Cheshire Peaks & Plains Housing Trust (202216157)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202216157

Cheshire Peaks & Plains Housing Trust

31 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

1. The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of dog fouling in the resident’s shared garden.

Background

2. The resident is an assured tenant of the landlord. The property is a semi-detached bungalow with a shared garden.
3. The resident first reported that an unaccompanied dog was defecating on her lawn on 24 April 2022, and stated that it had been ongoing for a few months. On 25 July 2022, the resident advised the landlord of the problem once again, and suggested the instalment of some gates on the front of her property and her neighbour’s as a potential solution. The landlord’s records indicate that it advised her to speak to the dog owner or supply her own gates. The resident continued reporting the issue and requesting gates for her property throughout August and September 2022, but the landlord continued to deny her requests.
4. On 20 September 2022, the resident emailed the landlord regarding her dissatisfaction with the recurrent problem. She clarified that she had not requested fencing but gates across the driveway with her neighbour. The resident said she had not had her grass cut since July 2022 due to the dog fouling problem. The landlord recorded this email as a formal complaint.
5. The landlord sent its complaint response to the resident on 28 September 2022. It explained that it was unable to arrange for gates to be fitted at the property as it did not have an environmental work programme. It confirmed that it had arranged for the area to be cleared of the dog fouling and for the grounds maintenance contractors to visit to cut the grass. The landlord did not uphold the complaint.
6. The resident escalated her complaint. She acknowledged that the landlord had cleaned up the garden and cut the grass for her following her complaint. However, she stated that this was not enough to solve the problem, as it was recurring. The resident insisted that the problem would not cease until the landlord installed gates around the garden.
7. The landlord issued a response on 12 October 2022 and explained that it had spoken to a number of managers across several teams. It apologised for the grass cutting jobs being previously missed due to dog fouling but acknowledged that the area had now been cleaned and the grass had been cut. The landlord asked the resident to provide details of who was causing the nuisance if possible, as well as evidence of the behaviour. The landlord offered the resident the possibility of installing her own gates following a permission request. The complaint was once again not upheld. Following this response, the landlord sent a collective letter to the neighbourhood reminding residents of their obligation to clean up after their dogs.
8. Following the resident’s request for escalation, the landlord issued a review of the complaint response on 7 November 2022. The landlord explained that it had met with the resident at her home to assess the problem of free access which the resident’s open driveway permits, and had also discussed its approach with the assets team. It stated that if the resident was able to identify the perpetrators, it would work with local authorities and partners to enforce its policies and the law against irresponsible dog owners. However, the landlord stated it was not responsible for the actions of these dog owners and it did not have a regulatory or statutory requirement to provide gates and fencing to homes in order to prevent dog fouling, as its resources were finite and currently focused on the Decent Homes programme asset. The landlord encouraged the resident to record and report any incident of dog fouling witnessed and provide details to the landlord, so that further action could be taken. Furthermore, the landlord offered to install new signage next to the resident’s property.
9. The resident referred her complaint to this Service as she stated that the dog fouling problem still persisted and she was seeking for the landlord to install a gate around the garden.

Assessment and findings

10. The landlord’s antisocial behaviour policy defines this behaviour as conduct capable of causing nuisance or annoyance to any person and which directly or indirectly relates to or affects the landlord’s ability to carry out its main housing management functions. Moreover, the resident’s tenancy agreement states that any act or omission calculated to interfere with the peace or comfort of any person, or to inconvenience any other person, will be treated as antisocial behaviour by the landlord. Dog fouling falls under this definition of antisocial behaviour.
11. Following reports of dog fouling, landlords are expected to acknowledge the issue, communicate with the affected resident and initiate actions in a reasonable timeframe. According to the landlord’s records, the resident reported dog fouling in April 2022. This Service has not seen any evidence of the landlord’s response to the resident’s first reports of the issue. However, the evidence suggests communication between the landlord and the resident was established by telephone between April and September 2022. During this time, the landlord appropriately updated its records of the case, noting down the resident’s updates.
12. When dealing with issues such as dog fouling, landlords can take limited action unless the problem becomes recurrent. The evidence suggests that following further reports by the resident in July 2022, the landlord advised her to speak with the relevant dog owner. It also communicated to the resident that, in cases such as this, it would not normally install private gates (as requested by the resident). Nevertheless, it advised her to send an email to the appropriate department showing the drive at her property, the lack of gates, and to explain the problem to request a solution.
13. Throughout the complaints process, the landlord explained why it would not consider the measure proposed by the resident for resolving the problem. Whilst, in cases of antisocial behaviour landlords are expected to seek the resident’s input and suggestions for resolving the problem, budgetary issues can be a valid concern. The landlord stated that it did not have an environmental programme for the time being. It also said that its resources were currently being directed to fund the Decent Homes programme, which did not include gates. The work the resident is requesting is extensive, based on the landlord’s assessment, and would consume a significant amount of the landlord’s resources that are limited in nature for social landlords. Therefore, in the interest of managing its resources appropriately, the landlord was reasonable in informing the resident that the works would not be possible, due to the substantial nature.
14. Landlords are expected to take proactive measures to prevent dog fouling. In this case, the landlord’s proposed solutions, such as installing new signage and sending a letter to neighbours reminding them of their obligation of cleaning up after their dogs constituted a reasonable alternative to the installation of gates. The landlord acted proactively and attempted to tackle the issue by taking actions which were reasonable under the circumstances. The impact of sending letters to remind residents of their obligations and installing signage in the area was likely to contribute to preventing future incidents.
15. The landlord also advised the resident of the importance of monitoring the situation and reporting it to the landlord. In this specific case, where the perpetrator was unknown, the landlord had limited powers it could take. The landlord reasonably explained to the resident that it was not responsible for the actions of irresponsible dog owners, but that it would be able to take further action if she knew about the perpetrators and had evidence of the issue.
16. Overall, the landlord’s actions were reasonable and in line with its policies under the circumstances. The landlord communicated with the resident regularly and responded to the resident’s complaints in a timely manner. It explained why it could not supply gates to the resident’s garden and proposed reasonable alternatives. It also advised the resident to monitor the situation and gather evidence, confirming that further action could be taken once the resident could identify the perpetrator.

Determination

17. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration in the landlord’s handling of reports of dog fouling at the resident’s garden.

Recommendations

18. The Housing Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code states that two stage complaint procedures are ideal, ensuring that the complaint process is not unduly long. The landlord is recommended to review its complaint handling procedures and, if it believes that a three-stage process is necessary, to explain its reasons as part of its self-assessment.