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

Lambeth Council (202006032)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202006032

Lambeth Council

30 July 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 an antisocial behaviour (ASB) complaint made against the resident.
    2. The landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of ASB.
    3. The landlord’s handling of the associated complaint.

Jurisdiction

  1. What we can and cannot consider is called the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction. This is governed by the Housing Ombudsman Scheme. When a complaint is brought to the Ombudsman, we must consider all the circumstances of the case as there are sometimes reasons why a complaint will not be investigated.
  2. After carefully considering all the evidence, in accordance with paragraph 39(a) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the following aspect of the complaint is outside of the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction:
    1. The landlord’s handling of an antisocial behaviour (ASB) complaint made against the resident.
  3. Paragraph 39(a) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme states that the Ombudsman will not investigate complaints which are made prior to having exhausted a member’s complaints procedure. The resident has informed this Service that she is dissatisfied with the landlord’s handling of an ASB complaint made against her by her neighbour. This aspect of the complaint cannot be considered in this investigation as this was not raised as a formal complaint with the landlord to be considered through its complaints procedure. The resident may wish to raise this matter as a formal complaint with the landlord and escalate it to this Service if she continues to be dissatisfied with its response.

Background and summary of events

  1. The resident is a tenant of the landlord and occupies a ground floor flat with a garden.
  2. The resident has reported noise from her upstairs neighbour since 2018. These historical events will not be considered in this investigation as the Ombudsman would expect a formal complaint about a matter to be raised within a reasonable time, which would ordinarily be within six months of the matters arising. Therefore, this report will focus on events from May 2020 onwards, this being six months prior to the resident raising a formal complaint with the landlord.
  3. On 16 Jun 2020, the landlord responded to contact from the resident to ask for details of her neighbour who she had reported trailing a hosepipe over her boiler flue and electrics.
  4. On 21 July 2020, the resident contacted the landlord to say that, although it had since advised her that it would speak to the neighbour in question about the trailing hosepipe, which led from the upstairs neighbour’s window and across her garden, she had observed the neighbour using the hosepipe again in the same way. She reported that this had led to her windows getting wet and caused damage to her wiring for lights in her garden. The resident questioned if the landlord would reimburse her for any damage to her property. She added that there was “continuous noise” from the neighbour’s front door slamming and reported that the neighbour would “sit and tap continually in the same spot to try and antagonise me”. The resident highlighted that the neighbour had been told not to use the hosepipe like this but it had been hanging from the neighbour’s window since the morning that day.
  5. The landlord wrote to the resident on 30 July 2020 to advise her that it had written to her neighbour and it enclosed incident diary sheets for her to record noise incidents. It asked her to return these sheets after two weeks. The landlord advised that, if it did not receive these, it would assume the problem had ceased and it would close the case.
  6. The landlord also advised the resident that living in proximity to others would result in a certain level of noise being experienced but it would work with her and her neighbour to reduce the level of nuisance caused by this. It suggested that mediation was an effective way to resolve such issues between the two parties, and enclosed information about this and offered to arrange mediation if the resident wished.
  7. The landlord emailed the resident on 12 October 2020 to confirm that it had written to her neighbour to give them 14 days to remove the hosepipe. It advised that it was intending to inspect the property on 27 October 2020 to confirm this.
  8. On 22 October 2020, the landlord wrote to the resident to update her on her neighbour’s use of the hosepipe. It advised her that it believed that the neighbour’s hosepipe had been removed and asked her to confirm if this was the case. The landlord expressed its intention to now close the case and asked the resident to consider mediation to find “common ground” with her neighbour.
  9. The resident reported to the landlord that, on 7 November 2020, her neighbour had been “ripping out [their] carpet from 22:00 hours to 10 am so all through the night”. She described this as creating continuous noise and contended that her neighbour had intentionally dropped heavy items on the floor.
  10. After receiving contact from the resident, this Service contacted the landlord on 9 November 2020 to request that it consider her complaint about its handling of her reports of ASB.
  11. The landlord issued a stage one complaint response to the resident on 9 December 2020 in which it confirmed that it had opened an ASB case in response to her reports on 27 July 2020. It noted that mediation had been offered to her which she had declined, and it stated that it had provided periodic updates to her on the case.
  12. The landlord advised that it had scheduled a visit to the resident’s neighbour’s property on 17 September 2020 to inspect the hose pipe as “this appeared to be the main point of contention”. It relayed that “a number of calls” were made to the neighbour before it sent a warning letter was sent to them on 12 October 2020 before it was advised on 22 October 2020 that the hosepipe had been removed which the resident confirmed.
  13. The ASB case was then put on hold until the landlord received the resident’s reports of noise from her neighbour. It confirmed that it conducted a visit to the resident’s neighbour’s property on 17 November 2020 when it observed that “carpet along with good quality underlay had been laid throughout the whole property”. The landlord said it was satisfied that there was adequate soundproofing and the neighbour had made reasonable attempts to minimise sound transference.
  14. The landlord advised that a counter ASB case had been raised by the resident’s neighbour against her, and that they had denied the allegations of carrying out DIY at unsociable hours. It asked her to report any further instances of noise nuisance to it to allow it to investigate further if the matter persisted.
  15. The resident responded to the landlord later on 9 December 2020 to question what action it had taken in respect of the ASB case raised against her.
  16. After receiving further contact from the resident, on 15 January 2021, the Ombudsman requested that the landlord escalate the resident’s complaint to the final stage and provide a response to her within 20 days. After being advised by the resident that she had received no response, we contacted it again on 19 February 2021 to request it provide its final response to the complaint with five working days.
  17. The landlord issued a final stage complaint response to the resident on 26 February 2021 in which it acknowledged its delay in responding and apologised for this. It confirmed that it spoke to her on 22 January 2021 and summarised her complaint as dissatisfaction with the length of time taken to resolve the neighbour’s use of the hosepipe and the noise transference through their floor due to a lack of carpeting.
  18. The landlord relayed the same sequence of events stated in its stage one complaint response. It confirmed it was satisfied that that the neighbour had made reasonable efforts to reduce noise through the floor and confirmed that it had acted in line with its ASB policy to resolve the issues reported by the resident.
  19. The resident informed this Service on 23 March 2021 that her outstanding issues of complaint were that:
    1. She was dissatisfied with an ASB complaint being made against her.
    2. She did not refuse mediation and referred to historical attempts at mediation in 2018.
    3. She disputed that there was adequate soundproofing installed by her neighbour.

Assessment and findings

Policies and procedures

  1. The landlord’s tenancy agreement with the resident confirms that a resident must ensure that adequate floor coverings must be in place to stop or reasonably minimise noise transference to adjacent properties. This agreement also states that a resident must not do anything which is likely to cause a nuisance or danger to other people or cause damage to another resident’s property.
  2. The landlord’s complaints policy provides for a two-stage complaints procedure with a response to be provided within 20 working days at stage one. This policy is silent on the timeframe within which a final stage complaint response is to be issued.

The landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of ASB

  1. When a resident makes reports of nuisance from a neighbour, it is expected of the landlord to investigate these reports and take appropriate and proportionate action in response, if evidence of ASB is found. It would also be expected to provide regular updates to the resident as incidents of ASB may lead to distress for victims.
  2. When the landlord received the resident’s report of noise from her neighbour on 21 July 2020, it was a reasonable response from it to provide incident diary sheets to her on 30 July 2020 to gather evidence of noise nuisance. For a landlord to take action in respect of noise nuisance, sufficient evidence of the noise must be gathered. There was no evidence that these diary sheets were submitted by the resident, therefore, it was reasonable for it to take no further action regarding the report of noise until a further report was made by her on 7 November 2020.
  3. As part of a landlord’s investigation into alleged ASB, it would be reasonable for it to contact the alleged perpetrator by telephone, in writing or in person. It visited the resident’s neighbour on 17 September 2020 and 17 November 2020 to inspect the reported hosepipe and noise transference issues and wrote to them on 12 October 2020. These were reasonable and proportionate actions in response to the resident reports and demonstrated that it took action to ensure that the neighbour behaved in accordance with their tenancy conditions, above at point 24.
  4. While the resident has disputed that her neighbour had installed sufficiently sound insulating floor covering in their property, it is reasonable for a landlord to rely on the opinions of its suitably qualified staff. Therefore, it was reasonable for it to conclude, after its visit to the neighbour on 17 November 2020, that they have made reasonable efforts to minimise sound transference, in accordance with the tenancy agreement, above at point 24.
  5. While the landlord took reasonable actions to address the ASB issues reported by the resident, there is no evidence that it kept her informed of progress, despite it stating this in its stage one and final stage complaint responses. Between 30 July 2020 and 12 October 2020, there was no evidence of it contacting her about the progress of the ASB investigation. Considering the likely distress and inconvenience which may have been caused by the reported ASB, it was unreasonable for it to have not kept her informed.
  6. As there was a failure by the landlord to keep the resident updated, compensation of £50 should be paid to her. This is in accordance with the Ombudsman remedies guidance where there has been a “failure which had an impact on the complainant but was of short duration and may not have significantly affected the overall outcome for the complainant”.

The landlord’s handling of the associated complaint

  1. The Ombudsman raised the stage one complaint on behalf of the resident on 9 November 2020. The stage one complaint response was issued to the resident on 9 December 2020, two working days in excess of the timeframe stated in its complaints policy, above at point 25. While this policy does not provide a set timeframe for a response at the final stage, this was provided, after prompting from this Service, after 30 working days.
  2. The Ombudsman’s complaint handling code sets out that complaints should be responded to within 20 working days at the final stage to ensure the swift resolution of complaints. Therefore, the 30 working days taken by the landlord to issue the final stage response was an unreasonable length of time. However, the landlord did acknowledge this delay in its final response on 26 February 2021. Given that the delays in its complaints responses were not excessive, and that there was no evidence of any detriment to the resident resulting from this nor evidence that the delay significantly affected the outcome, the landlord’s apology constitutes reasonable redress for this.

Determination (decision)

  1. In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure by the landlord in its response to the resident’s reports of ASB.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 55(b) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the landlord has offered redress to the resident prior to investigation which resolves the complaint concerning its handling of the associated complaint satisfactorily.

Reasons

  1. Although the landlord carried out reasonable actions to investigate the resident’s reports of ASB, it did not provide evidence that it kept her informed of progress during its investigation which was likely to lead to distress and inconvenience on her part.
  2. The landlord’s complaints responses were delayed but not excessively and it acknowledged and apologised for these delays.

Orders and recommendations

Order

  1. Within 28 days, the landlord is to pay the resident £50 compensation.

Recommendations

  1. The landlord is to review its procedures for investigating ASB to ensure that processes are in place to ensure that residents are kept informed of progress at regular intervals during investigations.
  2. The landlord is to review its complaint handling processes to ensure that complaints are dealt with promptly in future.