Call for Evidence on housing maintenance now open! Respond by 25 October 2024. Submit evidence online.

Brentwood Borough Council (202203731)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202203731

Brentwood Borough Council

20 February 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. Response to the resident’s reports that her neighbour had removed her washing line from a communal area.
    2. Response to the resident’s reports of alleged anti-social behaviour by her neighbour.
  2. This investigation has also considered the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint.

Background

  1. The resident is a tenant of the landlord, a local authority. She has resided at the property, a one-bedroom ground floor flat, since 2011.
  2. In July 2020, the resident advised the landlord that her neighbour had taken down the resident’s washing line, because her neighbour, who was not a tenant of the landlord, believed the washing line was on her private land. The resident advised the landlord that she had asked her neighbour to put the washing line back up, but they had refused. She therefore requested that the landlord put the line back up. She also advised the landlord she had evidence of anti-social behaviour (ASB) carried out by her neighbour against her. She advised she had contacted the police regarding this.
  3. The landlord advised the resident that the area disputed by her and her neighbour was not a communal area. The resident then made a formal complaint to the landlord on 22 April 2022, because she disagreed with its position. She provided the landlord with a copy of the title plan for her neighbour’s property, which she said showed the disputed area was not owned by her neighbour.
  4. The landlord’s first stage complaint response acknowledged that the resident had been correct about the disputed land not being owned by the neighbour, and therefore upheld her complaint. It apologised that it had originally misinformed her and for any inconvenience this had caused. It advised her that it would install a new washing line and awarded her £50 compensation, which it said included reimbursement for her having to access the Land Registry when checking the title plan. It advised her that it would also apologise to her neighbour for providing the same misinformation.
  5. The resident escalated her complaint to the final stage of the landlord’s complaint procedure, because she believed it was inappropriate that the landlord had also apologised to her neighbour, as they should have checked the leasehold documents themselves before taking down her washing line. She also believed that her neighbour should have received a warning from the landlord about their alleged ASB.
  6. In its final stage complaints response, the landlord explained to the resident why it was apologising to her neighbour. In relation to her the ASB allegedly carried out by the neighbour, it advised her it would not get involved unless the case escalated, and to contact the police first due to the severity of alleged ASB. It further advised her to record and immediately report any further alleged ASB incidents to it. It did not uphold her complaint.
  7. The resident contacted this Service about the landlord’s response to her complaint as she remained dissatisfied. As resolution to her complaint, she requested reimbursement from the landlord for the fee that she had paid to access the Land Registry, for her washing line to be put back up and for her neighbour to be informed that the disputed land was a communal area.

Assessment and findings

The landlord’s response to the resident’s reports that her neighbour had removed her washing line from a communal area

  1. The landlord does not dispute that it misinformed the resident about the ownership of the land subject to the dispute between her and her neighbour. It acknowledged and apologised for this, and awarded her £50 compensation, including a reimbursement for the money that she had spent to access the relevant documents on the Land Registry website. It also installed a new washing line in the communal area in August 2022. The landlord also advised her neighbour that the disputed land was a communal area. This was an appropriate response by the landlord, as it took the necessary action to put the resident back into the position that she had been in prior to its misinformation, recognised the inconvenience she had been caused, and also clarified the issue relating to ownership of the disputed land.
  2. The landlord advised the resident, in its first stage complaints response, that it would also apologise to her neighbour for providing the incorrect information regarding ownership of the land. This appears to have been the reason for the resident requesting that her complaint be escalated. In its final stage complaints response, the landlord clarified that when her neighbour had contacted it about the resident’s washing line, it had misinformed them about the ownership of the disputed land and so it considered that it also owed them an apology. This was an appropriate response by the landlord, as it explained the reasoning behind its decision to the resident and it was entitled to issue an apology to the neighbour if it saw fit to do so.
  3. Therefore, it is determined that there was reasonable redress by the landlord in its response to the resident’s reports that her neighbour had removed her washing line from a communal area, that resolved her complaint satisfactorily. The landlord’s Compensation Policy indicates it can make awards of up to £100 where a failure has been identified but a resident has not “suffered significant inconvenience or distress as a result”. Its award of £50 was therefore in accordance with its policy and was in line with what the Ombudsman would expect to see in similar cases. It was also positive that the landlord used its discretion to cover the cost of the resident’s enquiries with the Land Registry, as it was not obliged to do so. In the Ombudsman’s opinion, the landlord’s apology for providing misinformation and its offer of compensation amounted to reasonable redress in the circumstances.
  4. It is also noted that the resident has advised this Service that a second set of poles are in place, on which another washing line can be installed, and so the landlord is recommended below to consider utilising the additional poles so that a second washing line can be installed, for the purposes of reducing any tension between the resident and her neighbour.

The landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of alleged anti-social behaviour by her neighbour

  1. The landlord’s anti-social behaviour policy states that at first instance, the resident must report any serious risk incidents such as serious threats of violence or abuse to the police. This was re-confirmed by the landlord in its final stage complaints response to the resident. It also informed her that it would not get involved unless her ASB case was escalated, but advised her to record any further incidents and report them to it immediately. This was an appropriate response by the landlord, as it clearly explained its position to her, in relation to her reports of alleged ASB, in order to manage her expectations, and also advised her of the appropriate steps for her to take.
  2. Internal landlord correspondence on 29 September 2022 indicated it had received a report of alleged ASB on 26 August 2022, but it noted that this was the first incident reported by the resident outside of her formal complaint. Therefore, the landlord would have been limited in what actions it could have taken without the resident having officially reported any alleged ASB by her neighbour. Additionally, the resident has advised this Service that a community protection notice had been issued. While it remains unclear whether this was issued by the landlord or the local police, this does indicate that some steps have been taken by the landlord in response to reports received from the resident.
  3. From the information available, the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of ASB by her neighbour appear to have been reasonable as there were limited steps it could have taken before it received a formal report. However, its use of language (when telling the resident it would “not get involved”) could have been more helpful and helped to give the impression it would be able to offer more support if and when necessary. Once it did receive a formal report, it appropriately advised the resident of the steps that could be taken according to its ASB policy.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint

  1. The landlord’s complaints policy states it will acknowledge a complaint within five working days and issue its first stage complaints response within 10 working days. The resident raised her formal complaint on 22 April 2022, and this was acknowledged by the landlord on 29 April 2022, six working days later. In its acknowledgement letter, it advised the resident that it would respond by 16 May 2022, 11 working days later. It did not issue its first stage complaints response until 9 June 2022, 27 working days after its acknowledgment.
  2. This was not appropriate by the landlord, as it breached its complaints policy timescales in relation to it responding to a first stage complaint. Although it did advise both the resident and this Service about staff illness that had delayed its first stage complaints response, it should have advised the resident of a potential delay prior to its first stage complaints response deadline of 16 May 2022. It should also have considered whether another member of staff could have taken over the response in the staff member’s absence, or otherwise explained why this was not possible. Instead, it was left to the resident to chase the landlord for an update to her complaint, after the deadline had passed. This was not appropriate and did not treat the resident fairly, causing her uncertainty as well as taking up her time when contacting the landlord for a response.
  3. The landlord has not demonstrated that it considered whether its delayed response would have impacted on the resident, or whether it could have offered any redress to “put things right”, in accordance with the Ombudsman’s Dispute Resolution Principles, such as an apology or offer of compensation. In recognition of these failings an order has been made below for the landlord to pay the resident £50 compensation. This is again in line with the landlord’s compensation policy and also in accordance with the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance, where an amount of compensation between £50 to £100 is appropriate for a service failure by the landlord that was minor in nature, but which it did not appropriately acknowledge or fully put right.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 53(b) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was reasonable redress offered by the landlord prior to this investigation which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, satisfactorily resolves the complaint about its response to the resident’s reports that her neighbour had removed her washing line from a communal area.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was:
    1. No maladministration by the landlord regarding its response to the resident’s reports of alleged anti-social behaviour by her neighbour.
    2. Service failure by the landlord regarding its handling of the resident’s complaint.

Orders and recommendations

Order

  1. The landlord is ordered to pay the resident £50 compensation, within four weeks of the date of this report, for its complaints handling failure. This is in addition to the £50 compensation that it previously awarded her, which it should also pay her if it has not done so already.
  2. The landlord should provide evidence of its compliance with then above order within four weeks of the date of this determination.

Recommendation

  1. It is recommended that the landlord consider installing a second washing line, as the poles needed to install it are already in place.