Citizen Housing (202300887)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202300887

Citizen Housing

25 April 2024

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 about a neighbour feeding foxes and the impact that it had on the resident’s pet.

Background

2. The resident is an assured tenant of the landlord. The property is a ground-floor flat with a shared communal garden.
3. Between 20 December 2022 and 14 February 2023, the resident made 3 reports to the landlord that his neighbour had been leaving bowls of food on the patio that had attracted vermin and foxes. Subsequently, the landlord contacted the neighbour and advised that action would be taken if she did not refrain from leaving food and water out.
4. The resident raised a complaint on 16 March 2023. He said that the neighbour had continued to put food out on her patio, which had attracted foxes and wildlife. The resident reported that his dog had caught mange, and he believed this was caught from a fox that his neighbour had been feeding. Mange is a skin condition caused by mites; It is highly contagious and most commonly caught from infected dogs and foxes. The resident wished to be reimbursed for vet costs as a result of treating the condition.
5. On 30 March 2023, the landlord issued its stage one response. It said that it was unable to reimburse the resident for any vet costs, and he would need to claim any expenditure back on his pet insurance. The landlord also said that it shared the resident’s concerns with his housing officer and their manager, as well as the landlord’s tenancy sustainment officer to try and resolve the issue. It reassured the resident that the housing officer had discussed the matter with his neighbour on several occasions.
6. However, the resident escalated his complaint on 2 April 2023. The landlord wrote to the neighbour on 6 April 2023, following a face-to-face meeting, and thanked her for understanding the resident’s concerns and agreeing to refrain from feeding any foxes. It also said that a letter had been sent to all residents with advice about tackling other vermin.
7. On 6 April 2023. the landlord issued its stage two response. It explained that it had visited the neighbour to discuss the issue, and also wrote to all residents. However, it was limited in action it could take and the landlord could only advise residents of the repercussions of feeding wildlife but could not enforce it. The landlord apologised that his dog had been unwell.
8. The resident remains dissatisfied as he does not agree that he should claim for vet costs on his pet insurance. Environmental health had been informed, as well as the residents MP, but no action had been taken. The resident would like the landlord to install CCTV cameras and take action if the neighbour continued to feed wildlife.

Assessment and findings

Scope

9. The Housing Ombudsman Scheme (‘the Scheme’), details the scope of complaints that this service can investigate. In paragraph 42c the Scheme states that “the Ombudsman may not consider complaints which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion were not brought to the attention of the member as a formal complaint within a reasonable period which would normally be within 6 months of the matters arising.”
10. The resident has informed this Service that the issue of the neighbour feeding wildlife had been a longstanding issue for the past 8 years. However, this investigation has focused on the landlord’s handling of the resident’s recent reports. This is because it appears that the resident only formally complained about this issue on 16 March 2023, and it was this complaint that exhausted the landlord’s process and was subsequently brought to this Service for investigation. If the resident was dissatisfied with the landlord’s handling of any earlier complaints, these should have been pursued and brought to the Ombudsman if he remained dissatisfied.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports about a neighbour feeding foxes and the impact that it had on the resident’s pet.

11. The landlord’s anti-social behaviour (ASB) policy defines ASB in three ways, one of them being as conduct capable of causing a nuisance or annoyance to a person in relation to that person’s occupation of a residential premises.
12. The policy outlines that residents must take responsibility for minor ASB-related disputes. It also states that the landlord would adopt a harm-based approach to ASB to ensure that reports receive attention in proportion to the risk of harm they present.
13. With regard to feeding foxes and wildlife, the policy does not outline whether it would be considered as ASB or not. Furthermore, there is currently no law in the UK that prevents people from feeding foxes, albeit it is discouraged by wildlife authorities.
14. In this case, the resident reported his neighbour’s actions of throwing food in the communal garden, which he said attracted foxes and his dog had subsequently caught mange. The landlord’s actions were appropriate and showed that it initially tried to alleviate the issues by writing to all residents with advice about feeding wildlife, and the potential that it could attract vermin. This was reasonable in the absence of evidence that definitively indicated that it was his neighbour that was leaving out food.
15. The resident provided photographs to the landlord that evidenced food on the ground in the rear communal garden area, as well as photographs of his dogs skin condition. The Ombudsman is limited in the extent to which it can rely on photographic evidence as it is not possible for this Service to determine the location/circumstances of the photographs, or the validity of the images themselves. As a result, we do not generally place significant reliance on photographs in reaching our decisions.
16. That being said, following several complaints and receipt of the resident’s photographs, the landlord approached the neighbour and explained the impact that her actions were having on other resident’s pets. The landlord confirmed that the neighbour agreed to stop leaving food out. This was positive and demonstrated that the landlord was taking action to resolve the issues.
17. While understandably distressing for the resident, there is no evidence that his dog caught mange as a result of a service failure of the landlord. Therefore, the landlord’s advice to claim back any costs incurred via his pet insurance was reasonable.
18. Overall, the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports was appropriate. It provided advice to the neighbour and other residents regarding leaving food out for wildlife. It was empathetic to the resident’s situation and took reasonable action to address his concerns within its limitations.
19. This Service acknowledges the distress that can be caused with neighbours feeding and attracting foxes and the vermin it could attract. There is no evidence that the neighbours actions had attracted vermin, but it is recommended that this is monitored by the landlord and appropriate action is taken if necessary.

Determination

20. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration in respect of the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports about a neighbour feeding foxes and the impact that it had on the resident’s pet.