Barnsley Metropolitan Borough Council (202424401)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202424401

Barnsley Metropolitan Borough Council

23 May 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 the resident’s reports of issues with his neighbour.

Background

2. The resident is a secure tenant and has lived in the property, a first floor flat, since 2018. The landlord is a council.
3. On 25 March 2024 the resident contacted the landlord to discuss an issue with a new neighbour who had moved into the flat below. There had been a disagreement about a shared path and access. The resident also reported to the landlord on 18 April 2024 that the neighbour was making noise at night.
4. The landlord conducted numerous home visits to both the resident and the neighbour. It addressed the issues with each party and offered mediation. It also liaised with other agencies such as pest control and the RSPCA based on reports from the resident about rats and pet welfare.
5. The resident made a stage 1 complaint on 24 June 2024 as he did not believe the landlord had taken enough action. The landlord provided a response on 11 July 2024, outlining the issues and the action taken.
6. The resident escalated the complaint to stage 2 on 17 July 2024, which the landlord acknowledged on 19 July 2024.
7. The landlord made further enquiries and home visits and provided its stage 2 response on 16 August 2024. It addressed each of the issues the resident had reported and confirmed its findings.
8. The resident referred his complaint to us. He appreciates the landlord has responded to his concerns but he remains frustrated his neighbour is still causing a nuisance. He said his ideal resolution would be the neighbour moving out of the property.

Assessment and findings

9. Following the resident raising concerns about the neighbour in March and April 2024, the landlord was proactive in addressing this. It visited the resident on 22 April 2024 to discuss the issues. The resident raised concerns about the neighbour making noise, hoarding, the welfare of her pets, dog fouling and the state of her garden. The landlord showed the resident how to use an ASB app to record all events and offered mediation, which was declined. This was appropriate action by the landlord.
10. The landlord visited the neighbour on 2 May 2024 and addressed the issues raised by the resident. It was positive to do this. The landlord asked the neighbour to be aware of slamming doors and to ensure dog mess was regularly cleared from the garden. While some details of action are not included in the report for data protection reasons, the evidence showed the landlord was supportive and acted appropriately.
11. When reporting the condition of the neighbour’s garden, the resident expressed concern about rats. In response, the landlord made a referral to pest control on 10 May 2024, who attended 3 times throughout that month. Traps and bait were laid but there was no evidence of rats. The landlord took suitable action in response to the resident’s concerns.
12. The landlord wrote to the resident on 29 May 2024 to reassure him it had addressed his concerns and met with the neighbour. This was positive to ensure the resident was kept updated and the landlord demonstrated that it was taking the matter seriously.
13. On 5 and 10 June 2024 the resident reported to the landlord that the neighbour was mistreating her dog. The landlord contacted the RSPCA who visited the neighbour and prompted her to take the dog to the vet. The landlord also conducted unannounced visits to the neighbour and inspected the garden. It recorded there was a small amount of rubbish and no dog mess. This was appropriate and proportionate investigation and action.
14. The resident made his stage 1 complaint as he did not believe the landlord was taking sufficient action. Internal communication showed landlord management encouraging staff to escalate the matter should there be evidence of ASB. This evidenced the landlord being committed to treating the matter seriously.
15. The landlord visited the resident on 3 July 2024. It explained the neighbour’s garden may be untidy but it was an acceptable standard and it had found no dog mess. Following this the landlord acted as a mediator by asking the neighbour to remove plants from the shared path as the resident had reported it as a nuisance. The neighbour did so. The landlord followed this up with a phone call to the resident on 10 July 2024. The action showed the landlord was proactively trying to find a satisfactory resolution to the resident’s concerns.
16. While the landlord’s stage 1 response was issued 3 days over its target timescale, this caused no detriment as it had previously spoken to the resident in person and over the phone about its findings. The landlord summarised the issues and the action taken, stating it had acted appropriately. This was an accurate response.
17. Following the stage 2 escalation the landlord spoke to the resident on 25 July 2024 and visited him on 1 August 2024. It explained there was no evidence to warrant action being taken against the neighbour, which appeared appropriate. The landlord’s good neighbour policy identifies that some behaviour that is deemed a nuisance does not meet the threshold of ASB. An example of this was noise. Anti-social noise was considered to include very loud music or parties with excessive noise. Noise not classed as ASB included doors banging and footsteps. The landlord was correct to assess this case as the latter after sufficient investigation.
18. While this was ongoing the resident reported to the landlord that the neighbour’s CCTV camera was pointing at his property. The landlord visited and confirmed it was not. This was reasonable action.
19. The landlord issued its stage 2 response within a reasonable timescale and listed the issues and action taken:
    1. Noise transfer – The noise described by the resident, such as the neighbour banging doors, was classed as household noise. It correctly stated this did not meet the threshold of ASB. It had addressed the noise concern with the neighbour in person and by letter. It noted noise transfer was to be expected and encouraged the resident to report any escalation. This was a fair and proportionate response.
    2. Garden – It had inspected the neighbour’s garden and taken photographs. It assessed that, while the garden contained some outdoor furniture and personal belongings, there was no breach of tenancy agreement. Having seen the photographs, this decision was reasonable. The garden did look untidy and it was understandable the resident did not agree with it but there was no evidence it caused a hazard or was unsafe. The landlord stated it had visited numerous times and found no evidence of dog mess as reported. It was correct in saying it could not take enforcement action about this.
    3. Rats – Following the resident reporting rats in the garden, pest control attended and found no evidence. The landlord acted appropriately in referring the issue to the relevant agency.
    4. Hoarding – It had inspected the property numerous times, which was evidenced, and had no concerns.
    5. Confrontation – The resident said the neighbour had confronted him about the reports and the police had been informed. The landlord said it had visited both parties and had offered mediation multiple times. This offer remained open. The police took no further action. Other than speak to the resident and neighbour and offer support, there was nothing further the landlord could do at that stage.
    6. CCTV – The landlord had visited and inspected this. The landlord’s CCTV policy stated tenants could install CCTV as long as it caused minimal intrusion of privacy. The landlord did not believe there was intrusion, which it was entitled to decide after inspection.
20. Following the complaints process, internal landlord communication showed it was still committed to addressing the issues. It set tasks to support the resident, including helping him to use the ASB app and visiting the neighbour to address the noise. The landlord offered to fit soft close doors in the neighbour’s property, which the neighbour then did herself.
21. The situation is frustrating and stressful for the resident, who states the neighbour is still causing a nuisance. However, following investigation by the landlord, the issues reported did not meet the statutory nuisance definition under the Environmental Protection Act 1990, which is where issues are prejudicial to health. It did not meet the Home Office definition of ASB which is aggressive, intimidating or destructive activity. The landlord took the action it was able to in this case. It made the relevant enquiries and referrals. It conducted numerous visits to both parties and sought resolution within its ability.
22. The resident appreciates the landlord has taken action and may have done what it can. His ideal resolution is for the neighbour to be moved but the landlord is limited in the enforcement action it can take here. The landlord has acted reasonably and fairly and there was no maladministration in how it handled the resident’s reports of issues with his neighbour. It is recommended the landlord continues to support the resident with the issues he states are still ongoing.

Determination

23. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme there was no maladministration in how the landlord handled the resident’s reports of issues with his neighbour.

Recommendation

24. The landlord is recommended to continue supporting the resident, who reports the issues are ongoing. The landlord should be responsive to any new reports and should speak to the resident regularly to offer reassurance and seek ongoing resolution.