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

Stonewater Limited (202305000)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202305000

Stonewater Limited

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 reports of antisocial behaviour to include reports of:
    1. The presence of rats, and large male foxes.
    2. His neighbour’s car parking and car fumes.
    3. Noise from fence panels and tarpaulins in the neighbour’s garden.
    4. The neighbour’s feeding of birds.
    5. The associated complaint.

Background

  1. The resident lives in a 2-bedroom bungalow with his wife in a weekly tenancy that started on 12 July 1982. The tenancy does not state the type it is. As it started before the commencement of the Housing Act 1988 it is likely that the tenancy is a secure housing association tenancy. The landlord was aware since 2018 that the resident’s wife is severely disabled.
  2. In March and April 2022, the resident complained to the landlord about concerns about his neighbour’s garden and his neighbour’s parking. The landlord corresponded with the resident about these concerns in May and June 2022. However, the issues with the resident’s neighbour remained on going.
  3. On 6 January 2023 the resident reported that his neighbour’s fence panels and the tarpaulins in the neighbour’s garden were causing noise nuisance. The resident added on 2 February 2023 that his neighbour had thrown rubbish out which was attracting birds which had defecated on washing he had put out to dry and amounted to a health hazard.
  4. The resident made a formal complaint about these issues on 16 February 2023 and the landlord provided a stage 1 response on 7 March 2023. In its stage 1 it said it was working with his neighbour to address the concerns raised and would undertake a home visit with them. Although it is unclear when the resident escalated this complaint the landlord provided its stage 2 response on 6 April 2023 and said:
    1. it told the resident in its stage 1 response that it was working with his neighbour to address the complaints about excessive garden rubbish and noise nuisance. It had found that any loose areas of his neighbour’s tarpaulin had minimal movement and only a potential to cause minor noise
    2. his neighbour had secured his fence apart from the part he shares with the resident which is the resident’s responsibility
    3. the neighbour had only placed bird food out, not rubbish
    4. it would monitor the neighbour’s garden and driveway.
  5. Following the stage 2 complaint response, the resident told the landlord on 26 December 2023 that there were rats and large male foxes about. They also said on 19 April 2024 that they were concerned about car fumes caused by his neighbour’s cars. The landlord offered the resident £150 on 24 June 2024 for delays in its complaint handling relating to the resident’s complaint about the issues in paragraph 1 (c) and (d).
  6. The resident has told this service that the neighbour continues to feed the birds and animals with “large joints of meat”. The resident would like the landlord to take action to deal with the noise and bird feeding which the resident feels amount to a nuisance.

Assessment and findings

The scope of the investigation

  1. Paragraph 42. of the Scheme states that “The Ombudsman may not consider complaints which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion: a. are made prior to having exhausted a member’s complaints procedure, unless there is evidence of a complaint-handling failure and the Ombudsman is satisfied that the member has not taken action within a reasonable timescale; b. were brought to the Ombudsman’s attention normally more than 12 months after they exhausted the member’s complaint’s procedure;”
  2. After carefully considering all the evidence, and in line with the Scheme, the Ombudsman cannot consider the resident’s complaint about the presence of rats, foxes, and car fumes. This is because the resident did not pursue this as a formal complaint and the landlord has not had the opportunity of addressing these issues through its formal complaint procedure. If any of these issues are ongoing, the resident should consider raising them as a complaint with the landlord.
  3. In the interests of fairness, the Ombudsman has limited the investigation to those issues that the resident has raised in the complaint of 16 February 2023, and which have exhausted the landlord’s formal complaint process. This is in line with paragraph 42.a. of the Scheme.
  4. The resident did not bring the complaint about parking to the Ombudsman’s attention within 12 months of exhausting the landlord’s complaint process. Therefore, the Ombudsman has not considered this in line with paragraph 42.b. of the Scheme.
  5. The resident has also told the landlord and this service that the landlord’s actions have affected his mental health. Where claims are made that a person has been injured or that a medical condition has been worsened by the actions or inactions of a landlord the Ombudsman considers it is quicker, fairer, more reasonable, or more effective to seek a remedy through the courts. This is in line with paragraph 42.f. of the Scheme. This is because a court can appoint an independent medical expert to give an opinion of the cause or deterioration of a condition and allow witnesses. These help the court to decide on whether there has been any personal injury while the Ombudsman does not have the benefit of this. The Ombudsman can award compensation for distress and inconvenience.
  6. The resident also told the landlord that he experiences discrimination from his neighbour on account of the neighbour’s reported behaviour. The resident has not specifically alleged discrimination by the landlord, but the Ombudsman has considered if the landlord has treated the resident fairly, taking into account any vulnerabilities, when assessing its handling of the reported antisocial behaviour.

Reports of bird feeding and noise

  1. The resident reported rubbish in the neighbour’s garden and noise from broken fence panels and tarpaulin in the neighbour’s garden on 6 January 2023. The resident added on 2 February 2023 that his neighbour was feeding birds which led to them defecating on drying clothes. The landlord ought to have treated this as antisocial behaviour (ASB) as these fell within the definition of ASB in its policy. This is because noise and the use of food which may attract wildlife could amount to a nuisance or annoyance affecting the enjoyment of property. The resident specifically reported that the noise of the tarpaulin flapping in the wind affected his sleep and sounded like a “force ten gale”.
  2. The resident told the landlord on 4 January 2023 that he felt a victim of a “hate crime”. The Ombudsman notes that two days later he clarified that this was because he felt his neighbour had discriminated against him. The landlord’s ASB policy defines a “hate incident” as any incident that amounts to a criminal offence which a resident perceived was motivated by prejudice or hate. While the evidence shows that the resident felt his neighbour was responsible for this neither the landlord nor resident have provided any evidence that showed that the neighbour had committed a criminal offence. Therefore, this service is unable to conclude that the landlord was under a duty to investigate the resident’s allegations of a hate crime under its ASB policy.
  3. The landlord sent an email to the resident’s neighbour on 27 January 2023 and a letter on 10 February 2023 asking him to remove the tarpaulin and clear any rubbish around the garden and back gate within 14 days. It visited the neighbour on 27 February 2023 but the feedback from this did not comment on whether there was any bird food or noise. The landlord also visited the resident’s neighbour in early March 2023 and established that the neighbour fed birds but did not identify any health hazards from this. It also noted that the neighbour’s tarpaulin was secure, and the resident’s neighbour said he fixed his fence panel. The landlord also told the resident on 6 April 2023 that any loose ends of the tarpaulin had minimal movement and a potential for minor noise.
  4. The landlord ought to have opened an ASB case as noise can amount to antisocial behaviour. This would have meant the landlord would have to devise a formal plan for dealing with the complaint, including how the resident might gather evidence. The landlord ought to have considered if it would be reasonable to supply the resident with noise monitoring equipment or inform the resident about the noise app to enable him to take recordings.
  5. While the landlord assessed the noise from the tarpaulin was not ASB on 6 April 2023 it did not explain to the resident the evidence it based this on. The landlord said it visited the neighbour on 2 May 2023 and noted the neighbour told it he would replace the tarpaulin when the weather improved, and when he could find someone to help. By the 12 June 2023 the neighbour agreed to replace it. It is unclear if or when the neighbour replaced this, but the resident told this service that the tarpaulin continues to disturb him.
  6. The landlord noted in early March 2023 that the neighbour told it that he feeds birds, and the landlord agreed in its stage 2 response to monitor this. The landlord has not provided evidence of what monitoring it completed. As the resident has said the neighbour is using “large joints of meat” to feed animals the Ombudsman has made an order.
  7. The Ombudsman has found service failure on account of the landlord’s failure to either open an ASB case or explain to the resident the reasons of why it should not. This failure was not in line with its ASB policy.

The landlord’s complaint handling

  1. The landlord had a two staged complaint policy in force at the time the resident complained, with an option to refer a complaint to a customer complaint’s panel. The landlord had to respond to complaints at stage 1 within 10 working days and to complaints at stage 2 within 20 working days. If requested the landlord had to complete any customer complaints panel review within 15 working days.
  2. The resident raised a complaint about noise and about the neighbour feeding birds on 16 February 2023. The landlord provided a stage 1 response on 7 March 2023 and its stage 2 response on 6 April 2023. It took the landlord 13 working days to respond at stage 1, against a target of 10 working days. It is unclear when the resident escalated this complaint and so this service cannot determine if the landlord acted in line with its complaints policy in dealing with these complaints. Had the resident escalated the complaint on 7 March 2023 (the earliest possible date) it would have taken the landlord 22 working days to respond at stage 2 of the complaint process. Therefore, there was a slight delay in the landlord’s handling of this case.
  3. The landlord offered the resident £150 for its failures in complaint handling on 21 June 2024. This was more than 12 months after the complaint process was exhausted (6 April 2023). There is no evidence the landlord would have offered this amount had it not been contacted by this office.
  4. This was unreasonable as this was not in line with the Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code which encourages early resolution. As such it is the Ombudsman’s view there was a service failure by the landlord in its complaint handling. The amount offered in June 2024 is in the region of what this service would recommend for failures of this kind and is a suitable amount to remedy the delay in complaint handling.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was service failure in the landlord’s handling of antisocial behaviour.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was service failure in the landlord’s complaint handling.

 

Orders

  1. Within 28 days of the date of this determination the landlord must:
    1. inspect the property of the neighbour to see if there is any evidence of ASB on account of the neighbour putting out food which may be a risk to health. It should consider whether it should open an ASB case for this or for noise from the tarpaulin. The landlord must write to the resident to explain its decision and share a copy of its decision with the Ombudsman
    2. pay the resident directly the sum of £150 (less any money already paid) for the distress and inconvenience caused to the resident by the failures identified in this report, including complaint handling.
  2. The landlord must provide the Ombudsman with evidence of compliance with the above orders within 28 days of the date of this determination.

Recommendation

  1. The landlord should strongly consider meeting with the resident to ensure they have clear details about any outstanding issues and complaints so that these can be appropriately addressed.