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

One Vision Housing Limited (201913423)

Back to Top

 

 

 

 

REPORT

COMPLAINT 201913423

One Vision Housing Limited

19 January 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 is about the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of anti‑social behaviour (ASB).

Background and summary of events

Background

  1. The resident has a secure tenancy with the landlord that started in 2001. The property is a one-bedroom ground floor flat. The resident made ASB reports against her neighbour (the neighbour) who lives in the flat upstairs and is a leaseholder of the landlord.
  2. The landlord’s ASB, domestic abuse and harassment policy says that, if the ASB perpetrators are not its tenants, it may still issue a written warning that it will pursue civil actions and contact may be made with their landlord (if they have one) and the local authority’s ASB team.
  3. The local authority’s ASB policy says that, where there is sufficient evidence that someone is responsible for ASB and where early intervention fails to bring an end to it, it will consider taking legal action against the perpetrator. It says it will work with the police and its partners and consider the use of civil injunctions and/or criminal behaviour orders. The local authority adds that it will ensure that breaches of orders are enforced quickly and appropriately, in discussion with complainants, its partners and the courts as appropriate. 
  4. The landlord’s complaints policy says that it will not normally investigate complaints that relate to matters that are found to have occurred six months or more before being reported.

Summary of events

  1. In court on 12 July 2019 the neighbour pleaded guilty to harassment against the resident. She was given a 36-month conditional discharge. Leading up to this court hearing the resident had reported many instances of allegations of ASB to the landlord going back to at least 2016.
  2. The evidence suggests that in August 2019 the landlord became aware of the outcome of the court hearing and sent a warning letter to the neighbour as it considered that the harassment was a breach of the lease.
  3. From October 2019 onwards the resident regularly reported to the landlord noise from the neighbour. This noise consisted of door slamming, dog barking, loud TV and the neighbour throwing heavy objects against the floor (the resident’s ceiling). In early 2020 she also reported the neighbour had directed a high‑powered hose at her windows and had harassed her by recording her and watching her while she was in the garden.
  4. On 15 October 2019 the landlord noted it had previously told the resident that it could take no further action under the terms of the lease unless the courts or police provide evidence that the court order has been broken. It noted further that the police had not confirmed a formal breach.
  5. On 17 October 2019 the landlord told the resident that, as there was an injunction in place, it would not act unless a judge decided that it had been breached. It said it would support the resident by gathering evidence and that was why she was on the waiting list for noise monitoring equipment. The landlord offered her help in finding alternative accommodation but noted the resident had declined that offer. It added that the resident should continue to report any harassment by the neighbour to the police.
  6. On 14 November 2019 the landlord told the resident that it was not able install sound insulation to the property.
  7. On 21 November 2019 there was a multi-agency meeting to discuss the resident’s ASB case. The landlord, police and local authority were in attendance. It noted that the landlord would chase up the noise monitoring equipment with the local authority, and that it would visit the property with a surveyor to assess any repairs required to the ceiling of the property.
  8. During that visit on 28 November 2019, the landlord gave the resident details of a noise app on which to record noise from the neighbour. The landlord said it would monitor recordings from the noise app weekly and, if there were grounds for nuisance, would liaise with the police and the local authority.  
  9. In December 2019, the landlord installed frosted glass in some windows at the property to increase privacy for the resident; in early January 2020 it overlayed the ceiling with plasterboard then skimmed over it.
  10. Meanwhile on 3 December 2019, in response to reports of noise, the landlord suggested to the resident that she contact the local authority.
  11. On 10 January 2020 the landlord wrote to the resident having listened to the recordings of noise she had provided. It said that, although it could hear a dog barking on 28 December at 3.35pm and also the radio on 9 January at 5.13pm it was difficult to say whether this noise was vindictive or just noise that happened when people lived on top of one another. The landlord asked the resident to continue sending in her recordings.
  12. On 15 January 2020 the landlord explained to the resident that this was a local authority case because the neighbour owned her property.
  13. On 17 January 2020 the landlord told the resident that it had listened to the noise app recordings she had provided but, unfortunately, it could not hear anything on any of them. It said it had tried using different devices and turned the volume up to the highest level. The landlord added that it would continue to monitor all the recordings that the resident sent in and give feedback.
  14. On 21 January 2020 the landlord spoke to the resident and acknowledged that she wanted more action taken against the neighbour. However, it explained that it could only take action if it had evidence that the noise was unreasonable and, at that time, it did not have that. The landlord explained that it was not a case of “believing the resident” but it required evidence to take action.
  15. On 27 January 2020 the landlord told the resident that it had listened to all the recordings she had sent in the previous week and confirmed the microphone now seemed to be working (she had reported problems with the noise app the previous week). It said that the recordings had picked up music noises on 21, 24 and 25 January 2020; however, the noise on the recording was not very intense and would not be classed as unreasonable. The landlord expressed concern that the resident believed the neighbour was “stalking” her and said she must report that to the police. The landlord asked the resident to continue sending in her recordings so that it could monitor them.
  16. On 28 January 2020 a local councillor wrote to the landlord enquiring about the resident’s ASB case. In response the landlord said that it was in weekly contact with the resident and was regularly reviewing the noise recordings that she sent in. It suggested a meeting with the councillor and the police to discuss further.
  17. On 6 March 2020 the landlord told the resident that the latest noise recording it had received was from 24 February 2020 and, unfortunately, did not contain any unreasonable noise that could be heard.
  18. On 11 March 2020 the police asked the landlord for information about the resident’s reports of ASB. On 16 March 2020 the landlord responded giving an update on the action it had taken.
  19. On 31 March 2020 the landlord responded to an email from the resident. It said it had received several emails from her with reports of noise from the upstairs flat; however, the recordings she provided did not match up with her reports and did not evidence that the noise was unreasonable. It said that it could faintly hear a dog barking in the background but it was not loud enough to be classed as unreasonable. The landlord encouraged the resident to continue using the noise app as this added GPS and a time stamp to the recording which could be used in court. It added that other types of recording are not as useful if the case were to go back to court.
  20. On 22 April 2020 the landlord responded to the resident saying it did not matter whether it believed her or not, because the court would need evidence and that was why it kept emphasising this. It said, based on what it had seen so far, it did not feel that she would have enough evidence for a strong case in court.
  21. On the same day the resident made a complaint to the landlord about its handling of her reports of ASB. The landlord acknowledged the complaint the following day and spoke to her about it on 27 April 2020. The resident expressed her concern that the landlord had not done enough to resolve matters and she believed the neighbour was trying to “terrorise and intimidate her” so that she would leave the property.
  22. On 7 May 2020 the landlord issued its stage one response to the resident under its formal complaint procedures. The main points were:
  • It considered it had been very thorough in dealing with her ASB case and gave details of the action it had taken;
  • The police and the local authority had explained that the neighbour had not breached the terms of the conditional discharge order. As this injunction had been obtained through the police, the resident should take this up with the police if she was dissatisfied.
  • Noise monitoring equipment had been installed on two occasions and the resident was on a waiting list for it to be installed for a third time. (No noise had been identified through this equipment previously.)
  • It had offered a meeting with the councillor and the police following an enquiry from the councillor. The offer to have that meeting still stood.
  • It had taken steps to improve sound transfer and improve privacy at the property.
  • It had correctly advised her that any noise should be referred to the local authority. It did not consider that the evidence it held would be sufficient should the case return to court.
  • Its leasehold team had visited the neighbour on several occasions. It had made it clear to her that if, on receipt of substantial evidence, the police decided to escalate this matter, it would review it position and might decide to forfeit the lease.
  • It asked the resident to report breaches of the conditional discharge order to the police and to let it know if they took any further action.
  • It asked the resident to continue completing incident diaries and forwarding them to it and the local authority.

The landlord did not uphold the complaint.

  1. On the same day the resident asked the landlord to escalate the complaint.
  2. On 18 May 2020 the landlord wrote to the resident at the final stage of its complaint procedure. It said that it had interviewed several members of the ASB team and had reviewed the resident’s email correspondence and noise recordings. The landlord concluded that, based on the evidence it had seen, the resident’s ASB case had been correctly and promptly managed. It added that installation of the noise monitoring equipment by the local authority might be delayed due to Covid-19. It did not uphold the complaint and signposted the resident to the Ombudsman.
  3. When the resident approached the Ombudsman, she said that she did not feel the landlord took her concerns seriously and felt “harassed” by the landlord, especially by the content of the letter from the landlord from November 2020 in which it said it may limit its contact with the resident due to “repeated unreasonable requests for service or demands of staff time and resources”. The resident also said she would like the landlord to put down carpet to reduce the noise from the neighbour.

Assessment and findings

  1. The evidence shows that the resident had reported ASB to the landlord over several years. The Housing Ombudsman Scheme limits the Ombudsman’s consideration of a case to issues that have been raised with both the landlord and the Ombudsman within a reasonable timeframe. As such, this investigation has focused on events that occurred from July 2019 when legal action was taken against the neighbour. While that is a longer timeframe than the landlord’s complaints policy of six months (paragraph 4), this Service considers that is a reasonable starting point for this determination as it was a key event in this case.
  2. It is the Ombudsman’s role to assess the appropriateness and adequacy of the landlord’s actions in responding to reports of ASB and the fairness and reasonableness of its response to the formal complaint. This does not include establishing whether a party is responsible for ASB; our investigation is limited to the consideration of the actions of the landlord in the context of its relevant policies/procedures as well as what was fair in all the circumstances of the case. The Ombudsman cannot tell the landlord to take action against neighbours.
  3. Having pleaded guilty to harassment in July 2019 and given a conditional discharge, no further action would be taken by the court unless the neighbour committed a further offence within 36 months. It would be up to the police to decide if there was sufficient evidence to make the case to the court that the neighbour had committed a further offence.
  4. As the neighbour owns the property she lives in (albeit as a leaseholder of the landlord – paragraph 1), the action the landlord could take was limited. However, it did take action by:
  • Sending a warning letter to the neighbour for breach of the lease when it became aware of the conditional discharge (paragraph 6).
  • Liaising with the local authority to install noise monitoring equipment (paragraph 11).
  • Liaising with the police (paragraphs 12 and 22).
  • Installing frosted glass to give the resident increased privacy (paragraph 12).
  • Listening to the noise recordings that the resident provided from the noise app (paragraphs 9, 17 and 19).
  • Signposting the resident to the local authority as the appropriate organisation to deal with her reports of noise (paragraphs 14 and 16).
  • Responding to concerns raised by the councillor about this case (paragraph 20).
  • Attending a multi-agency meeting (paragraph 11).  
  1. Given it would be for the police or local authority to take action against the neighbour in the first instance, the landlord’s actions were appropriate in supporting the resident. The landlord acted reasonably by liaising with the police and local authority to try to progress matters. Ultimately, without evidence of unreasonable noise, the local authority and/or the police would be unable to take action against the neighbour. The Ombudsman has not found service failure by the landlord in its handling of the resident’s reports of ASB.
  2. This Service understands that matter continues to causes great distress to the resident. The landlord has explained that it is not a question of whether or not it believes her reports, rather that evidence of unreasonable noise/behaviour by the neighbour would be required in court (paragraphs 18 and 24). The landlord’s focus on obtaining evidence via the noise app or the noise monitoring equipment is therefore appropriate. This Service would therefore encourage the resident to continue reporting the noise recordings to the local authority.
  3. With regard to the landlord’s decision not to improve the sound insulation in the property, case law has established that there is no legal requirement for landlords to retrospectively fit improved sound insulation. While the landlord was therefore entitled to decline the resident’s request, it did carry out work to the ceiling to try to improve this.
  4. The Ombudsman cannot consider the landlord’s letter of 20 November 2020 because this was issued after the landlord’s final response and this Service can only investigate matters that have been considered by the landlord as part of its formal complaints procedure. It is, however, open to the resident to make a fresh complaint to the landlord about this matter.

 

Determination (decision)

  1. In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was no maladministration by the landlord in respect of its response to the resident’s reports of ASB.

Reasons

  1. The landlord is limited in what action it can take because the neighbour owns her property. However, the landlord has acted appropriately by supporting the resident as well as considering the evidence she provided to see if that could be considered unreasonable noise/behaviour. Ultimately, it would be a matter for the local authority or police to decide on that.

Recommendations

  1. It is recommended that the landlord:
  • Chase up the local authority for noise monitoring equipment and let the resident know when she might expect to have this installed.
  • Review the lease of the neighbour to verify if her property should have carpets fitted. Then write to the resident to confirm what, if any, action it will take.