The Guinness Partnership Limited (202200794)

Back to Top

 

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202200794

The Guinness Partnership Limited

11 July 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:

a.        The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of anti-social behaviour (ASB), specifically the standard of a neighbour’s garden and fly tipping.

b.        The landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns regarding staff conduct.

  1. This Service has also considered the complaint handling and associated offer of compensation.

Background

  1. The complainant is a resident of the property acting on behalf of the secure tenant. For the purposes of this investigation, the complainant will be referred to as ‘the resident’.
  2. The available evidence shows the resident had been reporting ASB, specifically concerning their neighbour and rubbish/fly tipping, since June 2021. The reports detailed how their neighbour had been disposing of mattresses and other rubbish in their garden. The resident also reported the neighbour for throwing rubbish over their fence at the back of their own property. Between June 2021 and February 2022 there were a total of six reports of this type of ASB.
  3. The landlord requested the involvement of the local authority’s environmental health team (environmental health) to visit the neighbour’s property and inspect the condition of the garden. The landlord said it had not identified any environmental concerns but agreed the neighbour’s garden could “do with a tidy up”. However, the resident stated another environmental health officer had disagreed and said the garden was in “an unacceptable state”.
  4. The local council issued a letter to the neighbour in January 2022, stating that it had received reports of fly tipping and the neighbour should arrange for the removal of rubbish, or formal action would be taken. The landlord also issued the neighbour with a letter in February 2022 regarding the condition of their garden. The letter included:
    1. The landlord was pleased the neighbour had been following requests to clear rubbish and bring the garden up to a suitable standard.
    2. An instruction to remove items from a trolley in the neighbour’s garden and to leave the trolley in the rear alley for collection.
    3. The landlord agreed to allow the neighbour to erect trellis fencing to improve privacy, providing it was within regulatory height and was not fixed to the resident’s fence.
  5. The resident made a complaint to the landlord in February 2022. The complaint referred to how landlord staff members had handled concerns surrounding ASB and fly-tipping from his neighbour, which had been “ongoing for ten years”.
  6. The resident contacted the landlord again in February 2022, having not received a response within 10 working days. They referred to their complaint and added:

a.        The landlord had not seen the mattresses during its visit to the neighbour’s property, which was “clear evidence of staff willing to avoid responsibilities”.

b.        The resident had to contact the council following the landlord missing their concerns regarding the ASB issue.

c.        The tenancy agreement included a clause which required residents to keep their garden at an “acceptable standard”.

d.        An accusation of bullying committed by the landlord and that the resident had to “eject” the landlord from their property on one occasion.

  1. The landlord issued its stage one complaint response in March 2022. It referred to the ASB concerns raised by the resident and explained the actions it had taken to address them. The landlord said:

a.        Inspections of the property had identified no concerns. The landlord had not gained access to the garden and had therefore taken photographs from behind the garden.

b.        It had taken appropriate action following the resident’s reports of ASB after the first inspection.

c.        It was aware the neighbour had placed items outside of the property, as this had been agreed with environmental health and was for the collection of bulk waste – which had since been removed.

d.        The first assessment of the neighbour’s garden had not included input from environmental health or a customer liaison officer from the landlord.

e.        It had attempted to contact the resident to discuss the accusations against landlord staff, which the resident had not responded to. An investigation by the landlord had found no evidence to confirm those accusations. It also referred to accusations relating to events that occurred over six months before, which it would not consider and advised the resident to report incidents as soon as possible.

f.          It also made an offer of £20 as a gesture of goodwill for delays when handling the resident’s complaint.

  1. The resident remained dissatisfied with the landlord’s response and requested their complaint to be escalated to stage two of the complaint process. The landlord issued its stage two complaint response in March 2022 and maintained its earlier position regarding the complaint.
  2. The resident contacted this Service in April 2022 to express their continued dissatisfaction with the landlord’s actions. They highlighted the need to chase the landlord for a stage one complaint response and suggested the landlord had paid for removal of rubbish on the neighbour’s behalf. The resident said that the landlord’s request for the neighbour to retrieve rubbish did not “rescind the crime” of fly tipping. The resident also mentioned the landlord installing grab rails, which they said were not required by the neighbour, and the impact the ongoing ASB was having on their health.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

  1. The resident complained to the Ombudsman previously about other ASB, specifically noise nuisance. As a determination has already been issued by this Service in June 2021, we will not comment on any concerns relating to that issue within this current investigation.
  2. The Ombudsman can understand that the ongoing ASB would have been distressing for the resident. We acknowledge the resident’s comments about the effect the landlord’s handling of the ASB had on their health and wellbeing. However, it is outside the role of the Ombudsman to determine if there was a direct link between any action or inaction of the landlord and the resident’s health. Matters of legal liability for damage to health may be better suited to a court or liability insurer to decide. The Ombudsman has considered any distress and inconvenience the resident experienced as a result of any errors by the landlord as well as the landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns about their health.
  3. The resident has raised a concern about the landlord installing grab rails, to assist with mobility when entering and leaving the neighbour’s property. The resident has suggested the landlord has facilitated “benefit fraud”, as they are of the opinion the neighbour does not require assistance. Benefit fraud is a criminal offence and should be reported to the police if the resident believes this to be true. The landlord would not be able to inform the resident of the reasons why the neighbour had grab rails fitted as this would be confidential. Therefore, this Service has not considered these accusations within the investigation.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of ASB

  1. It is important to note it is outside the Ombudsman’s role to establish whether someone has committed ASB, but rather we will assess the landlord’s handling of the resident’s ASB reports. We will consider whether the landlord’s response was fair and reasonable in view of all the circumstances, considering its own internal policies, the law and industry best practice.
  2. The landlord’s ASB policy sets out its approach to handling reports of ASB and what the landlord would consider to be ASB. The policy refers to both “dumping rubbish” and “failing to maintain your garden to an acceptable standard”. Therefore, the issues the resident experienced and reported to the landlord would have reasonably met the landlord’s definition of ASB. This meant the landlord should have followed the actions set out in the policy when handling the resident’s reports. The policy outlines the following relevant actions:

a. “We will remove any fly tipping and any items that may attract vermin or present a fire or health and safety risk. We will remove items within 5 working days of this being reported to us or being identified by a member of staff.”

b. “Aim to resolve cases promptly using the full range of methods and legal powers available to us.”

  1. “Work in partnership with other agencies to prevent and tackle anti-social behaviour…”
  1. The first report of ASB by the resident was on 14 June 2021, which the landlord recorded as being resolved due to the neighbour “paying for waste to be removed”. The landlord indicated it would be taking a “graduated approach” following another report of ASB by the resident on 18 June 2021, rather than issuing an immediate tenancy warning to the neighbour. The landlord did not consider these initial reports as fly tipping as rubbish had been deposited on the neighbour’s own property. The landlord has also confirmed rubbish had been put outside the front of the neighbour’s property on occasion, this was in preparation for bulk waste collection which would not be classed as ASB.
  2. The landlord showed a collaborative approach by involving environmental health during an inspection of the neighbour’s property. Two subsequent letters were issued to the neighbour, requesting action regarding fly tipping and for their garden to be brought up to an “acceptable standard”, which the landlord has confirmed the neighbour was compliant in following.
  3. The actions of the landlord demonstrated a continued willingness to resolve the resident’s concerns whenever they had reported ASB. It arranged site visits to investigate the concerns, communicated with the neighbour when it was appropriate to and took a solution-focused approach by arranging the collection of rubbish. While there may have been miscommunication with an instruction to leave rubbish at the rear of the property, this was quickly resolved by the landlord instructing the neighbour to retrieve it.
  4. This Service has not seen any evidence to suggest the landlord had paid for the neighbour’s rubbish to be removed, as the resident suggested. The available ASB logs show that the neighbour had paid for waste to be removed on multiple occasions.
  5. The landlord stated it attempted to discuss the resident’s concerns with the condition of their neighbour’s garden, following the actions it had taken. However, the landlord states the resident did not respond until they made a complaint. While this Service understand the ongoing ASB may have caused the resident distress, it has found the landlord’s subsequent actions to have been relevant and proportionate, and in line with the appropriate ASB policy.
  6. While the landlord’s actions may have been appropriate, it is also expected to have provided the resident with an explanation for those actions and any decisions it made following the reports of ASB. It is unclear whether information had been provided to the resident prior to a complaint being made. However, the complaint responses to the resident outlined the actions the landlord had taken and gave advice regarding the reporting of any future ASB incidents. This Service is satisfied the responses provided during the complaint process gave a clear and appropriate explanation of the actions the landlord had taken.

The landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns regarding staff conduct

  1. This Service cannot comment on any disciplinary action the landlord may take regarding staff misconduct, as this would be confidential. However, it has looked at whether there is clear evidence of misconduct having taken place as well as assessing the landlord’s response to the allegations.
  2. The resident raised concerns with the landlord’s conduct, in particular that it had been “bullying” residents. When an accusation of misconduct or bullying is made, the Ombudsman expects a landlord to investigate the allegations and inform the resident of the outcome of its investigation. In this case, the landlord attempted to discuss the allegations with the resident but was unable to. The landlord went on to explain that it had completed an investigation and found no evidence of bullying or misconduct. The landlord stated that it takes all concerns regarding staff misconduct seriously and would take appropriate action whenever necessary.
  3. This Service is satisfied the landlord was appropriate in its actions when responding to accusations of misconduct. It explained that it had taken reasonable steps to investigate the resident’s concerns. It made attempts to discuss the concerns with the resident and completed an investigation. It would have been difficult for the landlord to investigate the resident’s allegations in more detail, as it would have needed to speak to the resident to clarify what actions its staff had taken which the resident considered “bullying”. In the absence of more specific detail about the behaviour including what happened and when, the landlord could not have done anything further in response to this issue.

The complaint handling and associated offer of compensation

  1. The landlord’s complaint policy sets out its approach to complaint handling and the timescales for providing a response. The policy details a two-stage approach to complaints, with the timescales as:

a.        Two working days to acknowledge a complaint.

b.        10 working days from the complaint being logged to provide a stage one response.

c.        20 working days from a request for a complaint to be escalated for a stage two response.

  1. The resident first complained about the ongoing ASB issues on 10 February 2022. The landlord acknowledged the complaint the following working day and provided a stage one response 21 working days later. The resident remained dissatisfied and requested escalation to stage two of the complaints process on 21 March 2022. The landlord provided its response eight working days later. To acknowledge the delay experienced by the resident at stage one of its complaint process, the landlord made an offer of £20 as a gesture of goodwill. The resident did not accept this offer.
  2. The landlord’s compensation policy refers to the amount that can be offered as a gesture of goodwill. The policy states up to £250 can be paid to a resident when “the issue was resolved within a reasonable time which resulted in minor inconvenience having some impact on the customer or the household.”
  3. It is clear there were some delays in the landlord’s complaint responses, which would have caused some level of inconvenience to the resident. However, the overall delay was not significant. The landlord acknowledged its failure to adhere to the deadline set out in the complaints policy and took appropriate action to put things right by offering compensation. This Service is satisfied the delay did not affect the outcome of the complaint and the landlord’s offer was fair and proportionate to the inconvenience caused.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, this Service has found no maladministration by the landlord in its handling of the resident’s reports of ASB.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, this Service has found no maladministration by the landlord in its handling of the resident’s concerns regarding staff conduct.
  3. In accordance with paragraph 53 (b) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the landlord has made an offer of redress prior to investigation, which in the Ombudsman’s opinion, resolves the complaint about the complaint handling delays satisfactorily.