Trent & Dove Housing Limited (202004506)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202004506

Trent & Dove Housing Limited

25 November 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 resident has complained about the landlord’s handling of his reports of anti-social behaviour (ASB).

Background and summary of events

Policies and Procedures

  1. The landlord’s ASB Policy outlines its aims and objectives when managing ASB cases although the policy states that “This policy relates to all homes managed by the company.  The type of action the company may take will be dependent upon what is available to them for the type of tenure.”
  2. The ASB policy outlines the circumstances when it may intervene in “Cross Tenure Issues” stating that “We deal with matters of ASB that affect our housing management function. This means that we may take action against non-tenants where their behaviour is affecting our tenants or our staff/contractors. In some cases, there may be another agency that is better placed to take action against a non-tenant.”
  3. With regards to Neighbour Issues, the ASB Policy states “Where the behaviour relates to a dispute between neighbours – It is inevitable that we are sometimes going to live next door to people that we do not like or get on with. We believe that this is something that happens in life and that people should try and resolve matters themselves, rather than rely on us to do so.”

 

 

Summary of Events

  1. The resident is a tenant of the landlord, and his property is a ground floor flat.  His neighbour is an owner occupier and there is a hedge along the boundary separating the properties.
  2. On 30 May 2020, the resident emailed the landlord reporting that he had been cutting back the hedge which was overgrown when his neighbour appeared and shouted at him.  The resident advised that the neighbour demanded that he stop cutting the hedge and challenged him to a fight. Although the landlord has not provided a contemporaneous record of its response to the resident’s report, the parties do not dispute that the landlord did not agree to take action against the neighbour at this time.
  3. On 10 June 2020 the resident wrote to the landlord stating that he was abused every time he went to cut the hedge.  He also referred to a previous agreement where either the upstairs tenant or his neighbour would cut his side of the hedge.
  4. On 28 August 2020 the resident advised this Service that the landlord would not accept his complaint about hedge, stating that it could not tell his neighbour what to do.  On 30 September 2020 this Service asked the landlord to contact the resident and provide an update on his complaint which we understood to be about its handling of his reports of ASB. As this Service did not receive a response, we sent a chaser email on 26 October 2020.
  5. On 27 October 2020 the landlord responded to this Service making reference to a separate complaint about staff conduct.  On 2 December 2020 this Service wrote to landlord noting that neither the resident nor this Service had received a response from the landlord.
  6. In an exchange of correspondence on 4 December 2020, the landlord sought to confirm details of the resident’s complaint.  It registered a formal complaint and established that on 30 May 2020, the resident had provided evidence of his neighbour abusing him when he was trying to cut the overhanging branches of their hedge on his side of the property. The landlord noted that the resident considered that this incident was not thoroughly investigated and at that time the landlord had refused to discuss the matter with him or write to his neighbour.
  7. The landlord also noted that the resident had stated that in September 2020, his neighbour tried to start a fight with him in the middle of the street. The resident alleged that the neighbour was in breach of a police order not to approach him. The landlord also noted that the resident considered that he should not have to put up with this behaviour from his neighbour and that he wanted the landlord to support him in this matter.
  8. On 8 December 2020 the landlord sent the Stage 1 response to the complaint. It confirmed that it had reviewed the footage provided by the resident which only showed him on a ladder. It noted that the footage was not time stamped and did not show anyone else in the property or any abusive behaviour. The landlord stated that, consequently, no action could be taken against the neighbour, and it upheld the decision of May 2020.  The landlord also noted that the resident was responsible under his tenancy agreement to keep his garden tidy and maintain borders.  It would therefore write to his neighbour to remind him that he had the right to cut overhanging branches on his side of the property peacefully and without interruption.
  9. The landlord also noted that the resident had reported that the neighbour had approached him in the street in September 2020, breaching a police order. The landlord advised it was a police matter and for the police to decide whether to issue any proceedings. However, if the resident could provide a crime number, it would contact the police to discuss the matter further and provide support as necessary.
  10. On 21 December 2021, the landlord wrote to the neighbour noting that the hedge on the boundary had grown onto its side.  It noted that the neighbour had previously communicated with it about the hedge and encouraged all communication to be positive.
  11. On 13 January 2021, the landlord wrote further to the neighbour noting that in previous conversations it was agreed that the neighbour would cut his side of the hedge only; however, it was now requesting that the neighbour maintain the hedge in its entirety. The landlord stated that the advice in a letter previously sent in March 2018 was rescinded and the tenant had confirmed that the neighbour’s contractor could stand on his neighbour’s land in order to trim the hedge. 
  12. After further contact with the resident on 14 January 2020, the landlord escalated the complaint.  It understood that the resident remained dissatisfied because:
    1. His neighbour was abusive to him every time he tried to trim the hedge.
    2. He was reluctant to undertake any work to maintain the hedge for fear of possible confrontation.
    3. He did not consider that the landlord had taken his concerns regarding the maintenance of the hedge seriously enough and wanted further action.
  13. On 11 February 2021 the landlord sent the Stage 2 response. It advised that the video of 30 May 2020 only showed the resident and did not show anyone being abusive to him. As there was no clear visual confirmation that his neighbour had abused the resident, it could not take further action as it could not justify such an intervention on his behalf.  It had nonetheless written to the neighbour in December 2020 to request that all communications with the resident remained positive and constructive. The landlord also noted that it had made similar interventions since 2018.
  14. With regards to the resident’s complaint that it did not support him after the incident of September 2020, the landlord noted that the neighbour was a private individual not its customer.  As there was no landlord/tenant relationship, it was limited in the action it could take in respect of allegations of assault or law-breaking. The landlord stated that it had, however, contacted the police to see what support it could provide.  The police advised that there were no formal police orders, warnings, notices or conditions regarding the resident or his neighbour. Therefore, it upheld the Stage 1 decision that the resident should report the incident to the police.
  15. The landlord noted that the resident when escalating his complaint had raised concerns that he would be abused every time he tried to trim the hedge. It had therefore instructed its grounds maintenance contractor to cut the resident’s side of the hedge as soon as possible, and confirmed it would cover the cost. The landlord also clarified that the resident should contact it if he had any concerns about the works.  It also confirmed that it would inform the neighbour of the works and that the neighbour should contact it to discuss further, not the resident.
  16. The landlord further advised that the trimming of the hedge would be added to its cyclical maintenance contract, therefore it would be trimmed at regular intervals. In conclusion, the landlord stated that it believed its actions were reasonable as it would enable the resident’s tenancy obligations to be fulfilled, whilst eliminating the possibility of future confrontation between the resident and his neighbour.
  17. On 2 and 5 March 2021 the resident advised this Service he remained dissatisfied with the complaint response as he felt the police could be involved.  He has also since advised this Service of other incidents involving the neighbour and other neighbours which were not considered as part of the formal complaint that completed the landlord’s complaints procedure on 11 February 2021 and which therefore has not been considered as part of this complaint investigation.

Assessment and findings

  1. It is important to reiterate at the outset that it is not for this Service to determine if the behaviour reported by the resident constituted ASB, as that was a judgement which fell to the landlord to determine. It must also be recognised that responsibility for any ASB lies with the perpetrator, not the landlord. However, the Ombudsman can consider how a landlord has dealt with reports it has received, and its handling of the subsequent formal complaint. This entails assessing whether the landlord has followed proper procedure, followed good practice, and behaved reasonably, taking account of all the circumstances of the case.
  2. It should also be noted that a resolution which suits all parties may not be possible in cases where there are lifestyle differences or personality clashes, resulting in neighbour disputes rather than ASB, for example.  It is the ordinarily the responsibility of residents themselves to resolve these and/or to find a way to live together with minimal impact of any mutual dislike.
  3. The resident’s complaint centred around an altercation with his neighbour after the resident began to cut back the hedge on his side. The landlord’s ASB policy suggested that residents should resolve neighbour disputes themselves.  The landlord also has no power to take tenancy action against the neighbour as the neighbour was not in a landlord/tenant action. 
  4. However, landlords should be mindful of the particular circumstances of each case and of the range of interventions it can make. In this case the resident advised that the underlying issue was the maintenance/appearance of the hedge, and that the altercation he reported prevented him (and the upstairs tenant) from taking the necessary steps to meet a tenancy term and condition – maintaining the front garden and its borders.  Moreover, the resident’s email of 10 June 2020 indicated that the landlord had previously contacted the neighbour and that an arrangement that had been made for the maintenance of the hedge was not being met.  It was therefore unreasonable that the landlord took no action at this time, in particular as the ASB procedure recognises that there may be circumstances where the landlord “may take action against non-tenants where their behaviour is affecting our tenants or our staff/contractors”.
  5. Whilst the landlord may not have been able to take tenancy action against the neighbour, even if the resident’s allegations about the neighbour’s behaviour could be corroborated, there were other actions that the landlord could have taken.  This included confirming the neighbour’s understanding of the arrangements for the maintenance of the hedge and raising the resident’s concerns about the neighbour’s behaviour with the neighbour.
  6. The landlord had further opportunities to register a formal complaint and thereby review the situation with the hedge after this Service wrote to it on 30 September 2020 and 26 October 2020.  The landlord mistakenly understood the complaint to refer to another matter – staff conduct.  This caused further delay and could have been avoided had the landlord not failed to contact the resident to confirm details of his complaint, as requested by this Service. This was also a missed opportunity for the landlord to provide the resident with the necessary assurance that his concerns would receive appropriation attention.
  7. On 4 December 2020, the landlord contacted the resident and then took appropriate steps to confirm the details of his complaint. Following its investigation into the resident’s complaint, the landlord took action to confirm the arrangements for the maintenance of the hedge and to prevent further altercations involving the neighbour by writing to the neighbour twice about these points.
  8. When submitting his complaint, the resident also advised the landlord of an incident in September 2020 whereby his neighbour confronted him in breach of a police order. It was therefore appropriate that the landlord subsequently contacted the police, as confirmed in the Stage 2 response, as the police could advise of any action it had indeed taken in respect of the situation between the resident and his neighbour. This in turn could inform any further action the landlord could take itself in respect of the neighbour and/or any support the landlord could provide to the police.  As the police did not confirm any interventions, it was reasonable that the landlord did not take further action to these ends.
  9. The landlord in its complaint responses did agree to immediately trim the hedge then take responsibility for ongoing maintenance of the hedge under its grounds maintenance service.  It is not clear how it arrived at this decision insofar as the decision differed from its previous request for the neighbour to carry out the full hedge maintenance. Regardless, the landlord acted over and above its obligation, to the benefit of the resident, by assuming responsibility for the hedge. This is because this decision should prevent the resident both from breaching the term of his tenancy agreement covering the maintenance of his front garden area, and from being personally approached by his neighbour when the resident’s side of the hedge is being maintained.
  10. In conclusion, the landlord ultimately took reasonable action to resolve the resident’s reports of ASB by writing to his neighbour twice about the issues the resident had raised, seeking further information from the police and by deciding to assume responsibility for the maintenance of the hedge.  However, it had previously delayed in dealing with the resident’s concerns of ASB from his neighbour as it took no action in response of the resident’s report of 30 May 2021 and his email of 10 June 2020, then failed to contact the resident to confirm the details of his complaint about its handling of ASB issues, as requested by this Service.

Determination (decision)

  1. In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure by the landlord.

 

Reasons

  1. The landlord ultimately took reasonable action to resolve the resident’s reports of ASB by writing to his neighbour twice about the issues the resident had raised, seeking further information from the police and by ultimately deciding to assume responsibility for the maintenance of the hedge.  However, it had previously delayed in dealing with the resident’s concerns of ASB from his neighbour as it took no action in response of the resident’s report of 30 May 2021 and his email of 10 June 2020. It then failed to contact the resident to confirm the details of his complaint about its handling of ASB issues, as requested by this Service.

Order

  1. The landlord pays the resident £100 compensation in respect of the distress and inconvenience caused by its handling of his reports of ASB.