Places for People Group Limited (202014269)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202014269

Places for People Homes Limited

19 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

The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of tenancy breaches by her neighbour.
The Ombudsman has also considered the landlord’s complaint handling.

Background and summary of events

Background

The resident holds an assured tenancy with the landlord which began in October 2011. The resident lives in the property, a two-bedroom semi-detached bungalow, with her husband. Both the resident and her husband are elderly, have a number of health conditions known to the landlord, and use mobility scooters.
The resident’s property is at right angles to her neighbour’s property. A forked driveway serves the resident’s property, her neighbour’s property, and a third property that is joined to the neighbour’s property. The layout of the properties is such that the area of driveway where the resident’s neighbour parks their car is next to a grassed portion of the resident’s garden. The grassed area is separated from the driveway by a double slabbed pathway which gives access to the neighbour’s property and the rear of the resident’s property.
The tenancy agreement sets out the obligations of the landlord and tenant. The tenant’s obligations include: to be responsible for their own conduct; not to do anything which may cause a nuisance to, annoy, inconvenience or disturb other tenants; not to harass, threaten to harass, abuse or cause offence to neighbours; not to use threatening, violent or aggressive language or behaviour towards other people in the locality; not to park any vehicle at the premises, except in any garage, hardstanding, driveway or paved area intended for parking; not to make any improvements, alterations or additions to the property without first obtaining the landlord’s written consent; and not to install CCTV recording equipment without the landlord’s written approval.
The landlord’s antisocial behaviour (ASB) and harassment policy states that its aim is to respond to ASB cases promptly and professionally and to seek an outcome that will resolve the issue. This includes keeping in weekly contact with a person who has reported an ASB incident until the case is closed (unless otherwise agreed). ASB is defined in the policy as “behaviour which has caused or is likely to cause alarm, distress, nuisance or annoyance to any person or cause damage to anyone’s property”. Harassment is defined as “deliberate words or actions which are unwelcome and which cause offence or distress”, usually on a repeated basis, and includes verbal abuse and threats of violence.
The ASB policy states that the landlord will not always get involved in everything that is reported to it as causing a nuisance, and that it will consider the severity, frequency and reasonableness of an activity when deciding whether it is antisocial. A report made by a resident may be a tenancy issue, a criminal matter, or both. To resolve ASB cases, it will employ a range of ‘early stage’ options, including interviews, verbal and written warnings, face-to-face meetings, mediation, and Acceptable Behaviour Contracts (ABCs). Where early intervention does not resolve a situation, or where incidents are of a serious nature, it will decide what enforcement action is most appropriate on a case-by-case basis.
The landlord operates a two-stage formal complaints process, with the option of a referral to its independent complaints panel (prior to or as an alternative to a referral to this Service) if a customer remains dissatisfied with its stage two response. At stage one, the landlord will acknowledge complaints within five working days and respond within ten working days, and at stage two, it will acknowledge an escalation request within three working days and respond within 20 working days.

Scope of investigation

While the Ombudsman would normally take limited account of historic information, some key incidents are included in the summary below which have had a substantial influence on subsequent events. The landlord’s response to these forms the foundation of the resident’s complaint, which itself was delayed in completing the landlord’s complaints process, and so discretion has been used to consider them in making a determination. This approach is considered appropriate and fair in the particular circumstances of the case.

Summary of events

Shortly before the events of this investigation, on a date not confirmed to this Service, the resident installed artificial grass in her garden and erected a low metal fence surrounding the grassed portion. She did this to prevent neighbours and their visitors from walking or driving over the grassed area of her garden, which had been an issue in the past. The resident did not seek the landlord’s permission or planning permission to erect the fence, and the matter was reported to the local authority’s planning department. Following a visit, the local authority allowed the fence to remain in place, and the landlord granted retrospective permission to the resident.
On 22 May 2019 the resident reported to the police that her neighbour had been parking their car close to her fence, which prevented her from accessing the rear of her property and could be dangerous in the event of a fire. She said the neighbour wanted her to remove the fence and was causing her a lot of stress. Due to the lack of gap between her fence and her neighbour’s car, she and her husband were unable to park their mobility scooters at the side of their property. The police visited the resident’s neighbour to speak to them about the issue. They advised the resident and her neighbour to have no further contact with each other and to go through the landlord in the event of any future issues.
On 18 October 2019 the resident reported an incident involving her neighbour to the police. The neighbour had had some sand delivered to their property and the resident asked them to move it. An altercation reportedly ensued during which the neighbour made threats towards the resident and her husband, saying “If you carry on I will do the both of you”, and attempted to force entry to the resident’s property after she had gone inside. The resident said that she had to hold the door closed to prevent her neighbour from entering, and that her door handle was damaged during the course of the incident. The incident was witnessed by another local resident, who intervened after hearing shouting and discouraged the resident’s neighbour from trying to enter her property. The resident and the witness believed that the neighbour intended to cause injury to the resident and her husband.
The police visited the resident and her neighbour on 21 October 2019. During the visit, it became apparent that the incident resulted from an ongoing dispute between the parties in relation to the resident’s fence and the neighbour’s parking. The police advised that these were civil matters and not something the police would deal with. They concluded that the neighbour’s words to the resident amounted to a “conditional threat” that was made “in the heat of the moment”, and that no damage had been caused to the door that could be confirmed to result from the neighbour’s actions. The police gave advice in relation to crime prevention, which included use of CCTV, and advised the resident to contact the landlord about the boundary between the properties. The police took no further action due to “evidential limitations”.
The Ombudsman understands that the resident reported the incidents on 22 May 2019 and 18 October 2019 to the landlord at or around the time they occurred, although this Service has not had the opportunity to inspect any records relating to such communication. In October 2019 the resident employed a solicitor to liaise with the landlord on her behalf. The resident’s solicitor wrote to the landlord on 28 October 2019, referring to both incidents and to the ongoing parking/fence dispute. The solicitor’s letter asked the landlord to take action in relation to tenancy breaches by the neighbour and the neighbour’s behaviour towards the resident. During subsequent correspondence, the landlord said the incident on 22 May 2019 was “too historical to merit enforcement action” but that it would investigate more recent matters and liaise with the police. On 3 and 9 December 2019 the landlord attempted to contact the local resident who had witnessed the incident on 18 October 2019, but received no reply.
On 23 December 2019 the landlord wrote to the resident. In relation to the matters raised by the resident via her solicitor, it said that:
1. The resident had installed a fence without its permission. After initially asking the resident to remove the fence, it had later decided to grant retrospective permission subject to certain conditions. One of these was that the landlord reserved the right to revoke its permission.
2. It had investigated the resident’s reports about her neighbour’s behaviour by seeking disclosure from the police and attempting to contact potential witnesses. Its investigation had not resulted in evidence that would support enforcement proceedings in connection with a breach of tenancy. It had now closed its investigation.
3. The section of pavement on which the resident’s neighbour was reportedly parking was not part of the highway and so parking restrictions were not enforceable. It had written to the neighbour and asked them “to respect that the resident needed space for use a mobility scooter, and to ensure that they gave consideration to this when parking”.
Further correspondence between the resident’s solicitor and the landlord, which took place between January and November 2020, covered the following points:
1. The resident was unhappy with the way the neighbour dispute and parking issues had been handled by the landlord, and with its proposed resolution.
2. She believed her neighbour’s behaviour amounted to breaches of the landlord’s tenancy conditions relating to respect of others, nuisance, harassment, violent and threatening behaviour, parking, and CCTV.
3. The neighbour had admitted some of the reported behaviour to the police.
4. The resident provided a statement from the third party who witnessed the incident on 18 October 2019. She also provided police incident reports for the incidents of 22 May 2019 and 18 October 2019, which she had requested from the police.
5. The resident felt the landlord should warn her neighbour about their conduct.
6. The landlord believed its action in 2019 was “proportionate and adequate”.
7. The landlord reiterated its offer of mediation, but the resident’s neighbour declined to take part.
8. There were further issues related to the neighbour receiving a delivery of sand which blocked the resident’s access in September 2020. The landlord accepted that this action by the neighbour “appeared to be antagonistic”.
9. The landlord suggested that the resident considered removing her fence. The resident refused.
On 9 December 2020 the resident’s solicitor wrote to the landlord on the resident’s behalf, stating that “this letter should please be taken as a formal complaint by our client”. This stated that:
1. The resident’s neighbour appeared to have “some sort of vendetta” against her and the ongoing problems were “entirely of [the neighbour’s] own making”.
2. The resident had had various dealings with the landlord regarding the matter, but it had not taken adequate action, treated her complaints seriously, or delivered a satisfactory service.
3. On many occasions the landlord had promised to respond or take action by certain dates, but had not done so.
4. The problems seemed to start after the resident erected a fence on her property. The resident suspected that a complaint subsequently lodged with the local authority was made by her neighbour.
5. The neighbour then put up CCTV “all around” their property, breaching the resident’s privacy. The cameras had remained in place although the resident understood the landlord had told her neighbour to take them down.
6. The main ongoing issue was that the neighbour continued to park their vehicle in a manner that unnecessarily blocked the resident’s access to her property.
7. A threat made by the neighbour towards the resident on 18 October 2019 had not been taken seriously by the landlord, even though evidence from an independent witness had been provided to it.
8. The neighbour’s conduct amounted to several breaches of the landlord’s tenancy agreement.
9. The resident wanted the landlord to “look at the matter afresh” and take appropriate action in relation to any tenancy breaches it found to be occurring. The outcomes she sought were for her neighbour to remove their cameras and to move their vehicle.
The landlord wrote to the resident on 16 December 2020, stating that:
1. It had received reports from both the resident and her neighbour. The resident had reported harassment and threatening behaviour by the neighbour, and the neighbour had made reports regarding the resident’s fence and CCTV.
2. When considering any civil proceedings, it had to take into account all allegations and evidence and determine whether there were sufficient grounds to make a court application. It also had to assess whether legal action was a reasonable and proportionate way to resolve the issue.
3. Having considered all the information from the resident, her solicitor, her neighbour and the police, it found there was insufficient evidence for it to take legal action against either party. It also found that legal proceedings would be a disproportionate response to the neighbour dispute.
4. It wanted to pursue a resolution that would enable all parties to feel safe and enjoy their homes. The resident had previously agreed to shuttle mediation, and her neighbour had now also agreed to take part. It had therefore instructed its mediation provider to contact both parties to progress a referral.
5. It considered that this was “the only viable solution to the situation” as the resident lived in close proximity to her neighbour and some form of continued relationship must exist between them.
6. It asked the resident to engage with the mediation process, which would include negotiation and agreement by all parties regarding their use of CCTV.
On 17 December 2020 the resident’s solicitor sent an “addendum” to the previous letter of 9 December 2020, which contained the following additional information:
1. The resident had lived at her property for nine years, whereas her neighbour had lived at theirs for three years.
2. The resident had tried to resolve the problem with her neighbour herself but had been met with abuse.
3. The resident had previously agreed on two occasions to take part in mediation, but her neighbour refused.
4. There had been a further incident on 14 December 2020 when the resident fitted a CCTV camera at her property (with the landlord’s permission). The neighbour came out of their property and moved their car so that it blocked access for the resident’s contractor. When asked to move their vehicle, the neighbour refused, asking the contractor whether the resident had permission to install the camera. They then reportedly made a “physical threat” against the resident. The contractor witnessed this and was happy to give evidence to the landlord and/or police.
Internal correspondence by the landlord between 21 December 2020 and 13 January 2021 stated that it had received “correspondence relating to a formal complaint” by the resident. The landlord initially noted that it should contact the resident to confirm whether she wished for a complaint to be registered, and if she did then it would need to produce a stage one response. However, it later concluded that “it would be counterproductive to log this as a formal complaint at this stage, especially as a solicitor is involved”. The landlord’s customer focus team said it would be inappropriate for it to take any action, and no other team or officer subsequently responded to the complaint.
In January 2021 the landlord did not respond to a further request from the resident’s solicitor for it to confirm receipt of their letters dated 9 and 17 December 2020, and in February 2021 the resident contacted this Service for assistance. On 12 June 2021 the Ombudsman asked the landlord to provide a response to the resident’s complaint within ten working days.
An internal email by the landlord on 16 June 2021 noted that it had spoken to the resident and identified the key points of her complaint, which were that:
1. The resident had made a formal complaint in 2019. The landlord explained its complaints process and apologised that it had not previously investigated a formal complaint by the resident, but said it would do so now.
2. The resident was dissatisfied with the following aspects of the landlord’s response to neighbour issues she had reported:
  1. The landlord had not stopped her neighbour from parking “across her back gate”, which had been ongoing since October 2019;
  2. The landlord had not responded to contacts and photos sent in relation to this matter, despite the resident employing a solicitor to contact the landlord on her behalf at a cost of over £1,000;
  3. The landlord had not taken action in relation to ASB and threatening behaviour by the resident’s neighbour, including an incident where the neighbour tried to get into the resident’s home and witnesses said it was likely they would have hurt her if third parties had not intervened.
3. The resident had reported incidents to the police, who had visited her neighbour five times.
4. The resident’s neighbour had confronted a contractor who was installing CCTV at the resident’s property and questioned if permission had been granted for it to be installed. They asked for sight of the permission and reportedly told the contractor and others present that they would “put [the resident and her husband] in body bags”.
5. The landlord had suggested putting slabs in the resident’s garden to provide an alternative route of access to her back gate. However, the resident did not want the landlord to do this and did not see why the landlord should pay for additional slabbing when it was her neighbour’s car that should be moved.
6. The resident was no longer willing to consider mediation, and wanted the landlord to stop her neighbour from parking in a way that blocked her access to her back gate.
On 28 June 2021 the landlord emailed the resident and apologised for its delays in dealing with her complaint. It said it had requested a disclosure from the police, and as it had not yet received a reply, it asked if the resident would agree to extend the deadline for its complaint response until 8 July 2021. It then issued its stage one response to the resident’s complaint on that date, stating that:
1. The resident had explained the effect the alleged nuisance by her neighbour had been having on her. It reassured her that it took incidents and reports of ASB seriously and dealt with them robustly.
2. It understood that different people may be distressed or alarmed by different types of behaviour and activity. It would not always get involved in everything that was reported to it as causing a nuisance, but it would always consider how severely the behaviour was affecting others, how regularly it was happening, and whether it was unreasonable.
3. It did not uphold the resident’s complaint regarding parking:
  1. The “trigger point” of the neighbour dispute was when the resident erected a fence with a small opening gate. The resident was finding it difficult to open the gate when a car was parked close by.
  2. The neighbour’s property was adapted and one of the adaptations was a path for wheelchair/scooter use with adequate kerbing.
  3. The landlord gave retrospective permission to the resident for her fence “in good faith”, but access to the rear of her property did not appear to have been an issue prior to the erection of the fence.
  4. The landlord had tried to resolve the resulting dispute through mediation or by installing an alternative path within the fenced area.
  5. While reviewing the resident’s complaint it had contacted the neighbour and asked for them to ensure they parked their car with consideration, but it would not be pursuing a tenancy breach as it was satisfied they were being mindful of their other next-door neighbour’s vehicle and family situation.
  6. The resident may choose to remove her fence to enable free access according to the original layout of the properties.
  7. Its offer of mediation remained open.
4. It did not uphold the resident’s complaint regarding alleged ASB:
  1. It had taken appropriate action against the neighbour in relation to allegations the resident had made in the past, including an incident on 18 October 2019. The action was not as severe as the resident expected due to the police not pursuing the matter any further.
  1. It had contacted the police about the neighbour dispute and if any evidence of a breach of tenancy was presented to it, it would take appropriate action and update the resident.
  2. The delay in receiving a response from the police was part of the reason it asked to extend its response time to the resident’s stage one complaint.
  3. It had suggested implementing a Good Neighbour Agreement (GNA) or Acceptable Behaviour Contract (ABC), but the resident did not want to do that as she felt she had done nothing wrong.
  4. It assessed each case on its own merits and took account of a number of factors when making decisions, including any vulnerability or disability; the type and intensity of the behaviour; the effect on others; the evidence provided; whether the behaviour was criminal in nature; and whether it was intentionally causing harassment, alarm or distress to those affected. It must also be satisfied that any action was proportionate.
  5. It did not trivialise reports by its customers and recognised that if someone reported an issue, they must be affected by it. This was why it had opened an ASB case and visited the resident at home following the incident she reported in 2019. The case was closed due to lack of sufficient evidence.
5. It did not uphold the resident’s complaint regarding CCTV:
  1. It had received allegations and counter-allegations regarding CCTV installed by the resident and her neighbour.
  1. It had visited both households and explained its expectations.
  2. It understood that the police had also visited.
  3. It was agreed that if either party felt their privacy was being breached, they should complain to the Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO). The landlord would follow up any recommendations made by the ICO.
6. It upheld the resident’s complaint regarding its communication:
  1. Having reviewed its records, it could see that there were occasions when it did not respond to correspondence from the resident.
  1. It sincerely apologised for this, and it would be sending the resident vouchers to the value of £25 to say sorry for its service failure.
  2. It understood the resident had spent a considerable amount of money on assistance from solicitors. If she wished to take further action regarding this matter, she could do so at any time.
7. If the resident was dissatisfied with its response to her complaint or felt it had not responded fully to her concerns, she could escalate her complaint by contacting its customer service centre.
On 13 July 2021 the resident wrote to the landlord regarding her neighbour’s CCTV. She said that her neighbour had disregarded the landlord’s advice and had installed another camera. She also said the police had confirmed that her neighbour had “filmed her with both vision and sound”. The landlord replied the following day that its position remained unchanged and that it would not enter into further correspondence with the resident and her neighbour in relation to CCTV.
On 18 July 2021 the resident requested to escalate her complaint to stage two of the landlord’s complaints process, stating that:
1. Since she raised her complaint, her neighbour had installed another CCTV camera. The ICO had previously warned her neighbour in relation to the positioning of their cameras and advised the resident to report any further issues to the police. She did this on 4 July 2021 and the police visited on 16 July 2021. She assumed the police had told her neighbour to take down three of their cameras as they were no longer there, but she felt the landlord should have told her neighbour to take the cameras down.
2. The resident had sent the landlord a letter from the third party who witnessed the incident on 18 October 2019, but this was never acknowledged. The resident felt the landlord should have dealt with this incident and the incident on 14 December 2020 as a breach of her neighbour’s tenancy conditions. The landlord also did not visit the resident following the incident in October 2019, as the stage two response stated, but ten months later in August 2020. The resident did not want her neighbour to be prosecuted but felt they should receive a tenancy warning. She provided four videos that she asked the landlord to watch “to see what we have had to put up with for over two years”.
3. The landlord had not consulted her neighbour’s other next-door neighbour regarding the parking issues and their requirements. The landlord also incorrectly stated in its response to this part of her complaint that there was a gate in the fence erected by the resident, whereas in fact her complaint about access related to the wooden garden gate at the rear of her property.
4. The landlord’s offer of £25 in vouchers did not come close to the amount she had spent on solicitors’ fees. She had only employed a solicitor as she thought their involvement would motivate the landlord to reply to her correspondence, but it did not. The resident had to pay for each contact the solicitor sent to the landlord, which resulted in fees of over £1,000. The landlord’s offer of redress also did not recognise the anxiety and suffering experienced by the resident as a result of the landlord’s communication failures. She wanted the landlord to arrange for its staff to complete training in relation to tenancy management and “how to treat their tenants as people and not ignore them”.
The landlord acknowledged the resident’s escalation request on 21 July 2021 and contacted her to discuss her complaint on 29 July 2021. It then issued its stage two response on 17 August 2021, stating that:
1. It thanked the resident for discussing her complaint, and confirmed that she had agreed the areas of investigation and outcomes sought.
2. It did not uphold the resident’s complaint regarding CCTV:
  1. The resident and her neighbour had both complained to the landlord regarding each other’s CCTV cameras.
  2. The landlord sought advice from the police and subsequently advised the resident to report any suspected privacy breaches to the ICO. The ICO was responsible for regulating and enforcing the Data Protection Act.
  3. It was the responsibility of the owner of CCTV equipment to adhere to relevant legislation.
  4. The resident had informed the landlord that her neighbour was visited by the police and later removed their cameras.
  5. If the landlord was informed by the police or ICO that they had instructed the resident’s neighbour to remove the cameras, it would support this recommendation by asking the neighbour not to put the cameras back up.
  6. It had contacted the police to request more information regarding their visit. Until it received such information, it did not uphold the resident’s complaint about CCTV, but this outcome may change. It would contact the resident by the end of September 2021 with an update.
3. It did not uphold the resident’s complaint regarding alleged ASB:
  1. After the resident reported in October 2019 that her neighbour had behaved aggressively towards her, it investigated an ASB case. The case was closed because there was insufficient evidence for it to take enforcement action against the neighbour.
  1. It had explained in its stage one response that it would open a new ASB case if there was sufficient evidence for it to do so. It had since discussed the matter with the police, who were not progressing any criminal proceedings against the resident’s neighbour.
  2. The police considered the resident’s case to be a “low level ASB case” and had advised the resident and her neighbour accordingly. For this reason, the landlord would not open a new ASB case or warn the resident’s neighbour.
4. It did not uphold the resident’s complaint regarding parking:
  1. It apologised for the error in its stage one response regarding the location of the resident’s gate.
  1. It thanked the resident for clarifying the position of the gate and for providing a number of videos, which had been useful to its assessment of the situation.
  2. It had considered the parking arrangements for the resident and her neighbours. It was mindful of factors that restricted where the resident’s neighbour could park, including the need for them to be able to open their car doors fully, the need to leave room for their other neighbour to park, and a ramp which limited the available space.
  3. The path the neighbour was parking on was installed by the landlord for a previous tenant who needed wheelchair access. The path was therefore part of the neighbour’s property.
  4. The parking issues appeared to start when the resident erected a fence in her garden. Before the fence was installed, the resident used to walk across her garden to access her back gate. While the landlord understood why the resident had installed the fence, the fence had caused unintended consequences by obstructing the resident’s previous route of access to her gate.
  5. The landlord had offered to place a path across the front of the resident’s home, so she could still access her gate by crossing her garden. The resident could also consider removing part of the fence or putting a gate in it.
  6. It had found no evidence that the resident’s neighbour was deliberately parking in a way designed to antagonise and provoke the resident.
  7. It had previously asked the neighbour to be considerate when parking, and it accepted that perhaps they could be more considerate. However, it did not intend to ask them to move their car or to take enforcement action against them.
5. It upheld the resident’s complaint regarding communication:
  1. It apologised for not responding to correspondence from the resident. This happened because a member of staff was on leave and communications sent to them were not picked up by another officer. It agreed that this was not acceptable and was sorry.
  1. It was reviewing its processes and would be implementing a system that allowed it to operate in a more efficient way and to prevent such issues from recurring.
  2. The relevant team was aware of the mistake and would not allow it to happen again.
  3. It understood the resident was sent a £25 voucher for its service failure as part of its stage one response.
6. It was sorry the resident felt it did not listen to her. It had taken her complaint seriously and investigated it thoroughly, and had tried various things to help resolve the issues – such as offering mediation – which were unsuccessful.
7. It did not believe it had the grounds to take enforcement action against the resident’s neighbour. It appreciated this was not the outcome sought by the resident but hoped its explanation provided an understanding of how it reached its conclusion.
8. If the resident was not satisfied with its response, she could contact a designated person or this Service. She also had the option of referring her complaint to its independent complaints panel, which comprised a group of customers trained in reviewing complaints and could act as a designated person.
The resident requested to refer her complaint to the landlord’s independent complaints panel in September 2021 and provided additional information for the panel to consider. The panel issued its findings and recommendations on 9 December 2021, which were that:
1. There was some confusion regarding communal areas and rights of access. The resident had assigned responsibility for her front garden, but everyone had rights of access to it and could walk across.
2. The landlord was responsible for causing the dispute between the resident and her neighbour to develop by allowing the fence to remain in place.
3. It was concerned that the fence presented a fire hazard. The resident needed an escape route in the event of a fire, and her access to her rear garden was made more awkward by the fence as it now depended on the neighbour’s parking.
4. The landlord had fallen short in its permissions, communications, and timely support to the resident.
5. It recommended that:
  1. The fence should be removed.
  2. The landlord should visit the resident to discuss and support her with removal of the fence, and should also inform her in writing of its position.
  3. The landlord should take responsibility for the removal of the fence and dealing with any illegal security cameras.
  4. The landlord should write to its tenants regarding rules around CCTV, rights of access, permissions for improvements and access for repairs. It should also address these matters with the parties involved in this case.
  5. The landlord should review its approach to permissions in relation to gardens and fencing, as this was not specifically mentioned in the ‘improvements’ section of its tenancy agreement.

Post complaint

On 7 January 2022 the landlord wrote to the resident, stating that it supported the recommendation by the panel that her fence was removed and that it revoked its permission for the fence to remain in place.
On 11 January 2022 the landlord visited the resident. This was evidently an emotional meeting during which the resident agreed to take the fence down once the landlord had complied with the panel’s other recommendations, notably in relation to her neighbour’s CCTV. She also agreed to mediation. The landlord made a mediation referral with both parties’ consent on 17 January 2022; mediation later took place, but this did not fully resolve the dispute between the resident and her neighbour.
On 2 March 2022 the resident informed this Service that she had been in further contact with the ICO and police in relation to a more up-to-date camera her neighbour had installed, but the police had been unable to take any action. She said she had not been able to sit in her front garden for three years due to fears that her neighbour was recording and listening to her conversations.
On 15 March 2023 the resident informed this Service that she continued to experience ASB and harassment from her neighbour. Recent sources of contention included a pest control device that made a high-pitched noise; a light that shone into the resident’s garden; an over-height shed and another construction in her neighbour’s garden; four windchimes that her neighbour could not see from their property; a provocative sticker on her neighbour’s car; more CCTV cameras; and continued issues in relation to the fence/parking situation.

Assessment and findings

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of tenancy breaches by her neighbour

The resident’s report to the police in May 2019 did not relate to a specific incident, but to an ongoing situation involving her neighbour that was causing her distress. The police advised the resident and her neighbour to report any future issues to the landlord, but it is unclear whether the landlord was made aware of the situation at that time. Had it been aware, it would have been good practice for it to speak to the resident and her neighbour about the reasons for their dispute and a possible resolution.
The first documentary evidence of the landlord being made aware of the dispute between the resident and her neighbour is a letter from the resident’s solicitor dated 28 October 2019. It is assumed that the resident had already experienced difficulties in contacting the landlord, as she later said she had employed a solicitor for this reason. The landlord was therefore informed of the incident on 18 October 2019 a maximum of ten days after it occurred. While it is appreciated that the landlord’s decision about enforcement action may rightly be influenced by the outcome of the police investigation, such investigations are often lengthy, and it would have been appropriate for the landlord to write to the resident’s neighbour to notify them that it was aware of the reported incident and that the alleged behaviour may amount to a breach of its tenancy agreement.
The landlord delayed in carrying out its own investigation and did not attempt to contact a witness until five weeks after it had been made aware of the incident. It was reasonable for the landlord to make two attempts to contact the witness, but these attempts may have been more productive if they had been by telephone rather than by email (or a combination), and if they had taken place sooner after the incident. There is also no evidence that the landlord interviewed the resident’s neighbour about their alleged behaviour on 18 October 2019. The landlord’s subsequent decision to take no action against the neighbour appeared to have been based on the police’s decision to close the criminal case without action. However, this was not necessarily appropriate as the landlord was investigating a different matter – whether the resident’s neighbour had broken tenancy conditions, rather than the law – and had to consider whether allegations were proven ‘on the balance of probabilities’ rather than ‘beyond reasonable doubt’. If the landlord had separately concluded that there was insufficient evidence for it to act according to the civil level of proof, it should have explained this and set out justification for its decision.
The landlord told the resident in November 2019 that the events of May 2019 were “considered too historical to merit enforcement action”. It did not recognise that the resident’s report to the police in May 2019 was not in relation to a specific incident, but rather in relation to a situation that was still ongoing in November 2019. It would have been appropriate for the landlord to address all aspects of the neighbour dispute in its investigation following the incident in October 2019, which may have led it to consider the proportionality of other remedies such as a written warning. If the landlord did ultimately take some form of non-enforcement action against the neighbour, as it later alluded to in its complaint response, it should have informed the resident of this – not only to update her, but also to make her aware of any potential risk to her safety. The information in the complaint response, which said that the landlord had “taken appropriate action” in relation to the incident on 18 October 2019 but that the action was “not as severe as the resident expected”, conflicted with its advice to the resident on 23 December 2019, which was that its ASB investigation “had not resulted in evidence that would support a breach of tenancy” and was closed.
There is no evidence that the landlord took any action following a similar incident on 14 December 2020 when the neighbour allegedly made further threats towards the resident. Though the landlord may not have believed the neighbour’s threats to be credible, it should have investigated a reported breach of its tenancy agreement, including contacting identified witnesses. Its lack of response to this report by the resident was unacceptable.
In its subsequent complaint response, the landlord did not uphold the resident’s complaint about its handling of ASB reports involving her neighbour. It said it had “taken appropriate action” in relation to incidents the resident had reported, including the incident on 18 October 2019. There is no evidence to indicate that this was the case, or that (if action was taken) this was communicated to the resident at the time. The landlord’s stage one response said that it had explored an ABC with the neighbour, but had not proceeded as the resident felt she had done nothing wrong; in fact, there was no reason for the resident to be involved in any ABC implemented with her neighbour, and such a contract would not imply wrongdoing by the resident. It also said it recognised the impact of the incident in October 2019 on the resident by visiting her at home, whereas the visit was incidental and did not take place until nearly ten months later.
With regard to the parking issue, it was appropriate for the landlord to write to the resident’s neighbour and ask them to be considerate of the resident’s needs when positioning their vehicle. It informed the resident of action it had taken and provided a clear and evidence-based explanation for its reasoning. Over the course of several months, the landlord gave the resident a number of different explanations for why it would not take enforcement action in relation to parking. It was reasonable for the landlord to decide not to take enforcement action, but its differing explanations were confusing and called into question the consistency and objectivity of its approach.
The landlord’s approach to the resident’s concerns about her neighbour’s CCTV cameras was reasonable, particularly given that it had also received reports from the neighbour about the resident’s camera. The tenancy agreement states that the landlord can withdraw its permission for CCTV equipment if it believes that the equipment is intruding on the privacy of other residents, but does not state what the grounds for such a belief might be. Requiring evidence from the ICO and/or police was therefore an appropriate and fair position for the landlord to take. If the landlord had received information from the police which indicated that the neighbour’s CCTV system had an audio recording function, it would have been appropriate for it to enforce against this, but there is no evidence that such information had been received. The landlord could have been more proactive in seeking information from the police, and its advice to the resident that it would not enter into further correspondence about CCTV – when she had an ongoing complaint relating to this and other matters – was unhelpful. However, it correctly set out the process the resident should follow if she felt her neighbour’s CCTV was compromising her privacy, and confirmed that it would take appropriate supportive action if this process resulted in a privacy breach being identified by the relevant authorities.
Overall, the landlord often appeared to adopt an ‘all or nothing’ approach to the tenancy breaches reported by the resident. While it was right to conclude that legal action was not a proportionate response, other non-legal forms of action – such as visits, further verbal and written advice, warnings, an ABC or a GNA – may have been appropriate at various stages. The landlord’s complaint response said that it had considered an ABC or GNA, but there is no reference to this in its correspondence with the resident. Having sent an advice letter to the resident’s neighbour in relation to parking in or around December 2019, the landlord then missed a number of opportunities to follow an incremental approach. Had it drawn the neighbour’s attention to relevant tenancy conditions and the possible consequences of breaches, the prolonged distress and uncertainty caused to the resident may have been avoided or reduced.
The landlord’s complaint response referred to its policy of considering a number of factors when making decisions about a case, including vulnerability, the intensity and effect of the behaviour, the evidence provided, whether the behaviour was criminal, and whether it was intentional. The Ombudsman finds that there was extensive evidence of the resident’s vulnerability and the effect of her neighbour’s behaviour on her; that the resident had gone to great lengths to supply information that the landlord should have obtained itself, such as police reports and a witness statement; that some of the alleged behaviour was criminal, albeit that evidential difficulties prevented a prosecution; and that the landlord had previously agreed that some of the behaviour was intentional. The landlord said that it did not trivialise reports of ASB by its customers, but telling the resident that it agreed with the police’s assessment of her case as “low level” had the effect of trivialising her concerns.
In a case such as this, the Ombudsman would expect to see that a landlord has carried out a prompt and thorough investigation of reported tenancy breaches; made decisions based on all available evidence and in accordance with its policies; produced a clear action plan; and communicated its plan of action to the resident at the time, rather than waiting for a complaint to be made or stalling due to the involvement of a solicitor. The landlord’s failure to do these things, thereby causing additional confusion and worry for the resident, has resulted in a finding of service failure.
The Ombudsman has not examined the landlord’s decision to grant retrospective permission to the resident for her fence, or its later decision to withdraw its permission, as this was not part of the complaint referred to this Service. However, it is noted that this has been another sensitive matter for the landlord to deal with, and that its response to the resident’s concerns has taken account of decisions previously made by, and options available to, both the resident and itself.

Complaint handling

The resident first expressed her dissatisfaction with the landlord’s handling of her case on 10 January 2020, when a letter from her solicitor stated that “our clients … remain unhappy with the way in which the neighbour dispute and parking issues have been handled and the resolution you have proposed”. No reply to this letter was received, leading the solicitor to resend it on 18 February 2020. When the landlord responded in March 2020, it did not treat the resident’s communications as a complaint, and instead repeated its position and offer of mediation. This denied the resident a formal complaint investigation and response at a time when a review of the ASB case may have resulted in a different outcome.
By the time the resident complained again on 9 December 2020, this opportunity had been lost. A letter sent by the resident’s solicitor said that “this letter should please be taken as a formal complaint by our clients”. While the landlord made reference in internal correspondence to having received “a formal complaint”, it apparently decided not to follow its complaints process due to the involvement of a solicitor. One internal email stated that it should confirm with the resident whether she wished it to register a formal complaint, but it did not subsequently do so. When the landlord later reviewed its response in June 2021, it noted that it had discussed the complaint internally and “agreed … that it wouldn’t be logged as there was a solicitor involved and the legal situation was unclear at that time”. Rather than explaining its position to the resident, the landlord did not respond to her or her solicitor, resulting in the solicitor contacting the landlord again on 22 January 2021 and 15 February 2021. The resident subsequently contacted the Ombudsman, who asked the landlord to respond to her complaint.
Following contact from this Service, the landlord contacted the resident within four days to identify the key points of her complaint. It apologised for not responding to the resident’s complaint when she first made it, which was appropriate. It initially said it would send its stage one response by 28 June 2021, but later extended this to 8 July 2021; it told the resident the reason for the extension was that it was waiting for information from the police, whereas internal correspondence noted that its officer would struggle with the original target date as they worked part-time. In fact, there is no evidence that the landlord requested disclosure from the police until 13 August 2021, after the resident had escalated her complaint to stage two, and the information was not received until after the stage two response was issued. While it was reasonable for the landlord to negotiate an extension with the resident if it needed one, providing misleading information to explain this was unsatisfactory. It should also have managed its resources in order to try to meet the original response date once it had identified staffing as a potential issue, and agreed any extension with the resident in advance rather than on the day its response was due.
The landlord’s stage one response began by stating that addressing ASB effectively was “one of the most important issues for residents”, but did not give reassurance that this was also important to the landlord. It incorrectly stated that the metal fence installed by the resident had a gate, and that it was this gate that the neighbour’s parking prevented the resident from accessing. In fact, the gate that the resident could not access was a wooden garden gate installed by the landlord. While this was a relatively minor error, it demonstrated that its responder had not taken the time to fully understand the layout of the properties, the exact nature of the neighbour dispute, or the effect on the resident. The response also did not offer an explanation for why it had not responded to the resident’s complaints in 2020.
Following appropriate investigation, the landlord upheld the resident’s complaint regarding its communication. It agreed that there were occasions when it did not respond to the resident’s correspondence and apologised for its failure. However, the £25 it offered by way of compensation – which the resident said she was unhappy with in her escalation request – was not reflective of the distress and inconvenience experienced by the resident over a 21-month period, the time and trouble she invested in pursuing the matter, or the actual costs she incurred by employing a solicitor in an effort to improve the landlord’s response. It is noted that employing a solicitor was the resident’s choice, and that she was able to correspond with the landlord without using a professional intermediary. However, she clearly felt that paying for a solicitor was a worthwhile cost in view of the time and distress she believed it would save her. She had no reason to anticipate that the cost would be so high or that the solicitor’s involvement would actually delay the landlord’s response. The Ombudsman has seen 14 communications from the resident’s solicitor to the landlord, five of which were chasing responses to previous communications. Given that the resident has said she spent over £1,000 in solicitors’ fees, and that she paid a fee for each communication, a contribution towards this expense has been included in the compensation ordered.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was:
1. service failure by the landlord in its handling of the resident’s reports of tenancy breaches by her neighbour;
2. maladministration by the landlord in its complaint handling.

Reasons

The landlord did not take effective action in response to ASB incidents reported by the resident in May 2019, October 2019 and December 2020. Following each incident it delayed in gathering evidence and placed too much emphasis on decisions made by the police. This resulted in key evidence being lost or not considered. Its approach to the parking and CCTV related dispute between the resident and her neighbour was reasonable, although it gave conflicting explanations for its decision making and could have been more proactive in its investigation of these matters. Correspondence by the resident and her solicitor was frequently unanswered by the landlord, and while it recognised and apologised for this, it did not offer sufficient redress. The delays prolonged the distress and inconvenience caused to the resident.
The landlord disregarded the resident’s attempts to make a formal complaint in January 2020 and December 2020 due to the involvement of a solicitor. When it did respond to her complaint, following intervention by this Service, it extended the deadline for its stage one response at short notice and gave a misleading explanation for this to the resident. Its stage one response contained inaccurate information about the parking/fence issue. The complaint investigation did not appear to involve a thorough assessment of the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of tenancy breaches, and did not give adequate reassurance that it had handled her ASB reports appropriately.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

The landlord is ordered to do the following within four weeks of the date of this report:
1. Apologise to the resident.
2. Pay the resident £960, comprising:
  1. £200 for its failures in handling the resident’s reports of tenancy breaches by her neighbour;
  2. £360 in contribution towards the resident’s solicitor fees and additional time and trouble spent pursuing her reports and complaint;
  3. £300 for its complaints handling;
  4. £100 for the distress and inconvenience caused to the resident.
3. Write to the resident and her neighbour, referencing relevant tenancy conditions and setting out its position in relation to the parking/fence situation and CCTV. This should include details of any action that it has asked each party to take, timescales for compliance, and the consequences of non-compliance. It should also set out a clear process for both parties to follow in the event of further issues, such as those recently described by the resident.
4. Provide confirmation of compliance with the above to this Service.
The landlord is ordered to carry out a management review of the resident’s case within 12 weeks of the date of this report. This should consider the evidence that was available (or may have been available), any missed opportunities, and any staff training that may improve its future response to similar cases. A copy of the review must be provided to this Service.