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

Southern Housing (202301167)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202301167

Southern Housing

30 January 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 that the neighbours overgrown garden had damaged her fence.
  2. The Ombudsman will also investigate the landlord’s handling of the resident’s associated complaint.

Background

  1. The resident has an assured tenancy for a 4 bed house.
  2. The landlord is a housing association. It acquired the resident’s property through a stock transfer in January 2023.
  3. On 4 and 11 April 2023 the resident reported issues about the neighbour’s garden to the landlord.
  4. The Ombudsman made a complaint to the landlord on the resident behalf on 20 April 2023. She said her neighbours garden was overgrown and had damaged her fence. She said she had reported this to her previous landlord, and nothing had been done.
  5. The landlord issued its stage 1 complaint response on 11 May 2023. It did not uphold the complaint as it said this was the first time the issue had been bought to its attention. It agreed it would contact the neighbour and ask him to clear and maintain his garden.
  6. The landlord issued its stage 2 complaint response on 20 June 2023. In its response it:
    1. Said it reviewed its systems and was unable to find the resident reported this issue prior to 11 April 2023.
    2. Said the neighbour had agreed to clear and maintain his garden.
    3. Said residents are responsible for repairing and replacing fences so it would not cover the cost for any damage that had occurred. 
    4. Apologised and offered the resident £115 compensation, which was broken down as:
      1. £50 for the inconvenience, time, and trouble caused. 
      2. £15 for the delay in it responding to the resident’s report of the neighbour’s garden.
      3. £50 for the delay in it escalating the complaint to stage 2.
  7. The resident referred her complaint to the Ombudsman as the issue with the neighbour’s garden was outstanding, and she did not agree with the level of compensation offered by the landlord. 
  8. The neighbour had his garden cleared on 21 October 2024.

Assessment and findings

Scope of the investigation

  1. The resident told the Ombudsman she initially reported the issue with her neighbour’s garden to her previous landlord. The Ombudsman cannot consider the actions of the previous landlord within this investigation; therefore, this service will consider the landlord’s handling of this issue from the date of the stock transfer in January 2023 to the end of the landlord’s complaints procedure in August 2023.
  2. The resident reported to the landlord that there has been anti-social behaviour (ASB) from the neighbour and that he caused further damage to her fence trying to repair it. The Ombudsman cannot investigate the landlord’s handling of these issues as they occurred after the expiry of the landlord’s complaints procedure. Under paragraph 42.a the Ombudsman cannot investigate complaints made prior to having exhausted the landlord’s complaints procedure. The resident would need to raise these issues as a new complaint to the landlord. If the resident remains unhappy after the end of the landlord’s complaints procedure, she has the option to bring this complaint to the Ombudsman.     

The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of the residents reports that the neighbours overgrown garden had damaged her fence

  1. The landlord states it was not provided with a copy of the terms and conditions of the neighbour’s tenancy agreement when it took over the property through a stock transfer. However, its website makes it clear that residents should maintain their property in a “tenant-like manner”, which includes keeping gardens and outside areas in a reasonable state.
  2. The landlord’s responsive repairs policy states that repairing or replacing shared fences are the responsibility of residents. It says fences between gardens where the occupants are both residents of the landlord, are both jointly responsible.
  3. The resident reported the issues with the neighbour’s overgrown garden on 4 and 11 April 2023. The landlord’s records show it did not have a copy of the resident’s letter dated 4 April 2023, despite the resident providing this service with proof of postage. This was a record keeping failure. The landlord should ensure all communication received by post is accurately recorded on its systems.
  4. On 4 May 2023 the landlord contacted the resident about the neighbour’s overgrown garden. This was 17 working days after the resident had asked for a callback. The landlord’s internal records state it failed to address this issue sooner due to staff sickness. A landlord is expected to manage its staff so any absences do not cause an impact on its residents. The landlord was aware this was an on-going issue for the resident and the impact it was having on her. It acted inappropriately by failing to effectively communicate with the resident and manage her expectations.
  5. The landlord acted reasonably by contacting the neighbour on 4 May 2023 to ask him to clear and maintain his garden. No evidence was provided to this service that the landlord contacted the neighbour again until 7 August 2023, this was 3 months later and after the expiry of the complaints procedure. Although it was reasonable that the landlord gave the neighbour time to clear his garden, it was aware this was a historical issue, and the resident had made a complaint. Therefore, this service would have expected the landlord to be more proactive and customer focused.
  6. In the landlord’s stage 2 complaint response it said residents were responsible for the repairs to a fence and therefore would not reimburse the costs for any damage. Although the Ombudsman sympathises with the resident’s situation, the landlord acted appropriately as its advice was in line with its repairs policy. However, the landlord should have provided the resident with a copy of its policy and explained this to her sooner in order to manage her expectations.
  7. In its stage 2 response the landlord acknowledged and offered compensation for the delay in it contacting the resident about the neighbour’s garden and for the inconvenience, time and trouble caused to her. The £65 compensation it offered was in line with its compensation framework for service failures and discretionary payments. The resident told the Ombudsman she wanted the landlord to pay the costs she incurred by replacing parts of her fence. As repairs to shared fences between gardens are the resident and the neighbours responsibility, it would not be reasonable for the Ombudsman to ask the landlord to pay for this.
  8. The neighbour’s garden was cleared on 21 October 2024, 18 months after the resident raised her complaint. Although this is a significant delay, the landlord’s records show it was in regular contact with the neighbour about the garden after the expiry of the complaints process. The landlord has provided this Service with information concerning the reasons why there were delays. These details cannot be disclosed to the resident due to data protection guidelines, as the Ombudsman is unable to share personal information about other residents without their consent.
  9. Although it was the neighbour’s responsibility to clear and maintain their garden, the landlord did offer its assistance. This included looking for grants to pay for a gardening service and it offered to find the neighbour alternative accommodation without a garden. This showed the landlord was trying to find a permanent solution to the issue.
  10. Based on the above there was reasonable redress with the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports that the neighbours overgrown garden had damaged her fence.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s associated complaint

  1. The landlord operates a 2 stage complaints process which sets out that it will acknowledge a complaint within 5 working days and respond to stage 1 complaints within 10 working days, and stage 2 complaints within 20 working days.
  2. The resident contacted this service to assist her in making a complaint to the landlord on 20 April 2023. The resident told the Ombudsman she had tried to make a complaint prior to this. The evidence shows the resident contacted the landlord on 4 and 11 April 2023 to report the issue with the neighbour’s garden and asked it to take action to put things right. Although the previous landlord should have informed the landlord of any on-going complaints during the stock transfer, it was reasonable that the landlord initially treated this as a service request rather than a complaint.
  3. The landlord acknowledged the complaint on 24 April 2023, which was within its 5 working day target timescale. It acted appropriately by contacting the resident to discuss the complaint on 4 May 2023.
  4. The landlord issued its stage 1 complaint response on 11 May 2023. When acknowledging the complaint, the landlord told the resident it would respond by 8 May 2023. There was no evidence the landlord contacted the resident about the delay or that it agreed an alternative response date. The stage 1 response failed to show it had investigated the complaint issues. Although it said it was going to contact the neighbour, it failed to say what action it could take to resolve the issues and timescales for this. It also failed to mention the resident’s concerns about the damage to her fence.
  5. The resident asked to escalate her complaint on 17 May 2023. The landlord acknowledged the escalation 18 working days later, which was outside its 5 working day timescale.
  6. The landlord issued its stage 2 complaint response on 20 June 2023, which was within its target timescale. Its response was lacking in detail; however, it did respond to all of the resident’s complaint issues.
  7. It is noted this service asked the landlord to reissue its stage 2 response as it had failed to date it. The landlord should ensure its complaint responses are dated so residents are clear when they can seek assistance from the Ombudsman. Although the landlord confirmed the date in a covering letter, the landlord failed to update its records and provided this service with a stage 2 response in its evidence request that was not dated.
  8. In summary, landlords must have an effective complaints process to provide a good service to their residents. An effective complaint process means landlords can fix problems quickly, learn from their mistakes and build good relationships with residents. In this case there was a delay in the landlord issuing its stage 1 response and acknowledging the complaint had been escalated. There was evidence of poor communication, and its complaint responses could have been more detailed. The landlord acknowledged and apologised for its complaint handling failures in its stage 2 response. The £50 compensation offered was in line with its compensation framework.
  9. Based on the above, there was reasonable redress with the landlord’s handling of the resident’s associated complaint.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 53.b of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was reasonable redress by the landlord in relation to its response to the resident’s reports that the neighbours overgrown garden had damaged her fence.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 53.b of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was reasonable redress for the landlord’s handling of the resident’s associated complaint.

Recommendations

  1. The resident told the Ombudsman that she reported a tree needed removing from the neighbour’s garden in April 2024, which is still outstanding. It is recommended the landlord contacts the resident to discuss whether it is taking action to remove this tree. If so, it should provide the resident with a timescale for the works.
  2. The landlord should review its record keeping practices to ensure that all staff are accurately recording communication from residents in relation to service requests and complaints. If it has not done so already, consider implementing a knowledge and information management strategy, in line with the Ombudsman’s spotlight report on knowledge and information management.