Landlords can now complete the Complaint Handling Code Annual Submissions form. More information is available online.

Croydon Council (202012506)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202012506

Croydon Council

20 August 2021


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 response to the resident’s reports of:
    1. Anti-social behaviour (ASB) at the property.
    2. The condition of the neighbour’s trees and vegetation.

Background and summary of events

Background

  1. The resident is a tenant of the landlord at the property, a ground floor maisonette. The resident is subject to the terms and conditions contained in the tenancy agreement. The landlord is a local authority.
  2. The landlord operates a two-stage complaints policy. The policy requires that the complainant is kept updated throughout the complaints process. If the resident makes a complaint at the first stage, the landlord should respond within 20 working days. If the resident is dissatisfied with the response, the resident can request an independent internal review of the decision and it aims to provide a response within 20 working days.
  3. The landlord operates an ASB policy. The policy notes that ASB is any conduct or behaviour by a person which causes or is likely to cause harassment, alarm or distress to any person, conduct capable of causing nuisance or annoyance to any person in relation to that person’s occupation of residential premises. The policy highlights that possible remedies for ASB include mediation, informal warnings, formal warning letters and acceptable behaviour contracts.
  4. Under the landlord’s repairs guide the resident is responsible for the cutting back or lopping of any trees within the boundaries of the property

Summary of events

  1. It is accepted by both parties that there had been a number of historic reports from the resident in regard to the noise level and behaviour from her neighbour and the condition of their garden.
  2. On 5 March 2020, the resident contacted the landlord and complained about the noise and nuisance coming from the neighbouring property which included ‘chanting’. The landlord opened a new ASB case file and there was evidence that the landlord took the following actions based on its internal records and notes:
    1. It asked the resident to keep a noise diary and suggested she write to her neighbour to express her grievance.
    2. It spoke with the alleged perpetrator and advised that it would monitor the situation for a period of three months.
    3. Advised the resident that it was happy to install noise monitoring equipment however this could not be performed until after the covid 19 restrictions were eased.
  3. On 6 April 2020, following further reports of noise and nuisance from the resident the landlord issued the alleged perpetrator with a formal letter about noise and nuisance. It also spoke with the resident’s neighbour about their overgrown garden and asked that it be brought back to a reasonable standard within four weeks.
  4. On 21 August 2020, the resident contacted the landlord and raised further concerns about the neighbour’s unkept trees and issues of noise and nuisance. On 18 September 2020, the landlord issued the neighbour with a formal letter regarding the noise and nuisance at the property and condition of the trees and vegetation. It advised the neighbour to be mindful of the problem and make every effort to keep noise to an acceptable level. It advised that noise monitoring equipment would be installed if the issue continued.
  5. On 3 November 2020, the resident contacted the landlord and made a formal complaint about the noise and nuisance from the neighbour and their failure to maintain the garden and vegetation at the property. The resident advised the following:
    1. That she had contacted the landlord on multiple occasions about the ongoing noise and nuisance and that the landlord had failed to fix the issue. The noise the resident reported included ‘heavy footsteps, moving and scraping furniture, slamming of doors, arguments between residents, praying and chanting and smoking weed beside the resident’s back gate’. 
    2. She advised that the trees and vegetation in the neighbour’s property were overgrown and came over onto her side of the fence and made it difficult to walk on the sidewalk. She said that the trees and vegetation blocked out her natural sunlight and that the landlord had failed to ensure that the neighbour complied with the letter issued in April 2020.
  6. On 25 November 2020, the landlord issued the resident with its stage one formal response and addressed the following issues:
    1. It apologised for the resident’s distress and advised that it had reviewed the resident’s reports of ASB and determined that they constituted normal household noise and not ASB.
    2. It acknowledged that the resident made complaints back in March 2020 about ‘chanting’ and the landlord opened an ASB casefile and contacted the neighbour about the alleged noise and nuisance. The resident denied all allegations and this was communicated to the resident. It advised that sound monitoring equipment had now been installed in the resident’s property and once it was able to retrieve the device it would determine the level of noise and take appropriate action. It advised that it was willing to refer both parties to mediation.
    3. It advised that its Public Safety team had issued the neighbour with a Section 154 in relation to the overgrown garden which had encroached on the resident’s boundary with branches overhanging the pathway. The landlord inspected the area and noted that it had been actioned however advised the resident to contact it if this was not correct.
    4. It acknowledged that the resident had tried to contact it in July/August due to a rent increase. It investigated the matter and confirmed that there had now been communication, which it hoped had resolved any issues.
  7. On 26 November 2020, the resident contacted the landlord and asked for her complaint to be escalated to stage two of the landlord’s complaints process. She raised that the trees at the property become a ‘yearly safety hazard’ and had never been felled or trimmed back. She maintained that the noise constituted more than ‘stomping’ and had a large number of sound recordings. The resident acknowledged that the landlord had installed sound recording equipment in September 2020.  She stated that her complaints to the landlord had not been actioned or implemented in line with its complaints policy.
  8. On 16 December 2020, the landlord issued the resident’s neighbour with a further formal letter and asked for the neighbour to attend the landlord’s office for a formal interview to discuss the issues.
  9. On 22 December 2020, the landlord issued the resident with its stage two response and detailed the following:
    1. Its Public Safety Team conducted an inspection of the neighbour’s property following reports of overgrown vegetation in April 2020 and it concluded that there was no evidence of overgrown vegetation that hindered pedestrians. Its Tenancy Officer also visited the area on 16 December 2020 whereby it reported that the front garden was clear and the hedges were cut back and tidy.
    2. That it had considered the reports from the resident and listened to audio clips that she supplied and concluded that the noise was not excessive or constitute statutory noise nuisance. It apologised for the delay in installing the noise monitoring equipment and advised that it was due to availability issues due to covid-19 restrictions and restrictions to the duties that its tenancy officers were able to carry out. It advised that the equipment had been subsequently collected and it booked an appointment to formally discuss the noise with the neighbour. Upon retrieval it was discovered that chanting could be heard at the property as reported by the resident and the landlord issued the neighbour with a warning letter and asked that they participate in mediation.
  10. On 1 February 2021, the landlord contacted the resident’s neighbour and asked if they would participate in mediation in regard to the ongoing issues at the property. The landlord had not been able to organise mediation as the neighbour had been overseas for an extended period of time but stated that they would continue to work with the resident about any future noise and nuisance.

Assessment and findings

Anti-social behaviour (ASB) at the property

  1. The Ombudsman considers complaints about how a landlord has responded to reports of a problem. It is not the Ombudsman’s role to decide if the actions of the alleged perpetrators amounted to ASB, but rather, whether the landlord dealt with the resident’s reports about this appropriately and reasonably. Our duty is to determine complaints by reference to what is, in this Service’s opinion, fair in all the circumstances of the case.
  2. It is not disputed that the resident began to raise concerns about ASB at the property in March 2020. The landlord demonstrated that within two weeks it had opened an ASB case file, asked the resident to keep a noise diary and wrote to the alleged perpetrator in line with its ASB policy. Upon further complaints by the resident the landlord contacted the alleged perpetrator and issued a written warning. The landlord appropriately kept in contact with the resident and informed the perpetrator that it would monitor the situation over the coming months. These were all appropriate actions and in accordance with the landlord’s ASB policy.
  3. The resident made further reports of ASB at the property on 21 August 2020. The landlord appropriately issued the alleged perpetrator with a formal letter regarding the noise and nuisance and advised them to be mindful and to keep noise to an acceptable level, also stating that noise monitoring equipment would be installed in the resident’s property if the issue continued. Upon further reports from the resident the landlord reasonably followed through with the installation of sound equipment and it was concluded that chanting could be heard as reported by the resident.  The landlord appropriately send the a warning letter and attempted to arrange mediation between the two parties however the landlord acknowledged this had not taken place due to the neighbour being out of the country. The landlord informed the resident that it would continue to monitor the situation. The landlord took appropriate actions to investigate the matter of ASB in accordance with its ASB policy.
  4. It is evident and not disputed that the ASB issues at the property had an impact and caused the resident significant distress. The landlord acted appropriately and took reasonable steps to investigate the reports and acted where appropriate. The landlord had a number of actions available to it which were set out in its policies and procedures, namely verbal and formal warnings, interviews with the alleged perpetrator, installation of sound equipment and mediation. Based on evidence seen by this Service, the landlord interviewed the alleged perpetrator on several occasions to investigate the matter. It appropriately issued the alleged perpetrator with a number of written warnings and installed noise monitoring equipment in the property. Overall, the landlord has demonstrated that it acted in accordance with its obligations in responding to the resident’s reports of ASB at the property.
  5. In summary, the landlord’s actions in response to the resident’s allegations of ASB were appropriate and in line with its policies and procedures. They also reflect the Ombudsman’s experience of similar cases across the social housing sector. It collected and retained reports of ASB, it took several informal actions and addressed the concerns with the alleged perpetrator. Overall, the landlord’s actions were fair and reasonable given the circumstances of the case.

The condition of the neighbour’s trees and vegetation.

  1. There is no dispute that the resident’s neighbour is responsible for the upkeep of the trees and vegetation at the property. The resident first raised the issue to the landlord on 6 April 2020 and the landlord appropriately contacted the resident’s neighbour and asked that the condition of the trees and vegetation be brought back to a reasonable standard within four weeks in line with its repairs policy. The resident made further complaints on 21 August 2020 and the landlord issued a formal letter about the problem to the neighbour in line with its complaints policy. After further complaints from the resident the neighbour was issued with a Section 154 notice by the landlord’s Public Safety Team. The Team subsequently inspected the property and informed the landlord that the issue had been remedied by the neighbour.
  2. The landlord is able to rely on the information provided by a partner service and upon further complaints by the resident it took a resolution focused approach and visited the area and concluded that the front garden was clear and the hedges were cut back and tidy. Overall, the landlord took appropriate steps to address the resident’s claims and investigate the matter. It issued the resident’s neighbour with a number of warnings in regard to the overgrown trees and vegetation at the property and satisfied itself that appropriate action had been taken and that the neighbours garden was in satisfactory condition.

Determination (decision)

  1. In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration by the landlord in its handling of:
    1. The resident’s reports of ASB at the property.
    2. The condition of the neighbour’s trees and vegetation.

Reasons

  1. The range of actions taken by the landlord in response to the resident’s ASB reports were appropriate and in accordance with its obligations and policies. It has evidenced that it took proportionate steps to investigate and address ASB at the property.
  2. The landlord took approprate steps to address the resident’s complaints and engage with the neighbour regarding the overgrown trees and vegetation. The landlord correctly identified that it was the neighbour’s responsibility to remedy the situation and used the appropriate formal and informal measures in line with its repairs policy in order to resolve the issue.