Consultation is open on our Business Plan 2025-26 and 5-year Corporate Strategy and we want to hear from you about our plans to deliver an efficient and effective Ombudsman.

Take part today.

Sanctuary Housing Association (202319144)

Back to Top

 

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202319144

Sanctuary Housing Association

3 December 2024

 

Our approach

The Housing Ombudsman’s approach to investigating and determining complaints is to decide what is fair in all the circumstances of the case. This is set out in the Housing Act 1996 and the Housing Ombudsman Scheme (the Scheme). The Ombudsman considers the evidence and looks to see if there has been any ‘maladministration’, for example whether the landlord has failed to keep to the law, followed proper procedure, followed good practice or behaved in a reasonable and competent manner.

Both the resident and the landlord have submitted information to the Ombudsman, and this has been carefully considered. Their accounts of what has happened are summarised below. This report is not an exhaustive description of all the events that have occurred in relation to this case, but an outline of the key issues as a background to the investigation’s findings.

The complaint

  1. The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of:
    1. The resident’s reports of the neighbours feeding the birds.
    2. Measures to prevent birds sitting on the resident’s roof, causing excrement and damage.
    3. Delays in providing a copy of an Environmental Health report.

Jurisdiction

  1. What the Ombudsman can and cannot consider is called the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction. This is governed by the Scheme. When a complaint is brought to this Service, the Ombudsman must consider all the circumstances of the case, as there are sometimes reasons why a complaint will not be investigated.
  2. The resident has raised multiple complaints to the landlord regarding her neighbours feeding wild birds, which she says has resulted in increased bird activity and bird excrement affecting her home. The Ombudsman considered this complaint in case 202226735 and issued a determination on 10 July 2024, which was upheld following a review on 31 October 2024.
  3. Under paragraph 42(l) of the Scheme the Ombudsman may not consider complaints which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, seek to raise again matters which the Housing Ombudsman, or any other Ombudsman, has already decided upon. Therefore, this element of the complaint is outside of the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction.

 

Background

  1. The resident is an assured tenant of the property, which is a 2-bedroom house, along with her elderly mother. The landlord is a housing association.
  2. On 6 March 2023 the resident emailed the landlord to make a stage 1 complaint (the deterrent complaint) which was about:
    1. The neighbours putting out food for the birds, which was causing excrement in her garden and on her roof. She said the issue had been a problem since 2016.
    2. The spikes the landlord had installed did not stop birds sitting on the roof or their excrement from blocking her guttering.
  3. The landlord acknowledged and responded to the stage 1 complaint on 8 March 2023 and said:
    1. It had inspected the property on 3 November 2022 and recommended anti-bird spikes rather than netting, to prevent birds from sitting on the roof.
    2. It had passed her concerns about her neighbours feeding the birds to her housing officer.
    3. How she could escalate the complaint if she remained dissatisfied.
  4. On the same day the resident asked to escalate her complaint. She said the spikes did not resolve the problem of birds sitting on the roof. The landlord acknowledged the complaint the following day as a stage 1 complaint in error, but then sent a further acknowledgement for the stage 2 complaint on 14 March 2023. It emailed her on 6 April 2023 to request an extension of time as it was still gathering information. The landlord provided its stage 2 response on 24 April 2023 in which it:
    1. Apologised for the delay in its stage 2 response and offered £50 compensation.
    2. Explained it had already provided a stage 2 response on 15 December 2022 from her previous complaint about her neighbours feeding the birds.
    3. Repeated that it had inspected the property on 3 November 2022 and its surveyor had recommended anti-bird spikes. It had also arranged for her roof and guttering to be cleaned, which it had completed.
    4. Accepted that its pest control contractor had previously recommended netting the roof, but repeated that its surveyor did not agree that this would be effective.
  5. On 15 June 2023 the landlord and Environmental Health inspected the property to investigate the issue with excess birds.
  6. The resident emailed the landlord to make a new stage 1 complaint (the report complaint) on 13 July 2023, which was about:
    1. Not having received a copy of the Environmental Health report following the inspection.
    2. Suspecting the landlord had told the neighbours about the inspection, which caused them to stop feeding the birds for a short time.
  7. On 17 July 2023 the landlord acknowledged the complaint. It provided its stage 1 response on 25 July 2023 in which it said:
    1. It had already provided stage 2 responses to the resident’s previous complaints about her neighbours feeding the birds.
    2. It had sent a copy of the Environmental Health report and photographs to her on 19 July 2023. It apologised for the delay and offered £50 compensation for the inconvenience caused.
    3. How she could escalate the complaint if she remained dissatisfied.
  8. The landlord emailed the resident on 28 July 2023 to replied to her email in which she told it she had not received the report. The landlord apologised and explained the outcome of the inspection. It said Environmental Health said the spikes on her roof were appropriate deterrent measures. They had patrolled the area and observed bird activity across the estate. They confirmed wild birds were protected under legislation and there could be no restrictions placed upon the neighbours for feeding the birds on their own property. The landlord provided a copy of the report.
  9. The same day the resident asked to escalate her complaint. The landlord acknowledged escalation on 2 August 2023, and provided its stage 2 response on 30 August 2023 in which it:
    1. Apologised for the delay in receiving the Environmental Health report. It said it had chased for this and received a copy on 5 July 2023. It had asked internally for a copy to be sent to the resident on 19 July 2023, but it had not sent the report until 27 July 2023.
    2. Offered £50 compensation for the delay and its poor communication.
    3. Said how the resident could contact this Service if she remained dissatisfied.

 

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

  1. The Ombudsman notes that the resident has made multiple complaints regarding and related to her neighbours feeding the birds, which has been an issue since 2016. This Service has investigated and determined previous complaints on subjects similar to the current complaint. Therefore, this investigation has been strictly limited to the elements of the complaint which have not already been investigated.

The landlord’s handling of measures to prevent birds sitting on the resident’s roof, causing excrement and damage

  1. The landlord does not have a policy on wild birds, and birds are not referred to in its antisocial behaviour or repairs policies, or within its customer handbook.
  2. Following previous complaints, the landlord inspected the property in November 2022 and agreed to install anti-bird spikes, which was solution focused. When the resident complained that these were not effective it explained within its stage 1 and 2 responses (to the deterrent complaint) why it had done this. It also explained that it had considered netting the roof, but its surveyor had decided against this.
  3. Following the end of its complaints process the landlord inspected the property with Environmental Health, which agreed that the spikes were the best option.
  4. The landlord had acted and was entitled to rely on its surveyor’s expert opinion. Its actions were fair and proportionate in the circumstances. There was no maladministration in its decision not to change the bird deterrent measures it had put in place.

The landlord’s handling of delays in providing a copy of an Environmental Health report

  1. After the resident raised her stage 1 complaint (the report complaint), the landlord requested for a copy of the Environmental Health report to be sent to her. It incorrectly said that it had sent the report within its stage 1 response without checking that it had done so, which was a failing. However, it did apologise and offer £50 compensation which demonstrated it wanted to put things right.
  2. When the resident told the landlord she had not received the report, it apologised again and provided a copy. Within its stage 2 response it accepted the delay was due to an internal error, apologised again, and offered £50 compensation.
  3. In relation to the failures identified, the Ombudsman’s role is to consider whether the redress offered by the landlord put things right and resolved the resident’s complaint satisfactorily in the circumstances. In considering this the Ombudsman takes into account whether the landlord’s offer of redress was in line with the Ombudsman’s Dispute Resolution Principles: be fair, put things right and learn from outcomes, as well as our own guidance on remedies.
  4. While there were two failings in communication, the landlord quickly admitted these failings, apologised and offered reasonable compensation for the inconvenience caused. There was reasonable redress.

Determination

  1. In accordance with Paragraph 53(b) of the Scheme, there was reasonable redress in relation to the landlord’s handling of delays in providing a copy of an Environmental Health report.
  2. In accordance with Paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was no maladministration in relation to the landlord’s handling of measures to prevent birds sitting on the resident’s roof, causing excrement and damage.
  3. In accordance with Paragraph 42(l) of the Scheme, the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of the neighbours feeding the birds is outside of the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction.

Recommendations

  1. It is recommended that the landlord pay £150 compensation directly to the resident, if it has not already done so, made up of:
    1. £50 it offered within its stage 2 response to the deterrent complaint.
    2. £50 it offered within its stage 1 response to the report complaint.
    3. £50 it offered within its stage 2 response to the report complaint.