Together Housing Association Limited (202317344)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202317344

Together Housing Association Limited

11 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 the resident’s:
   1. Request for permission to install a gate to restrict access.
   2. Formal complaint.

Background

2. The resident is the assured tenant of the property, which is a one bedroom, end of terrace, bungalow. The landlord is a housing association. The landlord has recorded that the resident has a medical disability.
3. On 13 August 2022 the resident completed the landlord’s form to request permission to install a gate across a path at the side of the property, which provides access to the rear of the property. She said this would improve her security and privacy. The landlord denied permission on 29 September 2022 and 17 January 2023. It said, in its second letter, it had denied her request as it would affect access to neighbouring properties required by the neighbours, as well as by emergency services and refuge collectors.
4. The resident called the landlord on 24 January 2023 to make a stage 1 complaint. She said she disagreed with its decision and disputed its reasons for denying her request. The landlord provided its stage 1 response on 23 March 2023, in which it:
   1. Said it had acknowledged the complaint on 26 January 2023 and had visited her on 27 February 2023 to discuss her complaint.
   2. Confirmed it had reviewed its previous decision, but that it could not allow her to install a gate. It said while it understood she felt a lack of privacy, the path at the side of the property was a communal path, which also allowed her neighbour to get to her backdoor, and so it could not be restricted.
   3. Said it would ask her neighbour to “show consideration and keep the use of access to a minimum”.
5. On 5 April 2023 the resident asked to escalate her complaint. She said if she installed a gate she could leave it open, there was an alternative path her neighbour could use, and that her neighbour had not minimised her use of the path. The landlord discussed the complaint with the resident on 26 April 2023. It provided its stage 2 response on 2 May 2023, in which it:
   1. Said the resident had told it that she did not get on with her neighbour, and about an antisocial behaviour (ASB) incident. It said she told it she wanted to install a gate to restrict her neighbour’s access around the side of the property.
   2. Confirmed it could not allow her to install a gate as it could not restrict access on a communal path. It also said her alternative route suggestions were not suitable, and her neighbour had not consented to the gate.
   3. Suggested mediation to resolve the ongoing ASB.
6. The resident has told this Service that she is still suffering from ASB from her neighbour, and she believes a gate would reduce this. She said the situation is negatively affecting her mental health.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

7. There is an ongoing ASB dispute between the resident and her neighbour. The resident has reported this to the landlord, which opened an ASB case and asked her to record incidents, which she had been doing. The resident has also provided copies of her ASB logs to this Service. However, as the resident’s complaint to the landlord did not involve its handling of ASB, the Ombudsman has not considered its handling of ASB as part of this investigation. This is because, under paragraph 42.a of the Scheme, the Ombudsman may not consider complaints which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, are made prior to having exhausted a member’s complaints procedure.
8. If the resident is dissatisfied with how the landlord has handled her reports of ASB, she may wish to make a new complaint about this to the landlord.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s request for permission to install a gate to restrict access

9. Under the tenancy agreement the resident is not allowed to make any alterations or improvements to the property without first being granted permission by the landlord. Under its alterations and improvements policy, the landlord will consider requests made by residents. It says it can deny requests based on the affect the alteration is likely to have on neighbours or the neighbourhood, and it will provide its reasons in writing within 28 days. The policy says a resident can appeal a refusal and the landlord will review its decision. Regarding communal areas, the landlord’s estate management policy says there will be no barriers, locks, or obstructions, to residents’ access.
10. The Ombudsman has reviewed photographs provided by the landlord and the resident. The property has a path running alongside it, which leads to a path along the rear of the property and the neighbouring property, which provides rear access to both properties. The landlord described the path as communal, and it is a shared right of way for both properties.
11. When the landlord responded to the resident’s permission request in September 2022 it did so outside of its 28-day policy timeframe and failed to give reasons for its denial. It has not provided evidence of the resident’s appeal request, however, it did provide a second denial letter in January 2023 which correctly set out its reasons for refusal. Positively, the landlord had visited the resident before making its decision. It visited her again following her stage 1 complaint, which again was positive. Within its stage 1 and 2 responses, it provided further reasons it could not allow permission.
12. The Ombudsman understands the history of the ASB reported by the resident, and that she feels this should have meant the landlord should have approved her request. She believes restricting access would improve the ongoing ASB, but this is questionable, as the neighbour would still be able to use the path at the rear of the property even if not the one at the side. The landlord’s response was in line with its policies and was reasonable. The design of the property and neighbouring terrace bungalows meant it could not approve a gate to restrict access. However, the landlord provided its initial decision late, and it lacked reasons, in breach of its policy and so there was service failure. To reflect the time and trouble caused to the resident an order has been made that the landlord pay £50 compensation, which is in line with the Ombudsman’s guidance on remedies.

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

13. When the resident made her stage 1 complaint on 24 January 2023 the landlord said it acknowledge this within its 5 working day complaints policy timeframe, although it has failed to provide evidence of this to this Service. It provided its stage 1 response after 58 working days, in breach of its 10-working day policy timeframe, and paragraph 5.1 of the Housing Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code) in use at the time. It also failed at any point to request an extension of time to respond, which it could have done under its policy and the Code.
14. The landlord has not provided any evidence it acknowledged the resident’s escalation request within its 5 working day policy timeframe or at all. Positively, it did call the resident on 26 April 2023 to discuss the stage 2 complaint, but this was 21 working days after she asked to escalate her complaint. The landlord took 27 working days to provide its stage 2 response, in breach of its 20-working day timeframe under its complaints policy and paragraph 5.13 of the Code. Within both its stage 1 and 2 responses the landlord failed to recognise, apologise for, or offer any remedy, for its complaint handling failings, which was a further failing.
15. Overall, there was maladministration in the landlord’s complaint handling. To reflect the inconvenience, time and trouble caused, an order has been made that the landlord pay £100 compensation to the resident.

Determination

16. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was maladministration in relation to the landlord’s handling of the resident’s formal complaint.
17. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was service failure in relation to the landlord’s handling of the resident’s request for permission to install a gate to restrict access.

Orders

18. Within 4 weeks of the date of this report, the landlord is ordered to:
    1. Provide a written apology to the resident for the failings detailed in this report.
    2. Pay directly to the resident £150 compensation made up of:
       1. £100 for the inconvenience, time and trouble caused to the resident by its complaint handling failings.
       2. £50 for the time and trouble caused to the resident by its service failure.
    3. Confirm compliance with these Orders to this Service.