London & Quadrant Housing Trust (202007116)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202007116

London & Quadrant Housing Trust

15 May 2023

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

The complaint is about:
1. the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of anti-social behaviour (ASB).
2. the landlord’s complaint handling.

Background and summary of events

Background

The resident holds an assured tenancy which began on 3 November 2006. The property is a one bedroom flat on the second floor. There are no recorded vulnerabilities for the resident.
The landlord operates a two stage complaint policy which states:
1. at stage one, residents will receive an acknowledgement within five working days, and a full response will follow within ten working days
2. if the resident is unhappy with the response, they can request to escalate to the next stage. The complaint will be reviewed by another member of staff and a final written decision will be sent within 20 working days. If there is likely to be a delay, then the landlord will explain why and write again within a further ten working days. Any delays will be agreed with the resident.
3. after confirming its decision in writing, it will monitor progress until all outstanding actions are complete.
The landlord’s anti-social behaviour policy defines anti-social behaviour (ASB) as:
1. noise where it is persistent, deliberate or targeted
2. conduct that has caused, or is likely to cause, harassment, alarm or distress to a specific resident or property of the landlord
3. conduct that has a damaging impact on landlord properties or communal areas
4. conduct capable of causing housing-related nuisance or annoyance to the local community.
When managing a case of ASB, the landlord’s policy states that it will:
1. keep in regular contact with the complainant
2. arrange an interview
3. provide advice and support, including referrals to other agencies
4. agree an action plan with the reporting party
5. ensure that cases are progressed in a timely manner
6. keep under review the information about the case, including vulnerabilities and circumstances relating to all parties.
The landlord’s ASB policy also states that when considering enforcement action it will:
1. use “whatever powers are available and appropriate”, including legal powers
2. take a multi-agency approach to tackling ASB
3. take prompt, decisive action to prevent the problem escalating.
The landlord’s website says that:
1. persistent noise between the hours of 11pm and 7am could be considered as ASB.
2. for noise to be considered ASB it must occur regularly and continue over a time – it is not enough for the noise to be annoying or disturbing.
3. residents should also report noise nuisance to the local authority.
The landlord’s allocations and lettings policy explains that should a resident contact it for advice on moving it will assess their circumstances and present them with a range of options appropriate to their needs. It explains that these options may include:
1. mutual exchange
2. application to the local authority’s housing register.
3. direct offer (via the rehousing list).
In situations where the landlord needs to directly rehouse its existing residents, the policy says the landlord will match a resident through its rehousing list. The criteria the resident must meet includes:
1. the resident is at risk by remaining in their home due to domestic abuse, gang-related violence, or any other type of anti-social behaviour.
2. either the resident or a member of their household has a significant medical need or disability which means that they are unable to remain in their home.
3. exceptional circumstances are applicable and approved by senior management.
The policy confirms that to be added to the rehousing list a resident’s case will be presented to a rehousing panel consisting of senior managers and will require independently verifiable information before reaching a decision. It further adds that it will consider vulnerabilities such as known disabilities or medical conditions when making an offer of accommodation.

Summary of events

The resident has said that her neighbour had made her life a “living hell” for the past fourteen years. She has advised that she reported issues to her landlord regularly since 2006. Lockdown and the covid restrictions in 2020 exacerbated the issue, and her case was passed a manager who had been aware of the historic issues for investigation.
Records show that the resident made contact with the landlord on 15 May 2020. She reported that she was regularly disturbed by drilling sounds, moving of furniture, screaming and throwing things, to the extent that her property had damage to the ceiling and lights from the vibrations. She had tried to address the matter directly with her neighbour to explain the negative impact this was having on her, particularly as she was working from home, however the situation had not improved.
The landlord made contact with the resident on 10 June 2020. The resident said that her neighbour had been “constantly banging and drilling at all hours” and this was having an impact on her wellbeing and the condition of the property. The resident provided the landlord with photographs of cracks on her ceiling and wall, which the landlord passed to its maintenance team. The landlord agreed to contact the resident again to “confirm [its] plan”.
On 29 June 2020 the resident contacted the landlord and advised she had not received any update. She stated that “as always, I raise an issue and nothing happens”. The landlord contacted her the same day and agreed that it would contact the neighbour, and sent the resident information about the noise recording app.
The same day, the landlord left a voicemail for her neighbour about the noise that had been reported. The notes from the voicemail stated that “I advised I needed to speak to her and she cannot continue behaving like this, disturbing her neighbours”. The landlord made an attempt to update the resident the following day, and left her a voicemail advising it would contact her again on the following Friday.
On 28 July 2020, the resident contacted the landlord to advise:
1. it was 10.45pm and her neighbour was attempting to “demolish her bathroom” whilst “screaming at the top of her lungs”
2. her mental health was deteriorating and she felt like she lived on a construction site
3. she felt that she had been patient but could not deal with the situation from “sunrise to the early hours, every single day”
4. she could feel the vibrations throughout her flat and she spent most nights waiting for the ceiling to collapse.
On 3 August 2020, the landlord wrote to the resident and advised that she continue to use the noise recording app. It said that it would contact her every two weeks to discuss the case and review any actions. It agreed that it would write a warning letter to her neighbour about the noise.
On 13 August 2020, the resident contacted the landlord and said she had made over 50 recordings of noise and emailed her caseworker over two weeks ago, called five times and left three voice messages but was not getting a response.
The landlord responded the same day and apologised for not making contact. It said it was “obvious that [her] neighbour was ignoring verbal and written warnings” so a file had been submitted for an injunction. It would contact her again in three days to discuss the matter further.
On 8 September 2020 the landlord’s notes state that it spoke to the resident about the noise. It had listened to some of her recordings and “some of the noise was not that loud”. Advice was given to the resident that the landlord cannot stop her neighbour getting up and “roaming around” in the night, however if she was banging and crashing this was not acceptable. It was still awaiting the outcome of legal advice.
The landlord contacted the resident to advise her that a warning letter had been sent to her neighbour, but she had denied making any noise. It asked if in the meantime, she would consider mediation. It said it had requested a surveyor visit to inspect the cracks she had reported in her property.
On 24 September 2020 the landlord wrote to the resident. The correspondence does not have a complaint stage, but said that it was responding further to the resident’s complaint about ASB from her neighbour. It said that:
1. it was sorry if the resident felt her complaints had not been handled correctly, but its intention was to fully investigate the matter
2. an ASB case had been logged for noise nuisance against the neighbour. It had reviewed the noise app recordings and was able to “clearly hear the noise” she was reporting, and acknowledged that it continued day and night. It asked the resident to keep recording when she experienced noise
3. it had spoken to another neighbour over the phone who had corroborated the resident’s reports of noise. However no other residents appeared to be affected
4. it had noted that the resident wanted the damage inspected in her home but due to the covid-19 pandemic, access was restricted. It said it would arrange an “earliest appointment” for an inspection with its maintenance team
5. it was sorry that its weekly contact had not been adhered to. It asked if it could contact the resident fortnightly, starting 5 October 2020
6. it had forwarded the resident’s file onto its legal team with the intention to apply for an injunction. Any decision for an injunction would be down to a judge to decide.
On 13 October 2020 the resident contacted the Ombudsman. She advised she had been reporting ASB from her neighbour since 2006, and had been “complaining constantly” to the landlord. She had kept diary sheets and spoken to various members of staff, on the phone and in person. Every person she had spoken to, had promised to do something then nothing happened, and she wanted to move. The Ombudsman prompted the landlord to respond to the resident within ten working days.
On 15 October 2020 the landlord tried to contact the resident by phone, but was unsuccessful. It emailed her to acknowledge the complaint and said a named officer would be in touch within 10 working days.
On 20 October the resident emailed the landlord and said that:
1. the complaints she had made in the past were not dealt with at all. They had been ignored by every housing officer she had. Every time she chased the landlord, she would be informed that the housing officer had left
2. the landlord had acknowledged that her neighbour was causing ASB however she felt she was expected to “just keep living with unbearable non-stop disturbances”. It was disrupting her home life on a daily basis
3. for 14 years the landlord had been ignoring her “pleas for help” and this had affected her physical and mental health. She wanted to move
4. a mutual exchange would not be appropriate where there was a “neighbour from hell” living above and the property had been damaged as a result
5. she had no response from the surveyor to look at the cracks in the property, and as far as she was aware no one had gone to inspect the property above. If they had, the “damage would be very obvious”.
On 23 October 2020, the landlord wrote to the resident with a stage one complaint response. It said that:
1. it was sorry that a formal complaint needed to be registered to obtain answers to the resident’s concerns
2. it had reviewed ASB records between 2009-2014. These records were limited as the systems had changed over the years, however it said that the reports the resident had made “may not have been thoroughly investigated at the time”. It was sorry for this failure in the service
3. none of the staff members who had been assigned to the resident’s ASB case still worked for the landlord, however its failings had been noted and wanted the resident to be reassured that it would “learn from this”
4. it would update its learning and development team to make them aware of ASB handling procedures and the need for regular contact with residents
5. a new case manager had been assigned to work with the resident about the ASB she continued to experience. The new case manager would contact the resident every two weeks with any updates
6. the resident should continue to submit noise app recordings as evidence
7. it was expecting the transfer system to “restart shortly” and a report would be submitted to a panel for a priority move.
On 25 October 2020, the resident responded to the landlord and advised that:
1. she had dealt with the case manager in the past, filling out several diary sheets and attending meetings which “went nowhere”
2. she had been told that her case manager would contact her every fortnight from 5 October 2020, but she had not heard from her since
3. she felt she was being left to keep living with “unbearable non-stop disturbances” and it was affecting her home life on a daily basis
4. her mental and physical health had been affected and she felt that the landlord was ignoring her pleas for help
5. she had no confidence in the landlord to deal with the issue and would be considering legal counsel.
Records show that the landlord wrote to warn the neighbour about the impact the noise nuisance was having on her neighbours on 14 August, 14 September and 26 October 2020.
On 6 November 2020, the resident contacted her landlord again and advised that:
1. her case manager had advised her that the landlord’s legal team had decided not to take any further action
2. she wanted further clarification on her move options, as she had been given no assurances that a move could happen
3. the ASB was continuing day and night, and she wanted to know what steps were being taken to address her complaints.
On 17 November 2020 landlord’s records show that the caseworker discussed the situation with its solicitors. They had advised her that mediation should be offered to both parties. A warning letter would be sent to the resident’s neighbour, but they felt that no further legal action could be taken, based on the evidence it had available.
On 27 November 2020, the landlord advised the resident that:
1. the landlord’s solicitors had considered her case and felt there was not enough evidence to go to court. If their view changed, it wanted to reassure her that action would be taken, but it was “just not possible” at this time
2. a legal warning letter had been sent to her neighbour and she would be continue to be supported by her caseworker
3. it wanted to reassure her that it would continue to contact her neighbour if there were further reports
4. it would be in contact about her move options.
On 28 November 2020, the resident responded to the landlord and said:
1. she had not been contacted by her caseworker every two weeks, as agreed
2. she felt she had followed all the processes relating to ASB to assist the landlord in its investigations, but felt she had been “set up” and felt the landlord’s actions were discriminatory
3. the noise had been so bad she had to go and sleep at her sister’s house to catch up on sleep. Her mental and physical health were suffering, and she was unclear what the landlord was doing to remedy the situation
4. she wanted a management move within the same borough. She wanted realistic timelines for a move and not a “vague” answer from the landlord.
On 1 December 2020 the caseworker wrote to the resident and advised:
1. she was sorry for not contacting the resident the previous week for an update
2. she had listened to the new recordings the resident had sent in, and had asked for the landlord’s legal team to revisit the option of applying for an injunction against her neighbour. She stated that “in [her] view, we have enough evidence”
3. it would update her further next time they speak.
On 4 December 2020, the landlord’s complaints team wrote to the resident in an email entitled “formal complaint response” and advised:
1. it was sorry that her caseworker had not made contact as was promised, apologies were offered for this
2. it wanted to reassure her that it had not “given up” and is still “working on a resolution concerning the ASB
3. it was sorry that the resident felt discriminated against but this was not the case
4. a report would be submitted to the panel for a management transfer and will update of the outcome as soon as possible
5. investigation into her complaint had been concluded, and she could approach the Ombudsman if she remained dissatisfied.
On 6 December 2020 the resident emailed her landlord and advised:
1. she had been told that her caseworker would be submitting a report to panel for a management move, but with “no indication of when she was actually going to submit it”. All she wanted was “clear updates” of when it would happen
2. two other residents had informed her that they had to move because of the behaviour of her neighbour. She knew “as a fact” from personal discussions the ASB had been going on for 20 years
3. the only communication she wished to have with her landlord was about a management transfer.
On 20 December 2020 the local authority noise team attended the property following complaints of noise. No noise was heard from street level and therefore the case was closed.
On 30 December 2020, the resident contacted the landlord and said that she had not received any updates or communication on her case since her last email. She said that:
1. she wanted an update and timeline on a management transfer
2. she had been stuck at home during lockdown and her neighbour “had not stopped” the drilling, screaming and banging at hourly intervals throughout the night.
The landlord responded to the resident and advised that it had not been in contact because the resident had advised she only wanted contact about her management move. The next housing panel was due to take place on 6 January 2021 at which point her case would be heard.
Records show that the resident contacted the landlord on 3 and 11 January 2021, requesting an update on her case. She stated that the noise was continuing and she felt the landlord was not taking her situation seriously.
On 15 January 2021 the head of affordable housing and partnerships at the local council wrote to the landlord and said that if successful at panel, it would support a move for the resident. This was on the grounds that the ongoing experience with her neighbour was having a detrimental effect on the resident’s welfare.
On 18 January 2021, the landlord contacted the resident and said that:
1. it was still investigating her ASB case, and had been in touch with its solicitor and “other stakeholders” as to how it could resolve the problem
2. it needed to make her aware that if her case were to be agreed at panel for a move, then there would be a long wait for a suitable property to become available
3. it could see that she was no longer submitting noise app recordings
4. it would contact again on 25 January 2021 or sooner for an update.
On 3 February 2021, the resident contacted the landlord and asked for an update as she had not heard anything further. The landlord responded on 11 February 2021 and advised that it hoped it would have a further update on the panel hearing the following week.
Over February 2021 the landlord was in correspondence with its legal team. The landlord provided the solicitor details of meetings that had taken place to try to support the neighbour, as she had been identified as vulnerable. It noted that neither party was willing to engage in mediation. The solicitor advised that:
1. taking the matter to court was not the best way to proceed, and it should try to continue to support both parties
2. a multi-agency approach would be the best course of action, and that a meeting held with both the local authority and the police would be beneficial.
On 1 March 2021, the landlord wrote to the resident and advised:
1. her case had been heard at a “housing panel” on 25 February 2021, but it did not agree that she met the criteria for an urgent move
2. the panel had asked that the caseworker explore other options with her neighbour and her support network relating to the noise nuisance
3. a member of the mobility team would contact her to discuss the options available, but in the meantime she should explore all the websites it had already provided details of .
The resident responded the same day and said the situation was “ridiculous”, and that nothing was being done by the landlord to “bring [her neighbour] to task” for her actions and stop the noise.
On 12 March 2021, the landlord wrote to the resident and advised that it was still working with the legal team, her neighbour and stakeholders to resolve the noise she had reported, and her case remained open.
On 11 April 2021 the police confirmed to the landlord that it could not find any recent incidents for the neighbour on the system. No action was being taken for ASB or criminal activity at the property.
On 13 May 2021 the local authority noise team confirmed to the landlord that following a recent report from a resident in the block, no noise was heard at the address and therefore there no longer an open case on their system.
On 31 May 2021 the resident wrote to the landlord. She said that:
1. she wanted an update on both her complaint, and her ASB case
2. her neighbour was making noise “upwards of ten hours a day”, and had purchased new power tools which she had been using consistently for the past eight days
3. on the afternoon of 29 May 2021, she had enough and called the police. They attended, but her neighbour made counter allegations that it was her who was drilling
4. it was 6.28pm at the time of her writing the email, and her neighbour was drilling water pipes that could be heard through her hallway cupboard. She went to inspect this and noted that there was water damage on the ceiling of the cupboard
5. the landlord had made no attempts to visit her neighbour and she was keeping her email as “proof” in the event that she was personally injured or her property was damaged.
On 4 June 2021 the landlord emailed the resident following receipt of a further noise recording. It advised that:
1. it was sorry she was still being disturbed by noise. Another neighbour had also reported the increase in noise and it was suggested that the local authority noise team be contacted, as they were now visiting homes again after the pandemic
2. it had tried to contact her neighbour by phone and by letter to arrange a home visit. An update would be provided on progress. If access could not be sought, then it would apply for an injunction
3. it had contacted local support agencies about her neighbour, and asked them to intervene.
Records show that the resident contacted the landlord three times throughout June 2021 to advise that the noise was ongoing. In her correspondence, she stated:
1. she had several conversations with another neighbour, who had shown her complaints he had made about the same neighbour dating back to 2003
2. she found it “ridiculous” she was expected to contact other agencies such as the noise team or the police, when the resident was a tenant of the landlord, and therefore the “landlord’s problem”
3. her neighbour had been banging, drilling and “demolishing” her property for what had been an “impossible ten days”. Her floors had been shaking and her chandelier was swinging, this had gone on all day.
On 13 July 2021 the local authority noise team and the landlord discussed the case over email. The noise team advised that in order to act upon noise complaints, they would need to witness it themselves. To date, they had not witnessed any noise.
Records show that the landlord tried to gain access to the neighbour’s property without success on 14 and 15 July 2021.
On 15 July 2021 the landlord said that it had tried to listen to all the sound recording the resident had sent, but these would not play on any device. It asked if the resident had reported the noise to the local authority noise team. If the noise was going on for hours, as she had suggested, then they could witness it and take the action they felt necessary.
On the 23 July 2021, the resident emailed the landlord and advised that:
1. between July 2020 and November 2020, over 300 recordings were sent to the landlord to demonstrated the noise, which could have been shared with the local authority noise team
2. both she and another neighbour had kept diaries, provided police reports and recordings of noise which happened day and night
3. the landlord had taken no action, and left questions unanswered. She wanted to know why she was offered the property if the landlord had been aware that her neighbour was causing ASB.
On 6 August 2021, the landlord contacted the resident and said:
1. it was sorry for the length of time it had taken to respond
2. a visit was due to take place in her neighbour’s property, however it would not be confirming whether she had “demolished her home”
3. further noise would need to be reported to the local authority noise team, and any reference numbers obtained. They would decide if the noise constitutes a statutory noise nuisance
4. it understood she was being disturbed however “many resident’s lifestyles vary” and there is an expectation noise will travel between flats. To date, there had been no evidence that the noise was deliberate or intentional
5. DIY noise was not considered ASB however residents were expected to restrict noise between the hours of 11pm-7am. Many of the noises recorded via the app sounded like heavy footsteps or cupboard doors being slammed during the day time
6. it could not comment about how the resident was offered the property, as this was covered as part of a formal complaint response and many of the staff involved had since left
7. it would update further once the visit to the neighbour had taken place.
On 16 August 2021 the resident emailed the landlord and said that she had a visit from the repairs team on 6 August and they advised that she required a new ceiling as it was bowed and damaged. This highlighted the amount of damage her neighbour was causing.
The local authority noise team noted that they had six complaints of drilling between June and August 2021. On five of the six occasions, they deemed the noise to be acceptable in the hours it was reported. On the one occasion a drilling noise was reported after 10.30pm, it soon stopped.
On 12 October 2021 the resident a contacted her landlord and advised that she had heard nothing further since their correspondence in August. She wanted an update on her complaint, and the home visit due to take place with her neighbour.
The landlord responded to the resident on 22 November 2021. It advised that:
1. it was sorry for the recent delay in contacting her, however it had been checking in about whether there were further incidents and had advised her to contact the local authority noise team. The noise team had not confirmed any new reports
2. two managers had visited her neighbour and there was nothing “untoward” going on. The neighbour had denied the allegations made against her
3. as there had been no new incidents, it intended to close the ASB case.
On 30 November 2021, the landlord contacted the resident by phone about her request for an escalation about her complaint. It later followed up the conversation up with an email and advised that she could expect to receive a decision at stage two by 24 December 2021. It said its stage two response would:
1. review the handling of the resident’s ASB case
2. investigate its decision for a priority move
3. consider compensation for delays, time and effort.
On 29 December 2021 the landlord wrote to the resident at stage two of its complaint process. It advised that:
1. it was sorry for the delay in responding to the resident’s complaint, this was due to an increased volume of work. It also apologised that the manager assigned to her ASB case had not been in regular contact
2. as part of the complaint investigation, the case manager had advised that the last ASB report the resident had made was a noise recording from her phone on 6 August 2021, however it could not be established where the noise was coming from and therefore could not be used as evidence
3. the landlord required the resident to use an app to record noise nuisance, but records had shown she had not used it since November 2020
4. new reports of noise should be reported to the noise team at the local authority, who could decide on whether to serve any notice on her neighbour. It advised it would not be able to pursue further action without sufficient evidence
5. it had taken further legal advice from a solicitor who had confirmed that the noise the resident was reporting would not constitute a statutory noise. There had been “a couple of incidents” of noise at 3am but the rest were during the day and although at times loud, it was not enough evidence to take legal action against her neighbour
6. the neighbour had been visited by a member of staff, but there was “nothing untoward going on” and there was carpet on the floor. It said that the resident doing DIY or moving furniture around was not classed as ASB
7. the property was old with no sound insulation and there was noise transference throughout the building which it could do nothing about
8. it could not secure a priority move for the resident as she had no support from external agencies such as the police or noise team. It provided details of how to apply for a mutual exchange
9. the resident’s ASB case had been closed by the case manager as there had been no new reports for a period of three months. Its procedure was to “close those cases where there is nothing legally we can do”
10. it recognised the resident had suffered mentally and physically. It advised if she wished to pursue a claim for damages, it could approach the landlord’s insurance team.
In summary the landlord said that:
1. there had been several service failures in terms of communication on her ASB case, and there had been a long delay in her case being reviewed at stage two of the complaint process. It was sorry for this.
2. it was unable to progress her ASB case as there had been insufficient evidence
3. in recognition of the time, effort and inconvenience, it wanted to offer her compensation of £350, broken down as:
  1. £100 for the lack of communication
  2. £80 for the late stage two acknowledgement
  3. £150 for the time, effort and inconvenience caused.
On 4 January 2022 the resident informed the landlord she was dissatisfied with the stage two response for the following reasons:
1. she had been reporting ASB through a number of different routes, and in 2020 was told that using the noise app would strengthen her case. Now she was being told she could not have a priority move because she did not call the police or use external services
2. the landlord had acknowledged that her neighbour was making lots of noise, and that damage had been done to her property. She was told she would be getting a new ceiling as a result, but the repairs had been continually delayed
3. she had not been compensated for a lack of communication between 2007 to 2014 and felt she was entitled to time, effort and inconvenience for an additional seven years
4. the landlord had left her with no move options, she could not pursue a move through home swapper as she would feel that she would be committing “fraud” allowing someone else to live there.
The landlord responded and advised:
1. it was sorry she remained unhappy, however priority was not awarded at the housing panel as there was no support from external agencies. The noise team had provided no evidence of statutory noise nuisance
2. it would not consider compensation for historic issues, and would had awarded compensation based on her current complaint. It had found no record of an ASB case being open in 2007-2014 and the staff involved at the time had since left the business
3. if the resident wanted a surveyor to visit and assess further damage in the property, then a visit could be requested.
In recent contact with the Ombudsman, the landlord advised that there had been no further reports of ASB. The information had been reviewed by its legal team, and with no evidence to substantiate her allegations, it could not take the case further. It said that non-legal interventions had taken place to address the neighbour’s vulnerabilities using a multi-agency approach, as recommended by its solicitors. The landlord commented that it had been alleged that the resident was the perpetrator and was harassing her neighbour.
The resident has advised the Ombudsman that she has not been contacted further with regards to her ASB case since April 2022, and that the landlord was no longer taking her calls or replying to her emails about arranging a meeting to discuss her move and issues with her neighbour.

Assessment and findings

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of anti-social behaviour (ASB).

This assessment is based on the landlord’s response to the resident’s formal complaint, which is broadly reflected in the above timeline. It may help to explain the scope of an Ombudsman investigation can be time-limited by the availability of evidence. The resident has said she raised ASB concerns from 2006. Given the time that has passed, we cannot fairly expect the landlord to provide records from this period. This assessment is therefore focussed on the events from 2020 onwards, which is the date from which the resident advised the issues were exacerbated during the covid 19 pandemic.
It is acknowledged that this situation has been distressing to the resident. It may help to explain that the role of the Ombudsman is to consider complaints about how the landlord responded to reports of a problem. It is not the Ombudsman’s role to decide if the actions of the resident’s neighbour amounted to ASB, but rather, whether the landlord dealt with the resident’s reports appropriately and reasonably.
When the resident reported an escalation of the noise nuisance from her neighbour on 15 May 2020, the landlord did not make contact for a further 18 working days. This contact was significantly outside of the expected time frame in accordance with the landlord’s ASB policy which states that “standard priority cases” will be logged and responded to within three working days.
Once the landlord had spoken with the resident, it did not seek to agree an action plan and regular timescales for future contact. This was a missed opportunity to build trust with the resident and give her confidence that it was taking her issues seriously. As a result, the resident had to chase the landlord for a response. It was not until 56 working days later, that the landlord advised the resident what the next steps would be.
The landlord informed the resident it would be in contact with her every two weeks to discuss her case. However the landlord’s records do not demonstrate that this agreed frequency of contact was honoured and it issued several apologies to the resident for this. This demonstrated that the landlord had not learnt from outcomes, despite reassurances of future regular contact. It’s failure to follow through on the promises it made evidently damaged the trust between the resident and the landlord, and intensified the resident’s sentiment that she was not being taken seriously.
The resident reported that the drilling and vibrations from the property above had caused significant damage to her own property, to the extent that she had been told that her ceiling would need replacing. This alleged extent of damage is serious, however no evidence of a surveyor visit that could inspect the extent of the damage was seen. It is unclear what, if any repairs had taken place in the resident’s property as a result, or whether the landlord had considered this as part of its evidence that it later discussed with its solicitors.
Being clear on how a noise report will be handled is key to good communication between the landlord and the resident, and aids expectation management. When considering whether the noise the resident was reporting was daily living noise, or ASB, it was appropriate for the landlord to request evidence in the form of noise recordings to establish date, time and frequency it was occurring. It was also reasonable that the landlord suggested that the resident contacted the local authority to establish whether what she was experiencing amounted to statutory noise nuisance.
The landlord’s communication to the resident about whether it deemed the noise to be of an acceptable level or not, having received her noise recordings, was confusing. It failed to clearly distinguish its role compared to the local authority noise team and failed to manage the resident’s expectations at an early stage. It was inappropriate to have informed the resident that her neighbour was “obviously ignoring warnings”, when it later said it could not corroborate that the resident was causing ASB at all. Further, by informing the resident that it was referring the matter to legal services before thoroughly considering all the evidence available, it mismanaged the resident’s expectations as to what actions it could reasonably take at the time.
The landlord’s ASB policy states that it will keep under review vulnerabilities relating to both parties in the case. The resident informed the landlord that the noise was causing a decline in her mental and physical health. However there is no evidence that the landlord conducted a risk assessment matrix (RAM) with the resident to establish if there was anything further it could do to support her.
The Ombudsman has seen reference to vulnerabilities of the neighbour, and evidence has been seen that multi-agency meetings had taken place at the request of the landlord to sensitively tackle the noise nuisance the resident had been reporting. It is not appropriate that the landlord share detail of non-legal interventions with the resident about her neighbour but it could have better reassured her that this was the case.
The neighbour presenting as vulnerable would not prohibit the landlord from pursuing legal action. However, in order to do so, the landlord would require support and evidence from partner agencies. In this case, the local authority noise team did not consider the noise to constitute a statutory noise nuisance. This is evidenced in the limited reports it received from the resident and others in the block, and that its attending officers had not witnessed the noise. The police were also unable to support that there was ASB at the address. However the landlord was slow to obtain this evidence and as a result it failed to manage the resident’s expectations, suggesting that the case could be brought to court for an injunction. When the landlord finally approached its solicitor, after having already made the suggestion for an injunction to the resident, they advised that pursuing legal action against the neighbour was not appropriate in all circumstances of the case.
Whilst the resident had support from a local councillor and the head of affordable housing and partnerships for a move based on their conversations with the resident, their view did not take into account that there had been a lack of evidence from both the noise team and the police, and that neither agency had written to support a move. The lack of supporting evidence was also not taken into account by the landlord at the time it made the referral to the housing panel. By failing to review all evidence available to it before referring the matter to panel, the landlord failed to manage the resident’s expectations and gave her false hope of a management move, adding to her distress. Further, the delay in the landlord’s decision on the matter added to the resident’s upset, and she had to chase it a number of times for a conclusion.
The landlord acted in accordance with its allocation policy when it declined her request for a management move at its housing panel. Moves of this kind are considered in serious cases of violence and other high risk cases which had mitigating factors such as evidenced medical need, but there was no evidence from other agencies which supported that the resident was at risk by remaining in her home. The landlord appropriately advised the resident of other move options.
The Ombudsman’s Spotlight on Noise Complaints explains that where noise reports do not meet the statutory threshold, then landlords should adopt a proactive good neighbourhood management policy, distinct from its ASB policy, with clear options for maintaining good neighbour relationships. This should include mediation, which should be offered to residents at the earliest opportunity in an attempt to establish a mutual understanding of each other’s lifestyles. In this case, the landlord was significantly delayed in its offer of mediation, and not discussed with the resident until four months after she reported an escalation in the noise nuisance.
It is of concern that the landlord has made reference to the resident being an alleged perpetrator of harassment against her neighbour, yet no evidence was seen of these allegations being brought to her attention. The Ombudsman has made an order in relation to this point, for the landlord to contact the resident and clarify its stance on the matter.
Overall there was maladministration of the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of ASB. Whilst it did not have the required evidence to take legal action against the resident’s neighbour, or to move the resident via a management move, it failed to appropriately manage the resident’s expectations throughout this case. Its repeated delays in responding to the resident and lack of proactivity in designing an appropriate action plan contributed to the resident’s distress over a significant period of time.

The landlord’s complaint handling

It is evident that the resident made it clear to the landlord on several occasions that she was unhappy with the landlord’s handing of her ASB reports. When receiving a complaint about ASB, it is important that the landlord distinguish whether the resident is complaining about the ASB itself, or the handling of the landlord’s ASB case. The danger of not recognising the difference can lead to a delay of formally investigating the matter as a complaint, as was seen in the handling of this case.
The landlord should be well equipped to recognise an expression of dissatisfaction with its service, and have clear processes in place which make it easy for a resident to complain. It was unreasonable that the resident had to contact the Ombudsman in order to prompt the landlord to formally accept her complaint in October 2020. The landlord made an appropriate apology for this, and made assurances that it had learnt from outcomes in handling the resident’s reports of ASB.
As part of its promise to the resident at stage one, the landlord said that it would review its ASB handling procedures, and make more regular contact. However, it failed to follow up on this reassurance, as explained in the assessment of its handling of the ASB reports. This demonstrated that the landlord had not learnt from outcomes, and in doing so it failed to put matters right for the resident at an earlier stage. The landlord should have recognised and offered to escalate the matter to stage two of its complaint process when the resident made it clear that she had “no confidence” in the landlord to deal with the issue and was considering a referral to legal counsel, two days after its stage one response.
The Housing Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (CHC) makes it clear that landlords must ensure that they are clear on what stage a resident’s complaint is at. The landlord’s response dated 4 December 2020 entitled “formal complaint response” did not make it clear as to whether this was considered as its second stage response, and offered no remedy of how it intended to put matters right, or how it would see the issue through to conclusion.
Evidence shows that a “stage two response” was issued a year later, on 29 December 2021. The Ombudsman considers this to be the landlord’s final reply on the matter. The 294 working day delay in issuing a stage two response was significantly outside of the timescales that could be reasonably be expected in the landlord’s complaint policy, and falls outside compliance with the CHC.
Given the amount of time that had passed, it was appropriate that the landlord contacted the resident prior to issuing its stage two response to try to establish all that she was dissatisfied with. This allowed its final response to be comprehensive, whilst balancing that it could only investigate matters within a reasonable timeframe. It was appropriate the landlord offered an apology to the resident for the delay in its response at stage two of its complaint process, and recognised this in its offer of compensation. However the amount offered was not proportionate to the failings identified in this case.
The landlord also acknowledged that there had been delays in the handling of her ASB case, and sought to set out the reasons why it could not offer the resident a management move. It was clear in its explanations of what evidence it had and why her ASB case could not be pursued further, given also that there had been no reports for three months and no reports made to the local authority noise team for over a year.
Though the landlord’s response was empathetic, it sought to conclude the matter whilst also acknowledging that the resident had suffered mental and physical distress. It failed to identify that in the absence of a RAM being undertaken, it had missed an opportunity to identify if there were any agencies it could refer the resident to, to support her.
Overall there was maladministration in the landlord’s complaint handling. The resident experienced difficulties in having a formal complaint raised, to the extent this Service had to intervene. The final response was significantly late, and although the landlord acknowledged this, it did not go far enough to put matters right for the resident. It failed to recognise what else it could do to support her, including ensuring that her property was in a good state of repair.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was maladministration by the landlord in its response to the resident’s reports of ASB.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was maladministration in respect of the landlord’s complaint handling.

Reasons

The landlord was delayed in its response to reviewing the evidence it had before communicating with the resident it would be progressing the case to a legal stage, which did not appropriately manage her expectations. The landlord did not adopt a proactive good neighbourhood management strategy, with clear options for maintaining good relationships at an earlier stage. Its suggestion of mediation was offered late, at a time when the relationship between the residents were already fraught. The landlord did not set out an effective action plan at the start of the ASB case and failed in its reassurance to the resident of frequent contact on several occasions.
There were significant delays in the handling of the resident’s complaint. Whilst it recognised that there were service failures in the handling of both her ASB and her formal complaint, it did not go far enough to put matters right and rebuild trust with the resident. It did not provide reassurance that it would see through all actions through to conclusion, including establishing what repairs were required to the property.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

Within four weeks of the date of this report, the landlord is ordered to write to the resident to apologise for he failures identified in this report.
Within four weeks of the date of this report, the landlord is ordered to pay the resident £750. This is to be paid directly to the resident and made up as follows:
1. £350 previously offered if this has not already been paid
2. a further £200 for the distress and inconvenience incurred by the resident as a result of the landlord’s response to her reports of ASB
3. a further £200 in recognition of the time and trouble caused to the resident by the landlord’s failures in its complaint handling.
Within four weeks of the date of this report the landlord is ordered to:
1. if not already done so, arrange a surveyor’s visit to the resident’s property to inspect any damage, and share the outcome of this visit in writing to both the resident and this Service
2. contact the resident to confirm whether she is currently experiencing ASB or noise nuisance and if so:
  1. carry out a RAM to identify any support it may be able to offer the resident
  2. complete a comprehensive action plan, including timeframes for actions to be taken and clear lines of responsibilities between appropriate agencies explained
  3. in agreeing the action plan, the landlord should adopt a proactive good neighbourhood management strategy, with clear options for maintaining good neighbour relationships.
3. explain to the resident what allegations have been made against her, to allow for a fair response.
The landlord to report back on its intention with regard to the recommendation below, within four weeks.

Recommendations

That the landlord give consideration to designing and publishing its good neighbourhood management strategy, as highlighted within the Housing Ombudsman’s Spotlight Report on Noise Complaints Spotlight on: Noise Complaints -October 2022 (housing-ombudsman.org.uk)