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

Aspire Housing Limited (202226247)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202226247

Aspire Housing Limited

9 July 2024


Our approach

What we can and cannot consider is called the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction and is governed by the Housing Ombudsman Scheme. The Ombudsman must determine whether a complaint comes within their jurisdiction. The Ombudsman seeks to resolve disputes wherever possible but cannot investigate complaints that fall outside of this. 

In deciding whether a complaint falls within their jurisdiction, the Ombudsman will carefully consider all the evidence provided by the parties and the circumstances of the case.

 

The complaint

  1. The complaint is about:
    1. The landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of noise disturbances.
    2. The landlord’s handling of the resident’s concerns about a tree.

 

Determination (jurisdictional decision)

  1. When a complaint is brought to the Ombudsman, we must consider all the circumstances of the case as there are sometimes reasons why a complaint will not be investigated.
  2. After carefully considering all the evidence, I have determined that the complaints, as set out above, are not within the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction.

 

Summary of events

  1. The resident is an assured tenant who has lived at the property since May 2022. The property is a 3 bedroom semi-detached house. The resident has a range of vulnerabilities, including mobility issues, diabetes, personality disorder and Gilles de la Tourette’s syndrome.
  2. The resident complained to the landlord in January 2023 that it had not taken any action in response to his reports of noise disturbances. The resident said his neighbour’s children were constantly banging walls and screaming all day and night. He explained the detrimental impact the noise was having on his health and asked the landlord to take action.
  3. The resident also complained that the landlord had not addressed his concerns about a tree in his back garden. He was worried about the size of it, that branches were falling off it, and that it could pose a danger if it blew over in a storm. He reported that the large roots had damaged the path in the garden, which he then had difficulty using due to his disabilities. He was also unhappy that the tree was blocking light and obstructing views from rear windows in the property. He wanted the landlord to remove it.
  4. The landlord issued a stage 1 response in February 2023. It explained that the noise from next door “cannot not be helped” as it was as a result of the children having disabilities. The landlord said it would speak to the children’s mother to explore if there was anything that it could do to improve the situation. In relation to the tree, the landlord said it inspected all trees it owned annually. It referred to an inspection by a tree surgeon in November 2022 which determined the tree to be in good condition. It therefore proposed taking no further action in relation to the tree.
  5. The resident was unhappy with the response and asked to escalate his complaint. The landlord investigated and issued its stage 2 response in August 2023. It upheld the resident’s complaint and said the following:
    1. The tree was surveyed by a contractor during the landlord’s stage 2 investigation. The contractor recommended that the best solution to managing the tree would be to remove it. Accordingly, the landlord cut it down, leaving a stump that was approximately 2 foot in height.
    2. It accepted that the garden path had been adversely affected by the tree. An area at the rear of the garden was also in poor condition. A contractor would assess the work and make the path and area to the rear good.
    3. It was unaware that there were noise issues at the property at the time the resident moved in. It had not received any complaints from previous tenants. It said it would not normally arrange soundproofing. However, as this was an “unusual case”, the landlord would arrange for a contractor to survey the property and report back with possible solutions.
  6. The survey of the property for soundproofing options was duly carried out and the landlord considered the findings. It subsequently determined not to carry out any soundproofing works.
  7. The resident remained unhappy with the landlord’s response to his reports of noise and its handling of his concerns regarding the tree. He therefore referred the complaints to the Ombudsman. He said that the landlord had failed to discharge its public sector equality duties in its approach to these matters.
  8. In addition to dealing with the complaints about the noise and the tree, both complaint responses referred to above addressed several other issues raised by the resident. This included a complaint about solar panels on the property. When referring his complaint to the Ombudsman, the resident advised that he did not wish us to investigate the solar panel complaint. He confirmed that it was the complaints about the noise and the tree that he wished us to investigate.

Reasons

  1. Paragraph 41.c of the Scheme states that the Ombudsman cannot consider complaints which are the subject of court proceedings. The landlord advised the Ombudsman that the resident has submitted numerous civil claims against it, its contractors and its employees. The Ombudsman has reviewed the particulars of the following 2 civil claims brought against the landlord and duly lodged in the County Court:
    1. A civil claim submitted by the resident on 24 August 2023. The claim form set out the particulars of the claim. This included that the landlord had failed to take sufficient action in relation to noise nuisance from the neighbours. The particulars also stated that the landlord had not completed various repair works and that it had not taken action in relation to the tree, “with large branches falling on to the claimant and his children for 13 months.”
    2. A civil claim submitted by the resident on 18 October 2023. The claim form stated that this was a counterclaim in response to an antisocial behaviour injunction (ASBI) obtained by the landlord against the resident. The ASBI was initially issued in August 2023. It was confirmed in April 2024 that this should remain in place for a further 2 years. The particulars of the resident’s counterclaim included that the landlord had breached the Protection from Harassment Act 1997 and the Equality Act 2010. The resident cited the landlord’s response to the noise complaint against the neighbours and its actions in relation to the tree as evidence in support of the claim.
  2. In addition to the civil claims, the resident applied to the High Court on 9 April 2024 to judicially review the landlord. The resident seeks to challenge the landlord’s decision “not to move [the resident] when there were serious issues between [him] and his neighbours”, and the landlord’s decision not to soundproof the walls in the property. He has also cited in his application that the landlord has not discharged its “public sector duty” and has breached various articles of the European Convention on Human Rights.
  3. The landlord has advised it is currently awaiting direction from the court in relation to the civil claims and the judicial review. 
  4. The resident’s dissatisfaction with the landlord and its response to his concerns is noted. However, as the complaint about the noise has been included in the ongoing civil claims and is referred to in the judicial review application, the Ombudsman does not have the jurisdiction to investigate as per paragraph 41.c of the Scheme.
  5. As the complaint about the tree has been included in the ongoing civil claims, the Ombudsman does not have the jurisdiction to investigate as per paragraph 41.c of the Scheme.