Catalyst Housing Limited (202007537)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202007537

Catalyst Housing Limited

Amended on 23 November 2021

Our approach

The Housing Ombudsman’s approach to investigating and determining complaints is to decide what is fair in all the circumstances of the case. This is set out in the Housing Act 1996 and the Housing Ombudsman Scheme. The 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 concerns the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of antisocial behaviour caused by his upstairs neighbours.

Background and summary of events

Background

The resident is a shared ownership leaseholder of the landlord.
The property is a flat, situated in a building comprised of similar properties.
The property upstairs is occupied by a family, and the alleged perpetrator is also a shared ownership leaseholder of the landlord; therefore, they are subject to the same terms and conditions as the resident.

Summary of events

The resident advised his local councillor that he had been experiencing antisocial behaviour by his upstairs neighbours since February 2020. However, the landlord advised this Service that its records stated that he had initially contacted it to report excessive noise coming from the property upstairs on 14 April 2020, and, as a result, it wrote to the alleged perpetrator on 27 April 2020 regarding their noise levels. The landlord requested that they take steps to reduce the noise, including by “considering whether there are areas of you[r] home with hard flooring where you could consider laying carpeting.”
The resident chased this matter up with the landlord on 14 May and 4 June 2020, and it provided him with advice on obtaining diary log sheets and noise monitoring equipment from the local authority’s environmental health department, and that it would issue a second warning letter to the alleged perpetrator on 10 June 2020. Additionally, the landlord contacted the local authority on 24 June 2020, which led to the latter issuing a community protection notice warning letter for the alleged perpetrator on 25 June 2020, requiring them to immediately reduce persistent loud noises from their property at all hours of the day or face being served with such a notice or other legal action.
On 20 July 2020, the resident wrote the local authority to lodge a complaint regarding the noise that he had been experiencing. As a result, the landlord provided him with diary log sheets on 23 July 2020, for him “gather evidence about the levels and frequency of the noise so that these could be presented” to the local authority, for them to provide noise monitoring equipment. Additionally, the landlord advised that it had contacted the alleged perpetrator “several times”, who had told it that they did not cause noise deliberately and that this stemmed from the fact that they had a young child who “sometimes runs around and plays”.
The local authority issued a complaint response on 17 August 2020, which the resident forwarded to the landlord, to confirm that it was its responsibility to “investigate and assist in resolving all reports of antisocial behaviour”.
On 5 September 2020, the resident wrote to his local councillor to request assistance with the antisocial behaviour that he had been experiencing. He detailed the alleged perpetrator’s actions (banging, stomping, dropping heavy items, shouting and running) and advised that this usually happened between the hours of 9am to 8pm during weekdays, and for longer hours on Friday evenings and weekends. Additionally, the resident noted that he believed that the noise was being caused deliberately due to previous events, that the incidents above had impacted his health and ability to enjoy his home, and he requested assistance with obtaining noise monitoring equipment.
The resident emailed the landlord on 20 September 2020, to provide it with the completed diary log sheets that had been requested from him. Additionally, he mentioned that he had been experiencing constant noise since 7.30am that day, which had also led to his ceiling “vibrating and shaking”, that the local authority had “indicated that there may be a structural problem”, and that he felt that he could no longer live at the property.
On 2 October 2020, the resident wrote to the landlord to log a formal stage one complaint, noting the following:
1. He reiterated the points raised above to the local councillor.
2. He advised that he was unhappy with the landlord’s handling of his reports of antisocial behaviour, as it could have had a more proactive approach to this, and he had to chase his contacts with it for progress and due to its lack of communication.
3. He mentioned that the landlord had initially advised that it could not handle his reports of antisocial behaviour, caused by his neighbours, and had signposted him to different agencies that had referred him back to it.
4. During a visit, carried out on 23 September 2020, the landlord had advised that it would look into offering mediation for the two parties, and check whether the alleged perpetrator’s lease was breached; however, it was yet to provide updates on this, having previously agreed to do so in August 2020.
5. As a result, to resolve his complaint, he advised that he wished for the landlord to arrange for a structural survey to be carried out, for mediation to be arranged, for the landlord to review whether the alleged perpetrator’s lease was being breached while exploring and informing the resident of every option, and for it to “take a proactive approach and maintain good momentum in attempting to resolve matters”.
The landlord wrote to the resident on the same day to advise that the local authority had deemed the noise that he had reported to be household living related and not statutory noise nuisance. The landlord also confirmed that it had already visited the property to determine whether there was a structural problem that its surveyor had concluded was not present, and the company that would handle the mediation between him and the alleged perpetrator that would contact them both in due course.
On 12 October 2020, the environmental health department wrote to the resident to advise that they had considered the diary log sheets provided by him, along with the noise levels experienced during their visits to the property. However, they concluded that there was “insufficient evidence to substantiate an alleged noise nuisance” from the property above, and that due to this the local authority could not investigate his complaint further, advising him as to how take his own private legal action for this instead.
The landlord issued a stage one complaint response to the resident on 20 October 2020, advising the following:
1. It acknowledged its responsibility to investigate reports of antisocial behaviour, and it informed him that it required him to log the same complaint with the local authority, so that it could liaise with them and take a combined approach. Additionally, the landlord noted that it suggested for the above to be done as the local authority possessed the noise monitoring equipment, which was the only option to obtain substantial evidence of the reported noise for legal action.
2. It confirmed that it had contacted the alleged perpetrator, and that it had liaised with its legal adviser and the local authority to try to investigate this matter.
3. Following its visit, and the environmental health department’s, the landlord deemed the noise levels to be normal, unless there was “deliberate stomping”, and that this would not “constitute a statutory noise nuisance”.
4. It apologised for the delay in arranging mediation due to the need for it to speak to the alleged perpetrator as participation in this was voluntary, and it confirmed that the company that would be handling this was in contact with both parties involved in the case.
5. It confirmed that it had arranged for mediation to take place, and that it would follow up on this to ensure that matters progressed as expected, and it advised that it had arranged for a sound test to be carried out by an independent structural engineer, who was due to have contacted him for access to do so.
6. It explained that it could not take legal action against the alleged perpetrator at that time due to insufficient evidence of a breach of their lease, as it only had diary log sheets for this at present.
The resident contacted this Service via telephone on 21 October 2020, to advise of the noise levels that he had been experiencing, and the above actions taken by the landlord and local authority for this. Additionally, he noted that he should have been working from home, but that he was unable to do so due to the amount of noise. Furthermore, the resident advised that he had been spending his evenings at his mother’s property, which put her at risk as she was vulnerable, and his visits increased the chance of her contracting corona virus.
Communication between the environmental health department and the landlord, dated 22 October 2020, showed that following a series of tests, the noise levels were attributed to the structure of the property, due to there being structural motion from laminate flooring in the property of the alleged perpetrator, affecting the furniture there. As a result, on 23 October 2020, the landlord’s internal communication deemed that there was no “airborne noise” from the alleged perpetrator, an engineer was scheduled to visit the property on 28 October 2020, a mediation referral had been made, there was no evidence of a breach of lease, and that it would contact the resident on a weekly basis.
On 26 October 2020, the resident wrote to the landlord to request for his complaint to be escalated to the second and final stage of its complaints procedure. This was because he disagreed with the explanations and solutions proposed by it in its initial stage one complaint response, and he disputed the extent of its liaison with its legal adviser and the local authority, explained that it had not been possible to arrange mediation, and considered that his diary log sheets should have been used to enforce the alleged perpetrator’s lease.
A sound insulation test was carried out at the resident’s property by an engineer from an external contractor instructed by the landlord on 4 November 2020, which determined that “the separating partitions between rooms comply with the sound requirements within the current Building Regulations”.
On the same day the landlord issued a stage two complaint response to the resident, in which it determined that, considering the lack of substantial evidence, it would wait for the results of the independent sound insulation test and mediation meeting, as it could not take further action against the alleged perpetrator. It explained that this was because it had liaised with him, the alleged perpetrator, the local authority and its own internal departments to discuss his antisocial behaviour reports, but that diary log sheets were not absolute evidence of this and that the local authority had also been unable to substantiate this, attributing delays in the case to corona virus restrictions and “unforeseen circumstances”.
Both the resident and the landlord wrote to his MP on 11, respectively on 2 October 2020 and 24 December 2020 and 28 January 2021, regarding the ongoing noise nuisance allegations. He reported experiencing the above difficulties and seeking the above outcomes, while it explained that all agencies had determined that this was household noise from his upstairs neighbours, with the engineer’s visit confirming that there was no structural issue with the building causing excessive noise. The landlord also confirmed that the parties’ views had meant that its previous mediation referral had been unable to proceed, but that it was seeking fresh mediation and evidence from their other neighbours, in light of the environmental health department’s, engineer’s and its above findings.
The landlord contacted the resident on 12 and 15 February 2021, regarding a new mediation referral. Additionally, it advised that the alleged perpetrator had agreed to attend the mediation meeting, for which the new mediation company would contact both parties in due course.
On 22 February 2021, the resident’s doctor issued a letter detailing the negative impact that the ongoing issue with the alleged perpetrator had been having on his mental and physical ill-health.
The first mediation meeting took place on 26 February 2021. On 4 March 2021, the resident then queried the date of the next meeting, to which the mediation company replied on 5 March 2021, advising that the alleged perpetrator had refused to attend another meeting. The resident was instead offered a meeting between himself and the mediators, during which they could discuss the next steps that he could take to “improve the situation”.
The resident continued to contact this Service on a number of occasions to report that he was unhappy with the ongoing levels of noise that he was experiencing and the landlord’s handling of this, for which he sought for the alleged perpetrator’s lease to be enforced and a structural engineer’s visit and full report. The resident also queried whether it could soundproof the property at its expense, or reimburse his likely additional expenses.

Assessment and findings

The resident’s lease

The resident is obliged by his shared ownership lease with the landlord to “provide carpets or such other suitable floor coverings to the floors” of his property, and both parties are required to ensure that the property is not used for any purpose from which nuisance can arise to neighbours.

The landlord’s antisocial behaviour policy

The landlord’s antisocial behaviour policy applies to “all tenants, leaseholders and households” that occupy one of its properties.
The antisocial behaviour policy defines antisocial behaviour as:
1. “Conduct that has caused, or is likely to cause harassment, alarm or distress to any person”.
2. “Conduct capable of causing nuisance or annoyance to a person in relation to that person’s occupation of residential premises”.
3. “Conduct capable of causing housing–related nuisance or annoyance to any person”.
The landlord’s antisocial behaviour policy states that it would “only investigate noise nuisance where the noise is frequently excessive in volume and durations or occurs at unreasonable hours, typically but not always between 11pm and 7am”, and that it would “encourage residents to take responsibility for solving minor personal disputes between themselves”.
As per its antisocial behaviour policy, the landlord’s service standards state that it would respond to all reports of antisocial behaviour within one working day, agree an action plan with the victim, agree appropriate timescales, and keep victims informed of progress.
The landlord also commits to “work in partnership and consult with residents, the wider public, statutory services, local authorities,…, and other agencies as necessary to tackle [antisocial behaviour]”.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of antisocial behaviour by his neighbours

It is noted that the resident and his doctor have stated that that the antisocial behaviour issue has exacerbated his medical conditions. However, it is not within the authority or expertise of this Service to determine whether there was a link between the landlord’s handling of his reports of antisocial behaviour and his medical conditions, or to award damages for this, in the way that a court or insurer might. This aspect of the resident’s complaint is therefore outside of the scope of this investigation.
Between the resident’s initial acknowledged report of antisocial behaviour by his neighbours to the landlord, of 14 April 2020, and 23 July 2020, it advised that it issued two warning letters to the alleged perpetrator, on 27 April and 10 June 2020, and contacted the local authority on 24 June 2020. This was reasonable and in line with the landlord’s antisocial behaviour policy, detailed above at paragraph 30, because it made the alleged perpetrator aware of the reports of their actions and it liaised with the relevant agencies to seek to resolve the situation.
This was particularly due to the landlord’s explanation to the resident on 14 May 2020 of the need for him to try and resolve the antisocial behaviour by contacting the local authority’s environmental health department for diary log sheets and noise monitoring equipment. This and the landlord’s above liaison with the local authority was then followed by the latter issuing a community protection notice warning letter for the alleged perpetrator on 25 June 2020. The letter required them to immediately reduce persistent loud noises from their property at all hours of the day or face being served with such a notice or other legal action, which demonstrated that the above steps taken by the landlord had led to further action being taken in the resident’s case.
However, it is noted that the landlord did not provide the resident with, or asked him to keep, diary log sheets of the noise/incidents that he experienced itself until 23 July 2020. Considering his repeated reports of antisocial behaviour to it, caused by his upstairs neighbours, along with his efforts to bring this to the attention of the environmental health department, the landlord unreasonably delayed its own investigation of his reports.
Furthermore, during the above period, the landlord did signpost the resident to the relevant agencies for his antisocial behaviour reports, which was in line with its antisocial behaviour policy. However, it did not entirely comply with the policy’s service standards, detailed at paragraph 29 above, because it did not set an action plan, nor did it agree to response timeframes to keep him informed, with it also being of concern that he reported that it did not respond to all of his reports within its policy’s one-working-day timescale for it to do so.
Following the local authority’s response of 17 August 2020 to the resident’s complaint to them, stating that it would be the landlord’s responsibility to handle antisocial behaviour cases, , and the latter’s delay in responding to his completed diary sheets, provided on 20 September 2020, he logged a stage one formal complaint with it on 2 October 2020.
The landlord issued the resident with a stage one complaint response on 20 October 2020, in which it explained that it had signposted the resident to the local authority and similar agencies to ensure a combined approach. While this was reasonable and in line with its antisocial behaviour policy, it did not compensate him for its lack of action in response to his reports at an earlier date, such as by providing/asking for diary log sheets or offering mediation sooner, or its lack of support, such as by agreeing to an action plan and keeping him informed of any progress.
Also in the landlord’s stage one complaint response, it advised the resident that it would not take further action against the alleged perpetrator at that time. This was due to a lack of substantial evidence of a noise nuisance, especially as the environmental health department had previously deemed the noise as being “household living related”, and not to be “statutory noise nuisance” that further action could be taken for. The landlord’s position at this stage was therefore reasonable and it was permitted to reach this decision, as it had a responsibility to act in a fair and impartial manner towards all of its residents, based on the evidence available to it at the time.
Additionally, the landlord acknowledged its responsibility to investigate such cases, apologised to the resident, confirmed that it had arranged for mediation to be offered to him and to the alleged perpetrator, and organised for a sound insulation test to be carried out. This appeared to have complied with the resident’s desired outcome for a structural survey, and also constituted a reasonable solution considering that the nature of the antisocial behaviour was deemed by the relevant agencies to be due to household living. In such instances, a sound insulation test could help detect whether any improvements could be carried out to the property to avoid noise transmission, and mediation could improve or resolve any issues between the parties involved.
The landlord’s external contractor’s engineer then carried out the sound insulation test at the resident’s property on 4 November 2020, which deemed that this complied with building regulations in relation to the sound requirements for the separating partitions between rooms. Considering that it arranged for the test to be carried out, and the results of the test, it would not necessarily be expected of it to have taken any further action in respect of this particular aspect of the case. There was a delay in arranging mediation for the resident and alleged perpetrator because the first meeting between the parties took place on 26 February 2021. Although the landlord explained that this was due to the need for it to speak to the alleged perpetrator about this, as participation was voluntary.
Nevertheless, the resident went on to make further reports to his MP and to this Service of continuous noise from his neighbours, along with having previously mentioned to the landlord that he had avoided spending time in his property because of the noise experienced. This, and the determination made by the environmental health department that the nuisance was caused by household noise, meant that it was concerning that the above mediation meeting did not take place earlier than four months from the date that it confirmed that this was arranged on 20 October 2020. Mediation was attempted in November 2020 but a scheduled face to face meeting was unable to proceed because the parties were in deadlock, so the case was closed. Being as mediation is voluntary the landlord cannot be held responsible for the parties refusing to speak to each other or the attributed delay. However, it is also noted that the landlord did cause delays as it failed to communicate effectively with the parties before they eventually met on 26 February 2021.
To conclude, this Service appreciates both the landlord’s efforts to seek to resolve the antisocial behaviour reported, and the distress and inconvenience experienced by the resident. However, there was service failure in its handling of his reports of this because it could have dealt with this in a more timely and efficient manner. The landlord should have provided the resident with diary log sheets sooner, and offered to arrange mediation as soon as it became clear that the noise reports were recurring.
Furthermore, the landlord could have provided the resident with more support during this period, such as by contacting him and the alleged perpetrator on a regular basis to discuss incidents, setting an action plan, agree to a response timeframe to keep the resident informed, and responding to all of his reports within one working day.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure by the landlord in way it handled the resident’s reports of antisocial behaviour caused by his upstairs neighbours.

Reasons

The landlord should have dealt with the resident’s reports in a more timely and efficient manner by complying with its antisocial behaviour policy to provide him with diary log sheets and mediation sooner, contacting the parties more regularly, setting an action plan, agreeing a response timeframe with him, and responding to all of his reports within one working day.

Orders

The Ombudsman orders the landlord to pay compensation of £250 to the resident in recognition of any distress and inconvenience experienced by him from the delays and non-compliance with its antisocial behaviour policy in his case. The compensation is calculated based on the Housing Ombudsman’s remedies guidance and is to be paid to the resident within four weeks.
The landlord shall contact this Service within four weeks to confirm that it has complied with the above order.

Recommendations

Consider whether it is able to provide or require soundproofing between the parties’ properties, including in light of its leases’ requirement for them to provide carpets or such other suitable floor coverings, and contact the resident to provide him with the outcome of its consideration within four weeks.
Review its staff’s training needs in relation to their application of its antisocial behaviour policy to seek to prevent a recurrence of its above failings in the resident’s case. This should include the completion of our online dispute resolution training for landlords at https://hos.dev.civiccomputing.com/landlords-info/e-learning/, if this has not been done recently, together with consideration of our remedies guidance at https://hos.dev.civiccomputing.com/about-us/corporate-information/policies/dispute-resolution/policy-on-remedies/.