The new improved webform is online now! Residents and representatives can access the form online today.

Grand Union Housing Group Limited (202215462)

Back to Top

 

 

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202215462

Grand Union Housing Group Limited

31 January 2024

 

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:
    1. The landlord’s response to the residents’ reports of a neighbour dispute.
    2. The landlord’s handling of the complaint.

Background

  1. The tenancy type is shared ownership. The resident and his wife are joint leaseholders. For the purposes of the report, they will be referred to as the residents. The property is a terraced house with 2 parking spaces at the end of a cul de sac. The residents are elderly and have mental health conditions. The landlord is a housing association and is aware of the residents’ mental health.
  2. Around December 2021, the residents told the landlord that the neighbour was parking his commercial vehicle in the ‘keep clear’ area in the cul de sac. The residents advised the landlord that this was a turning space. They said they needed the turning space to avoid reversing out of the estate and onto the main road. The residents also told the landlord that the neighbour’s video doorbell was positioned to film their property. The residents contacted the landlord again in January 2022 about the issue as they said they did not hear anything back.
  3. At the end of February 2022, the landlord raised the parking issue with the neighbour. It discovered that the neighbour’s title plan showed that the ‘keep clear’ area formed part of their parking spaces. The landlord notified its solicitor that the land registry had made a mistake on the title plan as the ‘keep clear’ area was a turning area. Its solicitor then contacted the land registry about the error.
  4. On 11 April 2022, the residents raised a complaint with the landlord. They complained that the landlord had not contacted them about the parking and video doorbell issue with their neighbour. The residents said that the situation had escalated and was causing them great stress. The landlord offered a safeguarding referral to the residents which they declined as they already had support from a mental health professional. The landlord issued its stage 1 response on 25 April 2022. It said:
    1. It was waiting for an update from the land registry about the turning area.
    2. Its tenancy enforcement team would arrange a joint visit with the police to discuss the issue with the residents and their neighbour.
    3. It had already offered mediation, which was declined, but would be happy to reoffer this.
  5. Between 27 April 2022 and 4 May 2022, the residents continued to report the parking issue. They told the landlord that the neighbour’s CCTV was making them feel vulnerable. They further reported that the neighbour was cutting slabs in their garden which was causing excess dust. They said the neighbour had put up a fence at the front of his property which was making it harder for them to turn their car. The residents raised concerns that the landlord was discriminating against them by doing nothing about the situation.
  6. On 5 May 2022, the landlord told the residents that it had asked the neighbour to move their vehicles back so that the turning space was not obstructed. It said it could not police the parking and could only suggest the neighbour do this. It had raised concerns with the neighbour about their CCTV but had given permission. It advised the residents to contact the information commissioner’s office (ICO) if they had concerns about what their neighbour was recording. Six days later, the landlord apologised that the land registry was taking so long to come back about the title plans, but this was outside of its control. At the end of May 2022, the landlord referred the residents’ case to a multi-agency meeting, submitted a safeguarding referral and sent the residents an action plan.
  7. In June 2022, the residents’ mental health professional asked the landlord to provide an update about the ongoing issues with the neighbour. The landlord requested to meet with the mental health professional to discuss the issues but did not receive a response. The council declined the landlord’s referral of the case to a multi-agency meeting. The police advised the residents it was not an issue for the police to deal with. The neighbour raised a counter allegation that the residents were driving into their fence and over their garden. On 8 July 2022, the landlord closed the residents’ case.
  8. On 19 July 2022, the residents escalated their complaint. The landlord issued its stage 2 complaint response on 11 August 2022. It said:
    1. It was still waiting on the land registry to provide an update about the neighbour’s title plans. It had found no obstructions or issues with being able to reverse safely in and out of the cul de sac. It could not continuously monitor parking. The residents should pass concerns about their neighbour’s vehicle insurance to the police.
    2. It was not responsible for monitoring data captured through video doorbells.
    3. It was pleased the residents had now accepted mediation and hoped this improved things with their neighbour.
    4. It had updated the residents at all times and explained why it had closed their case. It did not uphold the complaint.
  9. On 28 November 2022, the land registry amended the neighbour’s title plan. The landlord told the residents that the land registry had made changes, but it could not share details or provide a copy of the amended title plan due to data protection. The residents declined mediation again and continued to tell the landlord that the neighbour was parking in the turning space. The landlord told the residents there was nothing further it could do and referred them back to its stage 2 complaint response.
  10. The residents were unhappy with the landlord’s response and brought their complaint to the Ombudsman. They said the landlord did not confirm the changes the land registry had made to the neighbour’s title plan. They felt the landlord had not taken their vulnerabilities into account when dealing with the issues they had raised about the neighbour. The residents want compensation as an outcome to their complaint. The resident’s sold their property and moved in August 2023.

Assessment and findings

Scope of complaint

  1. The Ombudsman notes that the residents have alleged that the landlord discriminated against them. The Ombudsman cannot determine whether discrimination has taken place, as these are legal terms which are better suited for a court to decide. The Equality Advisory and Support Service are the appropriate body to assist in dealing with allegations of discrimination.

The landlord’s response to the residents’ reports of a neighbour dispute.

  1. The residents’ leasehold agreement has a plan of the estate that shows the turning area as shared vehicular access.
  2. The landlord’s antisocial behaviour (ASB) toolkit says that the landlord does not intervene in parking disputes. It can refer neighbours to mediation with their agreement.
  3. The landlord’s ASB policy says that it does not consider ‘inconsiderate’ parking as ASB but will use its discretion on whether or not to investigate reports. It responds to reports of vehicle nuisance within 10 working days. If its investigations establish ASB, it will ask those responsible to change their behaviour. Where appropriate it will work with other agencies. If the landlord believes that vulnerabilities are linked to reports of ASB, it will decide whether it is appropriate to take action. The ASB policy is silent on the issue of CCTV.
  4. The landlord’s internal correspondence evidenced a lack of ownership between its sales and tenancy enforcement teams when contacting the residents about their reports. Although the evidence showed the landlord was investigating the neighbour’s title plans from February 2022, the residents had to chase it 2 months later for a response. This was not reasonable and goes against its ASB policy. This also contributed to the residents’ perception that the landlord was discriminating against them.
  5. The landlord told the residents that it needed the land registry to amend the error on the neighbour’s title plans. Until the land registry did this, the neighbour’s title plans showed that the turning point was part of their parking spaces. Therefore, the landlord could not take action against the neighbour until their title plans reflected the turning point was for shared vehicle use. This was reasonable.
  6. The evidence showed that the landlord chased its solicitor several times for updates on the land registry’s progress. It cannot be held responsible for the delays with land registry.
  7. Once the title plans were changed, the landlord updated the neighbour and the residents. However, the landlord did not do anything further at this point to address that the neighbour continued to park in the turning space. Although its ASB toolkit says it does not get involved in parking disputes, it should have considered the ongoing impact of the situation on the residents in line with their vulnerabilities when deciding whether to take action. The evidence does not show that the landlord considered this in line with its ASB policy.
  8. In May 2022, the landlord’s staff member told the residents that they had no issue reversing out of the cul de sac. This was used as part of the landlord’s justification to not address the parking issue. Although the landlord’s staff may not have had an issue, the residents had raised that their vulnerabilities made it difficult for them to manoeuvre. The landlord did not show that it had considered the residents’ vulnerabilities when using this to justify its decision not to act.
  9. The landlord does not have a CCTV policy but requires residents to ask for permission before installing it. Its permissions policy says that the landlord should inspect CCTV once it is installed. Once it gives permission for CCTV, it sends a guidance letter that advises the resident to display a sticker to alert others that they are recording. The guidance also says that if the landlord receives complaints about CCTV, it may rescind permission.
  10. The landlord did not adequately follow up the concerns the residents had about the neighbour’s CCTV. The evidence did not show that the landlord inspected the neighbour’s property when the residents told it the neighbour had installed additional CCTV. This goes against its permissions policy. The landlord did not address that the neighbour failed to display a sticker to show they had CCTV. This goes against the guidance letter the landlord sends to its residents.
  11. The landlord told the residents that it does not police CCTV and referred them to the ICO. Although the ICO is responsible for investigating potential data breach issues linked to CCTV, the landlord could have done more to investigate whether the positioning of the neighbour’s CCTV directly impacted upon the residents. As per its CCTV guidance, it could have enforced that the neighbour removed their CCTV if it found merit to the residents’ complaints.
  12. The landlord showed some good practice by referring the case to a multi-agency meeting, contacting the residents’ mental health professional, and offering mediation. It completed appropriate safeguarding referrals as part of its risk assessment. It also liaised with the community police officer about the case.
  13. The landlord tried to contact the residents’ mental health professional on several occasions. However, the evidence submitted to the Ombudsman does not have dates for when the landlord attempted the contact. The landlord should ensure its correspondence includes dates for clarity.
  14. After the neighbour’s title plans had been amended, the residents continued to contact the landlord about the issues. Both its tenancy enforcement team and sales team declined to speak further to the residents mentioning that a letter should have been sent telling the residents what they needed to do next. The evidence does not show that any letter was sent. Therefore, the landlord did not set out its position clearly to the residents. It did not effectively manage the residents’ expectations. This further contributed to the residents’ lack of trust in the landlord.
  15. The landlord evidenced service failure in its response to the residents’ reports of a neighbour dispute. This was because of its failure to evidence that it had considered the impact on the residents in line with their vulnerabilities when taking no further action regarding their reports. It failed to set out its position clearly in writing to the residents, following the amendment of the neighbour’s title plan.

The landlord’s handling of the complaint.

  1. The landlord’s complaints procedure says it aims to respond to stage 1 complaints within 10 working days. It aims to respond to stage 2 complaints within 20 working days.
  2. The evidence showed that the landlord responded within its policy timeframes when issuing its stage 1 and stage 2 complaint responses.
  3. The Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code) sets out requirements for member landlords that will allow them to respond to complaints effectively and fairly. The Code says that landlords should answer all points of a complaint.
  4. The landlord’s stage 1 response did not address the landlord’s failure to contact the residents about the parking issues after it had started to investigate the neighbour’s title plans. It should have acknowledged this delay.
  5. The landlord’s stage 2 response did not address all the issues the residents had raised as part of their complaint. It failed to respond to the residents’ claims that the landlord did not allow commercial vehicles to park on its land. It should have clarified whether it did allow commercial vehicles to park on its land. This would have managed the residents’ expectations.
  6. There was service failure in the landlord’s handling of the complaint. This was due to its failure to acknowledge its delay in communication and answer all points of the complaint.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was:
    1. Service failure with the landlord’s response to the residents’ reports of a neighbour dispute.
    2. Service failure with the landlord’s handling of the complaint.

Orders

  1. The landlord should pay the residents a total of £200 compensation consisting of:
    1. £50 for its delay in communication.
    2. £50 for its failure to address all the points of the complaint.
    3. £100 for its failure to consider the residents vulnerabilities when deciding not to act.
  2. The landlord should clarify with the residents and the Ombudsman, whether it allows commercial vehicles to be parked on the estate.
  3. The landlord should provide evidence of its compliance within 4 weeks of the issue of this report.

Recommendations

  1. The landlord could consider developing a CCTV policy which makes it clear under what conditions it will give permission for CCTV and when it will decline or rescind it. The policy could set out what it will do to investigate complaints about CCTV.