The Guinness Partnership Limited (202104966)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202104966

The Guinness Partnership Limited

30 December 2021

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).

Background and summary of events

Background

2. The resident is a tenant of the landlord and has an assured tenancy.
3. The landlord’s ASB policy says that it will communicate clearly with its customers to explain ASB and its approach, and ensure customers can easily and safely report incidents and are kept proactively informed about its response to those reports and progress in dealing with ASB.
4. The landlord’s ASB policy also says that it will take proportionate and timely action to deal with the ASB. This action will be proportionate to the severity, impact and frequency of the ASB and the evidence available to support the case. It also says that in most cases legal action is not required, though it will take legal action if it is appropriate to do so. It also says that where mediation and reasonable requests to stop the ASB fail, it may decide to take additional action to resolve the behaviour. In serious cases, this may include legal action.

Summary of events

5. Throughout 2019 and 2020, the resident experienced several issues with her neighbour, which she reported to the landlord. The main issue related to the installation of higher fence panels. The landlord had agreed to allow the resident to install these, as it was thought it would improve the relationship between her and her neighbour if they could not see each other whilst in the garden. However, the resident encountered problems installing the panels due to the neighbour. The landlord issued the neighbour with a warning over the matter.
6. The resident remained unhappy because she was not able to complete the fence installation in one section. This was because of material the neighbour had on their shed which prevented her from doing so. She wanted the final fence panel to be replaced so that it matched the rest, though she acknowledged her neighbour could not see her through that section. The landlord did not require her neighbour to remove the material from their shed.
7. The landlord spoke with the resident regularly about the issues she was experiencing. The landlord also spoke with the neighbour about the matter, and arranged mediation for the parties. The landlord asked the resident to complete incident diaries, and made her aware to contact the police in an emergency.
8. On 26 April 2021, the resident raised a complaint with the landlord. She explained she had a longstanding ASB dispute with her neighbour, that had been reported to the police on several occasions. The resident felt as though the ASB was not being taken seriously, and she did not feel safe.
9. The landlord spoke with its Customer Liaison Officer about the matter. They said the current issue was about a fence as the resident’s neighbour was unhappy about new fence panels erected between the two properties. The landlord had allowed the resident to have higher panels between the properties because the two did not get on. The resident’s neighbour had made some comments about this. The Customer Liaison Officer said the comments had not been constant, and when the neighbour was spoken to, they were quiet for a few weeks or months, but then the issue starts again. They said the parties had tried mediation but it had not worked.
10. The landlord issued the resident with its stage one complaint response on 25 May 2021. This said:
    1. It thought its Customer Liaison Officer had dealt with the disputes and reports made to the landlord in line with its policy.
    2. It confirmed the Customer Liaison Officer had regularly spoken with the resident’s neighbour about their behaviour, and each time this had resolved the issues for several weeks.
    3. The Customer Liaison Officer had agreed to contact the resident every four weeks to discuss any concerns.
    4. It asked her to continue to report any further ASB to it, and it would take any necessary action.
11. The resident had a telephone conversation with the landlord on 10 June 2021 about the matter.
12. On 23 June 2021, the landlord issued its stage two complaint response. This said:
    1. On 4 April 2021, the resident alleged that her neighbour had been verbally abusive towards her regarding a fence, and had started a fire close to the fence.
    2. The resident’s concerns were reported to the police and environmental health, and the landlord also contacted her neighbour to warn them that action would be taken if their behaviour continued.
    3. On 26 April 2021, the resident had complained about the landlord’s lack of action. The landlord had advised her that it did not have enough evidence to take legal action against her neighbour. It said the reports of ASB were sporadic and her neighbour had responded positively to the warnings given. The landlord did not think the case was strong enough to take to court.
    4. It acknowledged the resident had taken part in mediation, but this had not improved the situation.
    5. After speaking with the resident on 10 June 2021, the landlord spoke with the resident’s Customer Liaison Officer. They had advised the landlord they were in regular contact with the resident, and called her every four to five weeks to check in.
    6. It said it thought its Customer Liaison Officer had taken appropriate action and had acted on the ASB reported in line with its policies and procedures.
    7. It asked the resident to report any further incidents, and confirmed this would help it build a case in the event of a court application.

Assessment and findings

13. In cases concerning ASB, it is not the Ombudsman’s role to ascertain whether the ASB occurred. Instead, this Service will assess how the landlord responded to the reports of ASB and consider whether its response was in accordance with its policies and procedures, and whether it was appropriate and reasonable in all of the circumstances.   
14. The resident reported several instances of ASB in 2019 and 2020, which the landlord acknowledged and looked into. The landlord spoke with the resident’s neighbour about the reported ASB. The landlord also issued the resident’s neighbour with a warning as they were preventing the resident’s higher fence panels from being installed. That issue was then resolved, and the fence panels were put up, with the exception of one area. The reason for that was not due to ASB, and was down to the material used on the resident’s neighbour’s shed, which prevented the higher fence panel from being installed in that area.
15. Whilst the resident was unhappy with this because of aesthetic reasons, the reason the landlord had approved the higher fence panels was because it was thought these might help improve the relationship between her and her neighbour. The resident has acknowledged that her neighbour could not see her over the final unfinished section, and so whilst she wanted the landlord to require her neighbour to remove the material on their shed, it was not unreasonable for the landlord to refuse to do so. It must be recognised that the shed existed prior to the resident putting up the new fencing, thus, it would not be appropriate for the landlord to request that the neighbour removes the material.
16. The landlord also attempted to arrange mediation between the parties, which in the Ombudsman’s opinion is an appropriate option to resolve ongoing issues such as this. It was also appropriate for the landlord to ask the resident to complete incident diary sheets and continue to report any further instances of ASB to it.
17. These actions were in line with the landlord’s ASB policy and therefore appropriate. The landlord has explained to the resident that it does not think it has a strong enough case to take the matter to court, and has pointed out that the resident’s neighbour does respond positively to the warnings it has given them. This is again, in line with the landlord’s ASB policy. Legal action, such as eviction, cannot usually be made except as a last resort and where a robust case has been built to present to the courts. The threshold for a successful tenancy action is very high and landlords must be reasonably certain that this would be successful before initiating a court case.
18. However, as the problems between the resident and her neighbour have continued over an extended period of time, the landlord has arranged for its Customer Liaison Officer to contact the resident every four or five weeks, to discuss the matter (as well as asking her to continue to report further instances of ASB). This was a reasonable response.

Determination (decision)

19. In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration in respect of the landlord’s handling of the resident’s report of ASB.

Reasons

20. The actions undertaken by the landlord, in response to the resident’s reports, were appropriate in the circumstances of the case and in line with the landlord’s ASB policy.
21. Although the resident was unhappy that she could not complete the installation of the final higher fence panel, it was not unreasonable for the landlord to refuse to require her neighbour to remove the material on the roof to allow her to do so. That was because the higher fence panels that were installed prevented her from seeing her neighbour, and she could not see them in the remaining uncompleted area.