The Guinness Partnership Limited (201909566)

Back to Top

 

REPORT

COMPLAINT 201909566

Guinness Hermitage Limited

22 August 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

  1. The complaint is about the:
    1. The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports about her neighbour throwing food in the garden which attracted pests and vermin.
    2. The landlord’s complaint handling.

Background

  1. The resident is a tenant of the landlord which is a housing association. The property is a ground-floor flat with a shared communal garden.
  2. The resident reported that her neighbour had been throwing food in the communal garden for birds and stray cats, which she believed attracted pests (flies) and vermin since February 2021. She explained that despite the landlord’s past advice not to throw food in the garden the neighbour continued. She described a stain outside the neighbour’s door where food was constantly thrown, and noted that the neighbour also left their front door open with food set out for the cats. The resident recalled that the summer prior her home and the communal area was “plagued with flies” and raised concern about having to deal with it again. She said she believed the landlord was uninterested in the pictures and videos she had taken and advised that it was satisfied there was no food present during its visit. The resident explained that the strong odour from the neighbour’s property was unacceptable and had impacted her general enjoyment of the property. nice.
  3. In response to the resident’s complaint, the landlord noted it had attempted to resolve the issue by visiting the resident’s property in April 2021 to discuss the issues of the neighbour feeding animals in the garden. The landlord noted that in the past, it had advised the neighbour not to feed stray cats or leave food on the ground. It explained that following continued reports from the resident, it further spoke with the neighbour and carried out regular spot checks to see if food had been left out. The landlord noted that there were some occasions where food had been left out, but it had not found any evidence that the neighbour continued to feed animals in a way that caused concern, or which would be deemed a nuisance. It said that it was unable to control flies in the summer and that it was a constant pest regardless of where the resident lived. The landlord also provided the neighbour a bird table and cat feeder to prevent food being left on the ground. The landlord recalled that it had arranged for one of its operatives to clean the stain on the neighbour’s front door, and that it would follow up with the resident in mid-November 2021.
  4. The landlord also sought advice from the Environmental Health who advised they would not consider acting based on the information provided. The landlord explained that there was no law stating that residents could not feed animals in their garden and so it advised it would not take any further action. The landlord said it had discussed the issue with its tenancy enforcement team, who explained that the neighbour’s actions were not antisocial behavior (ASB) and would therefore not be looking into the case further. It concluded that it had done what it could to try and resolve the issues between her and her neighbour, but that the issues would be considered a conflict of lifestyles. The landlord advised the resident’s complaint had not met its threshold for pursuing any further tenancy or legal actions, and was unable to pursue through its ASB processes.
  5. The resident passed her complaint to this Service on 4 March 2022 as she was dissatisfied with the landlord’s handling and complaint response. She disputed that the neighbour had been using the feeders and noted that the landlord had encouraged the behaviour by providing them.

Assessment and findings

  1. In the resident’s correspondence, she has has referred to the past summer (presumably between June to September as the date is unclear) where her home and communal area was infested with flies, and raised concern about the issue reoccurring. As the substantive issues become historical, it is increasingly difficult for either the landlord, or an independent body such as the Ombudsman, to conduct an effective review of the actions taken to address those issues. In view of this, whilst the historical issues add context to the current complaint, the Ombudsman’s investigation will not take into consideration any specific events prior to August 2020 which is six months prior to the formal complaint being raised with the landlord.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports about her neighbour throwing food in the back garden which attracted pests and vermin

  1. The landlord’s estate management policy sets out the what is acceptable and unacceptable in the communal area. It expects its residents to keep communal areas free from obstruction, and notes that if it believes it is appropriate, it would act to remedy any issues that concern it. Including removal of items and other legal actions such as injunction.
  2. The tenancy agreement advises residents to keep the garden and communal areas tidy and in a cultivated condition. The landlord’s ASB policy details obstructing shared areas and failing to maintain the garden to an acceptable standard as a form of ASB.
  3. In accordance with the landlord’s ASB Policy, when a landlord receives reports of ASB it should investigate and establish whether the behavior was ASB, and aim to resolve using the full range of methods and legal powers available to it. It states that it will take reasonable, timely and proportionate action appropriate to the harm caused.
  4. In this case, the resident reported her neighbour’s actions of throwing food in the communal garden, which she said attracted pests and vermin. The landlord’s actions were appropriate and showed that it initially tried to alleviate the issues between the resident and neighbour by investigating the reports, attending the area on 29 April 2021, and asking the neighbour not to feed stray cats or leave food outside on the ground. It also provided animal feeders and carried out regular spot checks to ensure food had not been left out.
  5. Nonetheless, the landlord found that there was no law regarding feeding animals and so it would not take any further action. The landlord appropriately sought advice from the Environmental Health to gain a second opinion. It concluded that the issues reported were a conflict of lifestyles between the resident and neighbour, and had not met the threshold for pursuing any further tenancy or legal action. The landlord’s ASB policy states that its threshold may be set with reference to the persistent behaviour, potential for harm to the victim and adequacy of response from the landlord. According to the evidence and in line with the landlord’s ASB policy, feeding animals would not be considered ASB. This is because the landlord was satisfied the neighbour had not left food out in a way that caused concern, there was no risk of harm to the resident and it had tried to alleviate the issue by providing animal feeders. Therefore, it was appropriate that the landlord did not pursue further action in line with its ASB policy.
  6. It is acknowledged that the resident believed the landlord had not fully engaged with her reports and photographs provided. However, the evidence showed that the landlord’s operatives carried out regular spot checks to the area and reported it was satisfied food had not been left out in a way that caused concern. The Ombudsman is limited in the extent to which it can rely on photographic evidence as it is not possible for this Service to determine the location/circumstances of the photographs, or the validity of the images themselves. As a result, we do not generally place significant reliance on photographs in reaching our decisions. Nonetheless, a landlord would be entitled to rely on the conclusions of its appropriately qualified staff. Accordingly, the decision to not carry out any further action was reasonable in the circumstances.
  7. It is noted that the resident believed the landlord’s actions encouraged the neighbour’s behaviour, rather than resolve the issue. The landlord advised it had provided the bird table and cat feeder to prevent food being left on the ground. The landlord’s decision to provide the feeders appear to be an attempt to alleviate the issue of food being left on the ground and prevent easy accessibility by pests and vermin, rather than to exacerbate the situation. Therefore, in this case, the landlord’s actions were not unreasonable.
  8. Overall the landlord’s handling was appropriate and in line with its policies and procedures. It acted reasonably by investigating the issue, providing methods of prevention and confirming its position.

The landlord’s complaint handling

  1. The landlord’s complaint policy sets out 20 working days to provide its stage two complaint response. It explains that it may take longer but that it would explain the reasons to the resident, and would not exceed a further ten working days. The complaint policy further states that it will provide an explanation and date by when its final response should be received.
  2. The resident raised a formal complaint (this Service has not seen a copy of the actual complaint) and the landlord’s records suggest that it was raised on 25 February 2021, regarding a roof leak and the landlord’s handling of her reports of ASB from her neighbour. The landlord advised that its stage one complaint response was provided to the resident over the telephone on 24 March 2021 (there were no call records and it is unclear what has been discussed at stage one).
  3. The resident escalated her complaint on 26 July 2021; it is noted that the landlord phoned and advised of a delay in its complaint response in August 2021(it is unclear whether a date was provided). The resident passed her complaint to this Service on 6 September 2021 due to a lack of response from the landlord. The landlord provided its final complaint response on 25 October 2021, which was outside the landlord’s complaints policy and exceeded a further ten days after advising of its delay. This constituted service failure to meet service standards for responses and caused distress and inconvenience to the resident, the landlord should pay £100 compensation to the resident in view of this. This amount is in line with the landlord’s compensation policy which awards up to £250 for cases which resulted in minor inconvenience having some impact on the resident. This was also in line with the Ombudsman’s own remedies guidance (published on our website).
  4. This Service has been able to get an understanding of the resident’s complaint without having to request further information; however, there may be time where we may not be able to. It is vital that landlords keep clear, accurate and easily accessible records, including formal and escalation requests to provide an audit trail. If we investigate a complaint, we will ask for the landlord’s records. If there is disputed evidence and no audit trail, we may not be able to conclude that an action took place or that the landlord followed its own policies and procedures.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration by the landlord in respect of its handling of the resident’s reports.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure by the landlord in its complaint handling.

Orders

  1. The landlord is ordered to pay the resident £100.00 compensation for the delay in its complaint response. This should be paid within 28 days of the date of this letter.