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

Stonewater Limited (202305679)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202305679

Stonewater Limited

6 February 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:
    1. Reports of antisocial behaviour (ASB) by the resident relating to dog noise.
    2. Reports of ASB by a neighbour towards the resident.
    3. The related complaint.

Background

  1. The resident lives in a new-build house under an assured tenancy. The property is owned by the landlord, a housing association.
  2. In or around February 2023, several neighbours advised the landlord and the local authority’s Environment Health team (EH) about noise from the resident’s dog during the day and night. The resident was subsequently issued with warning letters in April 2023 and permission to keep the dog was revoked in May 2023.
  3. The resident contacted the landlord on 6 June 2023 about her neighbour’s children making noise. The landlord acknowledged a complaint from the resident on 13 June 2023. The landlord provided a stage 1 response on 4 July 2023 and said it was committed to investigating the resident’s concerns regarding the neighbour’s children.
  4. The resident escalated the complaint on 10 July 2023 and told this Service that her neighbour bought drugs from their violent ex-partner. It was also this neighbour who wanted the resident’s dog removed, which she considered to be her protection. The landlord did not receive any further evidence regarding the dog and so the case against the resident was noted as closed on 12 September 2023. It was then reopened following further reports and was being monitored from 29 September 2023 onwards.
  5. The landlord issued its final response on 11 October 2023 and said the case against the resident’s neighbour was closed due to a lack of evidence and the case against the resident would be reviewed following further contact from EH. The landlord offered £50 compensation for the late complaint response.
  6. The landlord has since closed both ASB cases due to a lack of evidence. There is no indication that the resident’s dog was removed from the property. The resident wants the ASB cases to be investigated and resolved according to the landlord’s policy.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

  1. The resident’s concerns that landlord staff have treated her differently owing to her race are acknowledged. The Ombudsman cannot determine that the landlord has breached the Equality Act 2010. However, if a concern has been raised during the period of the complaint, we can consider whether a landlord has properly considered its duties under this Act.
  2. In this case, the resident appears to have first raised the issue with the landlord on 12 October 2023, which was after the final response dated 11 October 2023. This is therefore outside of the scope of this investigation. The resident may wish to seek legal advice on this issue separately if she remains concerned. 

ASB – Dog noise

  1. The tenancy agreement for the property says the resident must not cause nuisance or annoy anyone, for example, by making too much noise. It also says that the resident must not keep an animal at the property without written consent.
  2. The landlord’s ASB policy covers its response to ASB including action plans and timescales.
  3. In this case, there was evidence of reports from early 2023 of noise nuisance by the resident’s dog from more than one neighbour and via EH.
  4. The landlord contacted the resident, and she responded to say that her dog does not bark unless triggered, and she felt the reports were malicious. The resident said that local children were deliberately trying to provoke dogs on the estate.
  5. The landlord issued a first warning letter around 26 April 2023. It is noted that the letter provided by the landlord appears to show the date it was collated for the Ombudsman, rather than issued to the resident. The date has been calculated from the date quoted by which action must be taken.
  6. The landlord said it understood that dogs will bark from time to time, but it must act when this is persistent and causing disruption. The landlord explained it had the right to revoke permission to keep the dog. This action was proportionate and in line with the landlord’s policy, which notes it will initially try to resolve ASB through methods such as warning letters, prior to considering further action.
  7. The landlord was contacted again by EH and issued a further warning letter to the resident around 10 May 2023. Given the additional evidence from EH, and that it had previously attempted to resolve the ASB through warning letters, it was reasonable for the landlord to escalate its response. The landlord said that permission was revoked, and the dog would have to be rehomed by 31 May 2023. The resident has disputed there was any evidence to support the landlord’s claims.
  8. The landlord advised the resident around 15 May 2023 that it had reviewed the case internally and then a decision had been made based on the evidence, including reports made to the landlord and EH. It said that the dog was to be rehomed by 5 June 2023, and if not, the landlord would consider court action.
  9. The landlord tried to contact the resident as there were recordings of the resident’s dog barking in July 2023. It was reasonable that the landlord sought to discuss this with the resident so she could understand its position.
  10. It was appropriate for the landlord to act following complaints made. It gave the resident warnings and was acting within the tenancy agreement to revoke permission, as the resident required the landlord’s permission to keep the dog. This approach to escalation was also in line with its ASB policy.
  11. The landlord closed the case on 12 September 2023 as there were no further concerns. Given the lack of further reports at this time, this was reasonable in the circumstances. However, the landlord wrote to the resident again on 29 September 2023 saying it had received new reports and that the situation would be monitored. Given the further reports, it was reasonable for it to continue to monitor the situation, in line with its ASB policy. It was also appropriate that it kept the resident informed of the developments in the case.
  12. The resident’s initial complaint did not address concerns about the dog; however, given that this issue was raised as part of the discussions about ASB from her neighbour, it was reasonable for the landlord to provide its position in its stage 2 response, where it provided appropriate updates about the ASB case.
  13. While it is evident that the landlord received further contact from EH in April 2024, following which the landlord sent further warnings, it is understood the dog remains at the property. Given that since that time, there were no further concerns raised, the case was closed. This was appropriate and proportionate action by the landlord and in line with its policy.
  14. The Ombudsman’s role when investigating ASB complaints is not to determine whether the incidents have occurred as alleged. Rather, the Ombudsman’s role is to assess the evidence that is available and reach a conclusion as to whether the landlord has complied with its duties and obligations when responding to ASB reports.
  15. From the evidence that has been provided to the Ombudsman, there is nothing to suggest that the landlord has failed to deal with the neighbours’ reports appropriately. It issued warnings based on the numerous reports it had received, sought to escalate when prevented with additional evidence, and closed the case when there were no further concerns. It also kept the resident informed throughout.
  16. It follows that there is no maladministration by the landlord in respect of its response to reports of ASB by the resident.

ASB – Neighbour

  1. The landlord’s ASB policy says that it does not consider the noise of children playing to be ASB, or the unintentional behaviour of children. It further excludes entrenched personal disputes or reports that are not supported by evidence.
  2. In this case, the resident reported noise from her neighbours’ children on 6 June 2023. The resident’s reports were made following warnings that permission to keep her dog had been revoked. 
  3. The landlord acknowledged in its stage 1 complaint response dated 4 July 2023 that there had been some delay in her being contacted as the case officer was on leave but said that a case had been opened regarding the nuisance. While this was an explanation for the delay, the landlord should have had appropriate systems in place to ensure staff absences did not disrupt its service. This delay was therefore unreasonable and would have been frustrating for the resident.
  4. The landlord contacted the resident on 15 June 2023 and requested further information. The landlord said it asked the resident to keep a log so it could build a case. This action was in line with the requirements of its ASB policy. It said it returned her call on 5 July 2023, 4 September 2023, and 12 September 2023, to obtain the logs.
  5. The landlord subsequently closed the case as there had been no further evidence supplied by the resident. It said it would contact the resident again by 20 October 2023 to discuss any further concerns and review any new evidence. This action was reasonable given the available evidence and it was appropriate that it sought to monitor the situation. The landlord noted on 19 April 2024 that it tried to contact the resident by phone and email but was unsuccessful and the case was closed due to no further evidence.  
  6. The resident has supplied a large amount of video and sound evidence in respect of her experience at the property. It is not possible for the Ombudsman to know when and by whom the noise reported was occurring. It is also evident that the landlord had the opportunity to review the evidence, following which, it appropriately provided its position in a timely manner that it had not found clear evidence to support the accusations made.
  7. It can be seen from the detailed and extensive emails from the resident that this matter has caused her a great deal of distress and the Ombudsman recognises this. Nevertheless, the landlord followed its policy in investigating the resident’s reports. It assessed the evidence, provided its position in a timely manner, and kept the resident informed about the closure of the case.
  8. While there was an initial delay in the landlord’s acknowledgement of the resident’s reports, this did not fall below the threshold into service failure. From the evidence that has been provided to the Ombudsman, there is nothing to suggest that the landlord has failed to deal with the resident’s reports in line with its procedure. It follows that there is no maladministration by the landlord in respect of its response to the resident’s reports of ASB by her neighbour.

Complaints handling

  1. The landlord’s complaint policy, provided with the stage 2 response, says that stage 1 complaints will be responded to in 10 working days, and stage 2 in 10 working days. 
  2. There is a lack of clarity around the initial complaint. The landlord provided 2 complaint acknowledgements. It issued the first on 13 June 2023 and said the response would be issued by 27 June 2023. This would suggest that the acknowledgement was sent on the day of the complaint.
  3. The landlord then issued a second acknowledgement on 26 June 2023 and said the response would be issued by 10 July 2023. It is not clear if there was a second or duplicate complaint as the landlord has not provided a copy of the complaint(s).
  4. Nevertheless, the landlord issued only a single stage 1 response on 4 July 2023. On the basis that there was only 1 complaint made on 13 June 2023, while this response was outside of the timeframes of its policy, it was not significantly late, and the landlord apologised and explained the reason for the delay, which was due to the volume of complaints received. While this service’s Complaints Handling Code requires that the landlord provide an update if the response is to be delayed, the delay in this case did not have a significant impact.
  5. The resident asked to escalate the complaint on 10 July 2023 but there is no evidence the resident provided any details about what she remained dissatisfied with. The landlord should have clarified this at this stage. Additionally, no acknowledgement was issued by the landlord.
  6. Following contact by the Ombudsman, the landlord acknowledged the stage 2 complaint on 14 September 2023. This was well beyond the timeframes in its policy. It requested a further extension on 10 October 2023 but then issued its final response the next day.
  7. In its response, the landlord acknowledged and apologised for its delays and offered £50 compensation in recognition of the distress and inconvenience this had caused. This offer is broadly in accordance with this service’s own remedies guidance for such instances. Therefore, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, the landlord’s offer amounted to reasonable redress in the circumstances.

Determination (decision)

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was no maladministration by the landlord in respect of the complaints regarding its response to the resident’s reports concerning:
    1. ASB by the resident relating to dog noise.
    2. ASB by the neighbour towards the resident.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 53(b) of the Scheme, and in the Ombudsman’s opinion, there was reasonable redress offered by the landlord for its service failure in respect of its complaints handling.

Recommendations

  1. The landlord should reiterate its offer of £50 compensation, if this is yet to have been accepted.