Karbon Homes Limited (202213806)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202213806

Karbon Homes Limited

30 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 the landlord’s handling of the resident’s:
1. Reports of harassment and anti-social behaviour.
2. Reports of noise nuisance.
3. The associated complaint.

Background and summary of events

Background

The resident lives in a two-bedroom bungalow owned by the landlord, a housing association. The property is set within a scheme for residents over the age of 50. He has a sole assured tenancy that began in August 2020.
The landlord’s records note the resident has vulnerabilities concerning his mobility and mental health. The resident disclosed to the landlord during the course of the landlord’s investigation into his reports that he lives with PTSD, and he advised can be triggered by sudden noises.

Scope of investigation

The resident informed this Service that the landlord’s handling of his reports had a significant and ongoing impact on his health and wellbeing. This Service is unable to look into and make a decision about the cause of, or liability for, any impact on health and wellbeing. Nonetheless, consideration has been given to the general distress and inconvenience which the situation may have caused the resident.
The resident made a separate complaint to this Service including about the landlord’s handed reports concerning his neighbour’s activities. While the resident made reference to these issues in this complaint, this investigation considered only the period after the landlord’s previous final complaint response of 8 December 2021.

Summary of events

In late December 2021, the resident contacted the landlord to report nuisance from dog barking next door and dog faeces outside his home. The landlord acknowledged his report and assigned the matters for review by its local neighbourhood service.
In early 2022, the landlord completed a risk assessment and anti-social behaviour action plan with the resident. The resident expressed a wish against direct intervention with his next-door neighbour. The landlord agreed to send a letter to local resident’s to discourage dog fouling and require respect of the local environment. This letter was sent mid-January 2022 and the resident updated.
The landlord liaised frequently across January and February with the local authority, to whom the resident was submitting recordings of dog barking. The landlord confirmed this contact with the resident. The local authority shared analysis of its monitoring and review of recordings. It advised the barking was sporadic, low level and not at an unreasonable degree or level.
This triggered a case review by the landlord and an update to the resident of its position the noise reported did not amount to anti-social behaviour. The landlord offered to speak to his neighbours to provide advice around acceptable behaviours. The resident advised against this. A letter was sent by the local authority to the neighbour giving advice on acceptable noise levels.
The resident reported to the landlord that following its dog fouling letter, there had been comments on the local residents’ facebook page suggesting the neighbour was unhappy. He also made the landlord aware that following the local authority’s noise letter, his neighbour challenged him as to whether this was due to his reports, and they discussed the noise levels. The resident raised concern that his neighbour was acting in a way to intimidate him, including by their friend parking on his driveway.
The landlord completed a further review of the agreed anti-social behaviour plan and discussed matters with the resident. It was offered to visit his neighbours. The resident advised he did not wish for this to take place for fear of repercussions.
The landlord proposed closure of the resident’s case at the end of February 2022, and this was agreed by the resident due to an improvement in noise. The landlord checked in with the local authority a final time before confirming closure to see whether there had been any change or update. The case was then closed, confirmed to the resident by correspondence of 2 March 2022.
On 9 April 2022, the resident reported to the landlord ongoing noise disturbance from next door and harassment arising from comments made on Facebook. The landlord opened an anti-social behaviour case 2 days later and spoke with the resident. The indirect nature of the social media comments was discussed, and the resident made aware of associated evidential issues posed. It was agreed the landlord would monitor the case; however, the landlord advised it would not approach the neighbour as anti-social behaviour enforcement for the reasons discussed.
The landlord completed an initial risk assessment and anti-social behaviour action plan. It noted the resident’s preferred form of contact and agreed frequency of contact. It recorded that no support needs had been identified.
The landlord sought update from the resident on 22 April 2022. The resident replied to the following day, reporting nuisance from dog barking, his neighbour talking loudly outside and music. He reported hearing comments next door suggesting they were making noise deliberately to harass him and expressing aggressive intentions. He was hesitant for any further correspondence to be sent to his neighbour.
On 9 May 2022, the landlord apologised for its delayed reply, citing sickness. Its email of 13 May 2022 acknowledged the further reports and advised it would continue to monitor. It suggested the resident use a noise app to record levels for review. The resident reported that day overhearing his neighbour suggest the resident was watching their grandchild and make an offensive related comment. He also raised social media comments believed aimed at him that had been reported to police. The landlord advised the resident it had insufficient evidence at that stage to support further action and agreed to liaise with police. It updated its risk assessment.
On 18 May 2022, the resident shared with the landlord a copy of a statement he advised providing to police. He updated the landlord his neighbour shook their fists the previous week and the police had told him there was sufficient evidence to justify a harassment warning. The landlord agreed to liaise with the police for joint working and several days later confirmed its approach in writing to the resident.
The landlord received contact at this time from the resident’s neighbour reporting their concern about the behaviour of the resident. The neighbour denied acting in a way so as to harass. The neighbour expressed anxiety about the positioning of the resident’s cctv equipment and recording of private conversations.
On 27 May 2022, the landlord visited the resident at home in company of the police. The resident described next door dog barking as ‘incessant.’ The landlord agreed to continue to liaise with the police, whose investigation was under review and the local authority concerning dog related noise nuisance. The landlord also visited the neighbour after agreement by the resident. The neighbour denied allegations of nuisance or harassment. Counter allegations were made concerning breach of privacy arising from the resident’s cctv. These were put to the resident who advised the angle of his cctv was likely accidental and since corrected.
At the end of May, the resident told the landlord he was being supported by victim care. He reported an offensive comment made by his neighbour outside their home that was reported to police. The landlord agreed to liaise with police.
The resident updated the landlord at the beginning of June, that the police were due to issue a warning to his neighbour and that he felt their behaviour was linked to his disability. He explained he was staying away from his home due to feeling targeted.
In mid-June, the landlord liaised with the local authority who advised it was monitoring the resident’s reports of noise nuisance from dog barking. It advised the resident to log noise using the noise app for review. It also agreed to contact his neighbour about their cctv system, following report it was pointing to his home. The resident provided updates of his neighbours’ behaviour that he found intimidating, staring, deliberately causing dog related noise and their visitor parking in his driveway. He also informed the landlord he was supported by peer mentors.
On 16 June 2022, the resident reported further comments by his neighbours suggesting they were recording him. He advised the police were due to interview them and requested their eviction. The landlord advised a process had to be followed and it was ‘nowhere near’ eviction. It advised it would seek a police update.
Following this contact, the landlord’s risk assessment was reviewed as high due to the resident’s reported impact. It also completed a case review noting the social media posts and resident reports did not offer sufficient evidence of hate related incidents, more a relationship breakdown between neighbours. It recorded a review of noise app recordings that did not show significant, persistent, or prolonged periods of noise. It also noted mediation had been declined by the resident and action to continue to liaise with its partners.
The landlord sought update from police on 20 June 2022. Police advised the neighbour denied allegations and they were unlikely to take further action due to scant evidence in support. The landlord also contacted the local authority for an update of its ongoing review of noise recordings. It was noted these were now being sent to the landlord. The local authority advised its most recent review concluded insufficient evidence of noise nuisance.
The resident continued to submit noise reports via the app of dog barking. The landlord acknowledged receipt and advised it would review with feedback.
On 1 July 2022, the resident’s peer mentor contacted the landlord to advise the resident felt ignored. The landlord advised it was awaiting further update from the police but its current position was there was no evidence of any hate related activity, and ‘this was merely a fall out between neighbours resulting in both being suspicious of each other’. It advised there was insufficient evidence of noise nuisance to take enforcement action. It described the resident’s expectations as ‘not deliverable.’
This view was reflected in the landlord’s subsequent case review of 6 July 2022. The landlord found that the resident’s most recent noise app recordings did not show evidence of unreasonable or excessive noise. The findings were shared with the local authority. The landlord updated the resident and provided detailed breakdown of its noting. It offered to meet to discuss the matter in more detail.
The resident emailed the landlord on 6 July 2022, and advised the noise app recordings were not reflective of his experience, due to limitations of the app and his difficulties using it. He also reported nuisance from the neighbour’s outdoor radio. He raised concern of a lack of support and advised of exacerbation of his PTSD. The landlord replied it was regularly reviewing his case and the current status awaiting police update. It referred the resident to the action plan and encouraged continued recordings and offered noise monitoring equipment. It asked if there was anything it might do to change how the resident felt and repeated the offer of a home visit with his support.
The following day, the resident’s neighbour contacted the landlord and alleged they were being victimised by the resident by false reporting. The neighbour denied the resident’s further allegations put to them and reported the resident’s cctv pointing into their garden. The landlord sought further update from the police.
On 8 July 2022, the police updated the landlord it had received further reports denied by the resident’s neighbour, with counter-allegations. They deemed the matters a ‘low level dispute.’ It advised the neighbour admitted playing music in their garden with stated aim of drowning out audio recording of their garden conversations. The police advised having investigated the neighbour’s cctv system and finding it was not aimed at the resident’s home. The landlord subsequently updated its case review.
Further recordings submitted via the noise app were received by the landlord on 26 July 2022 and noted to be ‘not excessive’ and ‘unlikely to be intrusive’.
A home visit by the landlord took place on 28 July 2022. The resident was supported by his disability and victim care advocates. The landlord’s note recorded that:
1. The resident reported noise nuisance including by a radio on the fence.
2. It advised the resident there was a lack of evidence that next door noise amounted to anti-social behaviour for enforcement action.
3. The resident explained due to dexterity issues, he was unable to accurately reflect noise experienced by the noise app.
4. The resident expressed being a victim of hate crimes by his neighbour and an update by police that his neighbour would be arrested.
5. The resident played a cctv recording of his neighbour commenting that the resident looked at them outside and checking if this had been recorded.
6. It advised the resident that there was evidence of his neighbour potentially making ‘flippant’ remarks in their garden, but no evidence of hate-related incidents. It advised it did not have sufficient evidence of anti-social behaviour or harassment to take enforcement action.
7. The option of a good neighbour agreement was explored, and the resident agreed to consider whether he was willing to share the impact on him.
8. It advised the resident to turn off audio recording on his cctv due to privacy.
9. It was agreed it would speak to his neighbour about loud music and the angle of their cctv system.

The landlord updated its action plan the same date and noted awaited sound monitoring equipment. It recorded no additional support needs. This was forwarded to the resident and his advocate the following day.

On 3 August 2022, the resident’s advocate provided to the landlord a detailed description of the resident’s vulnerabilities and adverse impact to his health and wellbeing from the reported events. It advised he was willing to share this as part of a good neighbour’s agreement process. The resident withdrew his consent 2 days later, expressing concern his neighbour could use the information against him.
On 5 August 2022, the landlord provided update of its intended visit to his neighbours and acknowledged receipt of further noise app submissions.
On 9 August 2022, the landlord reviewed the resident’s recent noise app submissions. It concluded these did not show evidence of excessive or anti-social noise. It updated its case review and emailed the resident and his advocates with an updated position and the intended date of visit to his neighbours.
The resident’s advocate replied to highlight the resident’s difficulty operating the noise app and sought details of an alternative. She also reported a further comment overheard from the neighbour’s garden and music. The landlord advised it would speak to the neighbour at the upcoming visit. It provided an update about the awaited sound monitoring equipment, advising this machine was easier to activate and would give a better representation of noise experienced.
The resident separately contacted the landlord on 12 August 2022 to report being targeted by his neighbour when alone by their music and their dog entering his garden and defecating. The landlord replied to advise it would address these matters with them at the upcoming advised visit. On the same date, the police advised the landlord it was taking no further action due to insufficient evidence of any crime.
On 16 August 2022, the landlord visited the resident’s neighbour. It provided advice about acceptable noise levels. Its meeting record noted their agreement to avoid unreasonable noise. The neighbour denied the resident’s allegations of comments made. The landlord advised the resident against discussing matters relating to the resident outside of their home. The resident admitted their dog entered the resident’s garden and advised this was accidental and denied dog mess. The landlord checked the positioning of the neighbour’s cctv system.
On 18 August 2022, the landlord provided update to the resident of the neighbour visit and advised of their expressed willingness to return to positive relations with an offer of mediation. The landlord also installed sound monitoring equipment.
On 24 August 2022, the resident submitted a stage 1 complaint to the landlord. It stated that:
1. The landlord’s inaction led to his suffering further anti-social behaviour from next door, and they failed to provide him with support. This had caused him to suffer frequent noise, harassment and victimisation as a disabled person and a worsening of his health, leading to hospitalisation.
2. His reports of harassment and noise were unreasonably dismissed, despite the significant evidence submitted including many audio and cctv recordings.
3. The neighbour’s cctv system was still pointing at his house and the landlord had not taken appropriate action.
4. He found the approach of the officer dealing with his case at the recent home visit to be dismissive. He raised concern that she stated being unable to hear voices on the recording played at the home visit in July, even though others present could. He felt she was biased and requested her removal from his case.
5. He felt unsafe in his home and had been staying away as result of his neighbours.
6. He had struggled to make accurate recordings on the noise machine and by his phone due to its use exacerbating the chronic pain in his hands.
7. He wanted the landlord to take more serious and effective action against his neighbours.
On 26 August 2022, the landlord acknowledged the complaint and advised due its complexity, the likely timescale for reply was 1 September 2022. It subsequently updated this to 15 September 2022 on the original advised deadline.
On 30 August 2022, the landlord acknowledged receipt of further noise app submissions and advised these would be reviewed. The landlord’s records showed review on 6 September 2022 noting these did not demonstrate noise nuisance.
On 7 September 2022, the resident emailed the landlord expressing concern that the case officer had not been changed. He reported difficulty recording noise on his phone and using the noise machine due to dexterity issues using his hands.
On 15 September 2022, the landlord provided a stage 1 response to the resident’s complaint. It said:
1. It made regular contact with the resident but accepted some delays due to liaison with third parties and staff absences and apologised.
2. It took appropriate evidence led steps to respond to and investigate reports.
3. It provided advice or warnings in response as was proportionate to the incidents reported and were supported by evidence. It had been unable to progress other reports as it did not find anti-social behaviour. It advised having made its position clear when updating the resident.
4. The resident was advised about appropriate use of cctv audio recording.
5. It had offered assurance and support. It was able to offer further support concerning housing options should the resident wish in view of his distress.
6. Its recent review of noise recordings did not amount to anti-social behaviour.
7. Its investigation did not find evidence of bias or poor handling by the case handler. Review of the resident’s reports was handled by a number of officers reaching the same conclusion. It would not change the case handler.
8. Without sufficient evidence suggesting anti-social behaviour, it was likely to close the case. The noise machine recordings remained under review, and this may help the landlord to determine whether there was evidence of the persistent noise nuisance alleged by the resident.
The resident replied to the same date, seeking escalation of his complaint. The resident repeated submissions from his stage 1 complaint and added the following:
1. He did not feel comfortable liaising with the assigned case officer as he found her to be biased, lacking empathy or understanding in her approach. He repeated his request for her removal from his case.
2. His concern for his safety; he wished to accurately record incidents arising with the neighbour and was worried about the advice not to record audio.
3. He found the landlord’s inclusion of a warning about his use of cctv within their complaint response and advice about housing options support to be unempathetic and hurtful.
On 27 September 2022, the landlord sent to the resident its stage 2 response that said:
1. All evidence submitted was reviewed with feedback. It had regularly reviewed the case and conducted welfare contact. It accepted slight delays as noted at stage 1.
2. It took appropriate action by advice or warnings where proportionate. It had explained its position when it was not appropriate to take action. It considered and offered suitable alternatives such as mediation and good neighbour agreement.
3. It had considered and offered different ways to support the resident capturing noise. It offered a further meeting with his advocate/mentor to understand further the resident’s difficulties and consider potential alternatives.
4. It liaised appropriately with the police and local authority to support its approach.
5. The case officer dealt with the case appropriately and it was satisfied as to her impartiality and professionalism. The officer would remain on the case given the knowledge and insight she had of the case.
6. It was appropriate the resident was given an offer of advice/ assistance concerning his housing options in the circumstances.
7. Its review of noise equipment recordings was ongoing, and the results anticipated that week. It apologised for the delay.

During the course of the complaint, the landlord completed further case reviews that maintained its risk assessment as high. It emailed the resident seeking an update and advising of the awaited noise machine review timescale. There was no reply.

Post-complaint

The landlord contacted the resident on 6 October 2022 seeking update and informing that the noise machine review was expected the following week.
On 19 October 2022, the landlord contacted the resident to advise its review was completed. It offered to meet with the resident and his support to discuss. The resident replied that he did not wish to attend a meeting with the same case officer and wished for no further contact from her as this was detrimental to his wellbeing. He requested the results in writing.
On 24 October 2022, the landlord emailed the resident findings of its noise machine review. The email was sent by the case officer’s manager, who explained the recordings captured were reviewed by 2 separate officers and not the case officer. It advised these did not show evidence of noise that was excessive or anti-social. It informed the resident based on evidence to date, it would not be taking further action against the neighbour. The resident replied expressing his disappointment and that he felt the landlord had discarded their complaint and acted in a discriminatory way.
The landlord closed its case the beginning of December 2022. The resident has continued to raise his concerns about the activities of his neighbours that he considers amount to harassment. The landlord advised the resident there was insufficient evidence to support action.
The resident moved into alternative accommodation in June 2023. The resident cites feeling forced to leave their home and helpless in the face of the landlord’s inaction. The resident describes a severe adverse impact to his health and wellbeing due to matters suffered at the property.

Assessment and findings

The Ombudsman’s Dispute Resolution Principles are:
1. Be fair.
2. Put things right.
3. Learn from outcomes.

This Service will apply these principles when considering whether any redress is appropriate and proportionate for any maladministration or service failure identified.

This Service is not able to make findings of fact as to the incidents reported by the resident as hate-related, harassment and noise nuisance. It is not the role of the Ombudsman to decide whether anti-social behaviour/ harassment occurred or who is responsible. This Service will consider the landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns. This includes whether the landlord appropriately and fairly investigated his complaint based on available information, followed proper procedure and took reasonable steps to respond in a way that was fair in all the circumstances.

The landlord’s obligations

The Anti-social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Act 2014 defines anti-social behaviour as behaviour that causes or is likely to cause harassment, alarm, or distress. The accompanying statutory guidance requires that when the landlord is deciding whether the threshold is met and whether it is appropriate to exercise its powers, to consider proportionality, harm and the cumulative impact of any repeat incidents.
The act also provides complainants with the right to request a multi-agency review of action taken in response to their reports of anti-social behaviour by way of a ‘community trigger.’
The landlord’s anti-social behaviour policy defines anti-social behaviour to include noise and an example is given of pet and animal nuisance. It sets the expectation of a victim-centred approach to handling reports with a focus on prevention & early intervention and by thorough investigation. It required that any action taken be proportionate and cases subject to individual needs assts, risk assessments, regular case reviews and appropriate updating to victims of progress or lack thereof. It underlines the importance of providing an accessible service and the need for external referrals where needs are identified.
The landlord’s hate crime and harassment policy required a victim-centred approach when handling related reports. It required a tailored approach to service provision and highlighted the need to refer the customer to support services when appropriate.
The landlord was also required to have regard to a complainant’s disability in line with its obligations under the Equality Act 2010. Where on notice, it must consider when making decisions and providing a service whether its decision making/ actions could place the person at a particular disadvantage due to their vulnerabilities. The landlord is also required to make appropriate reasonable adjustments.
In accordance with its complaints, compliments and suggestions policy, the landlord’s response to a complaint at stage one was required within 5 working days and the stage two response in 5 working days. The policy allows for extensions of time where there are ‘mitigating reasons’ e.g., a complaint that is particularly complicated. It is required to write to the resident to explain the anticipated delay with an updated timescale. The Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (‘the Code’) also requires that a landlord keep complainants regularly updated about the progress of their complaint.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of harassment and anti-social behaviour.

The landlord’s records show a sharp focus on its compliance with the steps required by its anti-social behaviour procedures. There is evidence of regular recorded case reviews, risk assessments, pro-active welfare checks and action plans finalised with involvement of the resident.
The landlord’s investigation into the resident’s reports was largely timely. There is evidence the landlord took a reasonably pro-active approach to obtaining and reviewing relevant evidence. The notes of its review of material were detailed.
The landlord worked in partnership with the parallel police investigation. This was not unreasonable in all the circumstances whereby the resident’s reports suggested additional information had been made available to police. The landlord appropriately maintained frequent contact with police for updates and sought information at relevant stages of the case. The liaison with police displayed evidence of collaborative multi-agency working and a joined-up approach e.g., joint home visit.
Although the landlord placed weight on the police investigation/ findings, the landlord is still noted to have undertaken a full review itself of the resident’s accounts, cctv recordings, facebook posts and sound recordings. It investigated matters as appropriate e.g., inspection of the positioning of cctv equipment. It put the resident’s allegations to the neighbour to inform its view and approach. Its investigation was reasonably thorough and in compliance with its anti-social behaviour policy.
The landlord is noted to have regularly reviewed its position and suitable next steps. It considered whether incidents could reasonably amount to anti-social behaviour alone or cumulatively and whether there was sufficient evidence to support enforcement action. While the matters reported were very evidently causing the resident considerable distress, the landlord was required to take an overall view of whether the relevant legal tests were met and act proportionately in line with statutory guidance. Its assessment of reports and position adopted was not unreasonable in the circumstances and was in accordance with its legal obligations.
Despite the landlord taking a reasonable view in consideration of the evidence, the resident was not kept fully updated of its assessment at all relevant stages. Across the second half of May and June, the resident continued to report incidents to the landlord that it internally reviewed as not amounting to actionable anti-social behaviour. This view was not relayed until the update sought by his peer mentor in July. While there was interim regular contact, there is little record that the landlord pro-actively sought to hold a sensitive discussion(s) that would have supported management of the resident’s expectations. It would have been reasonable for the landlord to disclose to the resident its ongoing assessment. While this failure took place over a distinct period of time that was relatively short, its failure to pro-actively manage expectations when appropriate may have contributed to the breakdown of the relationship of trust developing with the case officer. The landlord did not identify by its complaint responses that this failing occurred.
Although the landlord did not deem the behaviours reported amounted to anti-social behaviour, it appropriately recognised in line with statutory guidance and its policy that early intervention tools were appropriate and that it had a role to support efforts at a community-based resolution. It offered mediation, proposed good neighbour agreement, provided verbal and written advice and warnings as to expected behaviours. Its interventions were timely and proportionate to the incidents and evidenced reviewed.
The landlord is observed to have initiated regular contact with the resident that was two-sided, not simply reactive to their reports. In line with its policy, it completed an individual needs assessment at the start of the case to determine the resident’s preferred method and frequency of communication. This plan was largely stuck to but, there were some gaps in contact and delays replying to the resident’s emails. However, the landlord is noted to have apologised in correspondence to the resident and explained the reason for these delays that were minor. It also provided further apology and acknowledgement in its complaint response. This appropriately redressed the acknowledged service delay.
The landlord displayed on many occasions an active willingness to listen to the resident and communicate in a way that was sensitive to the nature of his reports, his needs and their ongoing impact. For example, holding face to face discussions to consider its key findings, agreeing action plans and potential closure of the case. Its complaint correspondence is clear and the tone sensitive and understanding when communicating the position reached. There is evidence of efforts at a victim-centred approach to communication.
However, there were occasions, albeit infrequent, when the communication of the landlord’s message was inconsistent with the victim-centred approach required by its policies. The landlord’s hate crime and harassment policy required the landlord to ensure reporting of such matters was taken seriously and treated in a sympathetic and non-judgmental way. By the landlord’s characterisation of comments that the resident reported as harassment as simply ‘flippant remarks and the allegations ‘merely a falling out between neighbours’, it failed to recognise the resident’s experience. While it was important that the landlord provided an honest and realistic account of its position, it was required to do so in a way that was empathetic, and victim centred. The handling of its messaging at times could reasonably have been considered unsympathetic to the resident who was understood by the landlord to be experiencing significant distress and impact to his mental health. The insensitive nature of some of the communications are undoubtedly likely to have undermined the relationship between landlord and tenant.
This Service notes that communication of the landlord’s position was largely outlined verbally. Written confirmation of its message may have allowed the landlord the opportunity to express itself in a more sensitive manner and provided the resident a reference point for the status of his case. Where it sought to convey to the resident a position that was evidently upsetting or did not meet his expectations, best practice would suggest the confirmation of this message as follow up in writing e.g., after the home visit.
While the resident repeatedly expressed their dissatisfaction with the landlord’s approach and what it deemed as inaction, the landlord failed to make him aware of the community trigger process. This would have been reasonable in all the circumstances including the resident’s vulnerability and its awareness of other involved organisations.
Outside of the communication issue considered above, the landlord reasonably took account of the resident’s vulnerabilities and reported harm. It kept his support needs under regular review and conducted appropriate risk assessments, identifying the associated higher risk of harm. It appropriately recorded the same. It sought to explore his needs and encouraged the involvement of those supporting him resident at key discussions. It updated those professionals as agreed with the resident. It handled the resident’s vulnerabilities in respect of his reports of anti-social behaviour in line with its obligations.

The resident raised issue with the following matters considered by this Service:
1. The advice given by the landlord about his use of cctv in the complaint response:

This Service does not find the landlord’s advice unreasonable in the circumstances where the landlord was dealing with counter-allegations and the positioning of the cctv equipment reasonably presented as a trigger for the alleged anti-social behaviour. It was not communicated in a manner that was insensitive.

The landlord’s offer of advice and support concerning his housing options:

This Service considered the offer was communicated in a sensitive way and was clear it was for consideration only alongside other options. It was reasonable the landlord suggested to the resident all available options that might address the level of distress reported in view of his account that he felt unable to stay at the property at times due to fear.

Alleged bias by the case handler.

This Service has not found evidence of bias in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports. The investigation was reasonably through, and its assessment of available evidence and position reached was appropriate as noted above. While the landlord’s communications were on occasion poorly handled, these did not demonstrate bias, rather a lack of sensitivity.

This Service has found that the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of harassment and anti-social behaviour was on the whole reasonable and in line with its obligations. However, it communicated with the resident on occasion in a way that was insensitive to his reported experience and failed to manage expectations at all appropriate stages. These failings may have contributed to the breakdown of the relationship of trust that occurred between the resident and the case handler. These matters were not acknowledged by the landlord at complaint stage, or any form of redress offered to the resident. The landlord’s failure to seek to put matters right or demonstrate learning from identifying these issues leads to this Service finding the landlord responsible for maladministration.
In recognition of the distress experienced by the resident and detriment likely caused to the landlord and tenant relationship arising from its failings, the landlord is ordered to pay the resident compensation. The Ombudsman’s remedies guidance suggests an award between £100 to £600 where maladministration is found and there has been adverse impact to the resident. The failings were limited to a small number of communications and a distinct stage of the case. This places the award towards the lower range of this banding.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of noise nuisance

The findings detailed above in respect of the landlord’s investigation, its overall compliance with its procedures and assessment of evidence in accordance with obligations are equally relevant to the landlord’s handling of noise reports.
Its investigation into noise reports was reasonably handled in line with its anti-social behaviour policy. It managed the initial reports December 2021 to March 2022, at a local level by neighbourhood management, in line with statutory guidance and best practice. It displayed strong collaborative working with the local authority to assess noise levels and demonstrated good multi-agency joined up working. At this initial local level, contact with the resident was sensitively handled and it’s thinking well communicated in a sensitive manner.
The resident’s reports of noise and all submitted recordings and logs are noted to have been thoroughly reviewed by the landlord and detailed feedback provided. The landlord gave largely timely responses and made interventions proportionate to the issue identified e.g., verbal warning to the neighbour concerning use of their radio. The landlord appropriately recognised it was under obligation to use its statutory powers and tools appropriately and that action towards the neighbour had to be proportionate to the specific behaviour found presenting. It appropriately and reasonably exercised caution against impacting on behaviour that was not anti-social. In so doing, it acted in accordance with statutory guidance and its policies.
It is noted the resident experienced some delay awaiting the installation of the noise machine. This was not unreasonable given the nature of the resource. The landlord is shown by its correspondence to have kept the resident informed of the delayed timescale.
The evidence showed the resident repeatedly alerting the landlord to difficulties he experienced operating its standard noise recording tools (noise app and noise machine) as a consequence of his physical disability. The landlord failed during the course of its handling and in its stage one complaint response to give the effects of the resident’s disability appropriate regard. Its responses failed to show an effort to appropriately explore and understand the practicalities of the dexterity issues raised so that it might review and offer reasonable alternative(s) or consider appropriate signposting for aids or needs assessments. This was contrary to the regard required by the Equality Act 2010, and the accessible service obliged by its own anti-social behaviour policy.
It is recognised that within the landlord’s stage 2 response to the complaint, the landlord acknowledged the resident’s reported difficulties and proposed a discission to explore alternative reporting methods. While this represented regard to his disability and a reasonable effort to seek to explore reasonable adjustments, the landlord did not acknowledge the service failing experienced by the resident. Flowing from this, it also failed to offer any form of redress to the resident.
In consideration of the failing identified and the landlord’s lack of acknowledgement that it had failed to appropriately respond to the resident’s reports of disability related difficulties, this Service finds maladministration in its handling of noise reports. The landlord is ordered to pay the resident compensation to address the detriment caused by its failure to explore the resident’s vulnerabilities at an appropriate stage.

The landlord’s complaint handling

The landlord provided its complaint response at stage 1 outside of its policy timescale of 5 working days. The complaint was submitted on 24 August 2022 and response provided on 15 September, 15 working days later. However, and in compliance with its policy, it acknowledged the complaint and provided updates as to the expected timescale. It explained the reason for its delay; that the complaint was ‘complex.’ It is noted that the complaint was of significant length and there were multiple issues to be considered and investigation. The delay and reasons provided to the resident were reasonable in all the circumstances and in line with its policy.
This good practice complaint handling was not followed at stage 2 of the complaint process when the landlord encountered delay. The stage 2 request was sent to the landlord on 15 September 2022 and its final response returned on 27 September 2022, 3 days past the timescale for response required by its policy. The delay is minor, however the landlord failed to provide any update to the resident of intended delay in accordance with its policy or the Code. The landlord further failed to acknowledge or apologise for its delay at stage 2 in its final response to the resident.
This Service noted the response timescales required by the landlord’s complaint policy are significantly shorter than the periods recommended by the Code of 10 working days at stage 1 and 20 days for stage 2. Its short timescales are likely to place pressure on response compliance and as observed in this case, cause difficulty handling a non-standard or lengthier complaint. It is recommended that the landlord review its position against the Code to consider whether timescales in line with Code may improve deadline compliance and complainant experience.
This delay and failure to update the resident amount to service failure for which the landlord is responsible. The landlord failed to make any effort to redress the delay in its final response. It is ordered to pay compensation to the resident in recognition.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of harassment and anti-social behaviour.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of noise nuisance.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure in in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint.

Reasons

While this Service noted that the landlord displayed elements of good practice handling of anti-social behaviour reports in line with obligations, there were occasions of poor communication. It failed to consistently communicate its position in a way that was sensitive to the resident’s experience or manage expectations appropriately across the whole duration of the case.
During the course of their reports of noise nuisance, the resident repeatedly raised difficulties linked to the effects of disability impacting his use of reporting tools. The landlord failed to show reasonable efforts to explore this issue with him so that it might consider and potentially offer alternatives. A belated offer to discuss was made by the landlord’s final response, this was too late to redress its failings. This was contrary to its obligations and its own policy.
The landlord’s final complaint response was delayed outside of its policy timescale. Although the delay was minor, it failed to update the resident as required and did not acknowledge this service failing.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

Within 4 weeks of the date of this decision, the landlord is ordered to:
1. Arrange for a senior member of the landlord’s staff to apologise to the resident for the failings identified in this report.
2. Pay the resident £450 compensation comprised of:
  1. £200 to reflect the distress and inconvenience caused to the resident by the failings identified in the landlord’s handling of their reports of harassment and anti-social behaviour.
  2. £200 to address the distress and inconvenience arising from its handling of the resident’s reports of noise nuisance.
  3. £50 to recognise the detriment arising from its complaint handling.

Recommendations

It is recommended that the landlord:
1. Consider whether it can action some of the recommendations in this Service’s noise Spotlight report.
2. Review its current training offer on its obligations under the Equality Act 2010 and how this impacts day to day communications with residents, decision- making and service provision including reasonable adjustments.
3. Review its complaint timescale responses against the Code.