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

Kirklees Council (202327383)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202327383

Kirklees Council

30 September 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:
    1. The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of anti-social behaviour (ASB) including harassment from his neighbour and the housing officer’s conduct
    2. The landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint.

Background

  1. The resident lives in a one bedroom flat and is a tenant of the landlord. The tenancy began on 31 October 2022. The landlord has no vulnerabilities listed for the resident.
  2. On 3 March 2023 the resident made a complaint to the landlord. The complaint included that it was very hard to get hold of his housing officer, the resident felt that he was being fobbed off, several issues had arisen with his neighbour who was getting away with doing things that he shouldn’t be and that he had no faith in his Housing Management Officer as he believed the officer expressed favouritism to the neighbour. The resident also requested details of the status of an area of land which was adjacent to the communal garden.
  3. On the same day the landlord’s records showed it spoke to the resident and the neighbour and established there was an incident on the 26 February 2023 involving a fence panel that blew down in the communal garden which led to the police being called.  The resident said he felt that the neighbour walked around like he owned the garden area and wanted the landlord to advise the neighbour that he was not allowed onto ‘his part of the garden’ and that he should stay on his own part. The landlord explained that the communal gardens were open to all residents and that no-one has a part. A discussion was had over land adjacent to the communal garden and the landlord advised the resident that the land was not part of the communal gardens and that it would put that in writing to him and all his neighbours to confirm the position.
  4. The landlord issued its stage one response on 15 March 2023 and stated that there had been a couple of occasions where the resident had not received a telephone call back within five working days and it apologised to the resident for any inconvenience caused. The resident had advised of the incident where the police were called but had yet to receive an update from the police. It requested that its housing management officer liaised with the police to assist the resident and due to importance of providing evidence for anti social behaviour cases it would issue log sheets for the resident to complete. It had checked its records regarding the patch of land at the rear of the block and found the land in question was an old garage site and was not included in the communal garden area. Access points were for maintenance reasons and not for the land to be used. All residents of the block were able to access the communal garden and were not restricted in any way. CCTV mentioned by the resident had been reviewed by the housing management officer who checked the positioning and was satisfied with its positioning. It offered mediation to the resident to resolve the dispute with the neighbour. 
  5. The resident raised a new complaint with the landlord on 5 May 2023 stating the housing officer was being disrespectful, unsympathetic and giving other tenants preferential treatment. The resident said he had problems with one of his neighbours and the communal garden and the neighbour apparently had permission to look after his own little bit of the communal garden but seemed to  have completely taken over the garden. The previous week someone from the Council came to cut the communal grass, there was grass left on the communal garden and the neighbour had raked the grass up and swept it over to the side of the resident’s instead of sweeping it up himself and removing it. The resident said that the housing officer put the phone down on him as the conversation got a little heated. The resident said the housing officer is very well aware that the neighbour had caused lots of problems and threatening behaviour in the past not only to him but to other residents. The resident said he felt that the neighbour because he had lived there a long time was getting preferential treatment.
  6. The landlord issued its stage one response on 19 May 2023. The landlord stated that when the grass was cut the grounds maintenance team did not collect grass cuttings and the housing management officer had confirmed that procedure with the resident, the housing management officer stated the phone call referred to was ended but not intentionally and there was an attempt made to call the resident back and apologised if the resident was under the impression the officer had ended the call intentionally. From it’s records there was no evidence preferential treatment had been given to the other residents or of the housing officer being disrespectful to the resident within the phone call and did not feel at that time a change of housing officer was necessary. A housing manager agreed to visit the resident to understand the issues with the neighbour and a further meeting would be arranged for the housing officer to attend with the housing manager in an attempt to rebuild the relationship with the resident to understand how the resident could be supported. 
  7. During May 2023 the resident reported to the landlord the neighbour was sat on a bench looking directly into his flat, mentioned a post being moved / put up which had meant that his cat could no longer jump onto a neighbours shed roof where it liked to sit. The landlord’s records noted it asked the resident if he had seen the neighbour erecting the post / moving the post and the resident said he had not but knew that it was him, and that he was trying to provoke him by picking on his cat. On 23 May 2023 the landlord’s records noted that a new mediation leaflet and referral form had been sent and it would speak to both parties to see if they would agree to a mediation referral being made.
  8. On 4 June 2023, the resident asked for log sheets and a CCTV permission request. The resident was advised by the landlord a site visit was carried out and it would ask for the post to be removed but nothing else. It advised the log sheets and CCTV request would be issued that day. The landlord’s records show the log sheets were issued one month later on 4 July 2023.
  9. In July 2023 the landlord’s records noted that it received a call from the resident stating the neighbour had put a piece of wood at the back of the garden with spikes on which would harm cats, wanted a fence and two stumps near the neighbours property removed. He also wanted a fence put in the communal area so it blocked his neighbour from seeing what was going on in his property. The resident said he had reported matters to the police, his MP and RSPCA. The resident was asked if he had completed the log sheets issued to him and he stated they had not.
  10. The landlord issued a letter to the resident updating him on his ASB reports on 3 August 2023 the letter stated that after speaking with the neighbour the spike strip would be removed, the post on the fence the branch was resting on would be removed, the police would deal with his reports of harassment, the seat in the communal area was for all residents enjoyment and it was confident that its positioning was not deliberate and the seat would not be removed, it would not permit a dividing fence at the property as communal areas were for all so the space was required to stay as a whole garden, its officer had completed a full investigation into the matters raised and although it had offered mediation not all parties were in agreement. The landlords records stated the spikes and post had been removed on 4 August 2023.
  11. On 11 August 2023 the resident reported that the neighbour had gone into the land adjacent to the communal garden despite all residents receiving letters from the landlord prohibiting them from doing so. In September 2023 the resident made reports to the landlord of the neighbour standing in the gardens looking over at him, the neighbours CCTV camera was now pointing into the gardens and he wanted it removing, the housing management officer was ignoring him and giving the neighbour preferential treatment.
  12. The resident made a complaint on 22 September 2023. The resident stated that he had been having ongoing issues with his neighbour and he felt what he was saying was being watered down. The resident said he felt ignored, due to his call backs and emails not always being responded to and the landlord was not supporting him.
  13. The landlord issued its stage one response on 13 October 2023 and stated the majority of the concerns raised had been previously dealt with in a complaint response dated 19 May 2023. The resident received a comprehensive answer to those issues and the situation had not changed significantly in the intervening 3 months other than the ongoing nature of his concerns. The resident presented no further information which would change it’s position or response.  It continued to investigate his concerns and it recorded any incident that he brought to it’s attention. The resident had received numerous home visits and phone calls and letters from the Housing Management team and support from the Local Ward Councillors. The resident had been supported in his requests to install CCTV and mediation had been offered, but the neighbour had declined to take part. Whilst it empathised with the current situation, it reiterated the information that for the landlord to take any tenancy enforcement action it would require evidence. It had visited the resident and explained it was satisfied with the actions that the Housing Management Officer and Housing Manager had taken. In a home visit on 6 October 2023 it asked the resident to clarify if he was dissatisfied with the service that he had been provided by members of the Housing Management teams to which he confirmed he was satisfied that the Housing Management Officer was responding to him and was in regular contact. The landlord at the visit had reiterated the need for evidence before it could take any tenancy enforcement action.
  14. On 23 October 2023 the resident requested his complaint be escalated to stage two stating he felt that the housing management officers were are not taking his concerns seriously and had not provided him with the support necessary against the neighbour for ongoing harassment, intimidation and provocative behaviour against him. The resident felt that the housing officers believed everything that the neighbour said and ignored anything anyone else had to say. He felt that was causing him serious concerns with his health and wellbeing and increasing his stress levels and he had sent in a video of the neighbour using provocative gestures towards a camera.
  15. The landlord issued its stage two response on 27 October 2023. The landlord stated that the Housing Management Officer and Housing Management had acted appropriately to the concerns he had raised. In a telephone call on 27 October 2023 the resident had spoken positively about the housing officer, it was satisfied that the actions taken by the housing management team was appropriate. The housing officer had spoken with the neighbour, offered mediation and given advice on avoiding each other if no amicable resolution could be found. It would review any escalation between the resident and neighbour in conjunction with colleagues from the police. It confirmed that any substantial structures such as a shed would require it’s permission. Bird boxes, planting and other small items could remain at the discretion of the housing management officer as long as they did not impede Grounds Maintenance Operations such as grass cutting and did not cause a fire risk. It was looking to secure the land adjacent to the communal garden to stop access, it would be dependent on budgetary constraints and residents would be informed of progress. It would speak to the neighbour about moving a trellis to allow the resident’s cat access to the fence.  
  16.  On 27 October 2023 the landlord wrote to the resident regarding an enquiry he had made about a bird table and trellis being erected in the communal garden. The landlord stated it had carried out a site visit and documented the additions to the communal garden he had raised. The items were not substantial structures, did not pose a fire risk and the location did not impede or affect the grounds maintenance team from carrying out their contract and so it would not be requiring the resident who had erected those items to seek permission.

Events after the landlords initial stage two response.

  1. On 22 November 2023 the housing management officer emailed the resident with regards to an enquiry which he made on 20 November 2023 in relation to turning part of the communal garden area into a growing area / allotment. The officer requested further information so that it could support him in putting together a proposal to see if this would be possible. The resident confirmed it would be a vegetable patch at the bottom of the communal gardens. The landlord on 8 December 2023 confirmed to the resident by email the outcome of a discussion about the proposal. The landlord noted that to give the proposal the best possible chance to proceed, to add some alternative locations within the communal garden. The landlord also confirmed that due to the nature of the request it would need to consult with other residents who had access to the communal garden and its grounds maintenance team.
  2. The landlord records showed the resident raised a new complaint on 18 December 2023 stating he wanted to complain about his housing management officer. He stated the officer didn’t listen to the issues he had with his neighbour and about him wanting an allotment.
  3. The landlord issued its stage one response on 4 January 2024 and stated that regarding the planting area the Housing Management Officer had stated that for a plot of land to be allocated, the process the landlord followed was for all residents in the area to be consulted and agree a way forward. The Housing Management Officer would be working with him and other residents to agree that, and would be in touch in the next 4 weeks. Regarding the resident’s application for a planting area, the Housing Management Officer had set out what actions and steps were required for that piece of work to take place. It would continue to work alongside the resident to support him regarding his issues/concerns relating to his tenancy. It did not uphold the complaint.
  4. The landlord issued a stage two response on 12 January 2024. The response provided a stage two response to the stage one complaint response issued on 4 January 2024 but made reference to the previous three complaints the resident had raised with the landlord including that the first two complaints were responded at stage one and were not requested to be escalated to stage two. The landlord stated that:
    1. It was satisfied with the actions that the Housing Management Officer and Housing Manager had taken, there were responding to him and was in regular contact.
    2. The landlord reiterated that in order for it to take any tenancy enforcement action it would require evidence to progress. 
    3. Following an incident between the resident and his neighbour on the 29 November 2023 which was reported to the Police a referral was made to investigate. However, as there was insufficient evidence the incident was closed by the Police and it was unable to progress the matter further.
    4. It was satisfied that the actions taken by the Housing Management Team were appropriate. The neighbour had been spoken with, mediation had been offered and it had given advice on avoiding each other if no amicable resolution could be found. It would review any escalation between the resident and neighbour in conjunction with the Police.
    5. It had reviewed it’s electronic records of contact with the resident in relation to his tenancy and could see that the resident was in very regular contact with the Housing Management Officer via telephone and via email and the Housing Management Officer remained responsive to his enquiries, and worked to resolve any issue or concerns he raised. However, there was a couple of occasions when he had not received a call back from the Housing Management Officer within 5 working days. The landlord apologised. 
    6. The Housing Management Officer advised that one of the calls was cut off and attempts were made to recall the resident back but failed. It apologised for any confusion that caused.
    7. It was unable to substantiate the resident’s claims that preferential treatment had been given to the neighbour or that the Housing Management Officer had been disrespectful or unsympathetic in responding to his complaints.
    8. It understood that in an email dated 10 January 2024 he had requested that the Housing Management Officer did not make contact with him. It would respect his wishes, and asked that the Housing Management Officer not contact him. However to make contact if he required any further support.    
    9. The stage two response was it’s final collective response in relation to the complaints made in March 2023, May 2023, and January 2024. To summarise it did not uphold any of the complaints in relation to the handling of his neighbour dispute or the conduct of his Housing Management Officer It did however accept that it should have handled the complaint better and apologised for any confusion that may have occurred with regards to overlaps in the complaints specifically in relation to the conduct of the Housing Management Officer.

Assessment and findings

Scope of the Investigation

  1. The resident said the lack of action taken by the landlord in resolving the reported issues affected his health. The Ombudsman does not doubt his comments. However, as this Service is an informal alternative to the courts, it is unable to establish legal liability or whether a landlord’s actions or lack of action had a detrimental impact on a resident’s health. Nor can it calculate or award damages. The Ombudsman is therefore unable to consider the personal injury aspects of the resident’s complaint. These matters are better suited for consideration by a court or via a personal injury claim.
  2. The Housing Ombudsman Scheme (the Scheme) says the Ombudsman may not investigate complaints which have not yet exhausted the landlord’s internal complaints process. Within the resident’s communication with this Service after the landlord’s stage two response in January 2024, the resident contacted the landlord regarding further issues regarding his neighbour. However, this investigation report cannot consider the issues which have arisen after the date of the landlord’s stage 2 complaint response in January 2024. This is because the landlord has not had an opportunity to investigate and respond to any complaint which may be raised by the resident in respect of those events. Any such issues that have not been subject to a formal complaint by the resident can be addressed directly with the landlord and progressed as a new formal complaint if required. The landlord needs to be given the opportunity to formally respond. The resident will need to contact the landlord and, if appropriate, raise a separate complaint to get those matters investigated.
  3. The resident made complaints to the landlord on 3 March 2023 and 5 May 2023. Both of those complaints received stage one responses. There is no evidence the resident requested for the complaints to be escalated to stage two of the landlord’s complaints process and therefore did not received stage two response. As those complaints did not complete the landlords complaints process those complaints cannot be considered in this investigation. However the issues raised in the complaints are referenced in this investigation.
  4. After carefully considering all the evidence, in accordance with paragraph 42(j), the Ombudsman may not consider complaints which fall within the jurisdiction of another ombudsman, regulator, or complaint-handling body. The resident’s allegation in his complaint on 18 December 2023 that the housing management officer breached General Data Protection Regulations (GDPR) by discussing his case is outside of the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction. The Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO) was set up to deal with concerns about data handling by organisations. The ICO is the appropriate means to assess the resident’s concerns regarding that matter.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of anti-social behaviour (ASB) including harassment from his neighbour and the housing officer’s conduct.

  1. The landlord when it receives any reports of anti social behaviour would require evidence to fully investigate the reports being made, come to a conclusion and if required take appropriate action. For the landlord to be able to take any enforcement action it would require evidence of any breaches of the tenancy agreement or it’s ASB policy.
  2. The resident’s complaints about his neighbour primarily centred on the neighbour’s activity in the communal garden including collection of grass cuttings, erection of spikes and posts on a fence to deter cats, access to landlord owned land adjacent to the communal gardens, use of the bench in the communal garden and erection of a trellis on a fence. The complaint was also regarding the housing officer’s management of those complaints including communication with the resident.
  3. The landlord was aware the resident had reported an incident from February 2023 to the police and the evidence provided showed the landlord was making attempts to gain updates from the police. The landlord’s records noted on 28 March 2023, 19 April 2023 and 9 May 2023 it had requested information from the police regarding if any action was to be taken. This would be the expected and appropriate response by the landlord. Once it received confirmation in May 2023 that the police would be taking no further action, the landlord without any further evidence would not have been able to take any actions under the terms of the tenancy or it’s ASB policy. The landlord however did consider the option of mediation as required under section 2.13 of it’s ASB policy. This was an appropriate step to take by the landlord in an attempt to resolve the reported issues. The evidence provided showed that although the resident agreed to mediation the neighbour did not.
  4. Following the resident’s reports that the neighbour was accessing the land adjacent to the communal gardens, the landlord issued a letter to all residents on 31 March 2023 regarding the use of the land. The letter made it clear that although the land was owned by the landlord it did not form part of the communal gardens, there was no right of way or rights of access for the general public. It was therefore not to be accessed. This was an appropriate action by the landlord. When the resident later reported the neighbour had again access the area in August 2023 the landlord has evidenced it spoke to the neighbour and emphasised the area was not permitted to be entered.
  5. The resident made reports of the neighbour collecting and dumping grass cuttings, erecting a post to a fence and adding nails to the fence to prevent the resident’s cat from jumping on a shed roof. The landlord has evidenced it asked if the resident had witnessed the events or had evidence for it to review but the resident did not. The landlord also asked if the log sheets it had issued on 4 July 2023 had been completed and the resident said no.
  6. The landlord advised the resident he should continue to report any crimes to the police and it would need the log sheets completing if any further investigation was to take place. The landlord informed the resident that without evidence it would not be able to proceed and this was an appropriate response by the landlord. The landlord’s ASB policy clearly states in section 4.2 it would close a case where it has insufficient evidence or information to proceed. This was appropriate advice by the landlord as without evidence being provided by the resident it would have been restricted in what actions it could take to investigate and ultimately reach a conclusion if any actions under the terms of the tenancy or its ASB policy was required.
  7. When the resident requested that trellising be removed from a fence, the landlord has evidenced it contacted the neighbour asking him to do so and that the neighbour refused. The landlord then provided the resident with an update by letter on 27 October 2023 explaining that following a site visit that the trellis and bird table were not structures that required permission and it would not be requiring the resident who had erected the items to seek permission. The landlord provided an appropriate explanation to the resident.
  8. It is noted that the stage one response issued the same day stated the landlord would speak to the neighbour about the trellis being removed despite the other letter stating the trellis would remain. This Service is unable to establish the order the letters were received by the resident however it is clear the resident was provided with two differing decisions on the same day.
  9. On 28 November 2023 the landlord records noted that during a call with the resident on 21 November 2023. The resident stated he was unhappy with regards to the trellising decision. The landlord however did explain why the resident received conflicting information and that although it had agreed to speak to the neighbour, to see if he would remove the trellising as a compromise to try and resolve the complaint, the neighbour had not agreed to remove the trellising and there was no agreement made that the landlord would remove it if the neighbour was not in agreement.
  10. When the resident requested a growing area in the communal garden the landlord has evidenced the housing management officer showed the appropriate consideration by talking through the proposal with the resident, suggested locations, followed that up in writing and requested further information where needed. At the time the landlord issued its stage two response to the complaint made in January 2024 the landlord had not reached its final decision but it’s actions up to that point were appropriate and there was no failure by the landlord in its handling of the residents request.
  11. The resident stated he felt the housing management officer was biased towards the neighbour, was being ignored and was not supporting him. From the evidence provided there were some occasions the resident had to call the landlord stating the landlord failed to return phone calls to the resident during July 2023. The landlord’s records noted the officer stated they would issue log sheets to the resident and a CCTV request on 4 June 2023. There was no evidence those were provided to the resident at that time and the first evidence of those being issued was on 4 July 2023 which was one month later. These were shortcomings by the landlord that may not have assured the resident it was taking the appropriate steps to investigate his reports. 
  12. In a letter issued to the resident on 11 August 2023 the landlord informed the resident the housing management officer was on leave until 31 August 2023 and would respond to him on their return. It was not appropriate to make the resident wait for a response until an officers leave was completed. The landlord is expected to ensure it has the resources to respond to resident’s request for service with the timescales set out in its service standard’s. There was no evidence the landlord attempted to discuss the resident’s enquiry to establish if it was an issue that needed to be dealt with urgently or could be resolved on the officers return or attempted to explain that to the resident.
  13. The landlord cited high work loads for the delay in issuing the log sheets and for asking the resident to wait for the housing management officer to pick up the resident’s email from 11 August 2023 on her return from leave on 31 August 2023. However once committed to providing the log sheets the landlord should have ensured they were issued to the resident. The landlord should have also considered its working processes and staff resources to ensure it was able to provide its service during staff leave.
  14. The landlord did acknowledge those communication delays and apologised to the resident in its complaint responses. There was however no evidence of any significant or prolonged instances of a lack of communication from the landlord or deliberate actions or favouritism by the housing management officer.
  15. Overall, the landlord has evidenced it has considered each of the reports the resident had made by speaking with the resident and the neighbour, conducted home visits with the resident and inspected the communal gardens, liaised with the police where required, provided log sheets to the resident, offered mediation and provided its responses to the resident both verbally and in writing. This included letters issued on 3 August 2023 regarding the spike strip, post on the communal fence, bench in the communal area and request for dividing fence in the communal garden, 27 October 2023 regarding the trellis and bird table and an additional letter 13 November 2023 regarding the trellis. While it is understandable the resident was not happy with the outcome he received from the landlord there was no evidence that the landlord did not follow its ASB policy in investigating the residents reports of ASB and harassment from his neighbour.
  16. Where required the landlord had spoken to the neighbour to ensure action was taken such as the removal of the spike and posts on the fence. The landlord provided confirmation of it’s findings to the resident by letter and in phone conversations. The evidence provided to the Ombudsman also showed that the landlord was in contact with the neighbour to try to resolve the issues.
  17. The landlord can only rely on the evidence it received for it to take any formal action, and it would need to be sure that the evidence demonstrated ASB. There was no evidence of the landlord ignoring the resident and not taking his reports seriously. All the reports made by the resident were investigated and evidenced by the landlord and where required the neighbour was requested to take actions. As such, the Ombudsman is unable to find failure against the landlord or the housing officer with regards to this issue. There was no maladministration by the landlord.

The landlords handling of the resident’s complaint.

  1. The landlord has a two stage complaints process. At stage one the landlord will acknowledge a complaint within 5 working days, and provide a final response within 10 working days.  At stage two it will acknowledge the complaint within 5 working days, and provide a final response within 20 working days.
  2. The resident made complaints in March 2023 and May 2023 that did not proceed to stage two and therefore did not complete the landlords complaint process and will not be investigated as part of this investigation.
  3. The third complaint made by the resident was made on 22 September 2023 and the landlord issued the stage one response on 13 October 2023. That response was issued after 16 working days and therefore outside of the timescales in the landlord’s complaint policy. There was however evidence an extension was agreed up to 13 October 2023 due to a home visit being arranged to discuss the issues the resident had with the neighbour. A home visit to discuss the issues was an appropriate step to take to ensure the landlord had a full understanding of the complaint and an extension for that visit to take place was agreed with the resident.
  4. The fourth complaint was made on 18 December 2023 and the response issued on 4 January 2023. This was a small delay of one working day but the delay would not have had any significant impact on the resident. The was no delays in the landlord issuing the stage two response.
  5. The landlord offered a full response to the resident of its findings and the actions of the housing management officer and acknowledged where it had failed to meet standards in its communication and apologised to the resident. There was no maladministration by the landlord in its handling of the resident’s complaint.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration by the landlord in respect of the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of anti-social behaviour (ASB) including harassment from his neighbour and the housing officer’s conduct. 
  2. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration by the landlord in respect of the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint.