Swindon Borough Council (202113605)

A picture containing logo

Description automatically generated

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202113605

Swindon Borough Council

8 June 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 reports of antisocial behaviour (ASB).
2. The landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint.

Background and summary of events

The resident lives alone and has occupied the property, a three bedroomed house, since 1973.
Although it is noted that there is a long history of ASB reports by the resident, this investigation has primarily focussed on the landlord’s handling of the resident’s recent reports from November 2021 onwards that were considered during the landlord’s recent complaint responses. This is because residents are expected to raise complaints with their landlords in a timely manner so that the landlord has a reasonable opportunity to consider the issues whilst they are still ‘live’, and while the evidence is available to reach an informed conclusion on the events that occurred.
On 14 September 2021, the resident contacted this Service to complain that the landlord was not addressing issues she was having with her neighbour, and the landlord was made aware of the complaint.
On 15 September 2021, the landlord emailed the resident and acknowledged she said she could hear the neighbour carrying out DIY. It asked if she had any noise recordings it could consider. It said she had been given resources open to tenants, as to how to report ASB and what it would and would not investigate in relation to ASB. The landlord also referred to a single point of contact that had been appointed to deal with the resident’s concerns. It said any evidence provided that was deemed ASB, her point of contact would investigate thoroughly and liaise with her on their findings, along with any course of action that might need to be taken. On the same day, the resident’s single point of contact asked the resident whether she had any recordings of the noise that was disturbing her.
On 30 September 2021, the landlord wrote to the resident acknowledging she had reported a constant noise nuisance, as well as bullying and harassment from her neighbour. It said it had reviewed the information she had provided but found nothing it could take action on. It said it had previously appointed a single point of contact for the resident to liaise with, and it asked that person to contact her, to discuss the resolution sought. It also said that without evidence it could not take enforcement action against the neighbour.
The resident emailed the landlord on 7 October 2021 about the harassment she said she was experiencing from her neighbour. On 13 October 2021, the landlord asked the resident if she had any recent evidence of antisocial behaviour from the neighbour. It explained that complaints over the previous five years had already been addressed, so it was asking for new evidence only. The resident replied the same day, and referred to ongoing issues for five years and said she had sent in reliable evidence but nobody had dealt with matters appropriately. She said her life “over the past few months had been disrupted immensely,” and she wanted to know what the landlord was going to do about it.
The resident reported noise nuisance again to the landlord on 15, 26 and 29 October 2021. This included banging of doors and cupboards, shouting and swearing and music playing. She said she wanted the landlord to take action against the neighbour, and reiterated she had experienced issues with the neighbour for five years.
The landlord responded on 18 October and said it had listened to a noise recording but could not hear music. It also contacted the resident on 22 October and explained that having listened to evidence provided, it could only hear traffic along with what sounded like tapping on a keyboard. It went on to say, “We are unable to take action against a tenant without any evidence. We also have to acknowledge that although a neighbour’s conduct might cause a nuisance or annoyance to another neighbour, this does not necessarily mean that the conduct can be treated as anti-social behaviour. The court will expect us to be reasonable and proportionate at all times when considering any action against a person’s tenancy”. The resident responded the following day and said she would test the noise app but the landlord had a duty of care to tenants suffering harassment.
In an email of 29 October 2021, the landlord acknowledged the resident was complaining about:
1. Slamming doors and banging walls.
2. Music being turned up and down between the hours of 18:00 and 21:30.
3. Shouting and swearing within the household.

It explained that the resident was living beside a large, noisy household which it noted may cause an annoyance to someone who presumably lived alone in a much quieter environment. However, it said a noisy household was not necessarily ASB and that was its view here.

A meeting took place between the resident and the landlord on 26 November 2021, where it was agreed that a noise monitoring device would be installed, because the resident was finding it hard to record the noise nuisance. A letter dated 19 January 2022 records that at the meeting, the landlord also noted the resident’s concern that neighbours were looking at her while outside, which made her feel intimidated. It says it explained that it was unable to treat that as anti-social behaviour unless there were threats or gestures made.
On 27 November 2021, the resident raised a formal complaint with the landlord. She made general comments about having issues for five years and commented on banging from the neighbour’s property, as well as them having fires, things being thrown in to her garden, children going in to her garden, and how she felt harassed. She referred to the police being involved and the landlord having given warnings, but that she felt the neighbour could do whatever they wanted and just get a telling off. She explained she ought to be able to live in peace at her home, and she wanted the landlord to do something “once and for all”, to put an end to the problems she was having.
The resident reported issues with her neighbour banging doors and putting rubbish in her garden, on 7 December 2021, which were acknowledged and responded to, by the landlord, on 10 December. The landlord noted the frequency of the door slamming, and sought clarity on the people the resident attributed throwing rubbish. The landlord also said noise monitoring equipment had been sourced, and it was brand new. It said that this was not something the housing team used anymore, so it would need to establish how it could be installed. On 13 December, the resident said she was still enduring slamming and banging noises from the neighbours.
On 17 and 21 December 2021, internal emails refer to the resident having asked for a call back from the landlord on 13 December. On 21 December 2021, the resident emailed the landlord about ongoing noise issues.
Emails were exchanged between the resident and landlord from 3 to 6 January 2022, in order to arrange for the noise monitoring device to be fitted. An appointment was arranged for 11am on 11 February. The resident emailed the landlord on 10 January, and was referred to her point of contact. The resident then sent an email to her point of contact, thanking her for her help, on 11 January 2022, but then made a further report to the landlord, on 13 January.
The landlord sent a stage one complaint response to the resident, dated 19 January 2022, having been contacted by this Service. It apologised for the delay in responding to the complaint and referred to a meeting having taken place on 26 November 2021. It said it felt it was appropriate to address the actions from that meeting, before responding. It explained that no evidence had been provided to substantiate allegations of antisocial behaviour that could have been acted on, but it had spoken with the accused neighbours in an attempt to promote good relations and had asked them to be considerate. It said the resident had, over the years, been offered various services including mediation, expert witness service and log sheets.
The landlord went on to say that at the meeting, the resident complained that the current method of recording noise was not suitable as it was not picking up the noise. She had tried the noise app and mobile phone but nothing could be heard that would prove antisocial behaviour. The landlord agreed to provide equipment to record further incidents that would be more reliable and responsive. It explained:
1. Door slamming was not considered anti-social behaviour unless it was excessive and deliberate but banging on the walls and loud music would be.
2. Her complaint about neighbours looking at her while outside, could not be treated as antisocial behaviour unless there were any threats or gestures made.

It said there were delays on both parts in getting the sound recording equipment installed in her home, but it was now in place, so the resident was in a better position to gather evidence required for the housing team to take proportionate action. It explained that at that time, no evidence that could be acted on had been submitted, but the resident had a point of contact who had referred again to an expert witness service and provided log sheets to record noise nuisance and ASB as it happened. The sound recorder could be used to establish a pattern and plan an appropriate time to carry out the expert witness service.

The resident emailed the landlord on 25, 28 and 29 January 2022, reiterating her concerns over how long she had experienced issues with her neighbours, the noise level and the landlord’s lack of action. She also mentioned the effect the issues were having on her health and there should have been an ASB review. She said she felt someone ought to come out to her property straight away, like people used to and said she didn’t think the noise equipment would measure external noise.
The resident informed the landlord on 1 February 2022 that she was unhappy with its stage one response to her complaint, and she set out why she felt it had not taken sufficient action against the neighbours. The landlord sought clarity on whether she wanted to escalate the complaint to stage two, the following day, and on 3 February, the resident replied, but did not clarify that point. She did though, repeat her concerns about why she felt the landlord had not taken sufficient action against the neighbour.
On 4 February 2022, the resident reported further noise nuisance. The landlord acknowledged the recent reports of noise nuisance, on 7 February, and it said it was sorry she had experienced this. It went on to say it needed to establish the noise level and whether it was a statutory nuisance that it could take action on. It said it had asked a third party to assist who had tried to contact the resident, unsuccessfully, and it wanted to fit a Matron recording system. It offered to arrange for someone to meet with the resident that week. The resident responded the same day and said no one had tried to contact her, but she was happy to meet with someone that week. She asked what action was being taken with the neighbours.
The resident emailed the landlord on 13 February 2022, and complained about a meeting that took place with the landlord, on 10 February. She said that she felt the landlord was not interested in what she had to say and that the noise she was experiencing, was not ASB. She said she didn’t feel she was believed or supported.
The landlord responded on 14 February 2022. It said, “I am so sorry to hear that you have had a bad weekend”, and that it was working with the neighbour to resolve an issue with their heating that was causing noise. It said, “I fully appreciate that this noise is intolerable and she tells me that it’s been getting progressively worse since Oct 2021. An engineer visited last Fri and had hoped that he had resolved the fault that is causing such loud banging but your email and a telephone call from your neighbour confirms that it is not resolved. I have sent a message to our heating engineer’s manager to advise me that the issue has not been resolved. I’m waiting for a response to establish the next step.” The resident responded the same day and said the noise she could hear, was not the heating.
The landlord forwarded a copy of its stage one response to the complaint, on 17 February 2022. The resident replied the same day, saying she was not in total agreement with it. As well as reiterating the issues she had, she said no one had done anything to deal with the neighbour, for six years.
The resident sent a similar email to that of 13 February, on 18 February. On 22 February 2022, the landlord emailed the resident and said, “Please continue to manually log any nuisance behaviour on the log sheets and record the noise using the noise app. You can send the log sheets to me via email every two weeks.” The resident replied and said she did not have any log sheets or the noise app on her phone. The landlord replied on 24 February and explained the noise app was installed on her phone, and sent her a blank log sheet to use. The resident responded the same day and said the noise app was not reliable and wanted to know when she would get the noise monitor.
On 3 March 2022, the resident told the landlord she wanted her complaint escalated to stage two. She emailed again on 5 March and said she did not have the noise app on her phone, as she had used the noise monitoring device, which she was still expecting the results from. She went on to explain she had had peace recently, but then the noise started again. She sent a further email on 14 March reiterating the same points.
The landlord sent its stage two response, on 15 March 2022. It said the housing team had acted proportionately to the ongoing allegations of ASB such as loud music, kitchen noises and doors banging. The evidence provided up to that date was insufficient to take enforcement action under the tenancy agreement against the neighbour. It needed proof that the tenancy conditions had been breached and that was lacking. Some of the noise nuisance allegations made were family noise and no further action could be taken in relation to those. It explained the family at the neighbouring property, had complex needs and a child with special needs could be challenging. It concluded by saying it was continuing to offer her support in gathering evidence of a tenancy breach by her neighbour, it had spoken to Environmental Protection that day, and it would arrange the installation of a Matron system into her home. It noted it was continuing to work with the resident in relation to the ongoing allegations.
The resident responded on 16 March 2022, saying she did not feel the landlord had done anything to resolve the problem, except ask her to fill in log sheets and use the noise app on her phone, which she said did not pick up all the noise she could hear.
The landlord sent a further response on 18 March 2022. It said it felt the meeting on 10 February was conducted in a professional manner, and that further noise monitoring equipment would be installed shortly, which should hopefully bring an end to the noise issue. The resident responded the same day and said she did not agree that the meeting had gone well as a room was supposed to have been booked. She went on to explain the landlord had a duty of care and she had been patient for six years, but nothing had been accomplished.
Between 23 and 30 March 2022, there was correspondence between the landlord and resident about the noise monitoring equipment and the issues the resident had. The landlord informed the resident, on 30 March 2022, “I can confirm that I have written to your neighbour and advised that our team are now investigating the complaint. They have been advised that this can be via noise monitoring equipment however the neighbours have not been advised of when this would be installed.” The resident responded the same day, reiterating the issues she was having with her neighbour.
An email exchange between the landlord and resident on 31 March 2022, shows the resident querying why a noise monitoring device would only be fitted for a week. In response, the landlord explained, “the machine is connected to a power source for the week that it is installed we have to download an enormous amount of data, this will only increase the longer it is installed, and the duration is to ensure the memory does not become full.” The resident emailed the landlord on 1 April, thanking the person who had responded the previous day, and reiterating the issues she had experienced and said she was being bullied in her home.
The resident emailed the landlord on 5 April 2022 following up on the outcome of the noise monitoring device, and she chased for an update on 14 April. On 19 April, the landlord responded and referred to an email it sent on 5 April explaining it was going to find out when the data from the noise monitoring device had been downloaded, and once it was received, it would be in touch. It explained it was still waiting for the outcome of the noise monitor that had been installed on 21 March 2022. The resident responded the same day, and said it was “appalling” and “disgusting” and it should have been addressed straight away, and the monitor at the property should have been in place for a month, and not a week. She also said the landlord failed to deal with her complaint at stage one, and it should now be at stage two. The resident also commented on correspondence with the landlord in 2020 and how she wanted CCTV fitted.
The landlord offered on 22 April 2022, to have CCTV. It said it had not had the budget at the time to fund this. “However, the managers are going to arrange for [a security company] to visit in the next couple of weeks in order to get a new quote for us to install CCTV to the front and back of your property.” It said it would be reviewing the noise recordings the following week and it would then be able to update her on its findings and advise what action if any it would be taking. On 25 April, the resident emailed the landlord saying she had not received feedback since having the noise monitoring equipment and that she felt there had been a lack of action, on its part. The landlord sought confirmation from the resident on 26 April, that she was agreeable to having CCTV fitted, which she confirmed the same day. The resident also sought an update on what action was being taken in relation to the neighbour.
On 28 April 2022, the resident emailed the landlord saying she was not happy with its response to her complaint, dated 18 March. She referred to issues previously raised, about noise, and said she was the victim. She said she had proof of the incidents complained of. The landlord updated the resident on 29 April, as it said it had reviewed the recordings and needed to discuss things with a manager.
On 5 May 2022, the resident emailed the landlord to say she had the noise monitor for a week, but it was not sufficient. She acknowledged the landlord suggested having a system put upstairs, but wanted to know what the landlord had done, as she felt she was being victimised. The landlord responded on 5 May saying the matter had been discussed with a manager, who would be in touch. It said it would like to ask Environmental Health to install the noise monitoring equipment once again; perhaps put in the bedroom next time to pick up the loud bangs.
The landlord contacted the resident again on 6 May 2022, and explained that Environmental Health had reviewed the recordings made and the noise from the neighbour did not constitute a statutory noise nuisance. That, “noise has been detected but nothing more than normal run-of-the-mill, day to day noise expected from a family home but is within permitted tolerances. Therefore, there is currently no statutory noise nuisance emanating from the property and we are unable to take any further action at this stage.”
The landlord went on to say it was, “of the opinion that a further period of monitoring but within the bedroom to pick up alleged late night noise and banging could be beneficial. However, if the equipment doesn’t pick up a statutory noise nuisance, enforcement measures will not be undertaken due to lack of evidence. Banging of doors and general household noise does not constitute a statutory noise nuisance. If you are willing to have the equipment installed for a second time, please let us know. With regard to the installation of front and rear CCTV, an order has been placed with our contractors and I’m waiting for them to come back to me with an install date.”
The resident emailed the landlord on 9 May 2022 to reiterate her concerns and on 17 May 2022 she reported a conversation she had had with the neighbour. She said the neighbour had mentioned someone had reported her for leaving her children alone and she had a discussion about rubbish being left and that the resident had called the landlord 674 times. She also said she had not had a response from the landlord, since she sent an email on 6 May.
On 25 May 2022, the landlord wrote to the resident, and said its housing department was continuing to facilitate her in gathering evidence to substantiate her allegations of ASB, but so far there was no evidence of the neighbour breaching their tenancy agreement. It explained it was continuing to support her in every way it could and of late the following support had been offered:
1. Two officers visited her and her neighbour to discuss the allegations made, they had checked her neighbour’s front and rear doors to ensure they functioned correctly.
2. She had a dedicated housing enforcement officer who was receiving and reviewing her ongoing ASB logs and emails as received.
3. She was offered an expert witness service, that emailed her and tried to call her but had not yet been successful. The resident was provided with their details.
4. A system was being installed the following week, which would give a clear reading of the level of noise caused and the times at which it occurred. This would determine if the noise was considered a statutory nuisance.
The resident told the landlord on 29 May and 1 June 2022, that she thought the noise monitoring equipment installed was not sufficient as the noise was sporadic. Therefore, she ought to have equipment that would be on constantly.
The resident emailed the landlord on 6, 8 and 9 June 2022 stating she had heard further banging of doors and shouting. She said it was having a detrimental effect on her and she wanted action taken, due to how long it had gone on for. On 12 June 2022 she asked the landlord for someone to review the CCTV installed. She sent a further email the next day, chasing a response and saying she had more banging of doors the afternoon and evening before.
On 17 June 2022, the landlord emailed the resident, and asked for times and dates of the incident that might have been captured on the CCTV, and it would request that footage. The resident responded the same day, and said Saturday 11 June 2022 was the worst day, but suggested it look at the whole week. She also mentioned there being damage to her garden and one of her witnesses not being contacted.
The resident reported further noise issues to the landlord, on 4 July 2022. That there was banging on the walls between 5 and 7am, and banging of doors on a Saturday between 4pm and midnight. The resident referred to providing details of two witnesses and that she was aware only one had been spoken to.
On 17 August 2022, the resident told the landlord that a neighbour had told her that they had seen someone in her garden in the early hours over the previous weekend. The landlord replied by email on 18 August 2022, noting she may have had an intruder at her property, and it had requested footage, so someone would come round the next day.
The resident emailed the landlord on 25 September 2022 and asked for a security team to come and look at CCTV. She said things had been tolerable for the last four weeks, but had recently heightened. She reported door banging and items being thrown in to her garden.
The landlord wrote to the resident on 14 October 2022, and repeated the contents of its 25 May 2022 letter.
The tenant was advised that a stage two response had been sent, so she could now refer her concerns to the Tenant Scrutiny Panel or this Service.

Assessment and findings

The landlord’s Complaints Handling Policy says a complaint can be raised, initially at stage one, and it will be acknowledged within three working days and a response will be sent within ten working days. If customers do not reply to the stage one written response within 25 working days, the complaint will be considered closed. It goes on to say, a customer is entitled to escalate their complaint to stage two within 25 working days for general complaints and 20 working days for Housing services following the stage one response. If the complaint is complex, it may need more than 25 working days for general and 20 working days for Housing Services to respond. If this is the case, it will provide an update on the progress to the complaint and advise if it needs an additional ten working days.
The Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code, says the landlord must respond to stage 1 complaints within 10 working days. If an extension beyond 20 working days is required, this should be agreed between the parties. A landlord must respond to the stage two complaint within 20 working days of the complaint being escalated. Exceptionally, a landlord may provide an explanation to the resident containing a clear timeframe for when the response will be received. This should not exceed a further 10 days without good reason. If an extension beyond 10 working days is required to enable the landlord to respond to the complaint fully, this should be agreed by both parties.
The landlord’s Antisocial Behaviour Policy (2014) says when a report of ASB is received:
1. “We will listen to the complainant and offer the best ASB related advice for the circumstances, focusing on an early resolution to the problems.
2. If appropriate, we will record and thoroughly investigate the case. In most circumstances, we will offer to visit complainants to agree an action plan for tackling the problems and issue ASB log sheets to aid the recording of further incidents.
3. We will attempt to contact the complainant/victim within 24 hours (Monday-Friday) where the case has been identified as urgent, to begin our investigations. This is usually where there is a threat of, or there has been actual violence.
4. We will attempt to contact the complainant/victim within 48 hours for less urgent cases.
5. A named officer will deal with the complainants/victims case and agree with the complainant/victim the actions we will take and provide regular updates.
6. We will consider a wide range of approaches, and tools provided by legislation, to attempt swift and effective resolution of the ASB problem, for example, using restorative justice/mediation and injunctions.”

The landlord’s handling of reports of antisocial behaviour

It is important to acknowledge that the resident has clearly been raising issues with her neighbour’s behaviour for a long time, and the Ombudsman appreciates the strength of feeling she has over what has happened.
The resident contacted the landlord on numerous occasions, to complain about noise coming from the neighbour’s property and that she felt harassed and bullied by their behaviour. She has also said she had to seek medical help due to the effect these issues had on her.
It is not for the Ombudsman to determine whether the neighbour’s actions amount to ASB or not; this Service has considered whether the landlord dealt with the matters reasonably, taking into account its ASB policy as well as appreciating the resident’s circumstances.
The resident has described the effect on her health caused by the issues with her neighbour and her claim the landlord has not done enough to resolve the problem. The Ombudsman does not doubt the resident’s comments. However, it is beyond the remit of this Service to make a determination on whether there was a direct link between the landlord’s actions and the resident’s health. The resident may wish to seek independent advice on making a personal injury claim if she considers that her health has been affected by any action or lack thereof by the landlord. While we cannot consider the effect on health, consideration has been given to any general distress and inconvenience which the resident experienced as a result of any errors by the landlord and the landlord’s response to reports that the ASB affected the resident’s health.
Where ASB is alleged, landlords often carry out a risk assessment in order to assess the severity of the ASB and the effect on the resident. A formal risk assessment was not carried out, and this is something the landlord ought to review going forward, so it has a record to show what factors it has considered. In this case, although there was no risk assessment documented, the landlord did consider the resident’s position, and acknowledged how she was feeling. It noted the incidents reported and the frequency, and the effect it was having on the resident. Having done so, it did not identify any vulnerabilities, so it does not seem she was disadvantaged. In response to the reports, the landlord referred the resident to its housing team and appointed a specific point of contact, in order to aid communication. The landlord also advised the resident to keep logs of incidents and ensured she had a noise app to record sounds. When it became clear that the noise app may not be working effectively, the landlord met with the resident to discuss her concerns and put a plan together to get recording equipment installed at the property.
The landlord did install recording equipment, and the evidence shows it attempted to manage the resident’s expectations, in terms of explaining that certain noises may not amount to ASB. The landlord also installed CCTV at the property when the resident reported further concerns about the actions of her neighbour. The landlord reviewed the data recorded; but, did not find evidence of ASB, but it did explain to the resident how it formed its view.
It is noted that the resident does not agree with the landlord’s view, that there has not been ASB; but it is evident that the landlord listened to the resident about the issues she was having and took reasonable steps to try and address it. It corresponded regularly with the resident, albeit not always as much as the resident wanted it to, and it also met with the resident to agree an action plan. It appointed a specific point of contact to liaise with the resident and considered a wide range of approaches to try and help the resident gather evidence in support of her allegations.
There were occasions though, when the landlord did not always respond promptly to the resident’s emails; however, this has to be put in to context. The evidence shows the resident was contacting the landlord very frequently, and having read the emails sent, while they sometimes flagged a new incident occurring, in the most part, the emails were repeating the resident’s general concerns. While it is entirely understandable that the resident was keen to get matters resolved, and was finding things difficult, it would not be realistic to expect the landlord to be able to respond promptly to all the correspondence it received. In addition, the landlord had made it clear throughout to the resident, what action it planned to take and why the issues reported had not to date, amounted to ASB.
Having said that, the landlord’s ASB policy says, it attempts to contact the complainant/victim within 48 hours for less urgent cases, and several of the resident’s emails were not responded to within that period. That may have been due to the volume of correspondence from the resident; but, if that was proving difficult to deal with, then the landlord should have taken steps to manage the resident’s expectations, or the level of correspondence she was sending in. By failing to do that, it meant although the landlord had taken some steps to try and help the resident record the ASB she was claiming to experience, the resident continued to write to the landlord. She was getting increasingly upset at what she perceived to be, a lack of action by the landlord or not always getting a prompt reply. She mentioned the effect it was having on her health on several occasions, and the landlord could have done more to acknowledge that point, and should have factored that in, when considering how best to manage the amount of correspondence it was receiving.
Overall, it is clear the resident does not feel the landlord did enough to deal with her concerns about her neighbour and their behaviour, and the Ombudsman accepts she has been through a difficult time. In parts, the landlord did comply with its ASB policy and did what it could to support the resident in recording and evidencing her concerns. However, it could have improved upon its communication with the resident or managed her contact more effectively. It should have also demonstrated that it had considered the impact the alleged ASB was having on the resident. This went on for about a year but has not had a permanent effect on the resident. Therefore, to remedy the shortfall in the landlord’s service, it is appropriate for it to pay compensation to the resident in the amount of £200.
Since making the complaint to the landlord, it seems the resident has continued to make further reports to the landlord, and it is not clear what action it has taken since, and whether the issues are ongoing. Therefore, it would also be reasonable for the landlord to confirm with the resident, what, if any, outstanding ASB issues there are, and put an action plan in place setting out how they will be addressed.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint

Having made a complaint to the landlord on 27 November 2021, no evidence has been provided to show the landlord acknowledged this within three working days, or issued a response within ten working days, as it should have under its Complaints Handling Policy.
A stage one response was sent dated 19 January 2022 and it is noted the landlord apologised for the delay in responding. It said a meeting had taken place between the resident and landlord on 26 November 2021, and it thought it was appropriate to address the actions from that meeting first, before responding to the complaint
It is not clear why, but a further copy of the landlord’s stage one response, was sent to the resident on 17 February 2022. In response, the resident said she was not in total agreement with it, and she continued to raise the same issues with the landlord.
On 3 March 2022, the resident asked for her complaint to go to stage two. The landlord provided its response on 15 March, so there was no delay in its response; although, it did not alter its position, as it did not uphold the complaint.
Overall, there was an issue with the landlord’s complaint handling. Although it addressed the resident’s concerns, it did not respond at stage one in line with the timescales set out in its Complaints Handling Policy or as this Service would expect.
Having met with the resident on 26 November 2021 and agreed to take specific action as a result of that meeting, the Ombudsman appreciates the landlord’s reasoning for wanting to put those in place, before addressing the complaint. However, the issue is that the landlord failed to explain to the resident that was what it intended on doing, or to seek her agreement to that approach. Therefore, its communication in that respect, fell short.
Having said that, had the landlord responded within ten working days at stage one, as it should have, bearing in mind a meeting took place the day before the complaint was made, and steps were agreed to be taken, then it is more likely than not, the landlord would have just explained what had been agreed at the meeting. The reason for saying that, is because although the resident, in her November 2021 complaint, commented on issues dating back five years, the three points she had recently referred to the landlord, and which led to the meeting taking place on 26 November 2021, were, slamming doors and banging walls, loud music playing and shouting and swearing. All issues involving noise. The meeting took place in order to address those points, and it is noted this led to the landlord agreeing to fit a noise monitoring device. Therefore, a plan of action was agreed and time was needed to then monitor the situation.
It is noted that the resident continued to tell the landlord about further incidents of noise from her neighbour after the meeting, and it was acknowledged in the landlord’s letter of 19 January 2022, that there had been a delay in installing the noise monitoring device. However, this delay was certainly not significant, and it is not clear that the delay was caused solely as a result of the landlord’s actions. That is because there is an email sent by the resident to the landlord on 3 January 2022, which says she would not collect the noise monitoring equipment, the following day.
It is accepted the resident was being upset by the noise from her neighbour, and the landlord noted that, and as well as fitting a noise monitoring device following the meeting at the end of November 2021, it also still encouraged the resident to log incidents and report them, in order to be assessed.
Therefore, although there was a shortfall in respect of the complaint handling, it is hard to see what detriment there was. The landlord had met with the resident the day before the complaint to address her concerns; therefore, she was aware of what steps the landlord was taking, as this had been agreed with her. For that reason, while the landlord failed to comply with its Complaints Handling Policy, as there was no detriment to the resident, no remedy is required.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in relation to landlord’s handling of reports of antisocial behaviour.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration in relation to the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint.

Reasons

The landlord did not always contact the resident within 48 hours of her making reports and did not effectively manage the level of communication with the resident. This led to her sending multiple emails on the same issue and becoming increasingly frustrated that the landlord was not taking sufficient action to resolve her concerns or taking in to account the effect on her health,
The landlord did not deal with the complaint in accordance with its Complaints Handling Policy, or this Service’s Complaints Handling Code and did not advise the resident that it intended to wait to respond to the complaint, until it had adhered to the agreement reached on 26 November 2021. However, there was no detriment to the resident.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

Within the next four weeks the landlord should:
1. Pay the resident £200 compensation.
2. Confirm with the resident, what, if any, outstanding ASB issues there are, and put an action plan in place setting out how they will be addressed.

Recommendations

The landlord to provide training to relevant staff in relation to both its own Complaints Handling Policy, and the Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code, in order to recognise when a complaint is being made and the timescales it should be adhering to, when acknowledging and responding.
The landlord to review its ASB policy in order to establish when a risk assessment should be carried out.