Mansfield District Council (202123925)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202123925

Mansfield District Council

2 August 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 how the landlord handled the resident’s reports about her neighbour parking his motorbike in a communal area.
2. The Ombudsman has also assessed the landlord’s complaint handling.

Background

3. The resident is a tenant of the landlord and lives in a first floor flat in the building, a block of four flats.
4. On 16 September 2021, the resident contacted the landlord to say she was unhappy that her neighbour was parking his motorbike in the property’s external communal drying area. She said her access to the drying area was being blocked as a result of the parking. The landlord visited the property and found the neighbour’s motorbike was not obstructing access. It established the neighbour was on a waiting list for a nearby garage and was parking his motorbike in the communal drying area until he was allocated one. The landlord informed the resident on 29 September 2021 it would not take any enforcement action against the neighbour unless he blocked exits with his motorbike, took it inside the property, or it caused a nuisance.
5. The resident made a further three reports to the landlord of the motorbike being parked in the communal drying area, all of which it followed up. On 18 October 2021, the resident made a formal complaint to the landlord about it. The landlord responded at stage one of its complaints policy on 22 October 2021. It said it had spoken to the neighbour and visited the property. It had found the motorbike was not causing an obstruction. It had given the neighbour permission to park the motorbike in the communal drying area until a garage could be found.
6. The resident made another report about the motorbike on 9 December 2021, to which the landlord responded. In response to a further report made on 23 December 2021, the landlord offered the resident independent mediation in order to establish better relations between her and the neighbour, which she refused on 25 February 2022. The resident made another report about the motorbike on 6 January 2022.
7. On 8 March 2022, the landlord escalated the resident’s complaint to stage two of its complaints policy. It provided its final response to the resident on 22 March 2022, reiterating that the motorbike was not causing an obstruction or nuisance to neighbours therefore it would not take any action. The resident remained dissatisfied and continued to report her neighbour’s motorbike parking to the landlord.

Assessment and findings

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports

8. Part 9 of the landlord’s antisocial behaviour (ASB) policy says parking obstructions and misuse of the communal area could be considered ASB. It is not within the Ombudsman’s remit to establish whether ASB occurred. Our role is to establish whether the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports was in line with its legal and policy obligations, and was fair in all the circumstances of the case.
9. Part 11 of the landlord’s ASB policy sets out how it responds to ASB reports. It says: “We will establish at the earliest stage possible, what the complainant wants [from the landlord] and what outcome they would ideally like to receive. This will help to manage expectations before any problem solving takes place.” The evidence provided to the Ombudsman shows the landlord attempted to manage the resident’s expectations on 29 September 2021. It explained to her that it would not take enforcement action against her neighbour unless he was blocking exits, taking the motorbike inside the building, or causing a nuisance.
10. Part 11 of the landlord’s ASB policy also says: “The [landlord’s] approach to ASB behaviour will always be fair, reasonable and appropriate to each individual case. It is recognised that every case of ASB is different and officers will use their discretion to vary their approach to find the most appropriate solution.” The landlord considered and promptly responded to all but one of the resident’s reports of the motorbike parking. Its approaches included:
    1. visiting the property to see where the motorbike was being parked;
    2. speaking and / or writing to the resident and her neighbour about the reports and the outcome of its visits to the property;
    3. providing the resident with diary sheets to report ASB;
    4. explaining to the resident why it would not take enforcement action against her neighbour;
    5. liaising with the police community support team;
    6. offering mediation.
11. Section 12 of the landlord’s tenancy conditions says tenants must not keep motorbikes and other vehicles in communal areas. However, section 15 of the tenancy conditions says: “The enforcement of these tenancy conditions is at the discretion of [the landlord]. [It] is not under any duty to take enforcement action in respect of all breaches.” The landlord therefore had discretion to allow the neighbour’s motorbike to be parked in the communal drying area, as long as it did not block exits or cause a nuisance. The landlord provided a reasonable explanation to the resident about why it was allowing the neighbour to park his motorbike in the communal drying area and why it would not take any enforcement action against him.
12. It is acknowledged that the resident was concerned about her neighbour’s motorbike being parked in the communal area. However, the evidence shows the landlord handled her reports in line with its ASB policy and tenancy conditions. It exercised its discretionary powers by allowing the neighbour’s motorbike to be parked in the communal drying area while ensuring the area remained accessible to others, and explained to the resident its reasons for doing so. The Ombudsman is therefore satisfied that the landlord’s actions were in accordance with its policies.

The landlord’s complaint handling

13. The resident submitted her stage one complaint on 18 October 2021. The landlord responded on 22 October 2021, within the timescales set out in its own complaints policy and the Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code).
14. The resident has advised that she submitted an escalation request by letter on 22 October 2021. The landlord says that it did not receive this. While the resident’s comments are not disputed, this service has not been provided with any evidence confirming that correspondence was sent at that time.
15. At the end of January 2022, the resident contacted the Ombudsman to say she had not received a response to her stage two complaint. As such, on 3 February 2022 we asked the landlord to contact the resident by 17 February 2022 and issue a response. At this time, it would have been reasonable for the landlord to contact the resident and to ensure that it understood what she was complaining about, and why she remained dissatisfied on receipt of the stage one response, as set out at section 5.10 of the Code.
16. However, the resident contacted the Ombudsman on 4 March 2022 to say she still had not received a response from the landlord. We chased the matter and asked the landlord to respond no later than 7 March 2022. It responded on 8 March 2022 to say it had not received a stage two escalation request from the resident and would escalate the complaint to stage two. It is unclear why the landlord was waiting to receive a stage two request from the resident at this time. We had informed it that the resident remained unhappy with the stage one response at the beginning of February. It had therefore been put on notice and it would have been reasonable for it to make contact with the resident as necessary, and issue a final response in line with its policy. That the landlord did not was a failing in its complaint handling.
17. The stage two response was repetition of what had been said at stage one. The evidence provided to this service does not show that a clear record had been kept about why the complaint had been escalated to stage two, and what the resident’s outstanding concerns were. It appears that this was as a result of the landlord failing to make enquiries with the resident and ascertain why she remained unhappy. If the landlord had made such enquiries, this would reasonably have enabled it to conduct an investigation into her remaining concerns and provided a meaningful and considered response. This was a missed opportunity to use the complaints process as a means of engaging with the resident and seeking to restore the landlord-tenant relationship.
18. It should also be noted that within the stage two response the landlord signposted the resident to the Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman, in error. The resident was already in contact with this service at the time, and was therefore not inconvenienced as a result of the error. However, the landlord should ensure that it reviews its templates and / or ensures that complaint handling staff are aware of where residents should be signposted at the end of the complaints procedure.

Determination

19. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration by the landlord in the way it handled the resident’s reports about storage of a neighbour’s motorbike.
20. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in the way the landlord handled the resident’s complaint.

Orders

21. Within four weeks of this determination, the landlord should:
    1. Apologise to the resident for the failings identified by this investigation.
    2. Pay her £100 for the distress and inconvenience caused by the complaint handling failures.
22. Within eight weeks of this determination, the landlord should issue complaint handling staff with a reminder to ensure that:
    1. a clear and contemporaneous record of complaints made by residents is kept.
    2. clarity is sought when the reasons for escalating a complaint, or the desired outcome, is unclear.
    3. residents are signposted to the correct organisation within stage two correspondence.