Clarion Housing Association Limited (202212033)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202212033

Clarion Housing Association Limited

17 May 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

The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of:
1. a boundary dispute with a neighbouring property.
2. the resident’s reports of anti social behaviour (ASB) by the neighbour.
3. the complaint.

Background and summary of events

The legal and policy framework

The resident is a secure tenant of the landlord having moved to the property on 7 November 2005. The property is a 3-bedroom house. The resident lives in the property with her daughter. In raising her complaint, the resident has been supported by another daughter who does not live at the property. For clarity, the word resident within this report covers both the resident and her daughters.
The landlord has advised that the resident made it aware of her mobility issues which meant that access to the driveway was important to her.
The landlord implemented an interim complaints policy, which was effective from 17 June 2022. This was following a cyber attack on the same date, which had a significant impact on the landlord’s IT systems. The policy said that new complaints about service delays, which were a direct result of the cyber attack, would be handled outside of the policy.
The complaint definition adopted by the landlord is in line with the Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code), and its policy confirms that where a complaint is submitted by a representative on behalf of a resident, it will be handled in line with the policy. The landlord has a 2 stage complaints procedure. Under this interim policy, complaints were to be acknowledged within 10 working days at each stage. Responses were to be provided within 20 working days at stage 1 and 40 working days at stage 2. The policy defines its stage 2 as a ‘peer review’.
The landlord’s ASB policy uses the definition set out within section 2 (1) of the Anti Social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Act 2014. It sets out that ASB can take many forms and that it will adopt a supportive approach, working in partnership with both internal and external partners to tackle incidents of ASB. Section 3 of the policy provides definitions and includes at 3.5 examples of complaints that may not be considered as ASB. This includes “…disputes over boundary issues, actions which amount to people being unpleasant, … and other neighbourhood issues…”. This is balanced by an acknowledgement of the impact that low level ASB may have. It says at 3.5.5, where there are reports of low level ASB, “if the behaviour is persistent and deliberate and is found to be having a harmful impact on a person or they are at risk or potentially at risk then we will investigate the matter as ASB in line with this policy”.
The policy contains guidance on the actions it will undertake and how it will work with local partner agencies. It has an established threshold for dealing with reports of low level ASB. This is “3 separate incidents reported in the last 7 days, or 5 separate incidents reported in the past 28 days by a member of the same household”.

Summary of events

The resident has said that issues with her neighbour first began in June 2021. The neighbour is a private owner and has no legal relationship with the landlord. Her neighbour complained to the landlord following arrangements the resident had made to professionally prune a tree located in her front garden. The neighbour said that the tree had been theirs. The resident confirmed to the landlord that the tree and its roots were on her side of the fence, so she believed it was hers to prune.
In November and December 2021, a dispute arose around where the resident was placing her bin for collection. The neighbour complained that she was blocking their driveway with her bin, although the resident said she had always placed her bin in this location on the public pathway ahead of collection. The landlord’s tenancy specialist team (TST) were made aware of the issue. Evidence has been provided that on one occasion the police were called following a report that the resident had attached stinging nettles to her bin. This records that the police issued words of advice to both parties.
On 9 February 2022, the resident reported a confrontation with the neighbour. This once again related to the location of her bin. On this occasion she reported that the neighbour said, “you have stolen our land”. She further advised the landlord that she believed her neighbours intended to dispute the land boundary, believing her driveway to be on their land. She explained that the boundary had been in place when she moved into the property and that the landlord had re-done the driveway as part of a renovation project. She said that the neighbour’s behaviour towards her was causing distress to the family and that she believed this to be “an ongoing campaign of harassment”. In response the landlord advised that it was aware that the neighbour was disputing the boundary and that this had been referred to its surveying team. The resident wrote to the landlord again on 15 February 2022 to advise that the neighbour had placed garden waste, including wooden planks and old hanging baskets across the garden fence.
The landlord’s surveyor visited the resident in March 2022. The exact date of this inspection is not clear from the evidence provided. The resident has told the Service that the surveyor confirmed that the boundary fence was in the wrong place and noted that this was likely to have been the case for 30 years, having been put in place by a previous landlord. The surveyor said that it would seek advice from its legal team to find a solution for both parties.
The boundary issue was referred to the landlord’s legal team on 22 April 2022. The evidence shows that the neighbourhood officer followed this up with the legal team on 16 and 17 May and 27 June 2022. On 4 July 2022, the landlord’s legal team sought additional information. This included a question as to whether it would be possible to restore the boundary or possibly compensate the neighbour for the loss. An internal email on 6 July 2022 sets out responses to the questions raised by its legal team. This included advice that it believed the neighbour was seeking restoration of the original boundary. It said that if this happened the resident would lose access to her driveway and the landlord would have to reconfigure a disabled access ramp.
On 31 July 2022 the resident wrote directly to the landlord seeking an update. She reported that there had been an incident that day where the neighbour had pushed down the wire mesh fence on the boundary between the 2 properties. She had reported this to the police. She asked the landlord to update her as to the action it was taking to address the boundary issue. She said that she was being targeted by unpleasantness from the neighbour. The resident sent a further email to her local MP, the police and environmental health in which she said that over the last year the family had been subjected to “a campaign of intimidation from our neighbours”. In this she set out details of incidents that had occurred and said that the cumulative effect of these was to leave her feeling distressed and threatened within her home. She had reported some of these incidents to the police. These included:
1. Hanging garden detritus across the fence between the properties.
2. Making false allegations to the landlord that their bins had been obstructing the driveway.
3. Verbal accusations of stealing their land.
4. Shining a bright orange hazard light and torch through their windows at night.
5. Placing a plant pot on their driveway preventing them from parking. They then made an accusation of theft when it was removed.
6. The fence between the properties has been broken and pulled down, leaving the area insecure.
On 1 August 2022 environmental health wrote to the resident to say that it could deal with the issue of light pollution. It asked her to maintain a log of incidents over a 7-14 day period. On 2 August 2022 the resident reported further damage to the fence by her neighbour, providing photographic evidence. This she also reported to the police. The evidence shows that the police contacted the landlords TST about the reported damage to the fence.
The resident wrote again on 5 August 2022, reporting an escalation in the actions of her neighbour. She was seeking an update from the landlord as to the action it was taking. She said that she was disappointed by the lack of support and communication from the landlord. On the same day the resident raised a formal complaint with the landlord, via its live chat function. This was acknowledged on 8 August 2022.
The resident further contacted the landlord on 17 and 27 August 2022. She told the landlord that the police had attended and spoken with both residents on 12 August 2022. She said that the police would be contacting the landlord about the ongoing boundary dispute. Furthermore, the resident said that the neighbour had put up “passive aggressive signs” and placed caution tape across the disputed land. She was continuing to liaise with environmental health about the issue of light pollution and had also been in contact with the Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO) regarding the neighbours CCTV which she believed was pointing into her home. A further acknowledgement of her complaint was sent by the landlord on 30 August 2022.
On 30 August 2022, the landlord arranged to visit the resident on 2 September 2022. This visit did not go ahead. The resident raised a complaint about this missed appointment the following day. She further said that she had received no correspondence from the landlord’s complaints team following her formal complaint raised on 5 August 2022. She said that her neighbour continued to behave in an intimidating manner towards her and she was seeking support from the landlord in addressing this. The landlord acknowledged her contact on 6 September 2022. It explained that it was still experiencing issues with its IT systems and said that it had passed her contact to its housing team.
The landlord’s legal team provided advice on 8 September 2022. This suggested that it consider an application for adverse possession and provided advice on what would be needed for this to succeed. It also advised as to alternative actions that it could take.
The landlord provided a stage 1 reply on 9 September 2022. This set out the details of the resident’s complaint and the outcome that she was seeking. It said:
1. its housing team were aware of the boundary dispute and that it needed to be resolved. It had sought legal advice and was awaiting an update. It said that it would provide further information when it received a response.
2. it was sorry for the missed appointments on 5 August and 2 September 2022 by its housing team. It confirmed that a fresh appointment had been arranged to discuss the issues and how the landlord could provide support.
3. it had identified a failing in its handling of the issue and the delay in its response to her complaint. It offered £180 compensation. This was broken down as:
  1. £100 for the inconvenience caused and its failure to follow its policy.
  2. £30 for the missed appointments.
  3. £50 for the delay in its complaint response.
4. It upheld her complaint and explained how she could escalate this if she remained dissatisfied.
The resident met with the landlord on 9 September 2022. She provided it with the crime reference numbers for the incidents she had reported to the police. She also provided videos and photographs capturing the actions of the neighbour and the items that they had placed in the disputed area of land. The neighbourhood officer made a record of his visit and noted that there was “evidence of intimidation by the neighbour”. He further recorded that on leaving the property he was confronted by the neighbour. He informed the resident on 12 September 2022 that he was continuing to speak with its legal advisor. Internal communication shows ongoing discussions around the best course of action regarding the boundary dispute and notes changes to the rules around adverse possession claims.
The resident requested a review of her formal complaint on 2 October 2022. She said that while the neighbourhood officer had been very understanding and helpful she was still awaiting an update and the intimidating behaviour of the neighbour was continuing. Through communication with the neighbourhood officer on 4 October 2022, the resident confirmed that her neighbours were continuing to dump waste in the disputed area and had further damaged the fence. She confirmed that she had always had access to the driveway since moving to the property in 2005 and had experienced no issues with the previous neighbour.
On 20 October 2022 the landlord acknowledged receipt of her stage 2 complaint and said that this had been escalated to a senior manager. It said that the cyber attack was continuing to cause disruption to its services.
On 27 October 2022 the resident asked the landlord to renew the fence that had been removed by the neighbour. It was suggested by the neighbourhood officer on 9 November 2022 that the landlord consider handing back the disputed area of land and installing a new fence along the correct boundary line. In response the resident said that “there has been too much that has happened including the constant harassment from the neighbours”. Considering this she was not agreeable to the landlord’s suggestion. The neighbourhood officer continued to communicate with the resident and provided ASB diary sheets on 16 November 2022.
The landlord provided its stage 2 response on 22 November 2022. This apologised for the delay in responding and expressed its thanks for the resident’s patience while it worked to restore its systems following the cyber security incident. It noted that the resident complained on 5 August 2022 about a boundary dispute and ongoing issues with their neighbours. It included the timeline for her complaint. It noted that she was dissatisfied that not enough clarity has been provided as to its action plan to deal with the issue and what support it would provide to her. It said:
1. its stage 1 reply had confirmed that its housing team were aware of the boundary dispute and were seeking legal advice. It was also aware of the ongoing actions of the neighbour. It had acknowledged the 2 missed appointments and having upheld the complaint offered £180 compensation.
2. it had carried out a senior manager review and had liaised with its housing team. It was seeking to arrange a further appointment to meet with the resident and was awaiting feedback from her as to her availability for this.
3. regarding the ASB issue, it was sorry that the resident felt unsupported. It explained that it worked in collaboration with other agencies to ensure that the most effective action was taken. It had spoken with its tenancy specialist team (TST) and noted that her reports had been classified as low level nuisance and did not reach the criteria for ASB. It noted that its officer had provided diary sheets for her to record incidents over a two week period. It would collect these when completed and advise as to its next steps.
4. in response to her concerns about her neighbour’s CCTV camera, it said that as the neighbour was a private owner they did not have to seek its permission to install CCTV. It said that it would usually advise the resident to speak with her neighbour on such issues but in the circumstances, it agreed to do so. It further suggested mediation between the resident and their neighbour.
5. it was investigating the boundary issue with its legal team, the council planning department and the department of lands and deeds. It confirmed that the original location of the fence was on land belonging to the neighbour. It said that there were 2 options, to either leave the boundary open or to relocate the fence along the correct boundary line. It said that its neighbourhood officer would discuss this with her further.
6. it found no failings in its handling of the matter other than that identified at stage 1 of its process. It said it was satisfied that its responses had been fair, reasonable, and accurate. It apologised for the difficulties she had experienced. It made an offer of £200 compensation. This was broken down as
  1. £150 in recognition of the resident’s vulnerabilities, need for repeated chasing and the difficulties she had experienced.
  2. £50 acknowledging the delayed response to her complaint.
The resident contacted the landlord on 27 November 2022, challenging the accuracy of its response. She said that while the neighbourhood officer had delivered the ASB diary sheets he had not visited her. A home visit was arranged for 9 December 2022. An internal email records that the resident was amenable to the installation of a new fence but was concerned about how much space would be lost. Arrangements were to be made to measure the space. It was also noted that there had been no further incidents involving the neighbour.
On 19 February 2023 the resident wrote to the landlord requesting an update on the installation of a new fence that would not affect access to the driveway. In this she also told the landlord that the neighbour had started to put trays of bird food close to and on her driveway. She believed that this was done “with malicious intent” as it caused the cars to be covered in bird droppings. On the same day the resident contacted the Service asking for her complaint to be investigated.
She provided details of why she remained dissatisfied with the actions of her landlord on 10 March 2023. She said that:
1. the issue with the neighbour has been ongoing since June 2021. Since then she had to deal with hostile and intimidating behaviour by the neighbour with little support from the landlord. The neighbour had destroyed and removed fencing, placed items in the disputed areas, placed malicious signs facing her property and had disrupted her peace and privacy. This had been very stressful for her family.
2. this was all due to a boundary issue that predated her occupation of the property. She wanted the landlord to confirm this to the neighbour and believed that relevant checks should have been made before she moved into the property.
3. there had been a limited response and action taken by the landlord. It had falsely promised that it would provide updates, but she had to pursue it for any updates. She had received no contact from the landlord since the neighbourhood officer visited in December 2022.
4. the landlord had sent a surveyor in March 2022 who established that the fence was not in line with the land boundary. She had received limited and sporadic responses from the landlord since then. She wanted clearer updates from the landlord as to what was happening.
5. she had asked for a tall solid fence to be installed to give back their privacy, but still needed to have access to the driveway.

Post internal complaints procedure

The resident wrote to environmental health on 5 March 2023 and asked it to investigate the actions of the neighbour which was disrupting her daily life. This included directing lights into her home, leaving trays of bird food on and near her driveway and an old mattress that was leant up against the wire fence between the properties.
The resident chased for an update from the landlord on 15 June 2023. She said that the neighbour had cut down more of the fence between the properties, leaving the area completely open. She further sent video footage of the neighbours cutting and removing the fence on 16 June 2023. The landlord’s internal communications show its acknowledgement that the issues around the boundary dispute had started again. It wrote to the resident on 21 June 2023 to advise that it would chase its surveying team regarding the installation of the fence which had previously been agreed.
An internal email on 3 July confirmed that a joint visit had been carried out to review the boundary based on drawings. This also noted that having been quiet for some time issues of intimidation by the neighbour had begun again. It was noted that the drawings confirmed that the land did belong to the neighbour and that they had a case for reclaiming it, “even though they have not gone through the correct or decent channels”. The neighbourhood officer confirmed that he would write to the neighbour to arrange to meet with them to discuss what they wanted and to ask them to remove all the signage and lights.
The resident wrote to the landlord on 10 and 11 July 2023, reporting further actions by the neighbour in taking over part of her driveway and placing obstructions on it. She said that there was still a lack of resolution to this issue, and it was causing stress to the family. She asked how much the boundary fence needed to be moved and if this could be done while still allowing access to the driveway. Further she suggested a way that the driveway may be relocated and asked for a solid fence to be installed. In response the neighbourhood officer confirmed that he was consulting with the landlord’s legal team and chasing this urgently. On 12 July 2023 the resident told the landlord that she had contacted the police as the neighbour had shouted at her daughter. She had provided a history of events to the police and would be providing video footage. In response the landlord arranged a joint visit with the police to the neighbour on 17 July 2023. Following this joint visit an internal email sent on 18 July 2023 confirmed that the neighbour had agreed to the installation of a new fence.
The landlord and the resident have confirmed that a new panel fence was installed on 22 September 2023, resolving the boundary issue.
On 22 August 2023, in response to information supplied by the landlord as part of a subject access request (SAR), the resident raised a new complaint. This was about the landlord’s poor handling of the ASB she had experienced, and the content of internal emails contained in her records. She highlighted specific email communication. This complaint was responded to at stage 1 on 8 September 2023. The resident escalated her complaint and a stage 2 ‘peer review’ response was provided on 10 November 2023. In this stage 2 the landlord confirmed the fencing had been installed and set out why the boundary issue had taken so long to resolve. It said that it had needed to consult with “lands and deeds as well as our legal team” and that this had resulted in an extended period for the works to be agreed. It shared with her its ASB policy to confirm how it measures its thresholds. It said that it had not received completed diary sheets but acknowledged receiving photographs and recordings. It identified failings in the service that had been provided and offered the resident compensation of £400. This was broken down as:
1. £50 for the delay in providing its stage 2.
2. £100 for the time taken to resolve the complaint.
3. £100 for “any inconvenience suffered or a degree of disruption to the household”.
4. £100 in consideration of the household’s vulnerabilities.
5. £50 for inadequate information provided at stage 1.
The resident contacted the Service on 15 November 2023 asking for her additional complaint to be included in this investigation. In this she said that the boundary issue had been resolved but she felt that there had been serious failures in the landlord’s handling of the case. She said that she felt that there had been a lack of ownership by the landlord and that she had been offered no apology. She felt that she had been treated unfairly and that the issue had impacted on her family’s mental health.

Assessment and findings

The landlord’s handling of a boundary dispute with a neighbouring property

While issues with the neighbour appear to have first arisen in June 2021, the resident highlighted the neighbour’s assertion that they had “stolen their land” in correspondence with the landlord in February 2022. No evidence has been provided by the landlord of communication with the resident’s neighbour about the boundary issue and it is not clear when or if they raised this directly with the landlord. Appropriately the landlord arranged for a surveyor to carry out an inspection of the boundary area in March 2022. This inspection confirmed that the boundary fence was incorrectly located and noted that this was likely to have been the case for several years. The resident had said that the fence and driveway had been in place when she moved into the property in 2005.
The landlord referred the issue to its legal team in April 2022 for advice. This was appropriate. Consideration was given to making a claim for adverse possession, but with changes to the rules governing such claims the landlord’s legal team expressed a concern that this may be unsuccessful. The correspondence indicates that the property was transferred to the landlord with the existing fencing in situ and that it was provided with the relevant land registry documentation. The landlord has confirmed that it did not take any legal action in relation to this dispute. No evidence has been presented that the neighbour initiated proceedings against the landlord.
Contact was made with the resident in October 2022 to ask if she would be agreeable to the installation of a new fence along the correct boundary line, handing back the disputed area of land. This she declined to agree to. The resident’s main concern around the location of the boundary was to ensure that she continued to have access to an area in front of her property to park. In February 2023 she raised the issue of a new fence with the landlord, asking for this to be installed “without affecting access to the driveway”. It was noted that due to mobility issues the resident required access to the driveway due to limited alternative parking in the area.
It is not clear from the evidence provided as to the amount of land that was in dispute. The original fence ran along the boarder of the resident’s driveway and the neighbour’s actions indicate their belief that part of the driveway was on land within the boundary of their property. A new fence was installed in September 2023 with the agreement of the neighbour. This resolved the boundary dispute. Photographs indicated that this is in a similar location to the original fence.
It is acknowledged that boundary disputes can present challenges in identifying the correct boundary and finding a solution agreeable to all parties. In this case to reinstate the correct boundary would have led to the loss of part of the resident’s driveway. Indeed, through her communication with the landlord she made proposals to it that it could change the layout of the front of her property to allow for repositioning of the drive. There is however little evidence as to the actions of the landlord in considering alternative proposals or setting out to the resident its proposals to resolve the issue. The resident was not pursuing the issue of where the boundary should be but continued to follow up with the landlord on this issue due to the behaviour of the neighbour.
Having first identified in March 2022 that the boundary was incorrectly located, there were significant delays in the landlord deciding how to resolve the issue. While it appropriately sought legal advice it is unclear what communication it had with the resident’s neighbour ahead of the joint visit carried out in July 2023. It was through this visit that agreement was reached as to a way forward and for the installation of a new boundary fence. It would follow that had this action been taken at an earlier stage a speedier resolution could have been found and as such there was service failure in the landlord’s handling of this issue. Through its complaint responses the landlord did acknowledge a level of failure and recognised that the resident had been left chasing for updates. It further noted the resident’s vulnerability. Its offer of £250 across both stages of the complaint process and the offers made in response to the resident’s further complaint are considered reasonable in this circumstance.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of anti-social behaviour (ASB) by the neighbour

It is acknowledged that the ASB the resident has reported has had a profound impact on her and her family for a long time. However, when considering complaints relating to ASB, it is not the role of the Service to reach a decision on whether they have occurred. Instead, the Ombudsman’s role is to consider whether the landlord has taken reasonable and appropriate steps to respond to the resident’s reports. This report will focus on whether the landlord acted in line with its policies and procedures, and if it took proportionate action and followed good practice.
The landlord has confirmed that its records contain only 1 ASB case in relation to the property and that this was raised following a complaint from the neighbour. It did not record any of the resident’s reports of the neighbour’s behaviour towards her and her family as ASB. In July 2023 the landlord recorded that there “were no serious ASB issues” and that while diary sheets had been issued these had not been returned by the resident. It was appropriate that the landlord did not record the initial incidents relating to the relocating of bins as ASB. This was in line with its ASB policy.
However, over time the actions of the neighbour increased as they took steps to initially damage and then removed the wire boundary fence. They began placing items onto and beside the resident’s driveway, including trays of bird food, lighting, soil, and signage aimed against the resident. The resident also reported incidents of the neighbour shouting at them. On several occasions these incidents were reported to the police and separately to environmental health. The resident provided a number of reports, photographs, and recordings of the neighbour’s behaviour. The landlord carried out a visit to the resident on 9 September 2022 and noted that there was evidence of intimidation towards the resident by the neighbour.
Given the escalation in the neighbour’s behaviour, the evidence provided by the resident and the observations of its own officer it would have been appropriate for the landlord to have opened an ASB case. This would have been in line with its own policy and in line with its threshold for dealing with reports of low level ASB. Whilst it did provide the resident with diary sheets this was not until November 2022, some 9 months after her first reports.
It is recognised that the landlord is limited in the action available to it as the neighbour is a private owner. It would however have been part of a multi agency framework and could have worked with the police and the local authority through environmental health to challenge the neighbour’s behaviour. As these incidents were all in relation to the boundary dispute it would have been appropriate for the landlord to acknowledge this and work towards finding a solution to this issue in a timelier manner.
The ASB, Crime and Policing Act 2014 (the Act) states that it is good practice for agencies to assess the risk of harm to the victim, and any potential vulnerabilities, when they receive a complaint about ASB. This should be the starting point of a case management approach to dealing with ASB complaints. There is no evidence the landlord undertook a risk assessment, which was a departure from its policy. Given the resident was regularly reporting the impact the ASB was having on her family, it would have been reasonable in the circumstances to have formally assessed the risk to the household. This would have helped the landlord identify any appropriate support it could provide or referrals it could make.
In not recording the resident’s reports of the neighbour’s behaviour towards her and her family as ASB or taking any action to address the resident’s concerns by way of contact with the neighbour, there was maladministration by the landlord. There has been no acknowledgement by the landlord that it should have taken more appropriate or timely action in response to the resident’s reports regarding the neighbour’s behaviour.

Complaint handling

The landlord had introduced an interim complaints procedure extending its complaint reply time. This was in response to the impact on its systems resulting from a cyber attack.
There was a delay in the landlord providing its reply to the resident at stage 1 and further delays in it acknowledging the escalation of her complaint. In line with its own policy the landlord made an offer of compensation which the Service considers reasonable in the circumstances, acknowledging the delays that had occurred. Further compensation was then offered to the resident through the second stage of her follow up complaint.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 53 (b) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the landlord has made an offer of redress prior to investigation which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, resolves the complaint in respect of landlord’s handling of a boundary dispute with a neighbouring property.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of ASB by the neighbour.
In accordance with paragraph 53 (b) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the landlord has made an offer of redress prior to investigation which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, resolves the complaint in respect of the landlord handling of the resident’s complaint.

Reasons

While the landlord identified that the boundary was incorrectly placed and sought legal advice on how best to approach this matter, it did not act in a timely manner. The issue was only resolved some 19 months after it was first brought to its attention. There is a lack of evidence of proactive contact with either the resident or the neighbour to find a mutually agreeable resolution. Through its complaint responses the landlord acknowledged the delays that had occurred and offered appropriate compensation.
There is no evidence that the landlord took action to record the resident’s reports of ASB or that it took action to challenge or address the neighbour’s behaviour towards its tenant.
The landlord appropriately acknowledged the delays in its complaint handling and offered the resident a total of £100 compensation across the two complaint stages.

Orders

Within 4 weeks of the date of this report the landlord must:
1. Provide the resident with a written apology, acknowledging the identified failings. This should be in line with the Service’s guidance on remedies.
2. Pay the resident a total of £350 compensation in recognition of the distress and inconvenience caused by its failure to act in response to the resident’s reports of escalating ASB by her neighbour and the recognised distress that this caused to her. This is in addition to the compensation paid to the resident through the landlord’s compliant process.
Within 8 weeks of the date of this report the landlord must:
1. Undertake a review of its handling of the reported ASB in this case and consider its wider approach to the categorisation of low level ASB. This should include a review of the support that it offers to residents reporting such issues.

Recommendations

It is further recommended that the landlord put in place guidance for its staff on how to respond to boundary disputes brought by private owners. This should include general guidance around the legal framework, together with recommended timeframes for resolution and template correspondence with each party.