London Borough of Hillingdon (202204344)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202204344

London Borough of Hillingdon

28 February 2025

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 anti-social behaviour (ASB).
   2. The associated complaint.

Background

2. The resident is a secured tenant of the landlord. The landlord is a local authority.
3. On 3 February 2023 the resident made a stage 1 complaint. They said:
   1. Their neighbour had been away since November 2022 and the neighbour’s dog was constantly barking. This was affecting their daily life/sleep and their mental health.
   2. The landlord’s ‘ASBO’ team had been dealing with the neighbour but had closed the case for unknown reasons.
   3. Their housing officer was not responding to emails they had sent. They wanted a meeting with their housing officer and the housing officer’s manager.
4. The landlord issued its stage 1 response on 28 February 2023. It said:
   1. Its Anti-social behaviour and Environmental Team (ASBET) had begun to look at reports made by the resident but, as the resident and their neighbour were both tenants of the landlord, ASBET had felt the matters were best dealt with by Tenancy Management.
   2. The resident’s housing officer and their manager had met with the resident at the resident’s home. During this meeting the resident had repeated their complaint about the neighbour’s dog. Neither the housing officer nor their manager had heard the dog barking during the meeting. They had agreed to speak to the resident’s neighbour and remind them of the conditions of tenancy.
   3. It was sorry that the resident had experienced a lack of response to their emails. It had reminded all staff of the need to respond to communications in line with its Customer Service Standards.
5. On 11 March 2023 the resident escalated their complaint to stage 2 of the complaint procedure. They said the neighbour was allowing their dogs to bark constantly. They explained they had trained their dog to only bark on command. They were unhappy that the landlord had said, during the meeting at their home, that barking dogs were ‘everyday noise’. They did not feel the landlord had taken appropriate action to resolve the issue.
6. The landlord issued its final response on 29 March 2023. It said:
   1. It understood that, following receipt of the resident’s stage 1 complaint, it had visited the resident’s home to discuss the complaint about the neighbour’s barking dog.
   2. It had noted the resident’s statement about training their dog, but it could not insist that their neighbour did the same as part of their tenancy obligations.
   3. It had carried out an unannounced visit to the neighbour to remind them of their tenancy obligations in relation to being a responsible pet owner. The neighbour’s dogs had barked for a short period when the landlord arrived at the neighbour’s property but had soon settled down and stopped.
   4. It had concluded it had appropriately investigated and responded to the resident’s concerns. It had not received any reports from other neighbouring tenants. There was no evidence of a material breach of the tenancy conditions which would warrant it taking formal action against the neighbour.
7. On 18 July 2023 the resident confirmed that they wanted this service to investigate their complaint. They said they wanted the situation to be resolved and for the landlord to take action against their neighbour.

Assessment and findings

Scope of the investigation

8. Paragraph 42.a of the Scheme states the Ombudsman may not consider complaints which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, are made prior to having exhausted a member’s complaints procedure, unless there is evidence of a complaint-handling failure and the Ombudsman is satisfied that the member has not taken action within a reasonable timescale.
9. The only element of the resident’s complaint that was escalated to stage 2 of the complaints procedure was the issue of the neighbour’s dog barking. This is therefore the only matter that has exhausted the landlord’s complaints procedure and that the Ombudsman can investigate.
10. In their contact with this service the resident has indicated that issues with their neighbour have continued after the landlord’s final response of 29 March 2023.
11. While it accepted that these could be a continuation of the matters that had exhausted the complaints procedure, the landlord would need to be given the opportunity to review and respond to any concerns about its handling of matters before the Ombudsman could investigate.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s report of anti-social behaviour (ASB)

12. In cases concerning ASB, it is the Ombudsman’s role to assess the appropriateness and adequacy of the landlord’s actions. This does not include establishing whether a party is responsible for ASB. The investigation is limited to considering the actions of the landlord in the context of its relevant policies/procedures as well as what was fair in all the circumstances of the case. The Ombudsman cannot order the landlord to take specific actions against tenants.
13. The landlord’s website provides information about how it handles ASB involving its tenants. It advises it will not investigate everyday household and everyday activity noise. Its ‘Good Neighbour Guide’ sets out expected responsibilities for tenants (which includes being a responsible pet owner). The guide explains that the landlord will investigate complaints made by or against tenants and that it will take action that is appropriate to the seriousness of the alleged conduct.
14. The landlord has provided evidence that it met with the resident on 27 October 2022. This was to discuss reports that the resident had made about their neighbour. While this meeting did not appear to relate to the neighbour’s dog barking, the landlord recorded that the resident advised they believed their neighbour would be away for several months. The landlord also noted that the resident advised someone was attending to look after the neighbour’s dog and things had been quiet.
15. There is no evidence of any other reports about the neighbour’s dog barking until the resident’s stage 1 complaint. Following the resident’s complaint, it was reasonable for the landlord to agree to their request to have a meeting with their housing officer and the housing officer’s manager. It was also reasonable for the landlord to use this meeting to discuss the resident’s concerns about their neighbour’s dog.
16. There is no evidence that the resident disputes the landlord’s account that it did not hear the neighbour’s dog barking during its visit. Given the resident’s concerns, it was reasonable for the landlord to agree to speak to the neighbour. The Ombudsman considers this was an appropriate level of action to take in relation to the report that the resident had made and the evidence available at that time. It demonstrates that the landlord was taking the resident’s concerns seriously.
17. The landlord did not appear to provide the resident with any advice about keeping diary sheets or using a noise app to record the dog barking. However, it appears from the evidence provided to this service that the resident had previously been advised how to and/or had used both these methods to obtain evidence of other alleged ASB or noise nuisance. The Ombudsman therefore does not consider this omission by the landlord would have had an adverse impact on the resident.
18. While the landlord has not provided this service with any records of the visit to the neighbour, it has provided a copy of a letter it sent to them the day after the visit. This confirms it had carried out an unattended visit and had no concerns about the neighbour’s pets. It did make it clear that its consent for the neighbour having pets was subject to it not receiving future complaints about the pets. This was a reasonable step for the landlord to take to address the resident’s concerns and would allow it to reconsider its position, if necessary, in the future
19. It was reasonable for the landlord to explain, in its final response, that it could not require the neighbour to train their dog as part of their tenancy conditions. The landlord provided a clear explanation for its decision to take no further action at that time. The decision appears to have been in line with its published approach to dealing with complaints about its tenants and was appropriate.
20. For the reasons set out above, the Ombudsman considers there was no maladministration by the landlord in its handling of the residents reports of ASB.

The landlord’s handling of the associated complaint

21. The landlord provided this service with a copy of its complaint policy. The policy states that, at both stage 1 and 2, it would acknowledge complaints within 3 working days and issue its response within 10 working days. If it was not able to issue the response within that time it would contact the resident to notify them and let them know how much additional time was required.
22. There is no evidence that the landlord acknowledged the resident’s stage 1 complaint. It took the landlord 17 working days to issue its stage 1 response. It is noted that the landlord wrote to the resident on 24 February 2023 to advise it needed additional time to issue its response. However, this was still 15 working days after the resident had made their complaint.
23. The time taken for the landlord to issue its stage 1 response was outside its policy and was therefore not appropriate. This remains the case even if an allowance of 3 working days was made for the landlord to have acknowledged the complaint.
24. The landlord did acknowledge the resident’s stage 2 escalation within 3 working days. It issued its final response within 10 working days of the acknowledgement. This was in line with its policy and was appropriate.
25. There is no evidence that the landlord’s failures to acknowledge the stage 1 complaint or issue its response within its stated timescales caused any detriment to the resident. There is also no evidence of any other complaint handling failures. The landlord provided an apology for the delay in its stage 1 response. This was a reasonable action for it to take.
26. Having considered all circumstances of the case, it is the Ombudsman’s view that the identified failure was minor and the landlord provided an appropriate acknowledgement and remedy. For this reason, the landlord offered reasonable redress for its handling of the associated complaint.

Determination

27. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was no maladministration by the landlord in its handling of the resident’s reports of ASB.
28. In accordance with paragraph 53.b of the Scheme, the landlord offered reasonable redress for its handling of the associated complaint.