Abri Group Limited (202117957)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202117957

Abri Group Limited

30 May 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 handling of the resident’s:
1. Request for the landlord to carry out works to her garden.
2. Reports of anti-social behaviour.

Jurisdiction

What we can and cannot consider is called the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction. This is governed by the Housing Ombudsman Scheme. When a complaint is brought to the Ombudsman, we must consider all the circumstances of the case as there are sometimes reasons why a complaint will not be investigated.
After carefully considering all the evidence, in accordance with paragraph 42a of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the following aspect of the complaint is outside of the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction:
1. The landlord’s handling of recommendations from an independent mediation service.
This is because the complaint hasn’t exhausted the landlord’s complaint’s process and this Service is unable to investigate matters where the landlord has not had the opportunity to resolve the matter.

Background and summary of events

Background

The resident lives in a two-bedroom bungalow with garden and is an assured tenant of a housing association. The tenancy started on 5 March 2012.
The landlord has vulnerabilities recorded for the resident.
This report will investigate two separate complaints that were made by the resident against the landlord, and which were dealt with by the landlord individually.

Summary of events

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s request for the landlord to carry out works to her garden.

An internal email exchange on 18 December 2020 showed that the landlord had visited the resident’s property that day. The email explained that resident was unhappy that her garden was wet and muddy and noted that the issue started several years earlier when the neighbour removed trees from their garden. It added that during a previous internal conversation there was a discussion as to whether the muddy garden constituted a health and safety issue and whether the landlord could utilise a hardship fund for works to the garden.
The email noted that the lawned area in the garden was quite small and the resident had two large dogs. It added that given the time of year and climate, it wasn’t unusual for gardens to become muddy, particularly if dogs were using them. In addition, the landlord did not agree that a muddy garden constituted a health and safety issue.
On 8 February 2021, the resident submitted a formal complaint by telephone. She explained that she was experiencing drainage issues in her garden as a result of trees and shrubs having been removed from the neighbour’s garden. She explained that the landlord had previously carried out work in 2019 to install a French drain, but that the issues were ongoing. She stated that she had been advised recently that the landlord would complete further drainage works in an attempt to resolve the issues, but that the landlord had subsequently changed its decision.
The complaint was acknowledged the same day and the resident advised that she should receive a response within ten working days.
An internal email on the same day explained that the landlord had previously discussed internally the possibility of carrying out further works in the garden. Following a review of the discussion by another manager, the work was declined as the landlord was not responsible for works to the garden.
Another internal email the following day explained the work that had been completed two years earlier in an attempt to resolve the drainage issues. The email noted that the work caried out by the landlord was above and beyond what it would have been expected to do. It noted that the resident had initially asked for permission to install artificial grass but that the request was denied in accordance with the landlord policy at that time.
The landlord contacted the resident on 11 February 2021, who insisted that the landlord had previously agreed to help resolve the drainage issues.
The landlord’s surveyor visited the property on 16 February 2021, to inspect the garden. The resident was informed that the landlord would not be carrying out any further works to the property, but that it would re-consider her request to install artificial grass. The customer explained that she no longer had the funds to carry out that work and was therefore not an option.
On the same day, the landlord reviewed photos of the garden and concluded that it would not carry out any further works. It noted that it was unfortunate that the resident was denied permission to install artificial grass in 2018 but confirmed that it was in line with its policy at that time.
The landlord responded at stage one on 18 February 2021. It confirmed the nature of the resident’s complaint and confirmed that it had been fully investigated. It stated that gardens are not part of the landlord’s normal responsibility and added that it had no records of a conversation agreeing to carry out additional works to the garden. The landlord explained that if that conversation had taken place, the information would have been incorrect, and the landlord would apologise for this.
In its response, the landlord confirmed that inspections of the resident’s garden show it to be consistent of having been used by dogs during the wettest time of the year. The landlord added that the work it had already carried out was beyond its responsibility. It concluded its response by reiterating the information it had provided when it visited two days earlier regarding the request for artificial grass.
The landlord received the resident’s request to escalate her complaint on 6 April 2021. She disagreed that the condition of the garden was consistent with use by dogs and explained that every inspector that had viewed the garden had agreed that the drainage issues in her garden were as a result of the neighbour removing trees and shrubs from their garden. The request was acknowledged the same day and the resident advised that she should receive a response by 4 May 2021.
The resident sent a further email that day reiterating he dissatisfaction with the landlord and asked that they respond before 4 May 2021.
The landlord responded at stage two on 26 April 2021. It apologised that the resident felt that she had to escalate her complaint and explained that it had attempted to contact the resident by telephone to discuss its resolution. The landlord confirmed the nature of the complaint and explained that as part of the investigation it had discussed the complaint internally. The landlord confirmed that it had no record of having told her that it would carry out further works and added that if this had been said, it would have been incorrect.
In addition, it confirmed that it had carried out works to the garden in 2019 and a review in December 2020, during which the surveyor stated that no further works were required. The landlord reiterated that the condition of the garden was consistent with use during the wet winter months.
The landlord added that in regards the request for artificial grass, the decision to deny this request in 2018 was in line with its policy at that time, but that it would reconsider granting permission if the resident decided she wanted to go ahead with this. The landlord concluded the response and upheld the original decision.

Post complaints process

There were further email exchanges between the landlord and the resident following the stage two response with the landlord upholding its position in regards additional works to the property. It noted that whilst its policy stated, ‘where possible and practicable to be proactive in considering measures to prevent and minimise potential flooding to its customer’s homes.’ It did not accept that a waterlogged garden during wet weather is deemed as potential flooding.
The landlord has explained to this Service that following conclusion of the complaint, it arranged for a surveyor to inspect the property on 9 December 2021. The surveyor noted that the condition of the garden had not been found to be outside the range of seasonal condition for a garden used during the winter months and at the wettest time of the year. Although the actions of the resident’s neighbours may have contributed to the poorer drainage capacity of the resident’s garden, they did not act outside their rights in removing the tree and the hedge from their garden in line with their maintenance of their garden. The drainage issue has not affected the fabric of the Property.

The landlord’s handling of reports of antisocial behaviour

In her stage one escalation regarding the landlord’s handling of works to her garden, the resident made reference to her neighbour who had erected a large shed in their garden and who she stated was affecting her health.
On 3 April 2021, the resident contacted the landlord to explain an incident that had occurred involving her neighbour and a contractor who was working in her garden. She described that the contractor was carrying out works to her fence which divided the two properties and that the neighbour started shouting at him. She explained that she found the neighbour to be intimidating and a bully. In addition, the resident asked the landlord to advise the neighbour to remove his fence which he had attached to her fence post.
Between 12 April 2021 and 19 April 2021, the resident telephoned the landlord five times to explain that issues with her neighbour were ongoing and that it was causing her distress. She explained that the neighbour had threatened her and that she had sought advice from the police. The resident explained that the neighbour had been cutting her plants that grow into the neighbour’s garden and had been throwing them back into her garden.According to the landlord’s notes the resident was very distressed. During the telephone conversations the landlord offered to call 101 for her to carry out a welfare check. The notes explained that the landlord had spoken with the resident and length and sought to reassure her.
On 13 April 2021, following a telephone call from the resident the landlord opened an ASB case.
The landlord telephoned the resident on 14 April 2021 to discuss the ongoing issues with the neighbour. According to landlord notes, the landlord advised the resident not to engage with the neighbour and advised that it speak with the Police and try to arrange a joint visit with a PCSO.
Following a call from the resident on 19 April 2021, the landlord telephoned her the same day and explained that it would arrange to speak with the neighbour about the issues being reported. In a follow up email, the same day the landlord advised that it had spoken with the police who said they would be in contact with her.
On 22 April 2021, the resident contacted the landlord to advise that she had spoken with the police and with citizens advice,. She stated that she had been told by Citizens Advice that the landlord had a duty to supply her with CCTV.
The following day the landlord visited the neighbour to discuss ongoing issues. It confirmed that the neighbour was within their rights to remove any plants overhanging into their garden and advised that ideally, they should place them carefully into the resident’s garden or bag them up and leave them with the neighbour. The landlord also advised that threatening and intimidating behaviour would be considered a breach of tenancy and action could be taken if there was proof of this. The landlord offered mediation, but the neighbour refused to sign an acceptable behaviour contract (ABC).
The landlord visited the resident on 28 April 2021. The resident was unhappy that the PCSO was unable to attend the appointment as was originally planned. The landlord explained that the neighbour was entitled to remove the overhanging plants that grew into their garden. It also offered to add the resident to the waiting list for CCTV but that it would only be installed on a temporary basis. In addition, the landlord explained that the police would need to deal with the harassment and the landlord would take appropriate action depending on the outcome.
On 25 May 2021, the resident submitted a formal complaint regarding the landlord’s handling of her reports of ASB. She explained that the neighbour swore at her and acted aggressively, which caused her to become anxious and to worry about her health. The resident added that there had been a history of problems with her neighbours with regards to the garden fence and cutting back plants that grow into their garden from her garden and throwing back the cuttings. She further explained that she was unhappy with the landlord’s response to her most recent reports relating to her neighbours’ behaviour.
The resident also explained that she was disappointed that the joint visit didn’t take place with the PCSO, and that the landlord did not consider the history of abuse and harassment. Instead told her that no enforcement action could be taken as there was not enough evidence and no witnesses.
The complaint was acknowledged the same day and the resident advised that she should receive a response within ten working days.
On 1 June 2021, the resident contacted the landlord to explain that the neighbour had been verbally abusive and cut down her overhanging plants.
The landlord responded at stage one of their complaints process on 8 June 2021. It confirmed the nature of the complaint and set out its decision and reasons. The landlord explained that it had investigated the complaint in detail and that it had partially upheld her complaint. It stated that whilst it had correctly followed its policy and procedure in handling her reports of ASB, it had incorrectly advised her to expect a joint visit from a PCSO and a member of the landlord’s staff. The landlord said that it would send flowers by way of an apology for its miscommunication.
The response confirmed that the resident had reported incidents of ASB in June 2017, May 2018 and April 2021. It stated that in line with its policy it could only investigate complaints within six months of the incident occurring, consequently would not be able to investigate how it responded to incidents reported in 2017 and 2018.
The landlord set out the details of the resident’s complaint against the neighbour. The landlord confirmed that it had acted in line with its policy and procedure.
It explained that it had spoken to the Police but that no further action could be taken due to lack of evidence.
The landlord confirmed that it had offered both mediation and an ABC. But that as it was unable to get agreement from the resident and the neighbour to go through either mediation or ABC and because there was no evidence of ASB or a breach of tenancy, it was unable to take any further action.
The landlord added that it had offered the resident appropriate support in line with its policy and procedure but acknowledged that the resident was disappointed that it could not take further action. Consequently, it offered to forward her information to an independent mediation service who could review the action taken so far. It advised that it consider any recommendations made and act appropriately.
The landlord referred the resident to the mediation service as suggested on 15 June 2021.
On 13 July 2021, the resident contacted the landlord and explained that whilst there hadn’t been any further incidents, the situation was making her anxious. The landlord provided contact detail for mental health charities and explained that its response to her reports need to be proportionate and it could only take action where there was evidence.
The following day the resident escalated her complaint. She questioned the landlord’s conclusions and stated that whilst there were no witnesses to one particular incident, there had been other incidents witnessed by neighbours. The resident explained that she was escalating her complaint on the basis that the neighbour’s antisocial behaviour had not been resolved.
The escalation request was acknowledged on the same day and the resident was advised she should receive a response within 20 working days.
The resident contacted the landlord on three occasions between 3 August 2021 and 6 August 2021 to report that her neighbour’s behaviour was impacting on her mental wellbeing.
Landlord notes showed that it contacted the resident on 11 August to discuss her escalated complaint. The resident advised that she wanted the landlord to take action against the neighbour.
The landlord responded to the stage two complaint on 18 August 2021. It confirmed the nature of the complaint and upheld the stage one decision. It confirmed that it had acted in line with its policies and procedures and that it had offered support, advice and had also signposted her to an independent mediation service.
The landlord acknowledged that the interactions with her neighbour were having a negative impact on her well-being and stated that it would continue to support her to access appropriate services.
The landlord confirmed that it had received the recommendations from the independent mediation service and noted that it had suggested that the resident explore the possibility of moving, with potential funding from the landlord. The landlord explained that it had discussed this with her and advised that whilst it could not provide funding to help her move it could signpost her to services that may be able to offer funding. In addition, it stated that it had offered to write a letter of support to be included with her housing application.
The landlord apologised that it took longer to respond than it should have and said that it would send chocolates by way of an apology.

Assessment and findings

Landlord obligations

Section 3.11 of the tenancy agreement sets out the resident’s responsibility in respect of the garden. Which includes keeping the garden in a tidy condition.
Section 2.3 of the tenancy policy sets out the landlord’s responsibilities in respect of the exterior of the property. It states that the landlord is required to keep in repair the structure and exterior of the resident’s home including:
1. Front pathways, steps, ramps and stairlifts (where these are provided or adopted by the landlord) or other means of access.
2. Paved areas or boundary walls which the landlord has erected, provided or adopted.
The landlord’s repairs and maintenance policy states that it will ensure that it meets its statutory and contractual obligations to its residents. In addition, on its website it sets out that the resident is responsible for grass cutting, trimming hedges and shrubs.
The landlord’s antisocial behaviour (ASB) policy sets out who it will deal with reports of ASB. It explains that verbal abuse and intimidation is assessed as category two cases and will be responded to within five working days.
The policy sets out the procedure for dealing with category two cases. Its states that:
1. Once reported, it will be logged on their internal system.
2. Contact will be made within five working days and an appointment made to discuss the details of the report.
3. An action plan will be agreed and the person who reported the ASB will be kept updated.
4. Where appropriate mediation will be offered.
5. Dependant on substantiating the report, the alleged perpetrator will be warned that they may be in breach of their tenancy conditions.
The case will be closed when:
1. The problem has been resolved and the anti-social behaviour has stopped.
2. The report has been fully investigated and there is no evidence to support the report.
3. The complainant does not want the landlord to take any further action (unless it is of a criminal nature).
4. The 28-day case closed monitoring period has expired.
The policy sets out the action the landlord can take in respect of the different types of ASB. In relation to neighbour disputes once sufficient evidence has been provided it can:
1. Tell the resident to stop the nuisance behaviour,
2. Offer mediation between neighbours,
3. Enter into acceptable behaviour contracts (ABC)
The landlord operates a two stage complaints process. It will respond to stage one complaints within ten working days and stage two complaints within 20 working days.

The landlords handling of the resident’s request to carry out works to her garden.

The landlord accepted that it had previously carried out works to the resident’s garden in order to improve drainage. It also accepted that in December 2020 it had discussed the possibility of further works.
As part of the complaints process, it inspected the garden and found its condition to be consistent with a garden used during the wettest months of the year.
The landlord decided that it could not accommodate any further work as this was outside of its responsibilities. In addition, it apologised it the resident felt that she had been led to believe that it would have carried out the work. By way of an apology the landlord sent the resident flowers.
This Service finds that it was reasonable for the landlord to adhere to the responsibilities set out in the tenancy agreement and repairs and maintenance policy. There was no responsibility for the landlord to carry out additional works to the resident’s garden. The landlord took reasonable steps to listen to the resident’s complaints and arranged an inspection of the property. It moved on its policy position regarding artificial grass and gave permission for this to be installed as a solution to the matter.
By way of solution, the landlord advised that the resident could submit an application to install artificial grass and that this would be favourably considered.
This Service finds no maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s request for works to her garden.

The landlord’s handling of reports of antisocial behaviour

It is the Ombudsman’s role to assess the appropriateness and adequacy of the landlord’s actions in responding to reports of anti-social behaviour and the fairness and reasonableness of its response to the formal complaint. This does not include establishing whether a party is responsible for ASB; our investigation is limited to the consideration of the actions of the landlord in the context of its relevant policies/procedures as well as what was fair in all the circumstances of the case. The Ombudsman cannot tell the landlord to take action against neighbours.
The Landlord has shown that it acted in accordance with its policies and procedures. As set out in its ASB policy, the landlord logged the resident’s report of ASB within 5 working days and contacted the resident to discuss her concerns.
The landlord has shown that it investigated the ASB reports and offered advice and support. It liaised with the police, who stated that it could not take action due to lack of evidence. It was appropriate for the landlord to take a partnership approach and liaise with the police as some of the reports were around verbal abuse. Whilst the police were unable to take action due to a higher burden of proof, the landlord did take reasonable steps in offering mediation services to both parties and exploring the use of a non-legal remedy such as ABC.
As a resolution, the landlord offered mediation to both parties, which was denied by the resident. Despite joint mediation being refused, the LL did make a referral for single party working to help support the resident with coping strategies and a resolution. This was appropriate and seen as good practice.
In accordance with its policy the landlord closed the case once it had investigated the case and found no evidence to support the report.
This Service finds that the landlord acted in line with its policies and procedures and therefore finds no maladministration in the landlord’s handling of reports of antisocial behaviour.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was no maladministration in the landlords handling of the resident’s request to carry out works to her garden.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was no maladministration in the landlord’s handling of reports of antisocial behaviour.

Reasons

In relation to the garden the landlord acted reasonably and in line with its obligations.
The landlord acted in accordance with its policies and procedures and responded appropriately. The landlord action planned, worked in partnership with an appropriate agency when carrying out its investigation and applied appropriate interventions to seek to resolve the ASB.

Recommendations

The landlord should review its ASB policy and procedure in respect of its approach to assessing risk with regard resident’s vulnerabilities.