Applications are open to join the next Housing Ombudsman Resident Panel – find out more Housing Ombudsman Resident Panel.

London & Quadrant H T (201912975)

Back to Top

 

 

 

 

REPORT

COMPLAINT 201912975

London & Quadrant H T

12 February 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

  1. The complaint is about the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of noise nuisance and other behaviour by a neighbour.

Background and summary of events

  1. On 6 January 2020 the resident asked the landlord to move due to medical reasons and for it to assess her needs. The landlord sent her a form to complete to enable it to do this. The resident also said she found it hard to get insurance due to her upstairs neighbour giving out the communal key, which her insurance company said increased the likelihood of people breaking into her property. The landlord advised that many flats have multiple people with keys.
  2. There is evidence of historic antisocial behaviour (ASB) reports made by the resident in 2016 but, based on the evidence available, the above report was her first recent report of possible ASB.
  3. Following a call with the landlord, on 10 January 2020, the resident completed an online complaint form. She said that she had called the landlord several times on 6 and 10 January and asked to speak to a manager but was not able to. She said that the communal door key being held by multiple people made her feel unsafe, and that she experienced a lot of noise from visitors coming and going.
  4. In a letter to the landlord, dated 10 January 2020, the resident asked to raise a complaint. She explained that she had had issues contacting the handler of her ASB case. The resident reported that multiple people appeared to be living in the one–bedroomed property which was above hers, and they each had their own key and would come and go at all hours. She also complained about these people loitering by the front door of her property.
  5. On 24 and 31 January 2020 the resident asked the landlord to call her back regarding her complaint. She said she was dissatisfied that it had not acknowledged receipt of her complaint letter. The landlord’s system notes say that it spoke with the resident on 31 January 2020.
  6. The landlord wrote to the resident on 31 January 2020 to update her on her ASB case. It explained that when residents raised a concern, it had 10 working days to acknowledge it and discuss a resolution. The landlord said that it had attempted unsuccessfully to speak to the leaseholder of the neighbouring property, as it did not have any “agreement” with their current tenant. It confirmed that it left a message for the leaseholder and raised the resident’s allegations with them.  It said it would contact the resident once it received a response.
  7. On 1 March 2020 the resident wrote to the landlord. She detailed historical issues she had experienced with the leaseholder of the neighbouring property, and reported a new incident, where the tenants of the leaseholder went on holiday and, a couple of days later, a group of strangers entered the communal door using keys. This made the resident uncomfortable and she said she reported this to the landlord, but nothing was done.
  8. The resident called the landlord on 9 March 2020 for an update because she was still experiencing the same issues.  She said she had not received the landlord’s letter dated 31 January 2020, so the landlord resent it.
  9. On 9 March 2020 this Service advised the landlord that the resident had complained about its handling of her ASB concerns. The landlord sent us an acknowledgment of the complaint on 10 March. The landlord’s internal note says that a copy was also sent to the resident.
  10. The landlord’s records for 13 March 2020 state:

“Initial Follow Up With Customer

Spoke to RP [resident] who made allegations that OP [tenants] makes noise and nuisance. I advised i was going to speak to OP Leaseholder.


Phone conversation with OP [leaseholder]

OP revealed there are many ongoing cases against the RP [resident] who has breach RP [tenants’] privacy, made false allegations against her and the matter is in court. Revealed that OP [this appears to be a reference to the resident] has blocked the communal door and she is unable to access it from outside as her tenants have travelled. RP has taken it upon herself to block the communal door from the inside to stop access. I have send the noise app and advised RP to install camera for physical evidence.

Phone conversation back to RP [resident]

Spoke to RP [resident] to feedback my conversation with OP [leaseholder] who has denied all the allegations of slamming the doors, walking and thumping the floor, leaving the communal door opened. OP advised the RP has done it as done these before when she was leaving and has forced her out of her property – hence she put in tenants to go and leave with her mum. I have advised RP she is not to block the communal door to resident and her visitors and this will not be tolerated. RP has vandalised their post, dump rubbish in the communal area and hid their posts.”

  1. In the landlord’s response to the complaint, dated 24 March 2020, it confirmed that, as a result of the resident’s reports of 10 January 2020, an ASB case was raised for it to investigate and respond back to the resident. It acknowledged and apologised that the resident had struggled to obtain an update from her property manager. The landlord also noted that, on 20 January 2020, the resident called to report noise nuisance, so it called and wrote to her on 31 January 2020. The landlord recognised that this letter did not provide enough detail about the actions taken but said it was satisfied sufficient steps and investigations into the reports were taken.
  2. The landlord apologised that its communications with the resident “were not handled better” and confirmed that a new ASB case would be opened to investigate the resident’s concerns.  It advised how the resident could contact it regarding any further concerns or questions, which would be added to the case and passed on to the case manager looking after this matter.
  3. On 6 April 2020 the landlord received contact from the resident’s advocate. They explained that the resident had been:

“having trouble with her upstairs neighbour. The flat above her is owned by [the leaseholder], who was a former tenant of yours. I understand that [the resident and leaseholder] have had some problems in the past when [leaseholder] lived there. [resident] currently feels that the flat above is overcrowded and the tenants are unreasonably loud. She also is worried that the communal front door is left unlocked and that a number of people who are not tenants are letting themselves into the property. As a result, [resident] is beginning to feel very unsafe in the property. I understand that when [resident] brought this up with L&Q, she was given a warning. I would very much like to open communications again between [resident], [leaseholder] and L&Q because I understand that these sorts of issues are best dealt with through communication and compromise. I would also like some more information about why [resident] has a warning, and what this means.

  1. The landlord responded to the advocate on 6 April 2020. It said it had spoken to the leaseholder, and explained that it was:

“aware of the issues surrounding the 2 neighbours and I have spoken to both about them. The other party used to live in the property as a leaseholder but felt she had to rent it out (rightfully as a leaseholder), due to ongoing issues with [resident] who had interfered with her day to day life. I acknowledge that the whole property isn’t new, therefore may cause few noises which we classify as daytime noise and not entirely the neighbours fault. The other party has confirmed that only 2 elderly couple live in the 1 bed property. Both tenants have their separate main doors in addition to the communal door. The couple may have visitors ringing from time to time to provide them with assistance. Instead of coming down the stairs to open the door, they find it easier, being older, to send their own keys through their windows from the top, to their visitors to gain access. They do not interfere with [resident’s] main door. [Resident] do not want visitors, she has and continues to interfere with the other party’s residents even though these are not interested. She has lock the tenants out of their property. She is keen to know their ins and outs and this is frustrating as she is approaching the visitors and causing unnecessarily nuisance to the other party’s tenants. She has opened and hidden their letters, she assumes that people have keys to the main door but I can assure you after speaking to the other party that this is not the case.

[The resident] has acknowledged all of the above concerns during my discussion with her. Hence I have given her a verbal warning and advised her to stay away from the neighbours tenants. If she feels unsafe, she can add extra locks to her own door but she has no right to stop visitors in the property or to behave in this manner. I am monitoring the issue and if [the resident] continues, this will escalate to formal written warning.”

  1. The resident’s advocate subsequently spoke with the resident. On 15 April 2020 the resident emailed her advocate disputing and denying what the landlord had told the advocate about her interfering with the neighbours’ mail, the landlord’s explanation about the communal door keys, and the allegation that she had blocked the communal door.  
  2. On 16 April 2020 landlord noted on its system that the resident “acknowledged that she has been getting involved into the neighbours business because she felt unsafe due to them having visitors. … [The resident] has hidden/scribbled on their letters.” The landlord confirmed that it informed the resident that this was not acceptable.
  3. In internal emails, dated 22 and 30 April 2020, the landlord’s staff advised that the resident had asked for a call back regarding her ASB case.
  4. Following contact from this Service, the landlord wrote to the resident on 12 May 2020. It advised the resident that it previously responded to her complaint and explained that it had tried to contact her neighbour’s landlord, and it was difficult for it to act because the neighbour was not its resident. It also reiterated that a new ASB case has been opened for the resident and contact details were provided on how to report any further incidents. The landlord said that, in view of this, it would not consider escalating the complaint. For it to consider if there was any further assistance it could provide, the landlord asked the resident to clearly outline why she remained dissatisfied and what outcome she was seeking.
  5. The resident replied on 13 May 2020. She expressed her dissatisfaction with the lack of updates about her complaint and ASB case. She also said that:

a.     She had not received any letter from the landlord when she first raised her complaint.

b.     She was unable to speak to anyone when she called the landlord and was not given the manager of her complaint handler’s details when she asked for them.

c.      The landlord could do more because it was the freeholder of the neighbour’s property and it delayed in contacting the leaseholder of the property.

d.     She was unhappy with a staff member’s conduct during a call. They accused her of actions, without having dates or evidence and gave the resident a warning but had not done so with the neighbouring leaseholder and/or tenants.

e.     She felt the neighbouring leaseholder was racist and their residents were still affecting her with noise.

f.        She requested CCTV, and asked the landlord to follow its complaints process.

  1. On 21 May 2020 the resident asked the landlord to send a final response to her complaint.
  2. On 27 May 2020 the landlord forwarded the resident the details for her case handler’s manager.
  3. The landlord wrote to the resident on 29 May 2020. It said that, during its investigation into the resident’s reports, it transpired that the resident had behaved in a manner that was antisocial towards her neighbour. It said that this included the resident “misplacing” and scribbling on her neighbour’s letter, locking her neighbour out of the property and “addressing the subtenants” not to allow their family and friends in the property. The landlord gave the resident a written warning, advising her to refrain from: approaching or addressing her neighbour’s subtenants, handling her neighbour’s post, and locking her neighbours out of the communal area.
  4. The landlord also said that, as part of the resolution to the resident’s complaint, it was agreed to provide her with CCTV instructions and permission to install a home camera. The landlord also provided instructions for the resident to download a noise application.
  5. In the landlord’s final response to the complaint, dated 15 June 2020, it reiterated that the resident’s neighbour denied the allegations and made counter allegations about the resident.  It noted that, during a conversation with the case manager, the resident admitted to writing on her neighbour’s personal post, so the landlord confirmed she would receive a warning about this
  6. The landlord explained that it had not received evidence from the resident to support her claims of noise nuisance, or that the neighbour had given keys to their property to non-residents. It said that it would arrange for the ASB case to be re-opened if the resident could provide evidence to support her claims. To support the resident in collecting this evidence, it confirmed it would contact her about installing CCTV and a noise nuisance app. Overall, the landlord was satisfied that the resident’s reports had been investigated and she had received a response.
  7. The landlord said it was sorry to hear the resident’s allegations that her neighbour had shown racist behaviour, and said she should report this to the police.
  8. The landlord apologised that the resident never received its response to her initial complaint sent on 31 January 2020, and that the resident was unhappy with her case manager’s conduct. It confirmed that it had spoken with the case manager, who assured that it was not their intention to come across in the way the resident reported. The landlord apologised that the resident was not given the regional manager’s details and confirmed it would send this to the resident via email for future reference.
  9. The landlord confirmed that the resident’s complaint had now fully exhausted its complaints process and that she could refer the matter to the Housing Ombudsman Service for investigation if she remained dissatisfied.

Assessment and findings

  1. The landlord’s ASB policy says that it will not normally consider noise caused by people going about their daily lives – for example, using staircases – to be ASB. The landlord will, however, record “noise” and “common area misuse” where it is “persistent, deliberate or targeted” as ASB. It gives loitering in lifts, urinating in public areas as examples of common area misuse. If, after considering the complaint, the landlord is unable to take action on behalf of the reporting party, or it does not consider the reports as ASB, it will explain why and point residents towards agencies or to information which may be able to offer advice and support. The reports made by the resident could fall into either noise nuisance or everyday noise based on the frequency and severity and whether it was deliberate. Therefore, the landlord should have investigated this.
  2. In the landlord’s letter of 31 January 2020, it said that it would contact the resident once it received a response from the leaseholder. There is no evidence of the landlord further updating the resident or following up on its attempt to contact the leaseholder, until further contact from the resident on 9 March. This is not in line with its ASB procedure, which says that it will keep in regular contact with the reporting party “or as agreed”. The policy says it will also agree an action plan with the reporting party and keep them updated throughout the case. The action plan will show decisive actions and a prompt timeline for communicating delivery. There is, again, no evidence that the landlord did this.
  3. The landlord confirmed, in its complaint response in March 2020, that a new ASB case would be opened and advised the resident how she could make contact about it. Good practice is for a landlord to inform a tenant when an investigation into their ASB reports has been closed, along with the reasons for doing so. There is no evidence of the landlord doing that for the resident’s original reports.
  4.  The resident contacted the landlord in April and requested call backs on 22 and 30 April 2020. The landlord did not contact the resident until this Service’s involvement regarding the resident’s complaint on 12 May 2020.
  5. When a landlord has made errors, it needs to put things right by acknowledging its mistakes and apologising for them, explaining why things went wrong and what it will do to prevent the same mistake happening again. The landlord apologised and addressed its lack of communication with the resident in its letter of 31 January 2020, which may have been reasonable, but the landlord continued to fail to update the resident, which demonstrated that it had not learned lessons from the previously acknowledged service failure.
  6. For a landlord to take formal action in respect of ASB, it requires corroborative evidence of the alleged behaviour to support formal action. In this case, evidence may also be required to determine whether the noise reported would be considered ‘everyday noise’ or ASB. The landlord’s ASB procedure says it will provide advice and support, which may include making referrals to other agencies that can provide assistance and, where appropriate, empowering the reporting party, victims and witnesses to take positive action. This could be supporting a resident to gather evidence and identifying any appropriate security measures to ensure that residents are safe in their property or taking other necessary measures.
  7. From January to March 2020, the landlord only contacted the leaseholder. It was not reasonable for the landlord to take no action, or delay action, on the grounds that it could not contact the reported perpetrator. It should have actively worked towards investigating the ASB reports regardless. In this case it could have: interviewed the neighbour about the allegations; offered the resident advice and assistance on capturing evidence about the noise within a reasonable time; offered noise recording equipment; or advised the resident to call the police the next time she found strangers in the common areas. Based on the evidence available, the landlord did not take sufficient action in response to the resident’s reports. It did not support the resident or give sufficient advice on gathering evidence to support her reports. The landlord appears to only have done this after repeated complaints, and interventions by this Service. It is also not usual practice, nor generally reasonable, for a landlord to tell a resident to install their own CCTV to combat ASB. The landlord is responsible for investigating ASB reports, if it thinks CCTV might help, then it should consider installing it, at least as a temporary measure to act as a deterrent or assist with capturing evidence.
  8. It goes without saying that a landlord should not give a resident a warning, without investigating first. This would initially be in the form of raising the allegations with the resident and giving them the opportunity to respond. The landlord and resident’s accounts of the conversations with the case manager differ, with the landlord saying that the resident admitted to the actions in the neighbour’s counter allegations, and the resident denying that she had. In the absence of specific supporting evidence this investigation cannot determine which party’s account of events is the more accurate. Nonetheless, the landlord’s warnings to the resident were in line with its understanding of the situation, as evidenced by its records.
  9. This was clearly a complicated situation for both the resident and the landlord to resolve, and the evidence shows that matters were in no way straight-forward. Despite that, the landlord was obliged to be guided by and follow its ASB policies and procedures in the manner in which it communicated with the resident, kept her updated, and took actions and provided advice to both investigate and resolve the ASB reports. It did not do these things in a responsive or timely manner

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of noise nuisance and other antisocial behaviour by a neighbour

Orders

  1. In light of the findings of this investigation, the landlord is ordered to:
    1. pay the resident £300 compensation in recognition of the distress caused by its delays in responding to her reports and her time and trouble in pursuing the matter. 
    2. This payment should be made within four weeks of the date of this report. The landlord should update this Service when payment has been made.