Colchester Borough Council (202110444)

A blue and grey text

Description automatically generated

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202110444

Colchester Borough Homes

30 August 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 landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of antisocial behaviour.
The Ombudsman has also considered the landlord’s complaint handling.

Background

The resident is a secure tenant of the landlord, an Arms Length Management Organisation of a local authority. The tenancy started on 4 January 2021. The property is a 1 bedroomed terrace property.
The landlord moved the resident to the current property following reports of antisocial behaviour caused by his neighbour at his previous address.
The resident is vulnerable and has, or has had, a number of health conditions, including Post Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD), Reynaud’s disease, malnutrition, broken neck, heart condition, and emphysema.

Landlord’s obligations, policies and procedures

The landlord’s remedies policy says that if the landlord has made an error or provided an unsatisfactory service, it will apologise to the customer. In cases where it is considered appropriate, a goodwill gesture can be made. This will be at the discretion of the service manager and can be made through a voucher payment.
The landlord’s complaints policy in place at the time of the complaint said it aimed to acknowledge complaints within 1 working day of receipt. This would include details of the complaint, what would be investigated and by whom. It aimed to respond to stage 1 complaints within 10 working days and stage 2 complaints within 20 working days. In both cases this deadline might be extended by a further 10 working days if more time was required. If this was necessary the landlord would give an explanation and a date by when the response should be received.
The landlord’s antisocial behaviour policy says “we remain focused on providing an excellent level of housing management that allows residents to enjoy their lives without negatively impacting on others or being affected themselves by their neighbours.”
The landlord’s antisocial behaviour procedure says that it:
1. Will respond to reports of antisocial behaviour within 5 working days.
2. Can speak with the alleged perpetrator to explain the effect of their behaviour on neighbours.
3. Can refer cases to an independent mediation service, free of charge.
4. Can issue warnings such as Acceptable Behaviour Agreements (ABC’s).
5. May ask residents to download the ‘Noise App’ to gather evidence relating to noise issues.
The Government’s guidance on antisocial behaviour principles says:
1. “Victims should be encouraged to report antisocial behaviour and expect to be taken seriously.”
2. Landlords will have “clear and transparent processes to ensure that victims can report ASB concerns, can understand how the matter will be investigated and are kept well informed of progress once a report is made.”
The Government’s guidance on the Antisocial behaviour, Police and Crime Act 2014 says:
1. Early intervention, especially through informal approaches, may often be all that is necessary to stop incidents of antisocial behaviour.
2. It is good practice for agencies to assess the risk of harm to the victims, and any potential vulnerabilities, when they receive a complaint about antisocial behaviour. The welfare, safety and wellbeing of victims must be the main consideration at every stage of the process. It is therefore important to identify the effect that the reported antisocial behaviour is having on the victim, particularly if repeated incidents are having a cumulative effect on their mental or physical wellbeing.
Section 6.1 of the Housing Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code) says “where something has gone wrong a landlord must acknowledge this and set out the actions it has already taken, or intends to take, to put things right”. This can include acknowledging and providing an explanation where things have gone wrong, taking action if there has been a delay and/or providing a financial remedy.

Summary of events

Reports about neighbour ‘A’

The landlord carried out a ‘new tenant’ visit to the resident on 16 February 2021. During the visit the resident told the landlord that he was experiencing issues with his neighbour (A). It then received a voicemail from the resident reporting that A was banging on the wall. In emails sent on the same day the landlord discussed issues the resident experienced at his previous address. It was noted that noise from the neighbour was “exactly his complaint” at his previous address. The emails said that the resident suffered from back and spine issues and PTSD.
The resident phoned the landlord on a number of occasions in the days before 18 March 2021. He said A had been banging on the wall and playing loud music. He believed this to be in retaliation to her hearing a humming noise coming from his property at night. Neither he nor A could establish the source of the noise. The resident confirmed he had recordings of the noise made by A.
The landlord spoke to A, who refuted the allegations, and asked the resident to complete diary sheets. The landlord also contacted the council’s environmental protection team for advice. The landlord and resident then entered into email communication about the resident’s right to carry out a mutual exchange and how he could do this.
On 29 April 2021 the landlord confirmed that an electrical inspection had been carried out at A’s home and that it had not identified the source of the humming. The landlord subsequently contacted the resident who agreed to an electrical inspection being carried out at his home. The landlord also raised works orders to inspect the resident’s boiler and flue.
In May 2021 the resident reported noise nuisance from A to the police because he felt he was being harassed. The police confirmed that the offence had been classed as harassment. They carried out a visit to A however, the resident reported that the banging remained ongoing.
During May 2021 the landlord continued to liaise with the council who agreed to install noise monitoring equipment in A’s property. This was on the basis that it would install the equipment, listen to any recordings and feedback, but would have no further involvement. He welcomed the installation of the noise equipment into A’s property.
The resident wrote to the landlord on 31 May 2021 to say he had:
1. Been trying to mediate with A since she first made him aware of the humming noise.
2. Called the landlord several times on A’s behalf.
3. Had his gas boiler inspected 4 times.
4. Sound proofed his gas cupboard.
5. Encouraged A to call the landlord herself which she had now done.
6. Asked A to work with him on the issue, to be patient and give the council time to investigate the noise.
He went on to say that A was not being patient and was persecuting him, making him feel like a victim. He said he had complex PTSD which A could trigger through one of her banging outbursts. He said he had also suffered from malnutrition, a broken neck, heart condition and emphysema.
On 9 June 2021 the council emailed the landlord to say that it had removed the noise equipment and listened to the recordings. It confirmed it could hear the noise being reported but could not identify what it was. It described the noise as “slight pulsing or droning sound which is low frequency.” It said the majority of recordings were between 7.00am and 9.00am and 8.00pm and 10.00pm which would not indicate the noise was caused by a washing machine.
An internal email sent by the landlord on 21 June 2021 said the noise was very low on the decibel scale and did not reach the threshold for statutory nuisance. It noted that the resident had a history of complaining about noise and believed he would report any noise he was aware of.
In further emails sent that same day, the landlord said that the humming noise usually occurred late at night which prevented A from sleeping. A had told the landlord that she banged on the wall because the noise stopped when she did so. She had been asked to stop but had refused because the banging stopped the noise. It noted that the resident had PTSD and that even a single bang could cause an episode of shaking, and other symptoms including sleeplessness. The landlord considered possible causes of the noise as follows:
1. The boiler had been inspected and was not causing the issue.
2. It had visited the resident when the boiler was on and found it to be very quiet.
3. The flue had been rerouted as a precaution but this had made no difference.
4. The resident had moved his computer from the bedroom to the lounge, away from adjoining walls.
5. The washing machine was in the kitchen, on the other side of the wall so was discounted as possible cause of noise.
6. There could be an electrical fault in the loft.
The landlord then considered how best to proceed if the council could not pursue the case as statutory nuisance. It noted that it could not serve notice on the resident because it could not establish the source of the humming and it could therefore be outside of the resident’s control. It decided to add the case to its ‘call out’ list for a period of 1 week between the hours of 8.00am and 10.00am, in the hope this would help to identify the cause of the noise. This matched the times noted on diary sheets provided by the resident. Email records show that A did not make any reports during this time.
In July 2021 the landlord referred the parties to mediation on the basis that both the resident and A claimed to be retaliating because of noise issues. At this time the council confirmed that there should be a further investigation into the source of the noise. It said it would support an investigation but it would not take the lead.
The resident’s doctor wrote to the landlord on 26 July 2021 in support of his application for a “more suited home.” The letter said that A making a lot of noise was detrimental to the resident’s mental health. It said that the resident had a long history of unstable mood and anxiety and that his current situation was “aggravating his condition.”
A number of case developments took place by 27 July 2021, as follows:
1. The landlord passed the case to its antisocial behaviour (ASB) team.
2. The council’s environmental protection team confirmed it had closed the case.
3. The resident reported that the banging was ongoing and requested that noise equipment be fitted into his property as part of the investigation. The landlord confirmed that this was being considered.
Emails sent between the council and landlord on 6 August 2021 confirmed that the mediation service had contacted both parties, and the resident had not sent any further diary sheets to the landlord. The council confirmed that the resident would need to complete diary sheets as part of its assessment of the landlord’s request to fit noise equipment into his property. Shortly after, the landlord emailed to follow up its request for the noise equipment because A had reported that the humming noise had started again.
In August 2021, following the resident’s request, it was agreed that a meeting which had been arranged would be cancelled. The landlord told the resident that it would seek an update about mediation and its request for noise equipment to be installed, and it would update the resident accordingly. It also suggested that a further meeting be arranged so it could review the resident’s recordings.
The landlord emailed the council on 12 August 2021 to say that the noise had started again. It said it believed that the resident was responsible for the noise and that he could control it, and enquired if the council was any further on with establishing where noise that was recorded came from.
On 31 August 2021 the landlord emailed the resident to clarify the outcomes of a recent visit to him, which it carried out with a Community Psychiatric Nurse, as follows:
1. The resident said that he spent time waiting for his neighbours to make a noise so he could record it. He made thousands of recordings of his neighbours at his old address. He had immediately begun making recordings when he moved to his new address.
2. Prior to the resident moving to the property it had not received any complaints about neighbours. The road was a quiet area.
3. The resident’s recording of the neighbours “effectively amounted to surveillance, reporting them to the landlord and police could amount to harassment.” The resident’s tenancy could therefore be at risk.
4. The resident was encouraged to listen to the radio or television to provide a different focus and/or wear headphones at night.
5. They discussed the resident becoming involved in social groups or voluntary work. The resident had said he did not wish to consider those options in case he missed a sound to record.
6. The resident was not open to mental health services but had been an inpatient in the past. He did not feel he had any mental health issues which would cause him to fixate on his neighbours and would not accept any support that could be arranged.
7. It was concerned that the resident had issues which required support and unless he accepted this, the situation was unlikely to change. Should the resident change his mind he should contact his doctor or the landlord who could provide support.
8. The resident felt that the landlord should intervene with A and ask her to be quiet.
9. A banged on the wall in response to the noise/vibration coming from the resident’s lounge. The noise began 3 days after the resident moved in and caused A nuisance and annoyance, including loss of sleep. A banged out of frustration and said that the noise always stopped after she did so. The resident said he had not heard the noise and did not know what caused it. The landlord said the fact that the noise stopped when A banged suggested the resident had control of it, and to have control of it meant he must be aware of it.
10. It suggested that the resident could be making noise to get A to react so he could make a complaint. It asked the resident to focus on the noise coming through the wall so he could stop making it. It said A banging on the wall was a “reasonable response” to the noise.
The resident sent a written response to the email, as follows:
1. If he was at his computer at the time a neighbour made a loud noise he would record it as evidence.
2. He had problems sleeping as he was apprehensive about noise made by A which had been ongoing for 10 months. He said this was a natural reaction for anybody suffering harassment, let alone someone who had PTSD. He noted that A had admitted her banging to the landlord and the police.
3. There could be any number of reasons why there had been no noise complaints from the new occupants at his old address.
4. He did not start immediately recording neighbours. The only reason he started was to try to find out where the noise was coming from.
5. There could be a number of reasons why there were no previous complaints at his current address.
6. A was not using the correct procedure to resolve this matter, instead she was persecuting him by banging on the walls and dropping items onto wooden flooring.
7. It was “incorrect and defamatory” to say the problem would follow him wherever he moved. The threats of enforcement action were unfounded and lacked evidence.
8. He should not have to use devices to blank out noise caused by “abusive neighbours” and the landlord should not allow it to continue. He said he wore a neck brace so to suggest he wear headphones to go to sleep was “outrageous.”
9. He confirmed he wished to return to his previous place of work once his health improved.
10. He clarified that he attended an 18 week course as an outpatient not as an inpatient. He said he was diagnosed with complex PTSD in 2018, stating that it was caused by issues with a previous neighbour.
11. He said “anyone would fixate on hours of random, unexpected, loud banging on their walls during day and night.”
12. He confirmed he received support from his doctor for PTSD, and that he had previously submitted letters from them to the landlord.
13. The resident said he had:
  1. Reported noise from the boiler to his housing officer however, following several inspections he had been told there was nothing wrong with it.
  2. Tried to mediate with his neighbour about the humming noise.
  3. Placed video recorders around the property to try to establish the humming noise. He was trying to find out where it was coming from so they could resolve the dispute. Both his neighbour and landlord knew he was going to do this. No one had been able to witness the noise and his recordings had not detected any humming noise. He was not making the noise.
On 30 September 2021 the police emailed the resident to confirm that although it accepted A’s behaviour was causing distress, it did not meet the threshold to be considered an offence under the Prevent from Harassment Act 1997. It said the landlord was responsible for resolving issues relating to ASB and encouraged the resident to participate in mediation.
On 1 October 2021 the resident’s MP emailed the landlord on his behalf, forwarding an email he had written. The resident said that his health was deteriorating as a result of the behaviour of A and the “total lack of support given to him by the council.” The MP requested any advice or information from the landlord that they could pass onto the resident to try to help.
On 4 October 2021 the landlord emailed the council regarding installation of noise equipment. It said the resident had contacted the landlord to report that the banging had escalated. It had requested an engineer inspect the boiler again.
The landlord replied to the resident’s MP on 6 October 2021, confirming the following:
1. A few days after the resident moved in A reported hearing a low frequency humming noise which kept her awake. In response she banged on the wall and the noise stopped.
2. The landlord inspected the property and checked the boiler which was found to be in order. A new boiler flue was installed as a precaution.
3. Noise equipment had recorded a humming noise which was below statutory nuisance levels. The source was yet to be established but the noise was ongoing.
4. A heard noise at antisocial hours and banged on the wall which made it stop. This led the landlord to conclude that the resident could control the noise. At times A did not hear noise for 2 weeks, but sometimes it was every day.
5. The parties were referred to mediation but they did not consider that the case was appropriate for their service.
6. The resident had reported A to the police for harassment. This has caused distress to A and wasted police time.
7. The police wrote to the resident to confirm that A banging on the wall did not amount to harassment. He was encouraged to engage with the landlord.
8. On 17 August 2021 the resident was visited by the landlord and a part funded NHS MH practitioner. “It was found that the resident had various mental health issues and was obsessed with noise made by his neighbours to the extent where it was the focus of his life.”
9. The resident would not have a radio or television on in his home in case he missed the chance to record his neighbours making a noise. The landlord had suggested relevant referrals for additional support. However, the resident did not view that he had a problem and that it was the landlord’s responsibility to resolve the situation.
10. The landlord said it needed to balance the needs of the resident and those of his neighbours.
11. The landlord was of the view that the resident was the key to the problem and his life would only improve if he engaged with it.
12. It asked the MP for any help or support they might be able to provide to encourage the resident to engage with support services.
During October 2021 the landlord took a number of steps to further investigate the humming noise:
1. It advised A to call during the day if she heard humming. Ideally, 2 officers would visit so it could go to the resident’s property to establish the cause of the noise.
2. There was no audible noise from the boiler cupboard however, a joint visit with the engineer had been arranged at the resident’s request.
3. An engineer had inspected the boiler on 3 previous occasions, with no fault found.
4. It had visited both properties and ran the hot water in the resident’s property. The landlord was satisfied the noise was not related to the boiler.
5. The landlord confirmed that the resident had numerous recordings of the neighbour banging.
The resident’s doctor wrote to the landlord again on 29 November 2021 to reiterate the contents of its previous letter sent in July.

Reports about neighbour ‘B’

On 6 August 2021 the landlord logged a call from the resident regarding a report he had made about his neighbour (B) slamming doors and dustbin lids. He was unhappy because he had been told it was not ASB and that he should speak to B about the noise. He said he had done this but he did not feel she had listened. The landlord reiterated that the noise was classed as household noise and that it would not take any action. The resident also said he was dissatisfied that the landlord had referred to his history of neighbour issues at his past 2 addresses which he did not feel was relevant.
During a phone call on 11 August 2023 the resident advised the landlord that B was slamming cupboards and throwing recycling out noisily which caused a nuisance. The landlord advised this was everyday living noise and would therefore not be investigated further. The resident felt that the noise escalated after he had discussed the matter with his neighbour.
On 16 August 2021 the landlord liaised with the police about a report the resident had made about B continuously banging and slamming doors. He said it was affecting his PTSD and he wished to move. The resident played the police a recording which they said was of a single door closing or a tin can being dropped into the recycling box. The police advised they considered this to be normal day to day noise but noted it was upsetting the resident.
The landlord explained that the resident appeared to be a “serial complainer.” It asked the police to carry out a search on how often he called the police, for what, and the outcomes. It asked for the search to be extended to previous addresses.
The resident contacted Shelter who suggested he request a management move. The landlord refused on the grounds that it would be “impossible to find a quieter property in the landlord’s stock.” The resident felt that B was banging their doors and bins even more to antagonise him. The landlord gave the resident advice on renting privately and mutual exchange, which the resident later went on to complete.
In its email dated 31 August 2021 the landlord said the resident appeared to have accepted its position that it would not investigate reports of normal living noise. It suggested that the resident was now calling police as an alternative. It told the resident that calling the police was inappropriate and a waste of their time. It said it could also be deemed to be harassment of his neighbour. It said that in the past injunctions had been taken out again vexatious complainants.
In his response to the landlord’s email, the resident said:
1. He could not wear hearing aids because they amplified the noise. As he was deaf the noise must have been loud, not as the landlord had suggested that he had over sensitive hearing.
2. He was unhappy that the landlord was not taking action against B but had threatened to do so against him. He queried why slamming doors was not classed as harassment by the landlord. He said it was affecting his mental health and wellbeing on a daily basis.
3. He contacted the police because the landlord had refused to take any action. He said the police had told him he could call them any time and update incident numbers.
In an email to the resident’s MP of 6 October 2021 the landlord confirmed that the resident’s reports about B slamming doors and throwing cans into her recycling were deemed to arise from reasonable, normal daily living. The resident had reported B to the police for harassment which was a “waste of police time.”

Complaints Process

The resident wrote to the landlord to make a stage 1 complaint on 14 October 2021. In relation to A, he said:
1. The council had not resolved the issue of noise which was causing A to harass the resident. It had not kept him updated or advised him of the outcome of the investigation. The landlord was not taking action to tell her to stop and ask her to resolve the issue using the correct procedure.
2. He was dissatisfied that the landlord referred to problems at his previous address because they did not have any relevance to his current complaint.
3. The visit from the landlord with 2 female colleagues on 17 August was unannounced. He felt they accused him of having a serious mental health issue. During the visit one of the colleagues said she had heard the other neighbour slam her front door 3 times but this was ignored.
4. He had a complex PTSD diagnosis. He said one of his symptoms was physical shaking which could last for hours or days and was caused by loud noises.
5. He was supposed to wear hearing aids but could not because of the noise he was experiencing.
6. He had a broken neck and osteoarthritis as well constant chronic neck pain with no medication.
7. He suffered from malnutrition which affected his body temperature. This was relevant because he had been reluctant to put his heating on due to harassment from A when he did.
8. He had taken steps to resolve the issue himself, including sound proofing his gas boiler cupboard and adjoining wall. He had also asked A to knock on his door instead of banging the wall so he could record noise when it occurred.
9. He wanted the council to find out what the noise was and where it was coming from, both properties to be inspected to find the source of the noise, the landlord to tell A to stop banging on the wall, and to be moved to a semi-detached or detached property.
10. In relation to B the resident said:
  1. The landlord had not resolved his noise reports. He felt B was harassing him and was deliberately trying to trigger a PTSD episode.
  2. He had left the property from 18 August to 23 August 2021 to get some respite from the noise.
  3. As a resolution to his complaint about B the resident wanted the landlord to write to her and ask her to be quieter, and for soundproofing works to be carried out to the kitchen and bathroom walls.
The resident contacted this Service on 11 November 2021 to report his dissatisfaction at the landlord’s response to the ongoing banging from A. We contacted the landlord to request that it either provide a written response to the resident or send a copy of its final response if it considered the complaints procedure exhausted.
The landlord wrote to the resident on 11 November 2021 to apologise for the delay in issuing its stage 1 complaint response (incorrectly referred to as stage 2). It said it would provide a response as soon as possible.
The landlord issued a stage 1 complaint response on 12 November 2021, as follows:
1. It asked the council to assist in its investigation into the noise issue reported by A and the noise equipment captured a “low level droning noise”. It had not been possible to ascertain where the noise was coming from. It attempted to try to witness in person however, no calls were received during the week an on-call rota was in place.
2. No advice could be given, or action taken, as it was not possible to determine the source of the noise from either the recordings or in person. To take the matter further the landlord would need to witness the noise in person. It said it would not be beneficial to install noise equipment again as this would not resolve the question of where the noise was coming from.
3. It set out the criteria that must be met to establish statutory nuisance. It said that the recordings met the criteria because although the noise was not loud, it did occur at night. It said that noise from B was not likely to meet the test for statutory nuisance. It said it had fully investigated the noise issues the resident had reported. It said that action it had taken had been proportionate and fair to try to determine the source of the noise.
4. The investigation had included inspection of a newly fitted boiler on several occasions. There was no fault with the boiler or its fitting or location however, the boiler flue had been moved to negate the noise described. The landlord had also instructed a surveyor to inspect both properties to assess their condition (on 4 November) and to investigate the source of humming. No source had been identified and no issues relating to the noise highlighted. It would not consider sound proofing. It did not uphold the complaint that it had not investigated properly.
5. A had not denied banging on the floor and had followed the landlord’s recommendation to speak to the resident first to try to establish the cause of noise. She explained the noise was not present before the resident moved in and asked if the resident was able to stop it. The noise was causing her distress and in order to stop it, she banged the floor area near to the party wall which made it stop. The landlord’s view was that she was not doing it to cause annoyance or harassment to the resident.
6. The landlord had liaised with the police regarding A. They had advised that there was no case of harassment to answer to. The landlord did not agree that it had not investigated the complaint properly and did not uphold that part of the complaint. It said that A ‘s behaviour was to stop the noise that was emanating from the resident’s property. Her actions were not intentional to cause distress and therefore it had not written to her formally.
7. The landlord said it had spoken to B several times to make her aware of the complaint. It had asked her to consider if there was anything she could do differently to have less impact on the resident. It said it did not uphold this part of the complaint.
8. The resident had complained that a member of staff was rude and unprofessional. The landlord requested specific details so it could investigate further. It said that in the meantime it had spoken to the member of staff who denied the allegations therefore, it did not uphold this part of the complaint.
9. In terms of the unannounced visit that took place on 17 August 2021, the landlord said it would normally give 24 hours’ notice, except in an emergency. It called by to see if there were any support opportunities and attended with a specialist mental health worker. The landlord partly upheld this part of the complaint but said that the resident could have refused entry at any point. It said that the slamming of doors witnessed during the visit was deemed to be everyday noise.
10. A referral to mediation was made however, the service had nothing to mediate on because the resident claimed to have no knowledge of the cause. Therefore, mediation was not an appropriate option.
11. The landlord urged the resident to keep his heating on to keep warm.
12. It said it had not made false allegations, it had explored a possible theory. The resident had a history of making noise related complaints which were not present before or after the resident resided at property.
13. It considered that the resident was suitably housed and would not be considered for a move. The resident was advised to explore a mutual exchange.
The resident emailed the landlord on 5 December 2021 to escalate his complaint, as follows:
1. The council could not ascertain the source of noise, no advice could be given, or action taken against any party however, he was still being accused despite there being no evidence. He said A needed to be able to call someone at night which is when she heard the humming noise, normally after the resident had put his heating on.
2. He believed the neighbour nuisance caused to him by A also fitted the criteria for statutory noise nuisance.
3. B did not bang her doors, she slammed them which was against the terms of the tenancy agreement. It had caused him to have 2 PTSD episodes.
4. He had taken his own steps to resolve the issues.
5. In supporting A’s actions the landlord had caused him a great deal of stress and disturbance. The resident felt the landlord was biased against him.
6. B had shouted out, apparently after receiving a call from the landlord about the ongoing noise issues. which had caused him another PTSD episode.
The landlord acknowledged receipt of the escalated complaint on 6 December 2021 and issued its response on 22 December.
The landlord issued its stage 2 complaint response on 22 December 2021, it:
1. Advised the resident to turn his boiler back on as this was not found to cause the humming noise.
2. Had asked for a letter to be sent to A to ask her to stop banging on the wall or floor near the party wall.
3. Said that it would explore options in the new year for more extensive investigations to locate the source of the humming noise.
4. Would ask B to place items in the bin rather than throw them.
5. Offered to support the resident with his PTSD.
6. Partly upheld the complaint because it had not written to A to ask her to stop banging and because it needed to carry out further investigations into the noise.
7. Concluded that the reported noise caused by B had been investigated fully and was considered to be day to day living noise.
8. Signposted the resident to this Service should he remain dissatisfied.
The resident contacted this Service on 4 January 2022 to report that he was unhappy with the landlord’s final response.

Events post internal complaints procedure

On 12 January 2022 the resident phoned the landlord to discuss a potential mutual exchange. He decided not to pursue this on the basis that he was looking for an end of terrace bungalow to reduce the possibility of further noise issues.
On 26 January 2022 the council emailed the resident to advise that it would install noise monitoring equipment.
The resident wrote to the landlord on 1 February 2022 to express his dissatisfaction with its stage 2 response. He said that:
1. A was still banging on the wall and the sleep deprivation was adding to his malnutrition and stress. He said he was having to cancel appointments due to exhaustion, and it was triggering his PTSD.
2. He was dissatisfied with the landlord’s response to a breach of tenancy by B and wanted evidence the landlord had written to her.
3. He remained unhappy that the landlord referred to the history of events at his previous property.
The landlord wrote to A on 2 February 2022 to request that she stop banging.
On the same day the landlord considered whether the resident could be given a management move to help to “alleviate the pressure he was putting himself under.” It noted that the current road was “one of the quietest in the borough” and concluded that a move would not remedy the resident’s issues. It said he had already moved twice and unless he was to move to a detached bungalow “he would always find fault with his neighbours.” It concluded the resident would be best served by pursuing a mutual exchange. It also expressed its intention to install noise equipment into the resident’s property to attempt to identify the source of humming.
During communication with this Service throughout March 2022 the resident reported that he had had left his property for 4 days that week to get respite which was the fourth time he had done so. In his view, the only way the landlord could resolve the issue was to move him.
The resident continued to report noise nuisance caused by B. He reported that the behaviour deteriorated and on 20 December 2022 the resident emailed the landlord to say the behaviour was “loud, aggressive, intimidating, disturbing, provoking, upsetting and stressful” and causing the resident to feel “vulnerable, helpless and a victim.” He felt he had no privacy and the issues were detrimental to his health.
The resident sent 7 videos as evidence of the noise from B to the landlord on 9 January 2023. The landlord wrote to B to invite them to discuss the complaint. The resident reported an incident on 22 January 2023 in which he was verbally abused by B. The matter was also reported to the police.
On 1 February 2023 the landlord emailed the resident to confirm it had spoken to B about a note she had posted through the resident’s door and verbal abuse she had directed towards him. B was to be served with a Community Protection Warning (CPW) and Acceptable Behaviour Contract (ABC). The ABC contained clauses to reduce annoyance caused by B to the resident in relation to slamming of doors and disposing of recycling.
On 8 February 2023 the resident emailed the landlord to seek an update on when the CPW and ABC would be served on his neighbour. He reported being woken up by the neighbour’s “abusive and violent behaviour” which was forcing him to leave his property.
During March 2023 emails were exchanged between the landlord and resident about installation of noise monitoring equipment. The resident accepted the proposed installation but raised concerns that the nature of the noise would be difficult to capture.
The landlord provided the resident with advice on the levels of evidence required to satisfy a breach of CPW and ABC. It said that the neighbour had complied with some requirements within the ABC.
The resident declined an offer from the landlord to refer him to local linked support because he did not feel the problem was caused by his PTSD. He said the landlord should stop B in her “unacceptable course of conduct”.
The landlord emailed this Service on 30 June 2023 and provided details of a management move it had arranged for the resident in January 2023 based on his current property having a “serious impact on his mental and physical health.” It said the resident’s health “seemed to have improved immeasurably since he had moved to alternative accommodation, and it was no longer receiving complaints about noise.”

Assessment and findings

Reports of ASB caused by neighbour ‘A’

Landlords should complete action plans with its residents as a means of ensuring it has captured resident’s ASB concerns. They also demonstrate compliance with the government’s guidance on ASB principles. By agreeing an action plan with a resident the landlord ensures the resident understands how the matter will be investigated. It also provides the landlord with an opportunity to reassure the resident that their concerns are taken seriously and to manage their expectations from the outset. This process is even more critical in cases where the nature of the ASB is not so ‘clear cut’, such as in this case.
There is no evidence that the landlord completed an action plan at any stage of the ASB investigation. This was a failing by the landlord because it missed an opportunity to build a more positive relationship with the resident and agree a course of action when he first reported the ASB on 16 February 2021.
The landlord failed to consider opening an ASB case at the outset, noting that the resident’s complaint did not “really make sense” so it “crossed its fingers and hoped it would go away.” The landlord also noted that the complaint mirrored a complaint he had made at his previous address. It noted that the resident’s main issue was his “sensitivity to noise as he claims to have limited mobility due to his spine issue.” The landlord failed to respond appropriately to the resident’s complaint because it did not carry out an impartial investigation of the new ASB reports. It also failed to consider if there were any changes in the resident’s circumstances which might affect the impact the ASB had on him. The response had a detrimental impact on the service provided to the resident.
The landlord did then take appropriate steps to try to investigate and identify the source of the humming heard by A. This included:
1. Electrical inspections of both properties in April 2021.
2. Inspecting the resident’s boiler by June 2021.
3. Relocating the resident’s flue in May 2021.
4. Providing officers to be ‘on call’ for a set period to see if it could witness the noise itself in June 2021.
5. Installation of noise equipment into A’s property in June 2021.
The noise equipment provided evidence of the existence of the humming noise reported by A. However, it was not able to identify the source of the noise. It is noted that electrical inspections of both properties were carried out before the landlord identified that an electrical fault in the loft could be the cause of the noise. There is no evidence that it pursued this any further after June 2021 which was inappropriate.
The landlord concluded it could not serve Notice on the resident because it could not establish the source of the humming and it could therefore be outside of the resident’s control. However, there was no evidence that it was coming from the resident’s property at all. Only A could hear the noise and the landlord only had A’s word that the noise was coming from the resident’s property. It was therefore, not fair or reasonable of the landlord to conclude that whether it was out of his control or not, the resident was responsible for the noise.
It is noted that in March 2021 the landlord asked A about the banging which she denied, and it subsequently sought advice from the council. In June 2021 the landlord said it had asked A to stop the banging. It has also acknowledged that the resident had PTSD, and that even a single bang could cause an episode of shaking and other symptoms, including sleeplessness. By this stage both parties had been referred to the mediation service which was an appropriate step for the landlord to take, being in line with its ASB procedure. However, the landlord did not create an ASB case until 27 July 2021. This is evidence that the landlord did not take the resident’s reports seriously enough and did not act in keeping with the guidance on antisocial behaviour principles.
The landlord’s position on 12 August 2021 was that the resident was causing the humming noise, that he “was in control of the noise” and “had his own agenda.” This conclusion was based on the fact that A reported that when she banged on the wall the noise stopped. There is no evidence of any independent corroboration of this, suggesting the landlord accepted A’s view and proceeded accordingly.
The landlord’s email of 31 August 2021 confirmed that during a visit to the resident, they discussed the resident’s mental health. This was appropriate given it was a key factor in this case. However, there is no evidence that the landlord considered ways in which the resident’s mental health might make him vulnerable and how the ASB may be impacting him. The evidence shows the conversation was focussed on how his mental health was causing what the landlord deemed to be inappropriate behaviour which was contributing to issues with the neighbour.
The landlord said that due to complaints the resident had made about neighbours at previous properties “it was reasonable to assume wherever he moved the problem would follow, and the resident would be recording neighbours and would be complaining about them.” It advised the resident that his recording of A could amount to surveillance which could amount to a breach of his tenancy. Furthermore, it said it believed the resident was responsible for the noise that could be heard by A and that the “answer to the problem lay with the resident.” This was an unsympathetic approach and crucially was one that was not evidence-based. It also demonstrated that the landlord did not approach the case in a harm centred way which did not align with the government’s guidance on ASB principles.
The landlord’s initial assessment of A’s banging on the wall, was that it was a “reasonable response to the noise.” This remained the landlord’s position in October 2021 when it emailed the resident’s MP and said the neighbour had “quite reasonably banged on the wall.” It was not appropriate for the landlord to take this position because:
1. There was no independent evidence that the resident banging on the wall did in fact stop the noise.
2. The resident said he could not hear the humming noise but was being disturbed by the neighbour banging on the wall which had a significant impact on his health. The doctor’s letter dated 26 July 2021 provided evidence of this.
The landlord acknowledged the detriment caused to the resident by A’s behaviour in its stage 2 complaint response of 22 December 2021. It subsequently wrote to the neighbour on 2 February 2022 to request that she cease her behaviour. This was 12 months after the resident first reported her behaviour which was causing a significant nuisance to him.
Having already informally asked A to stop banging, the noise continued. The landlord’s delay in taking more formal action to remind A of her responsibilities under the terms of her tenancy agreement, reinforced her behaviour as being reasonable. The landlord’s delayed actions here were inappropriate.

Reports of ASB caused by neighbour ‘B’

The landlord initially concluded that noise from the slamming of doors and disposing of recycling, was everyday household noise. As such, it could not investigate the matter as an ASB issue. Given that the resident was already reporting noise nuisance caused by A, and his vulnerabilities were known to the landlord, it would have been appropriate to offer an appointment to discuss his concerns in more detail. There is no evidence that the landlord considered doing so.
Having reported the nuisance to the landlord the resident contacted the police on 16 August 2021. The officer noted that although the noise appeared to be normal day to day noise, it was “upsetting” the resident. The landlord responded to the police report to say that the resident was a “serial complainer.” It also asked the police to make a search of its system to see how often to the resident had complained, and to include his previous addresses. It is unclear as to how this search request was considered reasonable by the landlord in the context of the resident’s complaint. This is evidence that the landlord’s decision making was clouded by its past experience with the resident. There was an ongoing focus on the resident as a perpetrator rather than a victim which was unreasonable and inappropriate.
In its email to the resident dated 31 August 2021 the landlord told him that calling the police was “inappropriate” and a “waste of their time.” The landlord said that it had taken out injunctions against residents for being vexatious complainants in the past. Given that there is no evidence that the landlord had contacted the resident to warn him about unreasonable contact with its service and/or making vexatious complaints, this was heavy handed.
The resident complained about the behaviour of B in August 2021. There is no evidence that the landlord acted swiftly to discuss the issues with her. It is noted that in its stage 1 complaint response of November 2021, the landlord said it had spoken to the resident several times to ask if there was anything she could do to lessen the impact of her behaviour on the resident. This investigation has not seen contemporaneous notes relating to this contact, giving details of what was said and when. This is inappropriate and an example of poor record keeping. However, given the ongoing nature of the complaint and the distress caused it was appropriate that, despite its assessment of the noise being everyday noise, the landlord did still make some contact with B.
The resident provided evidence that the ASB was ongoing and had deteriorated throughout November and December 2022. The landlord responded appropriately by inviting B to attend a meeting to discuss the complaint.
Following several incidents, which had also been reported to the police, the landlord took appropriate steps to work in partnership to provide a joined-up response. The decision was made for the police to issue B with a Community Protection Warning (CPW) and for the landlord to issue an ABC.
The landlord took appropriate steps to update the resident on 1 February 2023. However, there is no evidence that the ABC was served shortly after. Furthermore, the landlord failed to manage the resident’s expectations and update him as to when the ABC would be in place. The resident experienced time and trouble, and inconvenience when he had to contact the landlord on 8 February 2023 to seek an update.
During March 2023 the landlord contacted the resident to try to arrange installation of noise equipment into his property. He was reluctant as he felt able to provide his own recordings. The landlord told the resident that the noise equipment was necessary in order to:
1. Take enforcement action in relation to noise issues.
2. Prove statutory noise nuisance if there was a breach of the noise elements of the ABC.
3. Prove a breach of the noise elements of the CPW to the criminal standard.
Neither the landlord’s antisocial behaviour policy nor procedure says that it can only investigate reports of noise nuisance if the complainant agrees to have noise equipment installed in their home. Its ASB procedure says that it can offer residents use of ‘The Noise App’ to gather information to noise issues. This is evidence that the landlord is aware it does not need to prove statutory noise nuisance, provided through use of calibrated noise equipment, in order to investigate reports of noise. Therefore, the advice given was not appropriate and resulted in the already distressed resident feeling he had no choice but to accept installation of the equipment.

Summary of response to reports of ASB

The Antisocial behaviour, Crime and Policing Act 2014 guidance sets out that early intervention in ASB cases can be enough to stop any further incidents. The landlord’s ASB procedure embraces this principle, making reference to speaking to alleged perpetrators, referring parties to mediation and issuing ABCs. Given the importance of early intervention in resolving incidents of ASB it is not appropriate that the landlord delayed in taking action in respect of the reports of A banging on the walls. The landlord also appeared reluctant to fully consider the situation with B. This was particularly inappropriate because it was aware that the resident was already distressed by noise caused by A. The issues deteriorated to the point where formal measures were utilised by the police and landlord against B. The landlord missed early opportunities to try and prevent the case escalating in this way.
The guidance also encourages landlords to assess the risk of harm to the victim, and any potential vulnerabilities, at the point at which they receive a complaint about ASB. There is no evidence that the landlord carried out a risk assessment at any stage of the ASB investigations. This was particularly important in this case because the resident suffered from a number of physical and mental health issues which he said were affected by the ongoing issues caused by his neighbours. The landlord failed to fully consider the welfare, safety and wellbeing of the resident which was a significant failing.
This investigation has noted a number of inappropriate remarks in the landlord’s records and examples where the landlord was heavy handed in its communication with the resident. This service considers the landlord’s overall treatment of the resident was inappropriate. The landlord should have treated him with greater respect and taken the time to fully investigate the new ASB reports.
Had the landlord appropriately reviewed risk of harm it may have considered it appropriate to grant the resident a management move earlier on in the process. The landlord concluded that the resident could not be given a management move within its own stock because he had already been moved a number of times. It also considered it unlikely it could find a more suitable property. It did not consider whether there had been a change in circumstances which may mean a move would be a reasonable outcome.
A doctor’s letter dated 26 July 2021 provided clear evidence about the impact the ongoing issue was having given his long history of “unstable mood and anxiety.” A further doctor’s letter dated 29 November 2021 said the resident had “lost a lot of weight due to the stress and anxiety he was under, he was exhausted because he was unable to sleep, and this was triggering episodes of PTSD which caused him to physically shake.” It is not clear why the landlord did not consider this to be compelling evidence to support a management move. In his stage 1 complaint the resident said he had left his property due to the noise and in March 2022 the resident confirmed to this Service that he had left his property on 4 occasions to get respite. There is no evidence that the landlord considered this information, which was inappropriate.
It is acknowledged that the landlord did try to assist the resident by identifying a potential mutual exchange in January 2022. The resident did not wish to progress the move because he did not feel the property would reduce the prospect of further noise issues.
On 2 February 2022 the landlord once again considered the question of whether the resident could be given a management move to “alleviate the pressure he was putting himself under”. It concluded that a move would not remedy the resident’s issues, and said he had already moved twice and would always “find fault with his neighbours.” In July 2022, the landlord again concluded that it did not think that a management move would remedy the issues for the resident. The basis for this decision was that he had been granted 2 management moves previously.
The landlord has told this Service that it does not have a policy or procedure relating to management moves.Not having a policy meant that the landlord was not able to manage the resident’s expectations with reference to appropriate standards, to reassure him that it was acting fairly and transparently. A recommendation has been made for the landlord to consider drafting such a policy.
The landlord emailed this Service on 30 June 2023 and provided details of a management move it had arranged for the resident. It said the resident’s health “seemed to have improved immeasurably since he had moved to alternative accommodation, and it was no longer receiving complaints about noise.” The approval form, dated January 2023, noted that the resident was “unwell physically and the property he was currently living in was having a serious impact on his mental and physical health.” It is positive that the landlord undertook a full review of the resident’s request for a management move, taking into account relevant factors. However, appropriate consideration of these relevant factors was delayed.
The resident raised concerns about the suitability of the management move with this Service on 7 July 2023. However, there is no evidence that the resident has raised this as a formal complaint to the landlord. Therefore, the resident will need to make a new complaint to the landlord if he wishes to pursue this further.
The landlord’s ASB policy says “we remain focused on providing an excellent level of housing management that allows residents to enjoy their lives without negatively impacting on others or being affected themselves by their neighbours.” The landlord failed to comply with its ASB policy, amounting to severe maladministration. The landlord has been ordered to pay the resident £1000.

Complaint Handling

The resident made a stage 1 complaint on 14 October 2021. The landlord replied on 12 November 2021, 21 working days later. It emailed the resident on 11 November to advise that the response would be delayed. However, this was 10 days after the response was due and following intervention from this Service on the same day. This was not an appropriate way to keep the resident updated, becoming an apology for not having done something rather than a proactive notification of upcoming delay. The landlord did not comply with its complaints policy regarding delayed complaint responses.
It is concerning that the stage 1 complaint response maintained the landlord’s position that A’s behaviour was reasonable. It did not consider it necessary to tell A to stop banging on the wall because it was a reaction to the noise coming from the resident’s property. As stated in the Code, the complaints process should provide landlords with an opportunity to reflect on where things have gone wrong and remedy any delays in resolving issues. It demonstrated a failure by the landlord to objectively reflect on its response to the reports of ASB and it therefore missed an opportunity to ‘put right’ that element of the complaint. This meant the detriment caused to the resident was unreasonably prolonged.
The landlord’s stage 1 complaint response in relation to the resident’s complaint about the visit to his property on 31 August 2021 lacked empathy. It was also further evidence of the landlord’s limited consideration of the resident’s vulnerabilities. The resident could have either refused entry to the landlord on that occasion because it was an unannounced visit, and he could have asked them to leave once it was inside. However, the landlord’s wording of the response was unsympathetic given the resident’s distress and health issues. This is because it failed to recognise the distress the unannounced visit caused the resident. The landlord offered no apology or recognition of how the visit may have affected the resident which is inappropriate.
The landlord’s position changed by the time the stage 2 complaint response was issued on 22 December 2021. It said it would write to A to ask her to stop banging on the wall or floor near the party wall. It also committed to carrying out further investigations into the noise issues. It also said it would speak to B. The stage 2 complaint response partly upheld the complaint because it had not written to A, something that had not been upheld in the stage 1 complaint response.
While the landlord took a more reasonable approach to the distress caused by A’s banging it did not go far enough to acknowledge its failure and the detriment this had on the resident. It also did not consider making an offer of compensation as a means of ‘putting things right’, which would have been appropriate. The landlord did not give appropriate regard to its remedies policy, which says it will make an apology to the customer if it has made an error or provided unsatisfactory service and, where appropriate, a goodwill gesture can be made. This was inappropriate.
Throughout the complaints process the landlord failed to address the resident’s concerns that it had referred to his previous addresses, which he felt made the landlord biased against him. It may have identified ‘lessons learnt’ had it taken an open minded approach to the resident’s complaint. It could have then considered how it could ‘put things right’, including:
1. Ensuring that any further reports of ASB were assessed on their own merits.
2. Financial compensation for distress caused.
The landlord’s complaint handling failures amount to maladministration and the landlord has been ordered to pay the resident £250.

Determination (decision)

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

Reasons

The landlord did not complete risk assessments or action plans. It failed to consider the resident’s vulnerabilities when assessing its response. It delayed proportionately responding to reports of noise against A. It did not conduct a fair and impartial investigation into the residents reports of ASB, which caused considerable distress and inconvenience to the resident.
The landlord’s approach lacked empathy and it did not use the complaints procedure to fully reflect on what had gone wrong. It did not consider the detriment caused to the resident and therefore missed an opportunity to ‘put things right’. The stage 1 response was delayed and was not issued within the timescales set out in the landlord’s complaints policy.

Orders

Within 4 weeks of the date of this determination, the landlord should pay the resident £1250, comprising:
1. £1000 for the distress and inconvenience caused by its failure to manage the ASB case effectively.
2. £250 for the distress and inconvenience caused by the complaint handling failings identified by this investigation.
A senior member of staff should issue the resident with an apology, also within 4 weeks of the date of this determination.
Within 6 weeks of the date of this determination the landlord should consider the failings identified in this case, and provide refresher training to relevant staff to ensure that they:
1. Are aware that case management must be based on the merits of a case and that proportionate investigation is not over looked because of tenancy history.
2. Are aware of the evidential test required to enforce breaches of:
  1. The terms of the tenancy in relation to noise nuisance.
  2. Community Protection Warnings.
  3. Acceptable Behaviour Contracts.
3. Complete risk assessments for all cases reported.
4. Complete action plans in agreement with the complainant to ensure that appropriate steps are taken in a timely manner.

The landlord should confirm the date and content of the training to the Ombudsman, also within six weeks.

Recommendations

The landlord should:
1. Review its ASB policy and procedure to reflect the principles of the Antisocial behaviour, Crime and Policing act 2014. It should ensure it takes a harm centred approach to its response to ASB, including the use of risk assessments and action plans.
2. Review its remedies policy to ensure that it complies with Section 6.1 of the Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code. This should include financial redress for distress, inconvenience or unfair impact. Further guidance can be found here: Guidance on remedies (housing-ombudsman.org.uk).
3. Develop a management move policy and/or procedure to ensure that requests for management moves are considered against a criteria based on risk and/or need. This will provide a fair and transparent method of assessing requests for managements moves.