Sovereign Housing Association Limited (202206099)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202206099

Sovereign Housing Association Limited

22 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

The complaint is about the landlord’s response to the resident’s:
1. Reports of anti-social behaviour (ASB).
2. Concerns regarding the upkeep of the estate.
3. Concerns about parking.
4. Report of water pooling in the carpark.
The Ombudsman has also considered the landlord’s complaint handling as part of the investigation.

Background and summary of events

Background

The resident is the tenant of the property (the property) which the complaint concerns.
The property is a two bedroom house.

Summary of events

On 12 June 2020 the resident registered a complaint with the landlord about its response to and handling of ASB by the tenant (the tenant) of the neighbouring property. The resident stated that the ASB had been ongoing for “about a year now”, however the landlord had taken no action. The resident set out that the landlord had also failed to respond to her emails and phone contacts to discuss the ASB. Within her complaint the resident did not provide details of the ASB.
On 15 June 2020 the landlord acknowledged the resident’s complaint advising that it would shortly be in touch to discuss the matter further.
An internal note by the landlord dated 23 June 2020 recorded that it had spoken with the resident regarding her ASB concerns and it had “agreed a plan” in which mediation would be offered. The landlord noted that the resident had agreed that the complaint could be closed.
On 27 July 2020 the resident submitted a request to escalate her complaint as “everything [she had] reported to [the landlord had] been ignored”. The resident stated that she “could not go into detail on a general submission form”, however noted that her Housing Officer (the HO) was not responsive to her ASB reports and had shouted at her down the phone. The resident also stated that the situation was impacting on her mental health.
On the same day the landlord confirmed that it had re-opened the resident’s complaint.
On 30 July 2020 the landlord wrote to the resident regarding the complaint following a conversation with her. The landlord did not confirm that the response was given under its complaint procedure. In summary the landlord said:
1. In respect of noise by the tenant
  1. It would ask the tenant to agree to participate in mediation. It explained that it could not however compel the tenant to participate.
  2. If the tenant did not agree to mediation it would “appeal to them to be more considerate”.
  3. It would investigate whether it had capacity to conduct an acoustic test at the property.
  4. Without evidence of the noise being “excessive or at unreasonable times” it was limited in the action it could take.
2. In respect of the HO’s communication
  1. It was sorry that the resident felt that the HO had failed to respond to her ASB concerns in a timely manner. It confirmed that it would speak with the HO about this.
  2. It would look into the resident’s report that she had submitted ASB records in March 2020 which had not been responded to.
1. In respect of criminal damage
  1. It understood that the resident had reported to the police that the tenant had removed her plants when they were clearing their front garden. It confirmed that it would contact the police for an update.

The landlord concluded by confirming that it would close the complaint, inviting the resident to come back to it should the above actions not resolve the issues complained of.
On 5 August 2020 the landlord wrote to the resident to confirm that:
1. The tenant was agreeable to mediation.
2. It had contacted the police regarding the plants – no further details provided.
3. It had emailed property services to see if they had capacity to carry out an acoustic test.
4. It had spoken with the HO regarding responsiveness.
On 23 August 2020 the resident wrote to the landlord. In summary the resident said:
1. The HO had recently visited the property however had arrived late for the appointment and had not offered an apology. She noted that the HO had spoken with the tenant first “which was not arranged”.
2. The tenant had removed her plants, which were within the property’s boundary when “gravelling their adjoining garden”.
3. It was unacceptable that the landlord did not have clear plans showing the property’s boundary which would help resolve the dispute about the removal of her plants by the tenant.
4. Mediation had not been arranged, despite the HO confirming that she would hear by 10 August 2020.
5. She had not heard back from the landlord regarding acoustic testing.
6. She was aware that private residents had reported concerns regarding the upkeep of the estate, with the landlord reporting back that the estate was in “excellent condition”. She confirmed that she disagreed with the landlord’s assessment, noting that the tenant had rubbish stored in their garden.
On 26 August 2020 the landlord responded. In summary the landlord said:
1. It had spoken with the HO who had advised that they were late to the appointment with the resident as they had a “very busy morning” and were “running behind schedule”.
2. During the visit the HO confirmed the location of the property’s boundary and provided the “appropriate information” to the resident. It confirmed that the HO believed that the meeting had ended “positively”.
3. The HO had made a referral for mediation and had chased for an update on 24 August 2020.
4. It had responded to the private residents regarding the upkeep of the estate and “no further action was required”.
The landlord concluded by confirming that the Housing Services Manager and HO were able to visit the resident on 27 August 2020.
On the same day the resident responded. In summary the resident said:
1. She was unavailable for a visit on 27 August 2020.
2. It was unsatisfactory that the landlord had failed to apologise that the HO had been late for the appointment.
3. She felt that the landlord was “pushing the blame back on [her] and [her] perception of things”.
4. It was unsatisfactory that the landlord had provided a “vague” response in respect of the issues raised by private residents.
5. She had called the landlord yesterday, expressing that its “lack of input” to resolve issues was causing her to “feel suicidal”. The resident explained that she continued to experience “persistent passive [and] aggressive actions from [the tenant]”.
On 27 August 2020 the landlord wrote to the resident. In summary the landlord said:
1. It was sorry that the resident was unhappy with the service it had provided. It apologised that the resident felt blamed for the issues raised and that the HO had been late for the appointment.
2. It would like to visit the resident to discuss her concerns in person and requested that she let it know when she was free.
3. It was concerned by the resident’s reference to suicide and suggested that she may wish to seek support from a health professional.
On 20 October 2020 the landlord wrote to the resident confirming that it had attended the property on 16 October 2020 to “try and arrange the acoustic testing” however she was not available. The landlord asked the resident to get in touch.
On 21 October 2020 the resident responded to confirm that she was unable to provide dates for the acoustic testing due to “uncertain work commitments”. The resident confirmed that she would be in touch when her work schedule was confirmed.
On 11 December 2020 the resident wrote to the landlord setting out that she was available for the acoustic testing “most days”. Within her correspondence the resident set out that she also wanted to “raise a complaint about the mediation process”. In summary the resident said:
1. It was unsatisfactory that the mediator had refused to offer online sessions. She noted that the mediator had explained that this was because “she did not like looking at herself on screen”.
2. During the mediation sessions the mediator “appeared” biased in favour of the tenant.
3. The mediator’s communication was poor as she would not leave voice messages or respond to text messages.
4. The mediator closed the case without resolution and without informing her.
The resident concluded by confirming that she would like the landlord to arrange new mediation with an alternative mediator.
The landlord responded on the same day. In summary the landlord said:
1. The resident should provide some dates for the acoustic testing.
2. It would raise a complaint to investigate the resident’s concerns about the mediation.
An internal note by the landlord dated 22 December 2020 recorded that it had spoken with the resident regarding her recent complaint. The landlord recorded that it explained that it had raised the resident’s concerns with the mediator and she was happy to “leave this until the new year”.
On 17 January 2021 the resident wrote to the landlord to confirm that she would like the acoustic test to be placed on hold until “lockdown [was] lifted”. The resident also set out that she continued to experience noise nuisance from the tenant and would therefore like the landlord to arrange further mediation. The resident noted that the tenant was currently causing a nuisance as she was writing her communication at 6 am. Within her email she referred to the tenant as “selfish”, “narcissistic” and “lazy” with “low standards”.
On 19 January 2021 the landlord responded. In summary the landlord said:
1. The resident should provide more specific information regarding the noise complained of at 6 am. It noted that the noise heard may be “everyday living noise”, which it would not consider a nuisance.
2. It would ask the mediator to call the resident, however it was “reluctant” to agree further mediation due to the “demeaning comments” she had made about the tenant.
The landlord concluded by confirming that “in reality [it was] not going to continue to investigate complaints associated with a clash of lifestyles”, confirming that its offer was likely to be “limited to undertaking acoustic testing”.
On 20 January 2021 the resident confirmed that she “no longer [required] acoustic testing”.
On the same day the landlord wrote to the resident to acknowledge that she no longer required acoustic testing. The landlord advised the resident that she may wish to contact Environmental Health (EH) regarding the noise nuisance as it was “best placed to give a second opinion as to whether the noise [she] was affected by [was] a statutory nuisance or associated with daily living”.
On 27 January 2021 the resident provided the landlord with a recording of noise nuisance from the tenant at 7 pm the previous day.
The landlord responded on the same day confirming that it had reviewed the recording. The landlord advised that while it could hear music it “was not particularly clear that it [was] loud [in] volume” and therefore it would not be taking further action. The landlord concluded by reiterating that the resident may contact EH.
On 17 March 2021 the resident’s MP contacted the landlord on her behalf to request assistance in addressing parking issues and “weeds in the car parking area”. The MP set out that the resident reported:
1. Residents on the estate failed to adhere to parking arrangements and park in their designated parking spaces.
2. In five years the landlord had only attended once to remove weeds in the car park area.
On 24 March 2021 the landlord responded to the MP. In summary it said:
1. Prior to the Covid-19 lockdown it was completing three monthly estate walkabouts to identify and resolve any problems. It confirmed that generally it found that the estate was “observed to be in good condition”.
2. It received some concerns by an “informal residents association” on 8 July 2020 and provided feedback following a site visit. It confirmed that the area was found to be “in very good condition aside from some small weeds in one of the parking areas”.
3. In January 2021 the resident reported concerns regarding “the condition of the local area”. In response it completed an estate walkabout where it found that the area was “in good condition aside from some small weeds”. It confirmed that photos were taken which it had attached.
4. It would contact the resident to suggest a joint walkabout on the estate.
5. In response to Covid-19 and Government restrictions it had adapted the services it was able to offer so it had not been in its communities as much as it would have liked during the past twelve months. Despite this it believed that it had responded promptly where concerns had been raised.
6. The resident had also raised concerns regarding parking. It explained that while each property had allocated parking spaces it was unable to enforce how “people [parked] on the public highway”. It confirmed that it did however “encourage” its tenants to use their designated spaces. It advised that if the resident could identify who was parking inconsiderately it could have “a conversation with them”. It confirmed that the resident should report dangerous parking to the police or local authority.
On 1 April 2021 the landlord wrote to the resident to request dates that she was available to attend an estate inspection.
On 20 May 2021 the landlord wrote to the MP to provide an update. In summary the landlord said:
1. The resident had declined its offer to complete a joint walkabout on the estate.
2. The resident had contacted it to express concerns about the condition of the estate. It set out that it had visited the estate in response, however had not identified any areas of concern. It confirmed that it had offered the resident another joint walkabout but she had responded that she was unable to meet with it.
3. It had sent the resident photos so that she may point out any areas of concern.
4. It would continue to monitor the condition of the estate regularly and respond to the resident’s concerns.
On 11 February 2022 the resident submitted a complaint to the landlord. The resident set out that despite raising concerns regarding the tenant, parking and water pooling in the carpark no action had been taken.
An internal note by the landlord on the same day recorded that it had spoken with the resident regarding her complaint. The landlord set out that the resident’s complaint concerned:
1. Rubbish in the tenant’s garden.
2. The tenant’s dogs barking.
3. Breakdown in mediation (between the resident and tenant).
4. Flooding in the car park.
The landlord recorded that it would follow up the resident’s concerns and that she was happy for the complaint to be closed.
On 7 March 2022 the resident contacted the landlord setting out that she had not heard from it since she spoke with it on 11 February 2022. In response and on 21 March 2022 the landlord wrote to the resident to request dates that she was available to speak regarding her complaint.
On 25 April 2022 the resident wrote to the landlord following a phone call with it on 22 April 2022. In summary she said:
1. It was unsatisfactory that the landlord was late for the pre-arranged call to discuss the complaint and had not offered an explanation or apology.
2. It was unsatisfactory that the landlord had not tackled “neighbour issues”.
The resident concluded by confirming that while she had concluded the landlord’s internal complaint procedure she would like to resolve the matter without a referral to this Service.

The landlord responded to the complaint at stage two of its complaint procedure on 26 April 2022 following a conversation with the resident. In summary the landlord said:
1. It was sorry it was late in calling the resident at the pre-arranged time to discuss the complaint.
2. While the photos provided by the resident of the tenant’s garden did show “some small amounts of dog faeces and rubbish” it did not amount to “any tenancy breaches” therefore “limiting” what action it could take.
3. It had written to the tenant to remind them that under the terms of their tenancy agreement they must keep the garden tidy and free of rubbish. It confirmed that it would monitor the situation “on a regular basis”.
4. It had addressed dog barking with the tenant as it understood that it could “cause a nuisance”. It advised the resident to contact EH if she believed the barking constituted a statutory noise nuisance as it was “the best agency to deal with noise nuisance”. It confirmed that it would respond to EH’s findings.
5. It understood that the resident would like to reinstate mediation with the tenant. It confirmed that it would approach the tenant to see if they would like to participate.
6. It had reviewed the resident’s concerns regarding water pooling in the car park and concluded that “at this stage [it posed] no concerns”. It confirmed that it would monitor the situation.
7. It would issue a letter to all tenants to remind them of their obligations around parking as it understood that it was “a contentious issue”. It noted that parking was reliant on people using spaces courteously.
8. While the resident was unhappy with its communication regarding nuisance by the tenant, the car park and parking, following a review of its records, it could see that “all tasks, calls and emails [had] been responded to”. It confirmed that its current service level agreement to respond was “ten working days”.
9. It undertook site visits to the estate regularly, addressing any issues identified. It confirmed that it was unable to provide direct feedback after each visit.
The landlord concluded by confirming that the resident may refer her complaint to this Service if she was unhappy with its response.
On 27 June 2022 the resident contacted this Service as she was unhappy with the landlord’s response to the complaint. The resident stated that the landlord had failed to take action to address ASB by the tenant, which was on-going.

Assessment and findings

The landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of ASB

In cases of ASB the role of the Ombudsman is to investigate how a landlord has handled any reports of ASB it has received in the timeframe of the complaint, and to determine if it has acted in accordance with its policies and procedures, followed good practice and behaved reasonably, taking account of all the circumstances of the case.
This Service understands the resident’s situation and recognises that the concerns she has reported have caused significant distress and upset.
The landlord defines ASB as behaviour that has caused or is likely to cause harassment, alarm, or distress to others. The landlord sets out that this includes behaviour by residents, their household or visitors which causes housing related nuisance or annoyance.
The ASB allegations reported by the resident against the tenant included noise, rubbish and theft. As the resident’s ASB allegations could fall within the landlord’s definition of ASB it was therefore necessary for the landlord to respond to the allegations and to take action to resolve any issues it identified.
The landlord has provided this Service with a copy of its contemporaneous records to demonstrate its handling of the resident’s ASB concerns.
The earliest ASB report the Ombudsman has identified from the resident is dated November 2019 where she raised concerns regarding “noise”. The landlord’s records sets out that it requested that the resident keep a noise diary and it would contact her “next week”. Following the resident’s ASB report in November 2019 the Ombudsman can see that the resident reported ASB again in March 2020. Despite the resident’s reports the Ombudsman cannot see that the landlord followed up with the resident in either November 2019 or March 2020; including to review any noise diaries she may have completed. This is unsatisfactory, as the landlord’s ASB policy sets out that it will investigate and respond to reports quickly and thoroughly.
The evidence shows that in June 2020 the landlord and resident agreed mediation as an option to resolve the ASB she had reported. This was in line with the landlord’s ASB policy which sets out that mediation will be offered as early intervention. It was also appropriate as it would have provided the resident and tenant the opportunity to discuss noise, rubbish and lifestyle issues.
Despite agreeing mediation as an option, the evidence documents that the landlord did not make a referral until August 2020, a period of approximately two months. This is unsatisfactory. Further the Ombudsman cannot see that the resident:
1. Was updated on the delay in mediation while it was pending. This would have been appropriate in managing the resident’s expectations.
2. Was given a clear explanation or apology for the delay in arranging mediation between June and August 2020. This would have been appropriate to acknowledge the impact on the resident.
In June 2020 the landlord also offered acoustic testing in response to the resident’s reports of noise nuisance. This was a reasonable response in order for the landlord to make an assessment on the noises complained of and whether any further action or intervention was needed. The evidence shows that despite agreeing acoustic testing in June 2020 attempts to schedule the testing were not made by the landlord until October 2020, a period of approximately four months. This is unsatisfactory, especially as there is no evidence that the resident was updated during this period.
The evidence shows that the resident declined the landlord’s offer of acoustic testing. While the resident was entitled to decline the landlord’s offer, the Ombudsman notes that it will have limited the landlord’s response to her reports of noise nuisance. On declining the offer of acoustic testing the landlord signposted the resident to EH. This was appropriate as EH also have the tools to carry out noise tests.
In response to the resident’s concerns that the tenant had removed her plants, the landlord confirmed that it would liaise with the police and clarify the garden boundaries. While the landlord stated that it had completed both exercises there is no evidence documenting that an outcome was provided to the resident detailing its findings and conclusions. This is unsatisfactory and will have left the resident without a conclusion to her concerns in this regard.
In December 2020 the resident raised concerns regarding the mediation process. The landlord’s records document that it raised the resident’s concerns with the mediator and offered for the mediator to get in touch with her directly to “try and clarify a couple of points”. This was a reasonable course of action, including as it was not party to the mediation sessions.
The evidence shows that in February 2022 the landlord wrote to the tenant to remind them of their obligations in respect of their upkeep of their garden and noise, in addition to confirming that it would seek to reinstate mediation between the parties. This was appropriate in light of the resident’s on-going concerns and to seek to draw the matter to a close.
The Ombudsman understands from a recent update from the resident that, following the landlord’s final response, she continues to experience ASB. The Ombudsman is not able to comment on the landlord’s response to these allegations as they do not fall within the period under investigation. However, in order to assist in resolving the resident’s concerns, we have made a recommendation to the landlord at the end of this report.

The landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns regarding the upkeep of the estate

In response to the resident’s concerns regarding the upkeep of the estate it was the landlord’s position that it was well maintained. The landlord explained that its conclusion was based on its site inspections. The landlord has provided details of its site inspections, including photographs, to satisfy this Service. The Ombudsman notes that the landlord set out that it observed no significant issues.
The evidence shows that despite its own conclusion regarding the upkeep of the estate the landlord invited the resident to complete a joint “walkabout”. This was reasonable in order for the resident to point out any areas of concern which the landlord may have overlooked or not accounted for. Where areas were identified the landlord could then take action to put things right. The Ombudsman notes that the resident declined the landlord’s invitation, which she was entitled to do.
The Ombudsman acknowledges that the resident is not satisfied with the information provided by the landlord in respect of its response to the private residents about the upkeep of the estate. While the resident’s concerns are noted, it was reasonable for the landlord to not disclose full details of its response as the resident was not party to the complaint by the private residents.

The landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns about parking

In response to the resident’s concerns regarding inappropriate and inconsiderate parking on the estate the landlord confirmed that it was unable to enforce parking as it did not fall within its jurisdiction. The landlord therefore signposted the resident to the local authority and police. In the Ombudsman’s opinion this was appropriate as the landlord must operate within its own remit.
The Ombudsman can see that in February 2022 the landlord did write to its tenants regarding parking. The Ombudsman considers that this was good practice by the landlord as while it could not enforce parking arrangements it was able to remind tenants to park courteously.

The landlord’s response to the resident’s report of water pooling in the carpark

In response to the resident’s concerns regarding water pooling in the carpark the landlord confirmed that it had reviewed the situation and was satisfied that it posed no concerns, however it would monitor the situation. In the Ombudsman’s opinion the landlord’s position was reasonable as it had been taken following an assessment of the area. The landlord has provided this Service with a photograph showing the area of concern to support its decision making.

The landlord’s complaint handling

Despite the resident first requesting a formal complaint in June 2020 it was not until April 2022 that the landlord provided a formal response under its complaint procedure. This is a period of approximately 22 months. While the evidence shows that the landlord was responding to the resident’s concerns informally, outside of its complaint procedure, it would have been best practice for it to have provided a formal response at a much earlier time, especially when it became clear that its informal approach was not providing a resolution for the resident. On the resident repeating her dissatisfaction, the landlord should have used its complaint procedure to consider if it had dealt with her concerns appropriately, and if not taken action to put things right. In delaying a formal response the Ombudsman considers that the resident was adversely affected by the inaction of the landlord, including lost opportunity, raised expectations, distress and inconvenience. In addition the landlord’s failure to provide a response under its complaint procedure delayed the resident’s right to refer the complaint to this Service for adjudication.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was:
1. Maladministration by the landlord in respect of its response to the resident’s reports of ASB.
2. No maladministration by the landlord in respect of its response to the resident’s concerns regarding the upkeep of the estate.
3. No maladministration by the landlord in respect of its response to the resident’s concerns regarding parking.
4. No maladministration by the landlord in respect of its response to the resident’s report of water pooling in the carpark
5. Maladministration by the landlord in respect of its complaint handling.

Reasons

The landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of ASB

While the landlord’s offer of mediation and acoustic testing were appropriate, in addition to its letter dated February 2022 to the tenant, the Ombudsman is not satisfied with the landlord’s overall handling of its response to the resident’s ASB reports. This is because:
1. There is no evidence to demonstrate that the landlord took steps to follow up or investigate the ASB reported by the resident between November 2019 and March 2020.
2. The landlord delayed in arranging mediation for a period of two months and failed to update the resident regarding the delays.
3. The landlord delayed in arranging and offering acoustic testing for a period of four months and failed to update the resident regarding the delays.
4. The landlord did not provide the resident with an outcome following its investigation about the removal of her plants.
5. The landlord was unable to demonstrate that it did resolve the dispute about the garden’s boundary by providing clarification to the resident.

The landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns regarding the upkeep of the estate

The landlord’s invitation to complete an estate walkabout with the resident was reasonable, following its own conclusion it was well maintained, in order for the resident to point out any areas of concern which it may have overlooked or not accounted for.

The landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns about parking

It was appropriate that the landlord signposted the resident to the local authority and police on explaining that it was unable to enforce parking on the estate as it did not fall within its jurisdiction. It was good practice that the landlord wrote to all tenants reminding them to park courteously.

The landlord’s response to the resident’s report of water pooling in the carpark

The landlord’s position that water pooling in the carpark was not concerning was reasonable as it had been taken following an assessment of the area.

The landlord’s complaint handling

The landlord’s handling of the complaint was unsatisfactory as the time taken for it to provide a formal complaint was significantly protracted. This resulted in the resident’s concerns remaining unresolved for an extended period of time.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

The landlord should pay the resident the following compensation within four weeks of the date of this determination:
1. £300 in respect of its response to her ASB allegations.
2. £200 in respect of its complaint handling.
The landlord should write to the resident within four weeks of the date of this determination to provide confirmation of the property’s boundaries, so that she is clear what land she is responsible for under the terms of her tenancy.

Recommendations

In light of the resident’s report to the Ombudsman that the tenant continues to engage in ASB, the landlord should contact the resident to gain further information. On receipt of the information the landlord should carry out a risk assessment and produce an action plan, providing the outcome to the resident detailing any action or investigations where appropriate. The landlord should complete this recommendation within four weeks of the date of this report.
The landlord should review the Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code as learning, to ensure that complaints are responded to in line with best practice.