Red Kite Community Housing Limited (202001036)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202001036

Red Kite Community Housing Limited

16 December 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 about:

a)     Anti-social behaviour concerning a neighbour.

b)     The condition of the neighbour’s garden.

  1. The landlord’s complaints handling has also been investigated.

Background and summary of events

Background

  1. The resident is a leaseholder of the landlord at the property. The property (‘the property’) is a first floor flat, beneath which is situated a ground floor flat tenanted by the neighbour (‘the neighbour’) about whom the resident’s complaint concerns. It has been confirmed that the neighbour is a tenant of the landlord.
  2. The evidence available to this investigation confirms a long history of reports about the neighbour. These reports date back to 2012 and include loud music, regular late night social events being held by the neighbour, overflowing rubbish and an untidy garden and use of drugs. There is evidence of the landlord previously having investigated these reports, primarily in relation to the condition of the neighbour’s garden, taking steps including issuing warnings to the neighbour and commencing its formal possession process (though not progressing to formal court action).
  3. In October 2017, the landlord responded to a formal complaint from the resident about the neighbour’s garden. It confirmed the steps it had taken in its attempts to work with the neighbour to improve the garden condition, which included formal action, and also confirmed that though this had resulted in an improvement, the garden condition had once again deteriorated with further formal action being pursued. The landlord accepted that cases such as this highlighted the need for it to improve its procedure for managing long standing cases, with a commitment that it would monitor the issue more frequently.
  4. The landlord responded to a further formal complaint from the resident regarding the neighbour in August 2019. The resident’s initial reports related to the landlord’s failure to follow procedures and protect the resident’s household and it having provided her with misleading information. The landlord’s complaint response detailed that it had attempted to contact the resident on multiple occasions (five attempts to call and four separate emails) but had not had a response, as such the landlord concluded that it was unable to uphold the complaint on the basis that there was insufficient information to conduct an investigation.
  5. At around the same time, it is clear that the landlord was continuing to work with the neighbour to try and improve the condition of the garden. This included writing to the neighbour on at least three occasions to confirm that the condition would need to be improved and that she was in breach of her tenancy conditions, responding to her request that it complete works and re-charge her (which it was not able to do at that stage) and signposting her towards local charities for assistance.
  6. It is clear from the resident’s reports to this Service that she would like the full history of the case looked at. However, this investigation has referenced these previous reports, and the landlord’s responses, for contextual purposes only as the Ombudsman is limited to investigating only those issues that have progressed through a landlord’s complaints procedure and then brought to the attention of the Ombudsman within a reasonable timescale.
  7. The landlord’s anti-social behaviour (ASB) policy places significant emphasis on prevention, early intervention, signposting and enforcement, with an emphasis on partnership working and a customer focussed approach. In neighbour dispute cases, residents are encouraged to take responsibility for the situation and look to resolve issues through conversations and/or mediation. Residents are also expected to work with the landlord by providing relevant evidence. In the most serious cases, the landlord’s ASB policy confirms that it will consider formal action (including possession action), though only where other interventions have failed and only as ‘a last resort’.

Summary of events

  1. The landlord opened a new ASB casefile on 5 May 2020 following a resident report about the neighbour blocking the path with rubbish and acting in a ‘confrontational’ manner with the resident. The resident also reported separately (7 May 2020) a list of further issues, including harassment, noise disturbance, verbal abuse, the garden issue, a boundary line dispute, drug use, trespassing and fly–tipping. The landlord’s records show that it attempted to call the resident on two occasions to discuss her reports and were then informed by her that she wanted all future correspondence in writing.
  2. The landlord spoke to the neighbour about the garden on 7 May 2020, who said that she was awaiting a quote from the landlord’s contractor regarding the removal of a tree. She also denied that a fridge had been left on the resident’s side of the garden and agreed to remove an old bed frame.
  3. The landlord emailed the resident on 12 May 2020. It said that it had discussed her further reports with her during a phone call the previous day and, having reviewed its responses over the years, it was of the view that it had responded to each of the issues she had raised. It said that it was unable to raise a complaint as it had identified no instances where it had not responded, though it requested the details of any instance where this had not happened so that it could raise a complaint and investigate. In the meantime, it would address the ASB concerns she had raised.
  4. The resident brought her case to the Ombudsman on 14 May 2020. She said that she had reported the above issues to the landlord on a number of occasions over the course of six years with no permanent solution having been identified. She said that she had complained about the landlord’s handling of the case but had been informed that there was ‘no reason to open an investigation’. On the same date (14 May 2020), the landlord wrote to the resident confirming that it had received reports of ASB about her actions which it would need to investigate.
  5. On 15 May 2020, the landlord emailed the resident, referring to an accompanying letter which confirmed that it had been trying to contact her and would close the ASB case if it was unable to talk to her and agree an action plan by 22 May 2020. The email clarified that it would like to discuss her ASB reports, carry out a risk assessment and complete the action plan. Over the following days, the resident confirmed that the case history provided all the evidence that the landlord required to investigate. The landlord explained why the actions it had detailed were necessary under its procedure as it required evidence in order to consider progressing through formal or informal routes. The resident remained dissatisfied with this response however as she believed this amounted to the landlord attempting to start things from the beginning again.
  6. This Service wrote to the resident on 26 May 2020 clarifying the Ombudsman’s role. The resident was encouraged to respond to the landlord’s ASB team following its enquiry as to what issues remained outstanding and to then come back to this Service if she encountered further difficulties in progressing through the complaints process.
  7. The landlord emailed the resident on 28 May 2020. It confirmed that the issue relating to the neighbour’s garden was being handled by a team separate to the team looking into her other ASB reports as this was its procedure. It said that it retained no record of any other previous ASB cases (apart from the garden issue) and confirmed that the first stage of the process was to risk assess and then complete an action plan. It confirmed the attempts it had made to discuss the case with the resident and concluded that it would be unable to investigate the resident’s reports unless she agreed to engage with the process. It confirmed that it had closed the ASB case but would re-open it once the resident was able to confirm that she would work with them. The resident responded, asking if this email amounted to the landlord’s final response.
  8. The landlord continued to work with the neighbour in relation to the garden. A case update on 2 June 2020 confirmed that the garden had been half cleared, but that trees in the middle of the garden had prevented further clearance; the landlord agreed to send its contracts team to the neighbour to see what could be done about the trees.
  9. The landlord opened a new ASB case on 3 June 2020 following further reports from the resident the day before. She repeated the allegations detailed within the previous ASB case and added that a pest infestation had resulted from the untidy garden and rubbish, plus the neighbour had set off fire alarms, made ‘false complaints’ about the resident and had broken COVID-19 related guidelines. She said that she did not feel safe in her home and that the neighbour’s actions had put her household at risk.
  10. The landlord confirmed to the resident on 4 June 2020 that the ASB issues (the boundary issue, fly–tipping, access to the garden drug use/dealing, harassment, intimidating behaviour, fire alarms and COVID-19 issues) would be investigated separately to the garden/rubbish issues which were being handled separately, though it confirmed that the process would become joined up if the case progressed as far as legal action. The landlord confirmed that it had risk assessed the case and completed an action plan, which it shared with the resident. The landlord confirmed that it would review all evidence available on 19 June before deciding on next actions. In response, the resident requested details of the landlord’s complaints process, which the landlord provided.
  11. The landlord wrote to the neighbour on 8 June 2020 making her aware that allegations of ASB had been made.
  12. On 9 June 2020, the resident provided details on ASB incidents dating from 4 to 18 May 2020. This included reports of the neighbour moving a fridge on to her land, a note being left by the neighbour stating that the space between the properties was shared space and that the resident should refrain from moving her (the neighbour’s) items, a new boundary line being drawn by the neighbour with bricks, bin bags and other items being left on the shared footpath, an incident occurring (9 May) when the neighbour’s visitor became aggressive when he realised that a photo had been taken of him, drug use and smoke setting off fire alarms during a barbeque. The resident sent accompanying photos to support the diary she had provided. The landlord encouraged the resident to download its noise app so that noise disturbance and potentially abusive behaviour could be recorded; it also asked for police reference numbers in relation to reports she had made about potential criminal behaviour.
  13. The resident reported to the police an incident relating to her car dated 14 June 2020. This incident was investigated but no evidence to identify the offender was found.
  14. The resident requested that the landlord consider both the ASB reports and the garden issue together, which the landlord confirmed would not happen at that stage, with separate teams investigating the issues. The resident sent details of further drug use on 16 June 2020. The following day (17 June), the landlord issued the neighbour with a tenancy warning notice, the contents of which were disputed by the neighbour.
  15. The landlord also issued the resident with a tenancy warning notice on 18 June 2020, in relation to ‘intimidating’ actions towards the neighbour and the taking of ‘unauthorised photographs’. There is evidence of the landlord, during June 2020, liaising with the police, both to understand their position regarding any reports received on the ongoing neighbour dispute, and also to explore the possibility of a joint mediation process.
  16. The landlord’s contracts team visited the neighbour on 18 June 2020 to inspect the trees in the rear garden. The landlord officer involved was unable to access the property and relied on use of binoculars to determine that the trees would not require removal. The landlord officer also spoke to the neighbour over the phone, who placed responsibility for her overgrown garden on the landlord as it had previously carried out maintenance work. On the same date, the landlord emailed the neighbour, arranging a further visit and reminding her that she was in breach of her tenancy with legal action to proceed if the issue continued.
  17. The resident requested an update on the case on 23 June 2020, with the landlord responding to ask if there had been further incidents since her last report. It also said that it continued to act in accordance with its ASB process and had received a response from the police the previous day to suggest a joint visit to both parties to discuss the ongoing concerns, which it proposed for 3 July. The resident responded to say that there had been no further ASB and that mediation had already been attempted unsuccessfully.
  18. The landlord met with the neighbour at her property along with a tree specialist and its contractor on 23 June 2020. A quote was requested from the contractor to get the garden cleared, treated and re-turfed. The quote was obtained on 26 June, with the works to take place at a later date and the neighbour re-charged.
  19. On 26 June, the resident sent further reports of ASB from the neighbour, including loud noise, smoke entering her property and drug use during a barbeque. She requested the landlord complete and release the results of its investigation. In response, the landlord said that it continued to investigate and reiterated that, in its view, the proposed joint visit to discuss mediation was an appropriate next step. The resident initially agreed to the mediation process (though making clear that she was reluctant); she then reviewed her decision and said that she would not go down this route. She said the landlord had not adhered to timescales, that she wanted details of the landlord’s completed investigation and raised concerns that the landlord had ignored her reports about her mental health and her fear for her household’s safety. She also said that the landlord had breached data protection rules by disclosing personal details to the neighbour, which had led to ‘spikes’ in ASB.
  20. The landlord emailed the resident on 2 July 2020. It said that mediation had been recommended as this was a useful resolution tool in such cases, it confirmed that this mediation process would be conducted separately. It also said that it had updated the risk assessment of the case following the resident’s comments about her mental health (evidence provided to this investigation) and offered reassurance that this was being considered in how it responded on the case. The landlord said that it had not disclosed personal information to the neighbour and that it would have no choice but to close the ASB case if the resident refused to make any further reports to it about any ASB that occurred. It asked if the resident was satisfied for the case to be closed.
  21. On 8 July 2020, the resident requested the landlord’s ‘final notice’ on the case. The landlord asked her if there had been any further incidents of ASB since her last report, to which the resident replied that there had been no further incidents and again requested the landlord’s final notice.
  22. Internal landlord email correspondence from 9 July 2020 confirmed the neighbour’s concerns about the costs of the garden works. The landlord continued to work with her, it explained it could not fund a private contractor to do the works and then re-charge the neighbour. It agreed to obtain a new quote for just the clearance works, with the neighbour to treat the area.
  23. On 10 July 2020, an internal landlord email confirmed that it had a productive meeting with the neighbour who was keen to engage in mediation. Regarding the resident, the landlord confirmed no further incidents of ASB and its intention to close the case. On the same date, the resident confirmed that she was satisfied for the landlord to close the case, which it then did on 13 July, confirming as much to the resident; it also said that it would re-open the case if further incidents occurred within three months.
  24. The landlord’s case closure letter of 13 July 2020 updated each of the action points from the original action plan. It confirmed that diary sheets had been completed by the resident, that she had sent in noise app recordings, that she had declined mediation and that she had reported incidents to the police as appropriate. The landlord had obtained disclosure from the police in relation to reported incidents, had met with the neighbour on ‘several’ occasions to discuss concerns, had gone out to the local area for further evidence (with nothing coming in), had worked closely with the police, risk assessed the case twice and had sent ASB awareness letters to alleged perpetrators throughout.
  25. An internal landlord note dated 13 July 2020 also confirmed that a warning was sent to the neighbour following confirmation as to the location of a noise recording the resident had provided in relation to a previous incident.
  26. On 3 August 2020, the landlord issued the neighbour with a notice stating that it would be commencing legal action in relation to the garden by the end of the following week. It emailed the following day to confirm that she remained in breach of her tenancy, that it had visited several times and tried to support her by arranging multiple contractor appointments. It also confirmed that it had arranged for its contractors to do the works, but that she had said it was not affordable.
  27. A landlord email, dated 21 August 2020, sent to the resident’s Councillor said that it would continue to separate the two issues (neighbour dispute and the garden issue). It confirmed that, in its view, mediation remained the best option for resolving the neighbour dispute issue. Regarding the garden, the landlord said that it had previously looked at re-charging the neighbour for works and had also advised her to seek her own contractors, neither of which had resulted in a positive resolution. Given ongoing concerns, the landlord decided that the neighbour would be given two further weeks to raise the standard of the garden to an acceptable level, otherwise it would progress down a legal route. This was confirmed to the neighbour on 1 September, with the landlord stating that it would inspect the garden on 11 September and would commence down a legal route of the garden was not in an acceptable condition.
  28. The landlord also wrote to the resident on 1 September 2020, in response to an Ombudsman request that it clarify its position to her. It confirmed that it had opened a case regarding the neighbour’s garden in late 2019, upon which its team had been in regular contact with the resident. It also said that it had opened a separate ASB case as its tenancy management procedures differed from its ASB case management procedures.
  29. The landlord related the details of previous complaints that had been responded to under its complaint procedure in both 2017 and 2019, with no escalation requests received from the resident on either occasion. The landlord said that it had not refused to investigate her complaint back in May 2020 as it had attempted to contact her at this time and had asked her to provide evidence of information that might enable it to open a new complaint and investigate any alleged failings; in response, the resident had said that she would progress her case to this Service.
  30. The landlord confirmed that the ASB case had been closed on the basis that there was insufficient evidence. It said that, in its view, mediation would be an appropriate way to resolve any ongoing disputes with the neighbour but understood that she weas unwilling to attempt this option. It also said that it continued to work with the neighbour on the garden issue.
  31. The neighbour was given an additional period of three weeks (until 2 October 2020) to raise the standard of the garden. This was confirmed in a letter dated 16 September.
  32. The landlord received further reports about the resident’s behaviour and, as a result, it sent her an ASB awareness letter on 5 October 2020.
  33. The landlord emailed the Ombudsman on 21 October 2020 to update this Service on its current position. It explained that it had sought to work with the resident upon her May reports as she had raised the same issues previously, with no evidence of the alleged failures. It had received no engagement from the resident at this time, but disputed that this amounted to a refusal to open a complaint, as the resident had stated. It had continued to investigate the ASB reports through its relevant procedures and had clarified its position regarding any possible complaint in its letter to the resident of 1 September 2020 (above). It did not consider the complaints process exhausted and said that it would welcome the opportunity to engage with the resident and progress through this process.
  34. The resident then emailed the landlord providing specific comments about her dissatisfaction with how it  handled her ASB reports (23 and 25 October 2020). This included her views that it had failed to apply its ASB policy, that it had communicated in an ineffective and biased manner, that it had failed to investigate independently and had not followed through on its investigation, that it had failed to process her complaint, had misused her data, had harassed her into accepting mediation and refused to allow her to sell her property early.
  35. The landlord sent the neighbour a final warning notice regarding the garden issue on 30 October 2020. It confirmed that there remained issues with the garden following its 2 October inspection. A further inspection was scheduled for 12 November to ensure that final works to complete the garden clearance had been completed.
  36. The landlord sent the resident a formal complaint response on 5 November 2020. It responded under several headings:

a)     Application of the ASB procedure – The landlord outlined the actions it had taken since opening the first ASB case in May 2020, including the closure of the first case at the end of May 2020, the action plan it completed for the second ASB case in June 2020 and its clarification as to why the garden issue would continue to be investigated separately. It confirmed that it had written to the neighbour (8 May) regarding the allegations, had maintained constant communication with the resident during its investigation, including an advisory note to ensure that the resident did not interfere with the neighbour’s privacy in her attempts to obtain evidence. It said that it requested police disclosure on the case, who had not requested that the landlord take further action and it had ultimately closed the second ASB case. It said that both ASB cases had passed its audit process.

b)     Complaint handling – The landlord outlined the 2017 and 2019 complaints it had responded to, confirming that it received no request for escalation from the resident on either occasion. It said that it had agreed to communicate via email only following the resident’s request in May 2020 and informed her that it required additional information or evidence that would enable it to open a new complaint at that time. Following Ombudsman contact, the resident had then engaged with the landlord’s complaints process, hence the current complaint investigation.

c)     Duty of Care – The landlord confirmed that it investigates complaints based upon the evidence provided and that it worked in partnership with external agencies as appropriate. It said that it was satisfied that it had met its duty of care in this case as it had acted in accordance with the policies and procedures it had put in place to manage its response to reports such as the residents.

d)     Mediation – The landlord outlined its reasons for its view that mediation was an appropriate option for this case. It confirmed its liaison with the police, the resident’s Councillor and its own mediation contractor and asked the resident to contact it if she changed her mind on this matter. It also said that it had reviewed its communications and did not believe that it had implied at any point that the mediation process was mandatory.

e)     Data – The landlord said that it had reviewed the case and had not identified any point where it had disclosed the resident’s personal information to the neighbour, nor the mediation service. It also responded to a further query the resident had raised following a Subject Access Request in August 2019.

f)       Selling the property – The landlord confirmed the process the resident would need to follow if she wished to sell the property and confirmed it had no record of her having contacted its home ownership team in this respect.

  1. The landlord concluded that its investigations had been thorough and that it had followed relevant policies and procedures.
  2. On 6 November 2020, the landlord emailed the resident in relation to the garden issue. It apologised for the time taken to resolve the issue but confirmed that it had acted in accordance with policy throughout and had now cut the grass and erected a fence to prevent potential intruders.
  3. The resident requested escalation of her complaint and the landlord contacted her to discuss her outstanding concerns. Email correspondence between the parties during November 2020 confirmed the resident’s views that the landlord had not followed procedure or the law, that she felt like she was in a ‘vicious’ cycle’ whereby the landlord would start a whole new case, with a new staff member assigned the case each time she reported new instances of ASB from the neighbour. She requested re-housing in a property that the landlord did not own the freehold to.
  4. The landlord sent its final response on 24 November 2020. It outlined its understanding of the resident’s outstanding concerns and expressed regret that the resident had not felt able to discuss these concerns in more depth as this had let to its review taking place based upon the information it held on file. Having reviewed the information available, the landlord concluded that it had conducted a thorough investigation at stage one of its complaint process (see 5 November 2020 letter above). It confirmed that it had explained why different staff members had handled her enquiries at various stages and confirmed that, as no new information had been provided, it was unable to uphold her appeal request.
  5. Regarding the neighbour’s garden, the landlord confirmed that it continued to work with the neighbour to raise the condition of the area, including the rubbish bins. It requested that the resident continue to report any issues to help it monitor the situation.
  6. The landlord continued to work with the neighbour in relation to the garden, writing to her on 21 December 2020 and 26 April 2021. These letters confirmed that the neighbour remained in breach of her tenancy conditions, though it was also evident that significant steps had been taken to improve the garden condition.
  7. On 10 June 2021, the resident provided the Ombudsman with a detailed overview of the history of the case. This included detailed reports of the incidents she had experienced since moving into the property in 2011, together with her dissatisfaction with how the landlord responded throughout. She confirmed that she had refused to engage in mediation and questioned why she had been issued with warning letters given that she had been the victim of ASB over the course of a number of years.
  8. In a further update to the Ombudsman dated 11 November 2021, the resident said that the neighbour’s garden continued to be a problem as she was still unable to access her garden area and that there remained issues with rubbish and the fencing.

Assessment and findings

ASB

  1. It is clear from the resident’s detailed correspondence with the Ombudsman that she has extensive concerns about the landlord’s management of ASB reports over a significant period, dating back to her taking up occupation at the property back in 2011. The background section above had explained the Ombudsman’s remit – with any formal Ombudsman investigation limited to those issues that have progressed through a landlord’s complaints process. As such, the assessment of this case will focus solely on the two ASB cases opened in May and June 2020 and the resident’s subsequent complaint in the context of these two ASB cases.
  2. The resident had the opportunity to progress her earlier concerns through the landlord’s complaints process (and with the Ombudsman) at an earlier stage. Having not done so, the Ombudsman is unable to consider the landlord’s retrospective actions, other than in the context of the issues that are within jurisdiction and have been investigated and responded to by the landlord.
  3. The resident’s concerns about having to re-commence the ASB investigation process on each occasion that further incidents develop Is understandable. ASB can take many forms and will often involve cases where the reported behaviour is sporadic; in such cases, a landlord can only investigate issues as they arise and must do so in a reasonable and proportionate way. The reporting party will often feel that their reports have not been taken seriously or that the landlord has taken too long to progress the case. However, it is important to note that the landlord is not responsible for any alleged unacceptable behaviour; instead, its role is to ensure that it responds to any reports it receives in accordance with its policies and procedures and legal obligations. This will involve progressing down its ASB procedure, gathering and reviewing evidence and then taking actions proportionate to its understanding of such evidence.
  4. In cases of allegation and counter allegation, such as this, a member landlord has the additional difficulty in managing conflicting reports and broken down relationships. Balancing the needs of all affected residents and stakeholders (including the landlord’s own staff) is a crucial aspect of a landlord’s response to neighbourhood and behaviour issues. In practice, the reporting party will expect their needs to be prioritised, given the nature of the complaints, may not understand the landlord’s limited role in achieving a long lasting solution.
  5. In this case, the landlord clarified the reasons for keeping the garden issues separate from the ASB related issues raised by the resident in May 2020. It explained that the garden issue was ongoing and that this related to a tenancy management issue (rather than ASB) and also clarified that the issues could be amalgamated at a later date if required. This was a reasonable response in the circumstances, offering clarity and demonstrating transparency in relation to the landlord’s case management.
  6. Having opened up the first ASB case in May 2020, the landlord made several attempts to engage with the resident in an attempt to commence its ASB procedure. However, the resident appeared unwilling to engage at this stage, referring to her previous contact as evidence of the issues she continued to experience. It was appropriate, having made multiple attempts to progress the case, including confirming that it would have no choice but to close the case unless the resident engaged, that the landlord did so on 28 May.
  7. It was also appropriate, having received further reports of ASB from the resident on 2 June 2020, that it opened a new ASB case the following day (3 June). On this occasion, the landlord took prompt action to complete a risk assessment and action plan (4 June) and then proceeded to enact the actions detailed within this action plan. This included liaison with the police, discussing the resident’s reports with the neighbour (including sending an ASB awareness letter), seeking corroborating evidence in the local area and updating the risk assessment in light of the resident’s reports about her mental health. In addition, there was evidence that the landlord acted upon the receipt of further evidence provided by the resident, including the noise app recordings she provided.
  8. Having not obtained sufficient evidence to warrant further formal action on the case, it was appropriate that the landlord took the decision to close the case (13 July 2020). Importantly, the resident had confirmed that no further incidents of ASB had occurred and that she was satisfied that the case could be closed at this point.
  9. Ultimately, the landlord believed that mediation between the neighbour and the resident was the most appropriate means of resolving the relationship between the parties. It was understandable that the resident was reluctant to consider mediation as her focus was on alternative outcomes, such as the landlord allowing her to sell her property. However, given that both she and the neighbour continued to reside in their respective homes, mediation presented as both a reasonable and appropriate solution in the circumstances. Mediation allows each party to express their specific concerns and be given the opportunity to respond to the concerns of the other. In the Ombudsman’s experience, mediation can lead to significant improvements in relationships as each party begins to understand the impact of their actions on others.
  10. Upon progressing the resident’s complaint, the landlord reviewed the ASB case file and concluded that it had acted in accordance with relevant policies and procedures. Though the resident did not agree, there was no evidence that the landlord had failed to respond in an appropriate manner to her reports from May onwards. The landlord also responded to the data issue that had been raised – confirming that it had not disclosed the resident’s personal details at any point. It also responded to the sale of property issue, confirming the process that she would need to go through to sell her property and identifying that she had not contacted its home ownership team in this respect. It also reiterated its commitment to progressing down a mediation route, identified that it had not stated that this was mandatory at any point and encouraged the resident to re-consider her position here.

Garden

  1. The landlord confirmed that a tenancy breach remained outstanding on the neighbour’s case file on account of the garden condition. Whilst a landlord is always expected to take tenancy breaches seriously, it must also balance any actions it takes with the needs of its residents. In this case, the landlord had to balance the requirements of the tenancy agreement with the needs of its tenant.
  2. Having identified the breach, it is clear that it took the landlord a considerable length of time to progress down a formal route. This was proportionate given the circumstances. The issue itself would no doubt have been serious for those living in close proximity to it. However, when considering whether to take legal action, including the potential for seeking possession of the property, the landlord would have had to consider the evidence available, the efforts that it had made to assist the tenant and the likelihood of persuading a court that taking legal action was reasonable in all the circumstances of the case.
  3. Given that the issue related to the condition of a garden area, the landlord would expect a high threshold of evidence to be available to proceed with legal action. In the circumstances, it was appropriate that it looked to exhaust every possible option before going down that route. This gave the neighbour the best possible opportunity to take steps to improve the garden issue herself and it is encouraging that she was ultimately able to do so, albeit that this took some considerable assistance and flexibility on the part of the landlord.
  4. There are concerns however, that the garden area remains an issue as events post dating the complaints process under investigation allude to further formal warnings from the landlord and the resident stating that the garden area remains an issue. It is imperative, given the history of the case, that the landlord continues to monitor this issue and, given the deterioration of the relationship between the resident and neighbour, that it does not seek to rely upon the resident’s reports in this respect. Managing the garden issue proactively, by completing regular inspections and continuing to work with the neighbour will be crucial to ensure that the issue remains managed.

Complaint Handling

  1. The landlord’s decision not to progress down the complaints procedure in May 2020 was reasonable in the circumstances. It identified that her reports at that time appeared to re-raise issues previously considered through its complaints process. It clarified that it would respond to the ASB related issues through its ASB process (as considered above) and attempted to engage with the resident regarding her concerns from a complaint handling perspective.
  2. The resident brought her case to the Ombudsman, feeling that the landlord’s response effectively amounted to a refusal to raise a complaint on her behalf. This Service clarified the Ombudsman’s role in resolving disputes and encouraged the resident to engage with the landlord regarding the ASB issues and to get back into contact if she encountered further difficulties in progressing through the complaints process.
  3. The landlord clarified its position (1 September 2020, above) upon the Ombudsman’s request that it do so and then progressed down its complaints process upon receipt of the resident’s specific complaints. Whilst the overall length of time taken for the landlord to progress through its complaint process was protracted, this was reasonable given the lack of clarity and the landlord’s attempts to engage in May 2020. Once it had opened the complaints process, the landlord progressed the case in a reasonable timeframe.

Determination (decision)

  1. In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme (the Scheme), there was no maladministration in relation to the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports about anti-social behaviour concerning her neighbour.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Scheme, there was no maladministration with respect to the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports about the condition of the neighbour’s garden.
  3. In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Scheme, there was no maladministration in relation to the landlord’s complaint handling.

Reasons

  1. The landlord opened up a new ASB case file in May 2020 upon receipt of the resident’s multiple reports about ASB. It closed this case when the resident failed to engage with its attempts to progress down its ASB procedure but then opened a new case in June 2020. The landlord then progressed down its ASB procedure in relation to the new case; it risk assessed the case and completed an action plan, which it then proceeded to enact. Upon receiving confirmation from the resident that she was satisfied for the case to be closed, the landlord did so, issuing her with a case closure notice on 13 July 2020.
  2. The resident’s subsequent complaint included her concerns that the landlord had failed to adhere to its relevant policies and procedures and had not complied with its legal obligations. Having reviewed the case file, the landlord reached a conclusion that there was no evidence that this was the case. It attempted to engage with the resident to better understand her concerns but, having obtained no further supporting evidence, it relied upon the information already on file in determining that it had acted appropriately.
  3. Ultimately, the landlord, in conjunction with the local police service, concluded that mediation between the resident and the neighbour would be the most appropriate resolution. The Ombudsman acknowledges the essential role that mediation can play in improving cases involving long standing neighbour disputes; whilst the resident’s reluctance to engage with the mediation process was understandable, it remains an appropriate remedy for the resident to consider in order to help improve her daily life.
  4. The garden issue had clearly continued for an extended period, dating back several years. The landlord had previously identified a breach of the neighbour’s tenancy in this regard and the evidence indicates it taking reasonable and proportionate action to enforce this aspect of the neighbour’s tenancy. The resident was clearly frustrated by the time it took to progress down a formal route, however, in the circumstances, it was understandable that the landlord sought to do all it could to work with the neighbour to find a resolution. The Ombudsman expects formal possession action to be taken by a landlord only in the most serious of cases and following attempts to consider all other possible options.
  5. Having responded to similar issues through its complaints process on previous occasions, it was reasonable for the landlord to attempt to engage with the resident in order to clarify its understanding of her concerns. Following Ombudsman intervention, the landlord clarified its position, from a complaint handling perspective, and then proceeded down its complaints process when the resident confirmed her points of dissatisfaction.