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

Silva Homes Limited (202125865)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202125865

Silva Homes Limited

30 August 2022


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 concerns over a trellis fence erected by his neighbour.

Background

  1. The resident is a tenant of the landlord.
  2. On 4 January 2022, the resident reported to the landlord that his neighbour had erected a trellis on top of the wall that bordered his property’s communal drying area. He stated that the trellis blocked his window and inhibited his light.
  3. The resident contacted this Service, as the landlord had not provided him with a response to his report. Following contact from the Ombudsman, the landlord recorded the resident’s concerns as a complaint in February 2022.
  4. The landlord contacted the resident in March 2022, to explain that the neighbour was a private owner and was responsible for the boundary wall. It explained that it had made enquiries with the local authority, who had stated that no planning permission was necessary for the trellis. It stated that it would ask the neighbour to remove the trellis, however, there were no further steps it could reasonably take in the circumstances. The response neglected to inform the resident of how to escalate his complaint if he remained dissatisfied. The resident again contacted the Ombudsman, who requested that the landlord send a full stage one response.
  5. The landlord reiterated its position in its official stage one response. It additionally apologised for not following its complaint procedure and offered the resident £100 compensation as a goodwill gesture. After the resident escalated his complaint, the landlord responded in May 2022. It explained that it had investigated the resident’s complaint and how it had handled it, concluding that it had acted appropriately. It suggested that the resident ask his neighbour to remove the trellis himself. It also offered to pay for a mediation service for the resident and neighbour, to enable them to come to a suitable resolution.
  6. The resident brought his complaint to this Service, as he wanted the landlord to enforce the removal of the trellis fence.

Assessment and findings

  1. A landlord would usually only become directly involved in a dispute between two neighbours if both parties were its tenants, and the dispute was significant or serious enough to objectively be considered anti-social behaviour (ASB). The landlord’s ASB policy makes clear that it applies only to the landlord’s tenants and lease holders. As such, the landlord had no formal obligation to intervene to assist the resident in this case.
  2. The resident explained to the landlord that he obtained a copy of the neighbour’s property documents, which he said contained certain obligations prohibiting the restriction of light to his property. He believed that the landlord was responsible for enforcing those obligations. However, the landlord does not own the neighbour’s property, and as such, has no power to enforce any terms of their lease. That would be a legal dispute, for which there is no evidence that the landlord was obliged to pursue on the resident’s behalf.
  3. While the landlord had no formal obligation to assist the resident, good practice would be for it to try to help, if it could. To that end it investigated who was responsible for the boundary wall, sought information from the planning department at the local council, and discussed the situation with its legal team. On discovering that it had no legal power to order the removal of the trellis from, the landlord wrote to the neighbour to ask them to consider removing it. In its final response to the resident, the landlord went further by offering to pay for mediation to help the resident and neighbour find some resolution. In the circumstances of this particular complaint, the landlord’s explanation that it could not act as the resident wanted, and the actions it took to investigate and offer other assistance, were proportionate and reasonable
  4. The landlord acknowledged that it failed to respond to the resident’s initial report of the trellis. It also acknowledged that it should have followed its complaints procedure more rigorously. Its offer of £100 compensation to the resident was reasonable redress for these errors in the circumstances of some inconvenience and frustration caused, but no permanent or long-term impact.


Determination (decision)

  1. In accordance with paragraph 55 (b) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the landlord has made an offer of redress prior to investigation which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, resolves the complaint satisfactorily.