaints escalated to its complaint panel will be concluded within 30 working days.
The resident’s complaint concerns the neighbour who lives next door to the resident (Neighbour A). Neighbour A is a private owner and is the alleged perpetuator of the ASB.

Scope of investigation

The resident made reports of ASB from Neighbour A to the landlord from 2018. The landlord’s submission to this Service does not provide the dates of the initial reports of the ASB regarding Neighbour A nor is there any information about the nature of the ASB complained about.
There is no evidence that a formal complaint was raised by the resident that had either exhausted the landlord’s complaint process or that any such complaint was referred to the Ombudsman during that time.
Following the intervention of this Service, this complaint was registered in February 2021. This investigation will consider events from November 2019 onwards on the basis of what the Ombudsman considers to be a reasonable period in light of the provisions of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme and considering the available evidence. Accordingly, this report may reference some historical events for the purpose of context.

Summary of events

On 8 October 2014, the property was advertised by the landlord as a two-bedroom bungalow with on street parking for persons aged fifty-five and over.
The landlord wrote to the resident on 20 December 2018 and 5 February 2019 regarding the parking area at the front of the property. It advised that it owned the land and that the parking area was for the use of residents. Furthermore, residents had priority to use the area as the parking area was paid for and maintained through the service charge.
After receiving reports of ASB from Neighbour A, the landlord agreed to provide extra height to the boundary fence to the rear of the resident’s property by the end of April 2019. After investigating concerns raised by Neighbour A regarding the height of the boundary fence, the work to the boundary fencing to the resident’s property was completed by 7 June 2019.
On the 14 November 2019, the Council informed the landlord that:
1. The landlord did not have ownership of the layby in front of the properties. It had considered the landlord’s representation that it had signage in place and that it had undertaken work for over 12 years. This did not change the fact that the layby was considered as the highway.
2. The Highway Team could look at the possibility of the installation of a disabled bay for the resident and an initial assessment was being carried out.
Following the Council’s communication, the landlord wrote to the resident advising that the ownership of the layby had been challenged. It had believed that the layby was in its ownership since the stock transfer of the housing stock took place so that it could supply parking for residents. The Council had confirmed that the layby was part of the highway. Therefore, the land did not belong to the landlord and it had received instructions from the Council to remove its residents only parking signage from 14 November 2019.
Furthermore, it confirmed that the resident could continue to park in the layby and that the maintenance and upkeep of the layby had not been funded through the service charge. It accepted that the resident may have been advised when he was allocated the property that there was resident parking available, because it believed that this was the case at the time.
Following a request from the resident on 21 November 2019 for a copy of the service charge statements, this was sent to the resident on 26 November 2019.
The landlord wrote to the resident on 2 December 2019 in response to the issues the resident had raised. The correspondence can be summarized as:
1. It acknowledged that following an incident between the resident and Neighbour A the relationship had broken down. The landlord’s submission provides no further information regarding the nature of the incident. However, it notes meditation had been offered but this had been refused by the resident.
2. It confirmed that the layby was considered the public highway despite their representation to the Council.
3. It accepted that the installation of the boundary fencing took longer than it had originally agreed to resolve the reported ASB. It had sought to keep the resident updated while it responded to the objection it received regarding the installation of the new fence.
4. It was aware that the resident had reported to the police that Neighbour A had taken a photo. It had obtained legal advice and had been informed that before it could take action, it would need an independent witness for the action to be successful, therefore it would not take legal action without this.
The landlord wrote to the resident on 4 December 2019 offering to visit to discuss his concerns.
The resident made a report on 25 March 2020 that he had felt intimidated by the actions of Neighbour A who had leant over the fence and cut a tree in his garden.
The landlord contacted the resident on 28 April 2020, as it received a report that the resident had fixed trellis to the fence. The resident advised that they had done this as they wanted to sit in the garden without feeling intimidated by Neighbour A. The landlord’s records show that it consulted with the Council’s planning service that advised that as the trellis when attached to the fence was over 2m in height and was being used as an enclosure, it breached the Town and Country Planning Act 2015.
The landlord spoke to the resident to inform them that the trellis should be removed and that further advice could be obtained from the Council’s planning service. During the conversation, amongst other things, the resident advised that Neighbour A was staring at them whilst they were using the garden and had a history of driving other residents away from the property. In response, the landlord advised that as Neighbour A was a private owner, they could not take any action and signposted the resident to the Council and to the police.
On 5 June 2020, the resident reported to the landlord that:
1. Neighbour A had verbally abused and threatened him.
2. Neighbour A had called him “scum of the earth” and told him “to go back to Wales”.
3. He had received a threat from Neighbour A that day advising “he hasn’t finished with you yet” and he should watch his back. This had been reported to the police.
On 8 June 2020, the resident made the following reports, that Neighbour A had made threats and had been intimidating such as taking pictures of him and his partner when they were inside the property. He had been in contact with the Council and the police. The police had attended, visited Neighbour A and informed him that no crime had been recorded. The resident advised that the police had said that the landlord should be able to offer some “help” and provided the landlord with the police incident number.
The landlord spoke to the resident on 9 June 2020 where the resident advised that his health was affected by the stress from the ASB from Neighbour A. The landlord reiterated that it was limited in the action it could take against a private owner and signposted the resident to the police.
On 15 June 2020, Neighbour A rang the landlord to report that the resident had installed a five-foot chain-link fence at the front of the property which was attached to his fence.
On 6 July 2020, the resident requested that the landlord post a complaint form to him.
The landlord spoke to the resident on 7 July 2020 regarding the ASB. The landlord said that it had contacted the police who had advised that it was not taking any further action regarding the reports of ASB. It had checked with the Council and the screen in the rear garden could remain as long as it was not connected to the fence.
In response, the resident advised that he had placed the added to the fencing at the front of the property to prevent Neighbour A pulling on their honeysuckle and disputed that the addition of the chain fencing was on Neighbour A property. The resident informed the landlord that he was going to install a camera and the landlord advised that it would need permission to do so.
The resident’s partner wrote to the Council regarding the layby. The Council responded that it does not provide private parking spaces therefore it could not provide this for the resident. It did not have the precise date when the layby was adopted but the layby was registered in the historic maps prior to 2002.
The police contacted the landlord on 27 November 2020. It advised that:
1. The resident had said that the landlord had not granted permission for the CCTV.
2. The landlord had a conflict of interest as its staff was friends with Neighbour A.
3. The resident was keeping diary sheets.
The landlord granted permission for the resident to install CCTV in the front and back garden on 11 January 2021. It provided guidance on the recording of images.
This service wrote to the landlord on 18 February 2021 requesting that it respond to the resident’s complaint regarding the lack of a parking space and its response to his reports of anti-social behaviour and harassment from Neighbour A.
On 23 February 2021, the landlord acknowledged the resident’s complaint.
The landlord responded to the resident’s complaint on 5 March 2021. It apologised for the upset and concern the matter had caused the resident. The key findings were:
1. The layby at the front of the property is the responsibility of the Council and apologised for the confusion that had occurred regarding the ownership of the layby.
2. Once the Council had confirmed ownership of the land, it removed the parking signs in 2019.
3. The layby never had allocated parking spaces apart from designated disabled bay for the use of blue badge holders.
4. The property does not have designated parking neither is there a service charge payable for parking or the maintenance of the layby.
5. It has provided advice and guidance regarding the reports of ASB that it has received as Neighbour A is a private resident.
6. It signposted the resident to the police and it encouraged the resident to continue to report incidents to the police.
The resident wrote to the landlord on 11 March 2021 advising it was unhappy with its complaint response. The resident explained that the housing officer had pointed out the designated parking bay on the day of the viewing and informed him that the parking bay was allocated to the property. Furthermore, he would not have accepted the property if it did not have a specified parking bay.
The landlord acknowledged the escalated complaint on 16 March 2021.
The landlord wrote to the landlord on 18 March 2021 reiterating that the layby at the front of the property did not have allocated parking bays, that it was communal parking and that his tenancy agreement would indicate if the property came with an allocated parking space. It explained that as it does not have a tenancy agreement with Neighbour A, it cannot take any action, therefore, he should log reports with the police.
This Service wrote to the landlord for its final response on 23 March 2021 and 21 April 2021.
The landlord provided its escalated complaint response on 29 April 2021. The key findings were:
1. It confirmed that the service charge for the property had not included the layby and the landlord has not charged its residents for work associated with the layby.
2. The property was let in November 2014 and it was not advertised with a designated parking bay or space.
3. The tenancy agreement does not refer to a designated parking space.
4. It accepted that there was confusion from 2007 regarding the ownership of the layby, until it was confirmed in November 2019 that the Council was responsible for the layby.
5. The resident can park in the layby though it is the responsibility of the highway authority.
6. At the viewing of the property, it would have been explained that there was no designated parking space available but a parking area.
7. It confirmed that the resident first report of ASB was received in late 2018 regarding Neighbour A. Before that it was unaware of any issues.
8. Since late 2018, the situation had escalated and the landlord was aware that the police were now involved.
9. It signposted the resident to the police as it could not take action against private owners.
The resident remained dissatisfied with the landlord’s response and wrote to the landlord on 6 May 2021. The resident reiterated that on the day of the viewing, the housing officer had pointed to the parking bay outside the gate of the property and had told him that the parking bay was for his sole use and the landlord should not “tell lies.” The resident disputed that the housing officer had informed him about previous disagreements between the previous occupant and Neighbour A. In fact, the resident advised that he did not believe that the landlord was unaware of other incidents involving Neighbour A as he had assaulted a former resident who had ended up in hospital and Neighbour A had been arrested. Furthermore, the previous occupants of the property had left the tenancy because of the behaviour of Neighbour A.
The landlord spoke to the resident on 7 May 2021 and confirmed the content of the conversation in writing on 10 May 2021. The landlord confirmed that it was unaware of Neighbour A’s behaviour before the resident moved into the property and it had agreed to install a fence at the front and rear of the resident’s property to provide additional privacy. In addition, it agreed to speak to the Council’s ASB team to see what action it was considering in conjunction with the police.
In addition, it confirmed that the area outside the resident’s property had a parking space and that at the time of viewing, the landlord had more control over the layby, but it no longer did so. It confirmed that it did not have the authority to change the parking arrangements, only the Council could do so. It had checked the service charges paid by the resident and there were no charges related to the layby and requested that the resident send in the correspondence he had that contradicted this. In response, the resident requested that the landlord provide parking on the grassed area near the layby. The landlord advised that to access the plot of land, access to the Council land was required, therefore that was not feasible.
After the conversation on 7 May 2021, the resident sent to the landlord a picture showing “parking for residents and visitors only” and correspondence dated 20 December 2018 and 5 February 2019.
On 12 May 2021, the resident made an ASB report to the landlord that he had experienced verbal abuse from Neighbour A. He advised that he had contacted the police, who would be attending his property.
The Community Safety & Public Health Lead for the Council informed the Councillor on 14 May 2021 that the resident needed to report the verbal abuse to the police. He had spoken to the landlord and they were in communication with the resident regarding the complaint.
The landlord sent another Stage two complaint response on 26 May 2021. The key findings were:
1. It had reviewed the correspondence sent by the resident and apologised as the letter said that the paving area at the front of the property was paid for by the service charge. The content of the correspondence was incorrect and should not have mentioned paying for the layby as this was not in its agreement of transfer from the Council to the landlord.
2. It had checked the service charge accounts going back to October 2009 and there had been no repair works or charges for the layby that had been charged to the resident.
3. It accepted that the previous service charge statements could be confusing and that the service charge statements that were now produced were clearer.
4. It provided copies of the service charge statements for each year.
5. It confirmed that it could provide help and advice regarding the reported ASB related to Neighbour A’s behaviour and that the Council or the police would take the lead in finding a solution to the ASB.
6. It concluded that that as it did not own the layby, it could not enforce any parking regulations or designate any parking spaces. The behaviour of Neighbour A was not known at the time of the allocation of the property and it would work with the Council and the police.
On 28 May 2021 it was noted in the landlord’s internal communication that:
1. The police had referred the resident to victim support as the resident’s reports of ASB had been assessed as a criminal case.
2. The resident had reported that they could not use their garden due to the actions of Neighbour A.
The landlord received a third-party report on behalf of the resident on 2 June 2021 that the resident had been subject to ongoing abuse from Neighbour A.
On 10 June 2021, the resident remained dissatisfied with the landlord’s complaint response and requested that his complaint be escalated to the landlord’s complaint panel.
The landlord spoke with the resident on 17 June 2021 who confirmed that the outstanding issues were that:
1. At the start of the tenancy, he was promised a parking bay.
2. The landlord had not taken sufficient action to stop the harassment from Neighbour A.
The landlord agreed to see if the Highways Team would agree to the introduction of a resident’s permit scheme to the layby and to email the local councillor to see if he could provide support to the resident’s request.
In June 2021, the landlord took the following actions:
1. It contacted the councillor on behalf of the resident to request a permit scheme for the layby.
2. It contacted the Highway Team to see if it would agree to the installation of a dropped kerb to the front of the resident’s property.
On 23 June 2021, the resident contacted the landlord to report that Neighbour A was intimidating the contractor repairing the fence.
On 28 June 2021, the landlord acknowledged the resident’s request to escalate his complaint to the complaint panel. It advised that it could not consider the resident’s request for an allocated parking bay on land that it did not own. It advised that the panel would be held virtually due to the pandemic and it would make arrangements for the resident as it was aware he did not have WIFI access.
The Council advised on 28 June 20021 that planning permission would be required for a vehicle crossing licence if the grassed area was to be converted to a parking area. There was no legal process for a council to lease public land to a private organization, therefore, it could not progress the landlord’s request for a dropped kerb to the front of the resident’s property. Furthermore, the only mechanism for this to happen was through a stopping up process. It would not agree to privatising the area of land. Therefore, a parking scheme for the area was not feasible.
The landlord’s submission to this Service advised that the Council sent an ASB letter to Neighbour A. It did not have a copy of the letter.
On 1 July 2021, the Councillor contacted the landlord to advise that the resident would not have accepted the tenancy without having access to parking. It suggested that the landlord consider provide parking for the resident on the green verge between the resident’s property and the road. He acknowledged that this would require planning permission. In response, the landlord informed the Councillor that his suggestion would involve significant funding that it did not have. It would also have to consider the impact on the other residents.
On 5 July 2021, a multi-agency meeting was held between the police and the council’s ASB team. It was recorded that neither organization had information that could be shared with the landlord. The meeting concluded that the resident had to report the ASB to the police or Council for action to be taken.
The landlord was informed by the Council’s Safeguarding Team on 15 July 2021 that the resident was unhappy at receiving an ASB letter from the Council. The resident felt let down and wanted to be “left in peace and quiet” and that the situation remained unresolved. Furthermore, it confirmed that it was not a safeguarding issue, the resident had refused its offer of mediation with Neighbour A and it had advised the resident to keep reporting incidents to the police.
The landlord’s complaint panel convened on 30 July 2021. The panel concluded that:
1. The landlord had kept the resident regularly informed. The landlord was unable to allocate a parking space to the resident for land it did not own. The landlord had acted in a fair and reasonable way.
2. There had been no service charges paid by the resident for parking in the layby.
3. The tenancy agreement had no reference to parking.
4. The panel appreciated the upset and stress experienced by the resident regarding the reported ASB.
5. The landlord had tried to adopt a multi-agency approach but the other agencies seemed unwilling to engage with the landlord.
6. It acknowledged that the resident did not want to undertake mediation and he does not want to move from the property.
7. The resident needs to keep reporting incidents to the police.
8. The use of mobile CCTV needed to be explored as a means of obtaining evidence with the police.
9. The landlord to obtain further legal advice regarding “custom and practice” over the use of the parking area and to investigate further the use of the grass verge as possible additional parking.
10. It acknowledged that there was not a resolution to the issues the resident had complained about as the parking and the reported ASB were outside the landlord’s control.
The Council’s community safety / public health lead acknowledged that the fencing had helped reduce the face-to-face contact with the owner.
The landlord shared the panel recommendation with the resident on 13 August 2021.
On 24 August 2021, the landlord internal communication showed that it had not received further complaints from the resident regarding ASB. It had looked at mobile CCTV systems however these did not record sound and the resident did not have WIFI or a smart phone to enable a device to be connected
The resident remained dissatisfied and escalated his complaint to this Service.

Assessment and findings

reports of anti-social behaviour (ASB)

This Service understands the resident’s situation and recognises that the concerns reported have affected and caused distress. The Ombudsman’s role is to consider the appropriateness and adequacy of the actions taken by the landlord to investigate and respond to the resident’s reports of ASB from his neighbour.
In line with its ASB policy, the landlord has an obligation to investigate reports of ASB and respond appropriately. The resident has made reports of ASB which the landlord would be expected to investigate and respond to.
Looking at the available information, the landlord accepted that the resident’s reports constituted ASB as it agreed to increase the height of the boundary fencing to the garden. The landlord has accepted that there were delays to the work to increase the height of the fence as it received an objection from Neighbour A which it had to investigate. This was a reasonable action as it had to ensure that the changes to the height of the boundary fence was compliant with planning legislation.
The landlord acted appropriately by contacting Neighbour A during April 2019 to resolve the concerns he had raised regarding the height of the fence. This minimized the contact with the resident and resolve any issues that Neighbour A had about the fence that the landlord was installing.
The landlord informed the resident that as Neighbour A was a private owner, it could not take action and appropriately signposted the resident to the police as they had the authority to act in those circumstances. It managed the resident’s expectation regarding the action it could take as a landlord as it had no authority to take action against Neighbour A. Based on the information seen by this Service, it was reasonable for it to inform the resident that it would work with the police but it could not take a lead role in resolving the ASB.
The resident has said that the landlord was previously aware of the behaviour of the owner next door as other residents had left the tenancy due to his behaviour. The landlord has acted appropriately by responding to the resident’s concern and confirming its position. It advised that when it signed the resident up for the tenancy, it explained that the previous occupant had a disagreement with the owner regarding the garden and that it was not aware of other incidences of ASB. The resident disputes this. From what can be seen, there is no evidence to suggest that the landlord deliberately misinformed or misled the resident regarding this matter as there is no evidence that prior to 2014, the landlord was aware of ongoing ASB.
The landlord took reasonable steps to support the resident working with the police and the council’s ASB teams. It maintained communication with the resident, provided updated in April 2019 regarding the work to increase the height of the fencing. It is noted that the landlord and the Council’s ASB offered mediation to the resident which was refused and the landlord engaged with its partners to try and find a resolution to the reported ASB. In addition, the lack of the resident’s digital skills and the lack of WIFI meant that it was constrained by the facilities that it offer to the resident.

regarding the assignment of a parking bay

The evidence shows that when the property was allocated to the resident in 2014 the landlord believed that it was responsible for the management of the layby outside the resident’s property. The landlord wrote to all residents in November 2019, informing them of its mistake and that going forward, whilst they could park in the layby it did not have responsibility for it or its maintenance. This appropriate action was taken once it was informed that it did not have the legal authority to enforce parking in the layby, it informed its residents of its mistakes and apologised for its error.
In its complaint responses, the landlord acknowledged that when the property was offered to the resident, it was of the view that it had responsibility for the layby, however this was an error as the land was the responsibility of the Council.
It is accepted that the property was advertised with a parking space. The resident states that at the viewing the housing officer pointed to the bay outside the property and told him that the parking bay was his designated parking space. The Ombudsman cannot comment on what the resident was told at the start of the tenancy as there is no documentary evidence of the conversation that took place at the time. The landlord has acknowledged that at the time of the viewing of the property, it believed that it owned the land, therefore its officer could have informed the resident that a parking space was available. This is supported by the advert for the property, which stipulates that the property comes with a parking space. However, the situation has now changed as the Council has confirmed that the landlord does not have legal authority over the land and that landlord has acted reasonably in explaining and apologising to the resident.
It is understandable that the current parking situation at the property may be causing distress to the resident and without diminishing the resident’s circumstances, the landlord is unable to grant the resident’s request for a designated parking space outside the property. It was appropriate that the landlord contacted the Council to see if it would agree to it taking back management of the layby, see if it would consider agreeing to the introduction of permit parking or for a dropped kerb to be placed outside the resident’s property. The Council did not agree to the measures that the landlord suggested.
The complaints panel recommended that the landlord consider the possibility of providing designated parking for the resident by making changes to the green verge by the layby. The initial response from the landlord was that this was not feasible due to the financial costs for the works and the impact on the other residents that it had responsibility for. Furthermore, the Council has stated that that it will not give permission for those works. In light of the above, it was reasonable for the landlord to give consideration to the proposals but decide it could not take any further action as it no longer has responsibility for the land.

The related complaint

This Service wrote to the landlord requesting that it respond to the resident’s concerns on 18 February 2021. The landlord acknowledged the complaint on 23 February 2021 and responded to the complaint on 5 March 2021. This was within its published complaint handling time frames.
The resident escalated his complaint on 12 March 2021 and had to chase the landlord for its response. The landlord responded on 29 April 2021 at the second stage of the complaint procedure. This response took around 30 days, which is outside its published time frame of 10 working days.
The resident remained dissatisfied and contacted the landlord on 6 May 2021. The landlord provided another Stage two response on 26 May 2021. This was inappropriate as the landlord had already provided a response at this stage to the resident’s concerns and this meant that the complaint process took longer than necessary.
The resident requested that the landlord escalate the complaint to the complaint panel on 10 June 2021.It took until the 28 June 2021 for the panel to acknowledged that it was considering the complaint at the final stage. The panel convened on 30 July 2021 which was within its published complaint time frames.
The complaints panel acknowledged that that the landlord had taken appropriate steps to provide a resolution to the reported ASB and to the parking concerns raised by the resident. It did not consider whether a compensation award would be appropriate for the landlord’s delays in meeting its complaint handling time frames.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration in the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of ASB.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration in the landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns regarding the assignment of a parking bay.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure in the landlord’s response to the related complaint.

Reasons

The landlord investigated and communicated with the resident regarding the reports of ASB from Neighbour A in line with its ASB policy. It offered mediation to the resident, signposted the resident to the police and communicated with its multi-agency partners.
The landlord acknowledged that it had believed that the layby had transferred to its ownership when the stock transfer of its properties occurred. It apologised to the resident for its mistake and advised that it no longer had responsibility for the layby so could not provide designated parking.
The landlord delayed in responding to the resident’s escalated complaint. In addition, the landlord provided two complaints at the second stage of the complaints which added a month’s delay to the complaints process.

Orders

The landlord to write to the resident to apologise for the service failures identified in this report.
The landlord to pay the resident £50 for its complaint handling failures.
The landlord should confirm compliance with these orders to this Service within four weeks of the date of this report.