The new improved webform is online now! Residents and representatives can access the form online today.

Sovereign Housing Association Limited (202120855)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202120855

Sovereign Housing Association Limited

29 April 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 handling of the resident’s concerns about antisocial behaviour by a neighbour, in relation to the neighbour’s dog and fence.

Background

  1. The resident is a tenant of the landlord and lives in a flat.
  2. The resident contacted the landlord on 17 February 2021 and made a report of antisocial behaviour (ASB) regarding his neighbour’s dog. The neighbour is also a tenant of the landlord. The resident reported that his neighbour’s dog was kept in a fenced-off area in the communal garden and barked constantly, causing him stress and anxiety. The resident said the dog was able to get its head through the fence and acted aggressively to passers-by.
  3. The landlord opened an ASB case on 22 February 2021. It noted that the resident wanted the fence to be removed and the dog put on a lead, and to not cause a threat. The landlord agreed to investigate whether the fence was permitted, and to speak with the neighbour about acceptable conduct regarding the dog. It also agreed to report the issue to the police. The landlord advised the resident to report any further incidents.
  4. The resident continued to report incidents of noise and threatening behaviour from the dog throughout March 2021 until June 2021. The landlord’s records noted that the resident made a formal complaint on 15 June 2021, as he was dissatisfied with its handling of his ASB case and felt discriminated against due to it not having considered his health conditions. In response to this, the landlord noted it spoke with the resident, and having reviewed his ASB case informed him it had found no discrimination against him. It said it found its staff had fully engaged with the resident in consideration of his health conditions during the case, by making referrals to the appropriate agencies where necessary. The landlord noted that the resident requested this response in writing, therefore it sent this via post and closed the complaint on 21 June 2021.
  5. The resident reported further incidents of ASB in June and July 2021. After speaking with the resident in August 2021, the landlord reopened his complaint at stage two. Members of the landlord’s staff visited the resident’s home on 3 September 2021 to discuss his complaint further, following which it issued its stage two response on the same day. It clarified that it understood the resident’s outstanding issues to be the fence around the neighbour’s garden (the resident believed the garden was communal and should not be fenced), and the behaviour of the neighbour’s dog. The landlord explained that the garden belonged to the neighbour as it had given him this, as this was customary for all ground floor residents whose entrance bordered the garden area. The landlord informed the resident it would not ask the neighbour to remove the pet nor the fence, as it found no tenancy breaches. The landlord confirmed the complaint had been closed and advised the resident on how to contact this Service if he remained dissatisfied.
  6. The resident referred his complaint to a designated person who referred his complaint to this Service. The resident advised this Service the outcome he sought was for the fence to be removed and a more substantial one erected.

Assessment and findings

  1. The role of this Service is not to establish whether ASB had occurred. Our role is to look at the evidence and establish whether the landlord responded reasonably to the resident’s reports of ASB, in accordance with its policy.
  2. The landlord has an ASB policy which outlines how it deals with reports of ASB. It states that when investigating a case, the landlord will issue warnings and cautions to deter future ASB. Other methods it uses include mediation and Acceptable Behaviour Agreements (ABAs), and liaising with the police or other agencies.
  3. The landlord sent warning letters to the neighbour in March and April 2021 regarding acceptable conduct of the dog and made enquiries about the fence. This was a reasonable step as it showed the landlord took the resident’s reports of ASB seriously. As the landlord subsequently decided that the fenced garden belonged to the neighbour, it was reasonable of the landlord to not take any further action regarding the fence.
  4. The landlord’s records show that it liaised with the police about the resident’s concerns. The police visited the resident and neighbour in April 2021. The attending officers considered the issues to be a neighbour dispute rather than amounting to ASB and advised the landlord that mediation may be needed. The landlord’s records noted that the resident had indicated he would be open to mediation, and email correspondence documented in the landlord’s records shows the landlord followed this up with the neighbour to try to arrange this. This was appropriate given the recommendation made by the police, as mediation would allow an independent party opportunity to work with the resident and his neighbour to try and resolve any issues.
  5. Following reports of an altercation between the resident and his neighbour in June 2021, the landlord completed an ABA with each party in attendance with the police on 11 June 2021. This was reasonable as it would allow the landlord to take appropriate action if the terms of any such agreements were broken and demonstrated that the landlord continued to take the resident’s concerns seriously.
  6. The landlord visited the resident on 03 September 2021 to discuss his ongoing complaint. Subsequently, it stated in its stage two response that it was satisfied that the neighbour’s fence was of suitable quality to prevent the dog from escaping and it would not be asking the neighbour to remove it nor the dog. The landlord said that it did not witness any noise leaving the resident’s home and on visiting the neighbour, it did not witness the dog exhibiting any aggressive behaviour. This was a reasonable response as the landlord said it found no tenancy breaches when visiting and it managed the resident’s expectations by clearly communicating its position. The landlord demonstrated it continued to be resolution focused in its final response, by outlining agreed actions it would take to manage the ongoing situation such as an agreement to arrange mediation.
  7. It is clear that this situation has been frustrating for the resident and any distress he experienced is therefore understandable. Nonetheless, this Service has not seen any evidence which suggests that the landlord acted unreasonably in relation to its handling of the resident’s reports of ASB. The landlord acted in line with its ASB policy as it took a collaborative approach by working in partnership with the police and other professional organisations in trying to resolve the resident’s concerns, while being clear to the resident about its own capabilities.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Scheme, there was no maladministration by the landlord in respect of the complaint.