Paragon Asra Housing Limited (202117783)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202117783

Paragon Asra Housing Limited

13 July 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:
1. the resident’s reports of antisocial behaviour (ASB) and noise nuisance;
2. the resident’s associated complaint.

Background

The resident holds an assured tenancy with the landlord that began on 12 June 2017. The property is a one bedroom ground floor maisonette, and the landlord is a housing association.
The landlord’s vulnerability record states that the resident has a progressive long term illness. A letter from the resident’s doctor confirmed that the resident was diagnosed with severe post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD), as well as a serious physical condition that requires regular hospital monitoring.
The resident’s complaint concerns his reports of noise nuisance and ASB by another tenant of the landlord. For the purposes of this report, the tenant who is the subject of the resident’s reports of ASB is referred to as ‘the neighbour’, and it is assumed that the neighbour is subject to the same, or similar, tenancy conditions as the resident. The neighbour lived in the property above the resident, but it is noted that the Police report filed after the completion of the landlord’s complaint process, refers to the neighbour living in a property adjoined to the resident’s.
In 2020, the resident made a previous complaint to the landlord concerning its handling of his reports of ASB regarding the same neighbour. That complaint was also brought to this Service, and was determined by the Ombudsman on 11 May 2021. The determination found service failure with the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of ASB. It summarised that the landlord had not followed its own ASB policy. As the time period up until March 2021 has already been assessed by the Ombudsman, this report is focused on matters that occurred from April 2021 until the conclusion of the landlord’s complaint process in May 2022.

Tenancy agreement

The resident’s tenancy agreement states that a tenant must not cause nuisance, including noise, or harassment, including abusive behaviour. It also states that tenants must not make false or malicious complaints about the behaviour of another person.

ASB policy

The landlord’s policy stated that it takes a robust victim centred approach to tackling ASB. It describes the range of tools that it can use to achieve this, including:
1. victim risk assessments, nuisance investigations and agreement of an action plan with residents;
2. use of the Noise App and/or installation of sound recording devices;
3. property management transfers ‘in exceptional cases’;
4. use of professional witnesses where necessary.
The policy divides ASB into two categories referred to as ‘level 1’ and ‘level 2’. It stated that level 1 includes hate crimes, and level 2 includes harassment and persistent noise nuisance. It explained that it will acknowledge level 1 reports in one working day, and level 2 reports in three working days.
The policy explains that the landlord’s ability to tackle ASB is increased when residents provide appropriate evidence, and that residents are expected to make use of the available resources to do this. It further explained that a resident could be subject to enforcement action for making false or malicious complaints about a neighbour.

Complaints policy

The landlord’s policy states that it operates a two stage process, with written responses issued to residents within 10 and 15 working days at stage one and stage two respectively.
The ‘exclusions’ section of the policy states that there are some circumstances where a matter will not be considered as a formal complaint. It explains that when the landlord considers this to be the case, it will advise the resident and explain its reasons why.

Summary of events

On 8 May 2021, the resident emailed the landlord to provide recordings of noise that he said had been recorded on his mobile telephone. The landlord replied the same day and provided a case reference number. It stated that the recordings had been logged against the case and passed to its tenancy solution team.
On 16 May 2021, the resident emailed the landlord regarding ASB that he said he had been suffering for four years. The key points of the resident’s email were as follows:
1. He said that there had been loud music and banging from the neighbour’s flat upstairs late the previous night.
2. He stated that the Noise App was a disappointment and was not working as it should. He said that, as such, he wanted the landlord to consider evidence that he provided it by other means.
3. He said he believed the ASB actions of the neighbour were intentional.
4. He explained that his medical challenges meant that this was not a suitable environment for him.
On 16 May 2021, the landlord replied to the resident. The landlord expressed its sympathy with the ongoing issues and the difficulties with the Noise App. It stated that the resident could alternatively send noise recordings via email.
On 8 June 2021, the landlord’s senior manager wrote to the resident with regards to the Ombudsman’s determination of his previous complaint. The letter included the advice that its tenancy solutions team would visit the resident on 11 June 2021 to discuss any ongoing ASB and consider a nuisance investigation, victim assessment, and the agreement of an action plan
On 15 June 2021, the landlord sent an internal email following it’s visit to the resident on 11 June 2021. The email stated that the resident thought that there was something wrong with the Noise App, and that when they had listened to his recordings, there had only been very faint sounds. It added that the resident said he could hear loud music and that the landlord’s staff were not listening hard enough. It said that it asked what support he was receiving, but he had said he did not need help and would not consider medication. It stated that there had been no recent incidents with the neighbour.
On 20 July 2021, the resident emailed the landlord and said that he had reported ASB on the Noise App on 11 July 2021, but had not heard from the landlord. The landlord replied the same day and advised that his comments had been added to his open case reference, and that it had asked the assigned officer to contact him. The landlord’s records stated that its tenancy support officer (TSO) visited the resident the following day, but that the resident would only speak with her on the doorstep.
On 30 July 2021, the resident emailed the landlord and copied in this Service. He stated that the ASB issues were ongoing, and expressed his frustration at the lack of progress.
On 15 August 2021, this Service emailed the landlord to request confirmation that its visit to the resident had gone ahead. This Service also emailed the resident to advise of the contact with the landlord, and his right to make a further complaint to it if he remained dissatisfied with its recent ASB handling. The landlord replied to this Service and confirmed that the meeting with the resident had gone ahead.
On 24 August 2021, the resident emailed the landlord, MP and this Service. He complained about ongoing ASB by the neighbour, and the impact it was having on him. He said he had received no response from the landlord regarding his reports of ASB on 21 August 2021. The landlord replied to the resident the following day, and asked for confirmation of how he had made his reports of ASB on 21 August 2021, as it had no record of this.
On 31 August 2021, the resident’s email to the landlord explained that he had made his reports online. The landlord replied the same day and confirmed that reports made that way, along with Noise App submissions, were accessed directly by its tenancy solutions team, who he already had an active case with.
On 3 September 2021, the resident emailed the landlord, MP and this Service. He said that the neighbour had played loud music through the night on 28 and 29 August 2021. He said that he had sent recordings to the landlord but had had no response. The landlord replied to the resident the same day and confirmed its receipt of emailed attachments sent by the resident, which it advised had been added to his open case. It said that it had asked the investigating officer to contact the resident with an update.
On 7 September 2021, this Service emailed the landlord with regard to the continuing emails being received from the resident and his reports of ongoing ASB. It asked the landlord to confirm its intentions.
On 14 September 2021, the landlord replied to this Service. The landlord stated that the resident had sent multiple notifications through the Noise App, but that they had had no recordings attached. It confirmed it would show the resident how to use the Noise App again. It said that it had not yet completed a risk assessment or action plan, as it did not have any evidence of noise or ASB. It stated that it would nevertheless now complete a risk assessment and formalise the action plan it had discussed with him.
On 21 September 2021, the landlord’s TSO met with the resident at a neutral venue, at his request. The resident emailed the TSO the following day and asked what she had found out from the Noise App that he said she had advised she would check after her visit. He said he believed the landlord was not using the Noise App well, nor listening to the recordings. He disputed the landlord’s claims that there were no recordings. The resident also stated that he had been trying to use the landlord’s ‘Home Swapper’ service but was having to pay to do so.
On 22 September 2021, the landlord’s records stated that the resident had queried why he had to pay for the Home Swapper service. The record said that the resident’s Home Swapper account was rejected in April 2020 due to the level of his arrears, which was still the case. It said that he had chosen to pay to use the service in February and May 2021, and that it could not rectify this.
On 4 October 2021, the landlord’s TSO wrote to the resident, which she said was further to their conversation on 21 September 2021. The TSO emphasised that the landlord needed the resident’s assistance in gathering evidence. It stated that without this it would be limited in any actions it could take. The letter detailed an 11 point action plan. The key details were as follows:
1. It stated that the resident should provide the landlord with any evidence and Police incident numbers regarding his previous reports of racial abuse, and report any further incidents to the Police.
2. It advised the resident to complete the ASB diary sheets provided for non-noise related incidents.
3. It confirmed that the TSO would arrange to visit the resident again, and would also contact the properties adjoining the neighbour’s.
4. It said that the offer of a support officer to work with the resident (that he had previously declined) was still open to him, and offered one to one support with using the Noise App.
5. It said it would contact the neighbour once it had received the relevant evidence and information.
On 5 October 2021, the landlord replied to this Service with a copy of the letter sent to the resident the previous day. It also confirmed that it had completed a risk assessment and provided a screenshot that showed the resident’s risk level as being ‘amber’ on its risk traffic light system. The landlord’s record stated that it met with the resident at a neutral venue the following day.
On 11 October 2021, the landlord wrote to the resident regarding his use of the Noise App. It stated that he had raised over 500 new Noise App cases, none of which had any recordings attached. It said that it had contacted him several times about this, and had demonstrated correct use of the Noise App at its visit on 21 September 2021. It provided further instruction on the correct use, and offered the support of a specialist if he was still unable to use it. It said that he could also contact Environmental Health, and asked that he be mindful that continually reporting his neighbour without evidence could be classed as harassment.
The landlord’s record stated that the resident had cancelled an appointment made on 15 October 2021 to visit him. It also stated that on 18 October 2021, he had submitted a high volume of further Noise App recordings.
On 19 October 2021, the resident’s doctor wrote to the landlord. The doctor referred to the resident’s PTSD and physical conditions. It asked that the landlord prioritise rehousing the resident due to the “devastating impact of his upstairs neighbours on his physical and mental health”.
On 1 November 2021, the resident emailed a letter to the landlord that was titled, “New antisocial behaviour complaint”. The letter was also copied to the resident’s local MP and to this Service, and concerned ASB that the resident said that he was experiencing from a group led by his neighbour. The key points of the resident’s complaint letter were as follows:
1. He explained that on 30 October 2021, his neighbour had made loud bangs and played music through the night, which he had been unable to record on the Noise App as it had blocked him. He said that he had recorded it using another method, and had also done this on 15 October 2021.
2. He said that he had requested a meeting with the landlord but had not received a response.
3. He stated that another neighbour could act as a witness to the ASB, and that the landlord had agreed to discuss this with her but had failed to do so.
4. He said that the landlord had written to him the previous month and advised that the 500 noise recordings he had provided were all empty. He believed this to be the landlord’s systemic bias.
5. He stated that he had various recordings where his neighbour could be heard, but that the landlord was refusing to share them with the Police or other agencies, and had not considered them.
6. He said he was having to pay to use the landlord’s ‘home swapper’ service, which other tenants are able to use for free.
7. He said that he thought that the landlord was defending the neighbour’s behaviour, and had failed to consider his own medical conditions. He stated that he wanted his MP to also review his case, and that he wanted to move home.
8. He stated that the neighbour and his group were also bullying and racially abusing him, and that the trauma was impacting his health.
On 1 November 2021, the landlord replied to the resident’s email. The landlord advised that the resident’s noise complaint had generated a new case number, which it advised him of. It said that his email had been passed to its TSO who would be in contact with him. The landlord’s record stated that it had attempted to visit the resident the following day, but that he would not answer the door.
On 8 November 2021, the landlord emailed the resident and confirmed that his Home Swapper account had been reactivated. It said that his request to use the service in April 2020 had been rejected due to the level of his arrears. It stated that he had chosen to pay to use the service on occasions since that time. It advised that his resubmitted request to use the service made on 4 November 2021 had been approved.
On 16 November 2021, this Service wrote to the landlord. The letter stated that the resident had attempted to raise a complaint with the landlord on 1 November 2021, but that it was unclear whether he had received a response. It stated that the landlord should respond to the resident’s complaint in line with the Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code. The landlord replied to this Service the same day. It referred to the resident’s previous complaint determined by the Ombudsman, and that it considered this to mean that it had already looked at the resident’s complaint. It enquired as to how it should proceed.
On 26 November 2021, the resident emailed an ASB diary sheet to the landlord that listed seven instances during October 2021 of loud banging or music late at night.
On 3 December 2021, the resident emailed the landlord and stated he had been contacting it about ASB for the last three weeks but had not received any responses. He stated that the ASB had been ongoing for four years. The landlord’s TSO responded immediately and advised that the 500 noise recordings he had sent had all been empty. The TSO stated that they had made arrangements to visit the resident, as agreed in the ‘action plan’, but he had declined. The TSO asked the resident to suggest a date for her to visit, and offered separate further instruction on using the Noise App. The TSO advised that they had discussed the matter with other tenants of the same block, but none had heard or witnessed any noise or ASB.
On 3 December 2021, the resident replied to the landlord’s TSO. He said that the Noise App had worked when he had tested it with them, and that some of the other tenants are closer with the neighbour than with him. He stated that he had not declined any visits, but that they had been booked at short notice and had clashed with his other appointments. He asked that the 500 noise recordings be passed to other agencies, and said that he had recordings made on his own devices. He said that he felt the ASB was being covered up, which he saw as discrimination. He stated that he was available to meet the following week.
On 10, 14, 16, 20, 21 December 2021, the resident emailed the landlord and complained of further late night noise by the neighbour, which he said was being made deliberately. He stated that he had recorded some of the noise, and described the impact it was having on him. The resident copied this Service, his MP, and a number of other individuals into all of the emails.
On 17 December 2021 the landlord’s housing team sent an internal email to the TSO, that stated that it had received a support letter regarding the resident, which it had added to his active case. It advised that the resident was registered on Home Swapper for a mutual exchange, which would be the fastest route for him to move home if he wished to.
On 22 December 2021, the landlord’s senior manager emailed this Service and the MP. She offered her assurance that the resident had an active case under investigation. She emailed the resident the same day and noted the 10 emails he had sent that month, and the range of people that he had copied into them. She advised that the TSO was assigned to his case, and asked that he deal directly with her. She further advised that the TSO would be in touch with him after the Christmas break to discuss other ideas to resolve the matter.
On 23 December 2021, this Service wrote to the landlord and referred to the previous correspondence exchanged in November 2021. It confirmed that the Ombudsman’s previous determination only covered the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of ASB up until March 2021. It asked that the landlord provide the resident with a response to his complaint by 6 January 2022. This Service wrote to the resident the same day to advise him of the same.
On 4 January 2022, the landlord emailed this Service. It stated that it had responded to the resident’s complaint at stage one and two of its process. It provided a summary of its previous actions regarding the resident’s reports of ASB, and of the actions it was further exploring.
On 10 January 2022, the resident emailed this Service and said that he had still not received a complaint response from the landlord.
On 24 January 2022, this Service wrote to the landlord and asked it to provide copies of the stage one and two complaint responses that had been sent to the resident regarding matters since April 2021. The landlord replied the following day and advised that it had provided this previously on 6 April 2021.
On 27 January 2022, the landlord sent an internal email following a visit made to the resident on 25 January 2022. The email advised that over 15 recordings had been listened to but were all either blank or had very faint noise. It said the resident had advised he could hear noise on the recordings. It stated that the landlord had discussed use of a professional witness with the resident, which he had eventually agreed to.
On 11 February 2022, the resident emailed the landlord and reported loud music, and banging from the neighbour’s property through the whole of the previous night, which he said he had also reported to the Police.
On 15 February 2022, the landlord’s records said that it spoke with the neighbour regarding the resident’s allegation of racist behaviour, which the record noted had not been reported to the Police. The landlord’s record stated that it emailed the resident the following day, and advised that it had made a referral to a professional witness service.
On 24 February 2022, the resident emailed a letter to the landlord, and copied in this Service and his MP. The key points of the resident’s letter were as follows:
1. He stated that he had suffered ASB from the neighbour for four years, but that the landlord had refused to act.
2. He said that the landlord had failed to show any empathy or act on any of the evidence he had provided.
3. He said he felt that the landlord was biased in favour of his neighbour, and that he felt that this was because he is black.
4. He asked to be moved to a suitable property.
On 28 February 2022, this Service sent a ‘final request for action’ letter to the landlord. It summarised the correspondence exchanged between this Service and the landlord, and asked that the resident be provided with a response to his complaint by 7 March 2022.
On 7 March 2022, the landlord sent its stage one complaint response letter to the resident. The letter acknowledged that the resident’s complaint had been received on 1 November 2021. It explained that “due to the influx of communication” around the resident’s case, his complaint had been mistakenly assumed to be part of its ongoing contact with him. It apologised for this and stated that it had taken steps to prevent it from happening again. It stated that it would respond to each of the matters he had raised. The key points of the landlord’s email were as follows:
1. It said that its TSO had spoken to all of the resident’s neighbours, including those whose properties shared a wall with the neighbour, and all of them had stated that they had not heard any noise from the neighbour’s property, nor witnessed any issues of racism.
2. It stated that between 3 and 17 September 2021, the resident had raised 510 new Noise App cases, but none had had recordings attached. It said that the TSO had met with the resident on 6 October 2021 to demonstrate how to use the Noise App. It stated that the TSO had identified what it was that the resident was doing incorrectly, but that he had been unwilling to accept this.
3. It said it had written to the resident on 11 October 2021 to provide guidance on how to use the Noise App, and offered to meet him again if further instruction was needed. It had also advised him to contact the local authority’s environmental health team. It stated that his claim that its TSO had not responded to his request to meet him was untrue.
4. It explained it had reviewed the recordings he had made on his own device, but could not know where the recordings had been made.
5. It confirmed that its Home Swapper service was free to all tenants and explained how to use the website. It said that it was unfortunate that the resident had used an incorrect website, and paid for its service.
6. It said that it was happy to share the recordings that the resident had provided with other agencies, and to work with his MP on reviewing his case. It stated that it was sorry that the resident felt the way that he did, but it did not as yet have the necessary evidence to support his claims of ASB.
7. It advised it had given the resident lots of opportunities to meet with its staff, and that they had done this at neutral locations at his request. It listed all the relevant actions that it had taken from 21 July 2021 to 16 February 2022. It said it had also offered the resident the service of a professional witness, but that he had declined.
8. It said that it would write to the resident separately to provide clear instructions on how and when to make contact, as his current approach was impacting its housing management function.
9. It said that it accepted there had been a delay in it recognising the resident’s communication as a formal complaint, and offered him £100 in compensation for this.
On 21 March 2022, the landlord’s TSO wrote to the resident to advise that it was closing his ASB case. It explained that it had agreed an action plan with him, kept in regular contact, provided support with using the Noise App, offered the service of a professional witness, and spoken with the neighbour and adjoining tenants. It stated that none of this had yielded any evidence to support his claims and, as such, the process had been exhausted and his case closed.
On 28 March 2022, the resident wrote to the landlord and requested that his complaint be escalated to stage two of its process. The key points of the resident’s 22 page letter were as follows:
1. He stated that he disagreed with the landlord’s £100 compensation offer, and that it showed that the landlord acknowledged the distress the matter was causing him but was unwilling to solve it.
2. He said that the landlord had admitted that the recordings he had provided demonstrated ASB, and that he disagreed with its conclusion that they could not be used as evidence as they were not recorded on the Noise App.
3. He stated that he believed the landlord to be lying that the 510 noise recordings that he had provided were all empty.
4. He said that at times his neighbour would play music and make banging noise through the night. He described this as psychological torture and said that he had video evidence of his neighbour’s behaviour.
5. He stated his belief that the landlord was bias, taking advantage of vulnerable people of colour, and that he had suffered racial insults and bullying from the neighbour and his group.
6. He said that the landlord had initially accepted that there was evidence of noise nuisance on the Noise App, but then changed its mind. He explained that the Noise App had a technical issue that had prevented him from making recordings since October 2021, and that he could evidence this.
7. He said that following its visit, the landlord had claimed that it had made a referral on 31 January 2022 for somebody to spend a night at his property to act as a witness. He said that the landlord had failed to carry this out.
8. He disputed various instances where the landlord had stated that either the neighbour’s behaviour, or the recordings the resident had played to its TSO, did not constitute ASB.
9. He said he believed the landlord to be systemically racist. He said he had recorded one of the neighbour’s ‘group’ using a racial slur against him. He stated that he had provided the evidence of this to both the landlord and the Police, but neither had acted.
10. He disputed that he was using the Noise App incorrectly, and that the landlord had properly sought evidence from other tenants of the block.
Over the course of April 2022, the resident contacted this Service several times to express his ongoing dissatisfaction.
On 6 May 2022, the resident contacted the landlord to report an earlier incident that took place outside his property that he said involved people trying to break in. He said that it had been distressing and that he had called the Police, who arrived after the incident had finished. He said that the neighbour’s door had been damaged.
On 12 May 2022, this Service wrote to the landlord. The letter from this Service advised that the resident had said that he had received a letter on 21 March 2022 separate from the landlord’s complaint process, but that he had not received a stage two complaint response. It asked that the landlord issue the resident a stage two response by 26 May 2022.
On 17 May 2022, the resident emailed the landlord and expressed his disappointment that the landlord had not contacted him about the incident on 6 May 2022. He acknowledged that it was the Police’s responsibility to investigate, but that he had expected some engagement and support from the landlord.
On 19 May 2022, the landlord made a formal request to the Police for information regarding any racially motivated incidents reported by the resident, and the reported incident on 6 May 2021. The following day it recorded that the incident had been a one-off in the street, which had resulted in the neighbour’s door window being smashed, but that the incident was not targeted at the resident.
On 23 May 2022, the landlord emailed the resident with reference to the incident he had reported outside his property. The email said that it was awaiting the incident report from the Police. It said that it understood that the incident was not directed at either the resident or the neighbour and, as such, was a matter for the Police rather than the landlord.
On 23 May 2022, the resident replied to the landlord. He said that the perpetrators of the incident had shouted for him to open the door, kicked his door and hit it with bricks. The resident said they had also attacked the neighbour’s door and broken the glass in it.
On 26 May 2022, the landlord sent its stage two complaint response to the resident. The letter acknowledged that the resident was dissatisfied with the landlord’s stage one response. The landlord’s key points were as follows:
1. It said that it accepted that the resident felt that it had not treated his ASB case as real, and that it had dragged the case out to hurt him. It stated that the resident had accused it of “taking advantage of vulnerable people of colour”.
2. It stated that it understood that the resident was upset and frustrated, but that it was disappointed to read those claims that were completely against its values.
3. It said that it was satisfied that the actions that it had detailed in its stage one response, along with the action plan it had previously shared, its support with the Noise App, and its offer of a professional witness service, had all demonstrated its commitment to seek a resolution.
4. It advised that in the absence of any new evidence, and having exhausted all options, the ASB case had been closed. It said that the offer to further demonstrate use of the Noise App still stood if needed.
5. It said that it had not upheld the resident’s complaint concerning its handling of his ASB reports, but that it accepted and was sorry for the delays in handling his formal complaint, which it said were unacceptable.
6. It offered the resident £200 compensation in recognition of this. It said that it had recently upgraded its complaint handling process, and begun regular meetings between its tenancy and complaint teams, to prevent this reoccurring.
7. It referred the resident to this Service if he remained dissatisfied.
On 27 May 2022, the resident replied to the landlord’s stage two complaint response, and expressed his dissatisfaction with it. The key points of the resident’s letter were as follows:
1. He said that he believed the landlord had deliberately blocked him from using the Noise App. He provided a copy of an automatically generated email from the Noise App that stated he needed to seek the landlord’s approval to use it.
2. He stated that the landlord had failed to install security cameras, and that he had readily agreed to the use of a professional witness service but that the landlord had never acted on this.
3. He said that the landlord had failed to resolve the matter or show him any empathy, and further described the toll that he said the matter had taken on him. He advised that he had referred his complaint to this Service.

Summary of events after completion of the landlord’s complaint process

On 29 July 2022, the Police responded to the information request made by the landlord on 19 May 2022. The Police report confirmed that the resident had called them on 6 May 2022, and reported that three people were attempting to get into his property. The Police report said that when they arrived the suspects had left, and that the neighbour’s door had been damaged with the glass smashed. The report advised that the Police had spoken with the neighbour, who had been unaware of the incident as he was asleep. The report stated that the Police had also spoken with the resident, but that he was only able to provide vague details. The Police report also advised of one other report it had received from the resident, that had concerned noise nuisance on 11 February 2022, but for which no further action was taken.
In June 2023, the resident contacted this Service. His email did not refer to the neighbour specifically, but did say that ASB was still commonplace in the neighbourhood. He referred again to the incident from 6 May 2022, and said that he still lived in fear.

Assessment and findings

ASB handling

The resident had been reporting ASB and noise issues to the landlord since shortly after he had moved into the property in 2017. For the reasons explained above, this assessment is focused on the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports that occurred from May 2021.
The Ombudsman’s role is not to determine whether ASB or noise nuisance has occurred, rather it is to assess how the landlord has dealt with reports of it, and whether it acted reasonably and in line with its policy. The Ombudsman recognises the challenges caused by the resident’s diagnosed conditions, and the additional distress that incidents of noise or ASB would cause to him. It is the view of the Ombudsman that the landlord could at times have shown greater empathy towards the resident. The landlord could also have further explored making reasonable adjustments to its service that may have increased the likelihood of achieving a more conclusive outcome. A recommendation in this regard has been made below. Nevertheless, it is also the view of the Ombudsman that the landlord did in the main act reasonably and in line with its policy, and as such a finding of no maladministration has been made.
The resident reported noise nuisance and his difficulties with using the Noise App to the landlord in May 2021, and that he had used alternative means to make recordings. The landlord acknowledged his report the same day, which was within the timeframe stated in its policy. It was reasonable to advise the resident that he could email his recordings to be added to his case file, which provided a potential alternative to using the Noise App.
The landlord visited the resident on 11 June 2021, and it was appropriate for it to listen to the recordings he had made. It was also appropriate for it to encourage the resident to consider the available support, and to provide guidance on using the Noise App. This demonstrated the landlord’s efforts to support the resident in obtaining the evidence that it would need to consider any tenancy enforcement action.
Over the course of July to October 2021, the resident continued making reports of noise nuisance, which the landlord did in the main respond to in line with its policy. It was reasonable for the landlord to continue visiting the resident, and to meet him at neutral venues where he requested it. This demonstrated its willingness to adapt its approach relative to the needs of the resident.
It was appropriate for the landlord to complete a risk assessment, and agree an action plan with the resident, again as stated in its policy, and to send him a copy of the action plan on 4 October 2021. It was also appropriate for the landlord to offer the resident further specialist help with his use of the Noise App. It was reasonable for the landlord to speak with other tenants whose properties were also near to the neighbour’s. Although this yielded no evidence of noise nuisance, it did demonstrate that the landlord took a proactive approach in attempting to obtain the necessary evidence.
On 1 November 2021, the resident made his complaint in a letter that he emailed to the landlord. The landlord’s failure to deal with the resident’s letter as a complaint is detailed later in this assessment. However, whilst the landlord did not handle the resident’s letter in line with its complaints policy, it did generate a new case for its tenancy support team and responded in line with its ASB policy.
The resident’s reports of noise and ASB, and his difficulties with using the Noise App, continued through December 2021 and January 2022. The landlord visited the resident on 25 January 2022 and listened to his sound recordings, which it again said were either blank or did not provide evidence of noise nuisance. As such, it was appropriate for the landlord to suggest the use of a professional witness. This demonstrated it was taking a victim centred approach in line with its policy.
However, it was unclear from the information provided to this Service why the use of a professional witness service did not progress. The landlord’s internal email sent on 27 January 2022 confirmed that the resident had agreed, albeit reluctantly, to the use of a professional witness. The landlord subsequently made various references to the resident declining this offer, including in its final complaint response sent to the resident on 26 May 2022. The Ombudsman has seen no evidence in the information that was provided to this Service that the resident declined the offer, and indeed the resident emphasised his willingness to use a professional witness in his response to the landlord on 27 May 2022. A recommendation in this regard has therefore been made below.
The resident continued to make reports of noise and ASB through February and March 2022, which the landlord continued to respond to, but remained unable to evidence these. During this period, the landlord sent its stage one complaint response to the resident, which detailed the actions it had taken and the range of support it had offered to him. It was appropriate for the complaint response to advise the resident to consider contacting the local authority’s environmental health team, which was advice that was also provided to him on other occasions, who may have had access to further noise monitoring equipment. It was also appropriate that the landlord gave ongoing support to the resident with his use of the Noise App, and to continue reiterating its willingness to provide additional specialist instruction if he would agree to it.
However, it is the view of the Ombudsman that the landlord could also have considered the use of noise monitoring equipment beyond just the Noise App, as was allowed for in its policy. This was not a failing in and of itself, as the Noise App was the landlord’s principle method for obtaining sound recordings, and it made significant efforts to support the resident with its use. Nevertheless, the resident’s difficulties in using it, and his frustration at the resultant inability to evidence his claims of noise nuisance, had been ongoing for a significant time period predating the events described in this report.
Furthermore, at various points, including in its stage one complaint response to the resident, the landlord made reference to the volume of contacts and reports it was receiving from him, and their operational impact on its ability to deliver services to other tenants. It is reasonable to conclude that if the landlord had been able to source and install sound recording equipment that operated with minimal input by the resident, it could have gained evidence that may have allowed the matter to be either progressed or definitively concluded. This outcome would be to the benefit of both the resident and the landlord, and a recommendation in this regard has been made below.
On 6 May 2022, the resident reported an incident to the landlord, that he said he had earlier reported to the Police. He said that the incident concerned people attempting to enter his property. The landlord’s recorded understanding was that an incident had occurred within the vicinity of the resident’s property, but that the resident was not the target of it, nor directly involved. It was appropriate for the landlord to make a formal request for information to the Police concerning this, and any other reports, the resident had made to them. However, it was a shortcoming of the landlord not to follow up on the resident’s report directly with him. Whilst it is acknowledged that the landlord did not believe that the resident had been directly impacted, it was aware of his ongoing ASB fears, and of his PTSD, and it would have been reasonable to check on his welfare. Having confirmed what it believed to be the facts of the incident, the landlord did email the resident on 23 May 2022. However, the email was lacking in empathy and was not in keeping with the tone of most of its correspondence to him.
The resident at various times expressed his wish to move home, which was further supported by his doctor. The landlord’s ASB policy stated that it will only consider a property transfer in exceptional circumstances. As the noise nuisance had not been evidenced, it was reasonable for the landlord to conclude that this was not an exceptional case. It was similarly reasonable to promote the use of its mutual exchange service as the fastest means for the resident to move home if he wished to.
The Ombudsman again acknowledges the distress and trauma the resident has described himself as feeling, and how this would be further worsened by his diagnosed conditions. Nevertheless, the landlord has evidenced the actions taken to consistently support, or offer support, to the resident, including with his efforts to evidence his claims, and throughout the period assessed. The landlord did in the main act and respond to the resident’s reports of ASB and noise nuisance in line with its policy, and as such a finding of no maladministration has been made.

Complaint handling

The resident emailed his complaint letter to the landlord on 1 November 2021. It was appropriate that the landlord’s stage one response sent to the resident on 7 March 2022 apologised that it had failed to recognise his letter as a complaint, and for the delays that this had caused. However, it is of concern that the landlord has given conflicting explanations to the resident and this Service as to why this occurred, and failed to follow its own policy with regards to complaint exclusions.
This Service wrote to the landlord on 16 November 2021, and advised that it should respond to the resident’s letter as a formal complaint. The landlord replied the same day, and stated that it had already investigated the resident’s concerns in his previous complaint, that was also referred to this Service. On 23 December 2021, this Service clarified that the resident’s letter should be treated as a new complaint that covered the resident’s concerns with the landlord’s handling of his reports of ASB since April 2021. In further correspondence exchanged with this Service during January and February 2022, the landlord made clear that it was not handling the matter as a complaint as it considered itself as having already done so.
If this was the reason that the landlord was not handling the matter as a complaint, the landlord’s policy stated that it should explain this to the resident, and it is the expectation of the Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code that this is done in a formal letter. It was therefore unreasonable that the landlord failed to follow either its own policy or the Complaint Handling Code, and that the resident was offered no explanation in the first instance, as to why the landlord was excluding his complaint.
The landlord’s stage one response made no mention of any of the above. It instead explained that it had failed to recognise the resident’s letter as a complaint, due to it being assumed to be part of his ‘influx of communication’. The Ombudsman acknowledges that the landlord was receiving a large volume of contact from the resident. As such, it would have been somewhat understandable if the resident’s letter was viewed as part of this, rather than as the separate complaint that it was. Nevertheless, this was an entirely different reason to the one that the landlord had offered to this Service over the previous months, which meant that its explanations were inconsistent. The landlord’s actions were therefore unreasonable.
The landlord’s information in its stage one response regarding the resident’s concern that he was paying to use the Home Swapper service, also appeared to be inconsistent. The landlord had internally confirmed in September 2021 that the reason the resident did not have free access to the service was due to his arrears making him ineligible for a mutual exchange. The landlord confirmed this to the resident along with the advice that his account had been reactivated, in its email to him on 8 November 2021. As such, it was unclear why the landlord’s complaint response suggested that the issue resulted from the resident using an incorrect website. This again appeared contradictory to its previous advice to the resident, and could have undermined his trust in what the landlord was telling him. The landlord’s actions were therefore again unreasonable.
The landlord’s delays in accepting the resident’s complaint were additionally compounded by this Service needing to further intervene on 12 May 2022, to again prompt the landlord to follow its own policy, and escalate the resident’s complaint to stage two of its process. The resident’s escalation request, sent on 28 March 2022 in response to the landlord’s stage one letter, made it entirely clear that he disagreed with the outcome of its stage one complaint response, and wished for his complaint to be reviewed at stage two. As such, it should have been handled as an escalation, and a stage two response issued to the resident by 18 April 2022, in line with the timeframes stated in the landlord’s policy.
The landlord sent the resident its stage two complaint response on 26 May 2022, and it was appropriate for it to apologise that the delays in its complaint handling had been unacceptable. In such circumstances, the Ombudsman considers whether the landlord has acted in line with the Ombudsman’s Dispute Resolution Principles; be fair, put things right and learn from outcomes.
The landlord did not uphold the resident’s complaint, but it was appropriate for it to respond to the resident’s points, and to provide a timeline and summary of the actions it had taken regarding his ASB cases. It was reasonable for the landlord to explain the steps it had taken, including the revision of its complaint process, to prevent similar complaint handling delays occurring again. This demonstrated that the landlord had learned from the outcome of the resident’s complaint.
The landlord offered the resident £200 compensation in recognition of the complaint handling delays. It was not clear from the information provided to this Service whether this amount was inclusive of, or in addition to, the £100 offered at stage one of its process, nor whether either amount was paid to the resident.
The landlord took 78 working days longer than the timeframe allowed by its policy to send its stage one complaint response to the resident. It took 27 working days longer than its policy allowed to send its stage two response, and the resident chased both the landlord and this Service throughout. The Ombudsman has also seen no evidence that the landlord has considered the resident’s vulnerabilities, in particular his PTSD, in its assessment of the impact these failings would have had on him, particularly at a time when he was already distressed. As such, whilst the Ombudsman acknowledges that the landlord has made an effort to put things right, the amount offered is not proportionate to the failings described above, nor to the impact that they would have had on the resident.
It is reasonable to conclude that without the repeat intervention of this Service, the delays in the landlord’s complaint handling would have been lengthier still. As it was, the significant delays, the landlord’s contradictory explanations, and its failure to follow its own policy regarding complaint exclusions, would constitute maladministration. However, the Ombudsman has noted the landlord’s efforts to act in line with the Dispute Resolution Principles, and its offer of redress. As such, the Ombudsman has made a further compensation order, and a finding of service failure.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration in respect of the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of antisocial behaviour (ASB) and noise nuisance.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure in respect of the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint.

Reasons

ASB handling

Whilst the landlord’s response to the resident’s report of the incident on 6 May 2022 lacked in empathy, the landlord did in the main provide or offer him appropriate support. Where a resident is experiencing prolonged difficulties in using the landlord’s Noise App, particularly where it is also causing operational difficulties to the landlord, it would be prudent to consider sourcing alternative sound recording equipment, if only on a temporary basis. Nevertheless, the landlord did provide and further offer significant support to the resident with his use of the Noise App and, in the main, took actions and handled his reports of noise nuisance and ASB in line with its policy.

Complaint handling

The landlord failed to accept the resident’s complaint, and remained resistant to doing so even after the intervention of this Service. When the landlord did eventually respond to the resident’s complaint, it gave him an explanation for the delay that contradicted the one it had previously given to this Service. The explanation given by the landlord to this Service, concerned its mistaken belief that it had already responded to the resident’s complaint. If the landlord believed this to be case, it should have written to the tenant to explain why it was excluding his complaint in line with its policy, and referred the resident to the Ombudsman.
The landlord further compounded this by also failing to recognise the resident’s clear request to escalate his complaint to stage two of its process, which meant that it again failed to act in line with its policy. These failings caused lengthy delays in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint, and meant that the resident had to go to significant time and trouble to progress the matter.
These are significant failings that would constitute maladministration. However, once the landlord had accepted the resident’s complaint, it did in the main act in line with the Dispute Resolution Principles. The landlord attempted to offer a full and fair response, and to put things right. It also demonstrated that it had learned from the outcomes of the resident’s complaint. However, the level of compensation offered was insufficient given the circumstance of the case.

Orders

The Ombudsman orders that the landlord:
1. writes to the resident to apologise for the failings identified in this report;
2. pays the resident a total of £400 compensation for the time and trouble and distress caused by the failures in its complaint handling.
This amount includes any payment the landlord made at either stage of its complaint process (eg, if the landlord has already paid the resident the £200 it awarded at stage two, a further payment of £200 is to be paid to him to a total of £400).

It is the Ombudsman’s position that compensation awarded by this Service should be treated separately from any existing financial arrangements between the landlord and resident and should not be offset against arrears where they exist.

The landlord should confirm compliance with these orders to this Service within four weeks of the date of this report.

Recommendations

The Ombudsman recommends that if the landlord receive further reports of noise nuisance from the resident, it:
1. reoffers the use of a professional witness service and/or;
2. considers the use of sound recording equipment that operates independently of the resident.
It is further recommended that the landlord reviews the Ombudsman’s Spotlight Report on noise, and considers the implementation of a separate noise policy, in addition to its ASB policy.
The landlord should reply to this Service within four weeks of the date of this report to confirm its intentions in regards to these recommendations.