Applications are open to join the next Housing Ombudsman Resident Panel – find out more Housing Ombudsman Resident Panel.

Colchester City Council (202333886)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202333886

Colchester City Council

11 June 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 concerns about allegations of ASB made by a neighbour.
    2. The installation of a fence.

Background

  1. The resident is a tenant of the landlord. Her garden adjoins to a neighbour’s garden. The neighbour is not the landlord’s tenant.
  2. In 2022 the landlord told the resident it had received allegations about ASB and damage to a fence. In June 2023, the landlord told the resident it would install fence panels and a chain link fence in part of her garden to try and resolve the issue. On 31 October 2023, the landlord gave the resident a letter from her neighbour about a claim for costs for alleged damage to their garden boundary fence. It then wrote to the resident on 2 November 2023 requesting a meeting about recent ASB allegations by the neighbour.
  3. The resident complained to the landlord on 3 November 2023. She said she was accused of ASB in the landlord’s letter but it had not provided evidence or information about this. The resident said a staff member had not acted impartially, and the landlord had not installed the fence. She also raised concerns about the landlord sharing information with the police.
  4. The landlord responded at stage 1 on 15 November 2023. It said it had found no evidence of a lack of impartially. The landlord explained it had invited the resident to a meeting to discuss the ASB allegations and to provide the evidence. It denied accusing the resident of causing damage to the fence but said it had passed on the neighbour’s invoice because the neighbour had been asked not to contact the resident directly. It apologised for the delay replacing the fence panels. The landlord confirmed it was entitled to share information with the police about ASB.
  5. The resident escalated her complaint to stage 2 on 15 November 2023. She said she did not agree with the allegations of ASB, had not been given evidence, and a staff member was not impartial.
  6. On 28 November 2023, the resident attending a meeting with the landlord about the allegations of ASB. The landlord told the resident it was issuing a Notice Seeking Possession (NSP).
  7. The landlord issued a final response on 14 December 2023. It said its staff member’s actions were in line with its polices. Nonetheless, it acknowledged it could have been clearer in its letter to the resident about the invoice from the neighbour.
  8. The resident remained dissatisfied with the landlord’s response. In her complaint to the Ombudsman, she said the neighbour’s fence panels were still missing and she had received a court claim about the damages.

Assessment and findings

Scope of Investigation

  1. The evidence shows a history of ASB reports by the resident, and reports made about the resident by the neighbour. While the historical issues provide context to the current complaint, the focus of this investigation is on the issues raised in the resident’s formal complaint on 3 November 2023 about ASB allegations made in October 2023.
  2. Some of the issues raised to us by the resident happened following the end of the complaints process or were not part of the complaint to the landlord. This includes the NSP issued by the landlord on 29 November 2023 and the subsequent events following this, the landlord’s handing of further allegations of ASB, and a court claim for damages to a fence made by her neighbour. The scope of this investigation centres on the issues raised during the resident’s formal complaint, to which the landlord sent its final response on 28 August 2024. Any issues or requests after that time should be raised as new complaints with the landlord before they can potentially be investigated by the Ombudsman.
  3. The resident raised concerns to the Service about a neighbour’s CCTV cameras. The Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO) is the UK’s independent body set up to uphold information rights. Its website explains the circumstances in which the data protection law applies to the use of a CCTV system. The General Data Protection Regulation and the Data Protection Act 2018 would be a matter for the ICO to consider. The resident could consider contacting the ICO to discuss any overall concerns she may have about her personal data and how it may be being captured and used.
  4. The resident has complained that her situation has impacted her health. The Ombudsman is unable to assess the cause of, or liability for, impacts on health and wellbeing. The resident may be able to make a personal injury claim if she considers that her health has been affected by the landlord’s actions or inaction. This is a legal process, and the resident may wish to seek legal advice if she wants to pursue this option. As this issue is more effectively resolved and remedied through the courts it will not be considered in this report.

The response to allegations of ASB made by a neighbour

  1. The resident’s conditions of tenancy states residents must not cause danger or a nuisance or annoy neighbours. Examples of behaviour that may breach the tenancy incudes damaging property.
  2. The landlord’s ASB policy says it will use intervention measures to tackle instances of ASB alongside preventative, educational and enforcement actions including the use of community prevention warnings, notices and NSPs. The landlord will use a wide range of preventative and diversionary activities to help tackle incidents of ASB. It says the landlord will share all relevant information on ASB with local partners and it works closely with partner agencies, including the police.
  3. The landlord’s complaints policy says it has a 2 stage complaints process. At stage 1 it aims to acknowledge complaints within 5 working days and will ask for any more information that may be required.
  4. The Ombudsman’s role is to determine whether, in response to reports of ASB, the landlord responded in accordance with its relevant policies and procedures and if its actions were fair and reasonable in all the circumstances of the case.
  5. It was reasonable for the landlord to arrange a meeting with the resident to explain the allegations and provide her with its evidence. This happened on 28 November 2023. It had attempted to arrange the meeting earlier and this had been rearranged by the resident. The landlord’s notes from the meeting stated that the landlord explained the allegations and the evidence it had to support these to the resident. The notes stated the resident denied the allegations. The landlord informed the resident of the action it was taking and provided her with a copy of the allegations. The actions taken were in line with its ASB policy and an evidence-based approach.
  6. The resident complained that the one of the landlord’s officers had acted inappropriately by delivering the neighbour’s invoice. The landlord explained that by doing so neither it nor the officer were accusing the resident of causing the damage or were acting on the neighbour’s behalf.
  7. The landlord’s explanation for its decision was reasonable. It had tried to prevent a further escalation of the situation by asking the neighbour not to contact the resident directly and had delivered the invoice to avoid the need for contact between them. The landlord acknowledged in its final response that it could have made it clearer that the letter was not a bill or a demand for money. It said it had taken forward as a future improvement, the need for a clear approach in the wording of its communication. It is apparent from the evidence that the letter had caused the resident distress. As such it was appropriate for the landlord to acknowledge its communication here could have been better and learn from the complaint.
  8. The landlord’s explanation that it could share information with the police was in accordance with its ASB policy. The resident had also raised concerns about the police’s response to a previous incident, and so it was appropriate for the landlord to suggest she put her concerns directly to them.
  9. The resident complained to the Service that the landlord failed to contact her at stage 1 of the complaint process to discuss her concerns. The evidence shows the landlord offered the resident an opportunity to provide further information and acted in accordance with its complaints policy. It wrote to her acknowledging her complaint on 6 November 2023 and asked her to respond if she wished to add anything further. The resident added further information to her complaint on 8 and 13 November 2023 which the landlord took into consideration within its responses.
  10. Overall, the landlord’s response to the ASB allegations was reasonable. The resident does not agree with the allegations made. However, it was appropriate for the landlord to arrange a meeting to discuss them and provide evidence. Its complaint responses demonstrated it investigated the resident’s concerns about staff conduct and the actions it had taken were in line with its ASB policy.

Fence installation.

  1. The landlord’s boundary definition policy says the landlord has an obligation to mark its boundaries. Private boundaries are the responsibility of the owners to maintain.
  2. The landlord’s repair policy says batched repairs which include fence and boundary maintenance will be completed within a timescale of 4 months.
  3. The landlord told the Service that it had decided to install fence panels within the boundary of the resident’s property to try and resolve the issue of fencing between the resident and the neighbour. The evidence shows the boundary belonged to the neighbour, and therefore the landlord had no obligation to undertake this work.
  4. The landlord told the resident in June 2023 it would install the fence but did not give a timescale. The fence was installed in January 2024. The evidence shows the landlord ordered the work in October 2023. Its complaint responses acknowledged its delay and apologised. It did not explain the delay at the time but has told the Service it was due to human error. In its final complaint response, the landlord confirmed the work would be completed on 18 December 2023. The further delay to completion was due to a cancelled appointment by the resident.
  5. The landlord informed the resident in October 2023 that it was chasing the work. There is no evidence of an update prior to this so the resident did not know when she could expect the work to be completed. The landlord apologised for the delay and arranged to complete the installation of the fencing as promised. The landlord was not obliged to install the fence, and it did not give a timescale for doing so. Nonetheless, having made the decision, good customer service was to at least keep the resident informed and manage her expectations. It did not do that until October 2023, a period of approximately 4 months. In that context the landlord’s apology did not go quite far enough to reflect the lack of updates to the resident about the delay, especially given the landlord’s decision had been to help reduce ongoing ASB issues.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was no maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s concerns about allegations of ASB made by a neighbour.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was service failure in the landlord’s handling of the installation of a fence.

Orders and recommendations

Order

  1. Within 4 weeks of this report the landlord must pay the resident compensation of £100 for the inconvenience caused by failing found in its handling of the installation of a fence.
  2. The landlord must provide evidence of compliance with this order within the deadline above.