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

East Midlands Housing Group Limited (202316707)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202316707

East Midlands Housing Group Limited

4 March 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 response to the resident’s complaint that his neighbour had cut down trees in a communal garden.

Background

  1. The resident has a lease with the landlord, a housing association since May 2011. All the residents in the block have a right to use a communal garden, owned by the landlord.
  2. The resident told the landlord in May 2023 he was unhappy that his neighbour had cut down trees in the communal garden. He said he had planted the trees in the communal garden. The landlord said as it did not plant the trees it was not involved in their management. However, if the resident considered this was criminal damage, he could report it to the police.
  3. The resident raised a stage 1 complaint on 2 June 2023 through a victim support service. It explained the neighbour cutting trees down that the resident had taken care of for 23 years had caused him distress. It said the police had taken no action. The landlord provided its stage 1 response on 22 June 2023. It explained it had completed a site visit on 13 June 2023 to discuss the complaint. The landlord explained it could not order the neighbour to put the garden back to its original condition. But it would speak to the neighbour about their behaviour. The landlord offered mediation to help improve the relationship between both parties.
  4. The resident disputed the landlord’s response in June 2023. He escalated his complaint on 18 July 2023. The resident explained previous issues he had experienced with the neighbour. He said he was unhappy with how the landlord had responded to the issue and with how it acted at the site visit.
  5. The landlord provided its stage 2 response on 4 August 2023. It explained the neighbour’s actions were not a breach of tenancy or vandalism. However, it had advised his neighbour they needed approval from the landlord for any further changes to the communal area. The landlord explained that mediation was the appropriate solution for neighbour disagreements about the use of communal areas. It offered this to the resident. The landlord apologised for the distress caused to the resident but explained it found no service failures in its handling of the issue.
  6. The resident remained dissatisfied with the landlord’s response. He asked the Service to investigate his complaint. He said he considered the neighbour’s actions to be antisocial behaviour. He wanted the landlord to restore the garden to its original condition.

Assessment and findings

  1. The resident’s stage 2 escalation included an issue about dogs, which the landlord previously investigated and responded to. The resident has not brought this issue to the Ombudsman. Accordingly, this investigation focuses on and assesses the garden issue only.

Policy and procedure

  1. The landlord’s ASB policy says everyone is different. There may be times where a resident considers a report to be ASB, but this does not meet the landlord’s definition. Its policy states the landlord will decide whether something is ASB on a case by case basis.

The landlord’s response to the resident’s complaint that his neighbour had cut down trees from a communal garden.

  1. It is not the Ombudsman’s role to establish whether someone has committed ASB. But to assess the landlord’s handling of the resident’s ASB reports. We will consider whether the landlord’s response was fair and reasonable in view of all the circumstances, considering its own internal policies and industry good practice.
  2. The landlord in its complaint responses explained that while the resident disagreed with the neighbour cutting down trees, it did not consider this a breach of tenancy or vandalism. It explained his neighbours had worked together to tidy the communal area and put in plants and seating for residents to use. The landlord explained that as the owner of the land, it had given retrospective consent for the changes his neighbours made but had told his neighbours that any future alterations to the communal area require its permission before starting.
  3. The landlord has the right to decide how the communal garden is managed and maintained. The evidence shows it considered the nature and type of changes made and agreed that they were of benefit to garden users. Because of that it gave its retrospective approval rather than ordering the neighbours to return it to its previous condition. As the owner of the garden the landlord was entitled to make that decision, and no evidence indicating it acted in error has been seen.
  4. The landlord acknowledged the distress this issue caused the resident. It acknowledged the resident said his neighbour swore at him when he challenged them about cutting the trees down. The landlord explained the issue was a dispute between neighbours about the use of the communal area. It said it would speak to the neighbour about their behaviour. In addition, it offered mediation to improve the relationship between both parties.
  5. The evidence shows that the landlord spoke to the neighbour on 26 June 2023. They confirmed they wanted to resolve the issue and would welcome the resident approaching them. The landlord offered mediation to the resident, but he declined. Nonetheless, the action shows the landlord investigated the issue and satisfied itself that the matter was not an ASB one, but rather a neighbour dispute. It acted in line with its policy in doing so, and offering mediation was an appropriate option to offer.
  6. The landlord explained the outcome of its site visit in June 2023. It apologised that the resident was unhappy with the outcome of the site visit. The landlord explained that its intention was to provide reassurance that the neighbours had done work to improve the communal area for everyone. It was reasonable for the landlord to explain what it aimed to achieve from its site visit and to apologise for how this made the resident feel.
  7. The upset experienced by the resident in this matter is very clear from his correspondence with the landlord. Nonetheless, the landlord’s response to his complaint was fair and reasonable. The landlord explained its view and acknowledged the distress the issue caused the resident. It took appropriate steps to try to resolve the dispute and offered mediation to try to improve the relationship between the residents. Its actions were pragmatic and balanced, and reasonable in the circumstances of the complaint.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration in the landlord’s response to the resident’s complaint that his neighbour had cut down trees from a communal garden.