Places for People Group Limited (202004070)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202004070

Places for People Group Limited

21 December 2020

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 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. This complaint is about the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of anti–social behaviour (ASB) from his neighbour.

Background and summary of events

Background

2. The resident is a tenant of the landlord. His reports of ASB concern his neighbour who I shall refer to as Miss A throughout this report.
3. The landlord’s tenancy agreement with the resident states that the landlord may regain possession of the property if the tenant or anybody living with the tenant has caused a nuisance or annoyance to neighbours. This agreement confirms that, provided written permission has been given by [the landlord], the tenant may make alterations or improvements to the home.
4. The landlord’s tenancy enforcement guide provides a summary of its ASB policy and procedure. Amongst the examples of ASB given in this are nuisance involving children or teenagers, rubbish, fly-tipping and untidy gardens and boundary disputes.
5. The landlord’s tenancy enforcement guide also states that it will not always get involved in everything that is reported to it as causing a nuisance and its consideration of what constitutes ASB depends on factors including how severely it is affecting others, how regularly it is happening, and whether the behaviour is considered unreasonable. Furthermore, this guide states the landlord will take formal action if it is satisfied that evidence can demonstrate that an individual or individuals have acted in an anti-social manner.
6. In response to ASB, the landlord’s tenancy enforcement guide states that it will investigate such reports and encourage and support neighbours to try and resolve their problems by mediation. It will close an ASB case when it thinks that there is no case to investigate or where the evidence does not warrant action.

Summary of events

7. The landlord acknowledged a report of ASB from the resident on 27 July 2017. Following this, on 4 August 2017, it arranged a meeting with Miss A and it wrote to her on 23 August 2017 confirming that she was not to use his driveway to place her rubbish bins or to access her own property.
8. On 23 July 2019 the resident brought the landlord’s attention to signs of Miss A installing a fence along the boundary between the two properties. He highlighted that this was likely to cause an obstruction to him using his driveway. The resident referred to an email dated 23 August 2017 in which the landlord declined to install a boundary fence but advised him that he could install one of his own accordance provided that he submitted a request for permission to improve the property. He questioned whether Miss A had obtained this.
9. The landlord confirmed to the resident on 25 July 2019 that the fence was being completed and it had asked Miss A to submit a request for permission to install the fence.
10. The resident requested an update on the fence situation from the landlord on 13 August 2019. He added that he had experienced an increase in ASB from local youths who were “banging on [his] car and running away repeatedly”. The resident asked the landlord to help him relocate away from the area “before matters escalate out of control”.
11. The landlord replied later that day to advise that it had not yet received a permission request for the fence from Miss A, but it was reviewing the deeds of the property in preparation. It asked him to submit his report of ASB to its website to enable it to log and allocate the report.
12. The landlord wrote to Miss A on 19 August 2019 to advise that, as there was no clear boundary line between the two properties, it would not grant permission for the fence. If an agreement was reached between her and the resident, then it would consider this and it offered to facilitate a meeting to discuss this.
13. On 12 September 2019, the landlord emailed the resident to advise that it had asked Miss A to speak to him to reach an agreement regarding the fence; it offered to facilitate a meeting to this end if needed. It confirmed that it would only grant permission for the fence if both he and Miss A agreed on its position.
14. The resident replied to the landlord on 13 September 2019 to clarify that he did not accept the current placement and dimensions of Miss A’s fence and specified alterations he wanted to enable him to use his drive to “have visibility of pedestrians when pulling out”.
15. On 15 October 2019, the landlord wrote to Miss A to ask her to remove the fence within 14 days as no agreement had been reached between her and the resident. This was relayed to him on 18 October 2019.
16. In response to an update request from the resident on 20 November 2019, the landlord replied later that day to advise that it was considering legal action to remove the fence which she had not yet taken down.
17. The resident reported to the landlord on 11 December 2019 that the fence, which remained in situ, was creating a “concealed area” which was being used as a “hang out point and rubbish dump”. It replied on 18 December 2019 to advise that it had inspected the area and found that the debris reported was “mainly leaves” which it had arranged to be cleared as a “one off gesture of goodwill”. The landlord confirmed it would be visiting Miss A the following day to discuss the fence.
18. On 10 January 2020, the landlord relayed a request from Miss A to the resident to reconsider his position on the fence, as she had erected it for security reasons. It also relayed that she was hopeful of an improvement in the relationship between them and asked if he would reconsider mediation. The resident replied on 14 January 2020 to state that the suggestion of mediation was “insulting” and insisted that the landlord, if it were to allow the fence to remain, arrange for him to be rehoused in a property of his choice.
19. The landlord confirmed to the resident, on 16 January 2020, that Miss A’s fence would be taken down in nine days.
20. On 25 February 2020 the resident reported that, since the removal of the fence, Miss A had been using his drive to access her property and storing her rubbish bins on the edge of his drive. He described the rubbish being blown onto his drive and being left open, resulting in a bad smell. The resident requested again for the landlord to relocate him to a property of his choice.
21. The landlord replied to the resident the following day saying that it did not consider the issue of Miss A’s bins being blown over as ASB and would take no further action on the matter. It confirmed that it had previously warned Miss A against using his driveway to access her property but did not consider this to be sufficient breach of tenancy to justify further enforcement action. The landlord repeated its offer of mediation between the resident and Miss A to help resolve matters. It advised him that his request for a management transfer did not meet its threshold and provided information for him to apply for rehousing.
22. The landlord emailed the resident on 11 March 2020 to advise that it was closing the ASB case. It relayed that it had carried out enforcement action to facilitate the removal of the boundary fence erected by Miss A. The landlord noted that the resident had since reported that, following the removal of the fence, he was unhappy with Miss A’s placement of her bins which occasionally blew onto his driveway.
23. The landlord said it did not consider the occasional use of the resident’s driveway by Miss A nor the placement of her bins to be malicious and advised that these were issues best resolved through mediation. It noted that this had been declined by him and therefore it would close the case and take no further action.
24. On a telephone call between the resident and the landlord on 12 March 2020, he conveyed the distress he had experienced as a result of Miss A’s actions. The landlord subsequently raised these issues as a stage one complaint and emailed the resident to acknowledge this on 13 March 2020.
25. The landlord spoke to the resident on 18 March 2020 to discuss the complaint and he stated his dissatisfaction with the way Miss A went about the erection of the fence without consulting him. He stated that he had not discussed the matters directly with her and believed that Miss A was colluding with other neighbours to “do what she wants”.
26. The resident advised that he had reported the depositing of dog faeces by the bins on the driveway to the environmental health service and he was awaiting an inspection. He was unhappy with Miss A using his driveway to access her property and her placing her bins on the edge of the drive, which blew over and left rubbish on his drive. The resident stated that the landlord had closed the ASB without taking action.
27. On 23 March 2020 the landlord issued its stage one complaint response. It relayed that, as there was no clearly defined boundary between the two properties, and the resident had not agreed with the position of the fence, it had not granted permission for the fence. It noted that Miss A, her visitors and her bins encroached on his driveway but did not consider these acts to be malicious or a breach of tenancy.
28. The landlord acknowledged that a bag of dog faeces had been found by Miss A’s bins on the driveway and could not prove that this had been left there by Miss A although it considered this likely. It contended that, as this was the first occurrence of this incident, there may be a reasonable explanation and proposed to investigate further if there was a repeat incident.
29. The landlord confirmed that it had offered mediation to the resident and Miss A to reach an agreement, but he had declined this. It considered that this proposal had constituted a reasonable and proportionate response to the issues he had reported.
30. The resident emailed the landlord on 26 March 2020 to express his dissatisfaction with its stage one complaint response. He described it as “disappointing” and requested details for escalating the complaint to this Service.
31. The landlord replied to the resident on 30 March 2020 to ask which elements of its response he considered unsatisfactory and he responded on 17 April 2020 to contend that the complaint “should technically be stage 3” as the dispute had begun over two years ago when Miss A had moved into her property. He stated that it had been “misleading him” by assuring him that it would investigate and enforce Miss A’s breaches of tenancy which had caused him “grief, stress and anxiety”.
32. The resident stated that he had informed the landlord two plus years ago about “deliberate and provocative anti-social behaviour” from Miss A. He expressed his belief that she was colluding with his other neighbour and this led to him experiencing property damage and “abusive intimidating behaviour”.
33. The resident contended that the landlord’s inaction in enforcing tenancy conditions on his neighbours had led to their assuming they had “tacit approval” to continue with their ASB. His desired resolution was for the landlord to arrange a relocation for him to a “similar property in a location of our choice” as he was in an “unsafe environment”.
34. An internal email from the landlord on 20 May 2020 showed that the complaints officer originally due to investigate the complaint was unable to do so due to the impact of Covid 19 and the case reassigned to another officer, with the deadline for response extended to 27 May 2020.
35. The landlord spoke to the resident on 20 May 2020 and emailed him later that day to acknowledge and summarise the points of the complaint and to apologise for the delay in responding.
36. The resident replied to the landlord on 22 May 2020 to assert that the points mentioned in its last email did not “even begin to address [his] dilemma”. He contended that the situation had been ongoing for over two years and urged it to consider all correspondence between it and himself over that period. The resident repeated that Miss A and his other neighbours were colluding with each other to perpetrate ASB against him and expressed concern over “enduring further victimisation”.
37. The landlord issued its final stage complaint response on 27 May 2020 to the resident in which it acknowledged his concerns but found that the actions it had taken in response to his reports of ASB had been reasonable and proportionate, and in accordance with its ASB policy. It relayed that it had spoken to, written to and visited Miss A, in addition to offering mediation between the two parties.
38. The landlord noted that the resident had declined mediation and explained that formal tenancy enforcement actions would not have been appropriate as these were to be used in the most serious cases. It added that this type of action would have contravened its policy to refrain from taking enforcement action unless it was absolutely necessary.
39. Regarding the resident’s desired resolution of being rehoused, the landlord noted that he had already been provided with information on seeking a new property and offered to provide additional support with this if he needed. It confirmed that it had previously considered his request for a management move and had declined this. The landlord asserted that this decision had been made in accordance with its lettings and marketing policy, which only allowed transfers in exceptional circumstances, such as being a victim of serious violence. It confirmed that this response concluded its internal complaints process.
40. The landlord’s internal email on 29 May 2020 recorded that it spoke to the resident that day to advise that the environmental health team had spoken to Miss A about the dog faeces he had reported, which she denied responsibility for. It explained to him that no further action could be taken without evidence. The landlord offered to investigate the resident’s reports of nuisance from youths visiting his other neighbour but he declined to log incidents of this.
41. The resident emailed the landlord on 12 June 2020 to report that youths were kicking balls against his car and front door and there had been an increase in the appearance of dog faeces stretching along the length of his drive. On 15 July 2020 he reported that there was still dog faeces in his drive, Miss A was still accessing her property by walking over his drive, and there was an escalation in the youths playing football outside his property.

Assessment and findings

42. It is noted that the resident submits that there has been ASB perpetrated over the two years prior to his complaint. However, there was a significant interval between his report of ASB on 27 July 2017 and his report on 23 July 2019 and there is no evidence of any reports of ASB being made to the landlord in the intervening time. The Housing Ombudsman Scheme limits the Ombudsman’s consideration of a case to issues that have been raised with both the landlord and the Ombudsman within a reasonable timeframe. Therefore, this assessment will focus on events from 23 July 2019 onwards.
43. The role of the Ombudsman is not to determine whether ASB occurred; instead, this Service’s role is to assess whether the landlord responded reasonably to the reports of ASB made to it and acted in accordance with its policies and procedures.
44. On receiving the resident’s objections on 23 July 2019 to the erection of a fence on the boundary of his property, it was appropriate for the landlord to investigate the issue as an ASB case as this would reasonably fall under the category of a boundary dispute in its tenancy enforcement guide, above at point 3. The resident mentioned experiencing ASB from youths banging his car on 13 August 2019 but there is no evidence that he submitted an ASB complaint about that to its website as requested by the landlord in its reply later that day. Therefore, it was reasonable that this was not investigated as ASB.
45. As the landlord could not identify a clear boundary line between the two properties, as stated in its email to Miss A on 19 August 2019, it was reasonable for it to suggest facilitating a meeting between the resident and Miss A so that they could come to an agreement about the position of the fence. This was in line with the landlord’s tenancy enforcement guide above at point 5.
46. As an agreement could not ultimately be reached between the resident and Miss A on the position of the fence, it was appropriate for the landlord to ask her to remove the fence on 15 October 2019, as she had not obtained permission for that. This was a reasonable response from the landlord to the resident’s concerns, as it carried out proportionate enforcement action. 
47. It is noted that the landlord proposed mediation between the resident and Miss A on 10 January 2020 to come to an agreement about the fence. This was a reasonable and proportionate response by the landlord in light of the nature of the disagreement between the two parties and was in accordance with its tenancy enforcement guide above at point 5.
48. The landlord’s stage one complaint response on 23 March 2020 stated that the reported encroachment on the resident’s driveway by Miss A and her rubbish bins and the discovery of dog faeces were not actionable breaches of the tenancy. This was a reasonable response that was in accordance with its tenancy enforcement guide above at point 4. This guide explains that formal action is taken only when there is sufficient evidence of an individual acting in an anti‑social way. As it did not have evidence of this, it was reasonable for it to take no further action.
49. In conclusion, the landlord responded to the resident’s report of ASB from Miss A reasonably and proportionately by intervening between the two parties, as shown in its emails of 12 September 2019 and 10 January 2020, proposing mediation to resolve their differences, and enforcing Miss A tenancy breach by ordering the removal of the fence. Therefore, the landlord has not demonstrated any failings in the handling of the resident’s reports of ASB.

Determination

50. In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was no maladministration by the landlord in response to the resident’s reports of ASB from his neighbour.

Reasons

51. The landlord carried out appropriate enforcement action to the resident’s report of a boundary dispute and took reasonable and proportionate actions in response to his reports of Miss A depositing dog faeces, accessing her property from his driveway and placing her bins on the edge of his driveway.