Karbon Homes Limited (202119326)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202119326

Karbon Homes Limited

19 June 2023

Our approach

The Housing Ombudsman’s approach to investigating and determining complaints is to decide what is fair in all the circumstances of the case. This is set out in the Housing Act 1996 and the Housing Ombudsman Scheme (the Scheme). The Ombudsman considers the evidence and looks to see if there has been any ‘maladministration’, for example whether the landlord has failed to keep to the law, followed proper procedure, followed good practice or behaved in a reasonable and competent manner.

Both the resident and the landlord have submitted information to the Ombudsman and this has been carefully considered. Their accounts of what has happened are summarised below. This report is not an exhaustive description of all the events that have occurred in relation to this case, but an outline of the key issues as a background to the investigation’s findings.

The complaint

The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of:
1. The resident’s reports of noise nuisance and a tenancy breach by his neighbour.
2. The resident’s reports of antisocial behaviour (ASB), the conduct of a staff member and disability discrimination.
3. The installation of grab rails at the property.
4. The resident’s concerns regarding access to the property and road during winter months.
5. The associated complaint.

Background and summary of events

The resident is an assured tenant of the landlord which is a housing association. The property is a bungalow. The resident has a disability which affects his mobility and has advised the landlord and this Service that he has post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD).
The landlord’s records show that it received a referral from Occupational Therapy (OT) on 17 August 2021, noting that grab rails needed to be fitted to the shower area and the front access wall to the resident’s property. This was raised as a work order on the same day by the landlord. On 19 August 2021, OT asked that an additional grab rail was fitted next to the resident’s toilet. This was added to the work order.
A contractor attended the property on 9 September 2021, regarding the installation of the grab rails. They found that the wall construction was unsuitable for the fitting of a grab rail. This was reported back to the landlord and the resident was asked to contact OT to see whether they had any solutions for this.
The landlord has advised this Service that the resident first reported concern that his neighbour was breeding dogs on 14 September 2021. It attended the neighbour’s property on the same day and was satisfied that while there were 3 puppies, this was a one-off litter and 2 of the puppies would be moving to their new owners. The landlord updated the resident, who advised that the puppies made a lot of noise. The landlord confirmed it would monitor the situation moving forward. The landlord has advised that it contacted the resident on 1 November 2021 regarding the noise from the puppies; he had no further issues to report and the case was closed.
The resident asked that a formal complaint was raised on 4 November 2021. He advised that there was a green area of land toward the end of the cul-de-sac which housed trees and shrubs, he referred to this as “the mound”. He was concerned that this area would be abused by young people playing football and causing ASB. He advised that there had been a young male kicking a football into gardens on the street, against walls and near to his car that evening. He asked the male to move away from the area due to the risk of damaging vehicles, but they ignored him and continued to kick the football around the green area. He asked that the landlord look into the issue and consider potential solutions such as erecting a ‘no ball games’ sign or writing to residents. He advised that he was disabled and vulnerable and that young people playing ball games and making noise in a street of retirement bungalows was not acceptable. He was concerned about damage to his property and did not want the situation to escalate.
On 8 November 2021, the landlord emailed the resident to confirm that a staff member would call him that day to discuss his concerns. In summary, the landlord’s call records show that the staff member said that it was unable to stop children playing and a ‘no ball games’ sign was not enforceable. It confirmed that any potential damage could be dealt with through its repairs service and that if the resident’s car was damaged, this would be a civil matter between the resident and the young males’ family. The staff member also advised that there was no law against bouncing balls that it could enforce. They noted that the resident was not happy with their response and apologised that they could not help further at this stage.
The resident raised a further complaint on the same day following a phone call with a member of staff. He explained the following:
1. He asked that his initial complaint was escalated to stage 2 of the landlord’s process due to the behaviour of the staff member during the phone call and his ongoing dissatisfaction.
2. The staff members’ attitude was unacceptable during the phone call. They had advised that there was nothing they could do to assist him, and he felt they were uninterested. He said that they had advised that they also experienced young people playing football around their own property which he felt was dismissive of his concerns. They had advised that if there was damage to the resident’s property or car, this would be a police matter. He advised that he felt uncomfortable during the conversation and said that he did not want any further contact with the staff member.
3. He advised that the young male had returned to the area and was concerned about potential criminal damage from the ball games. He said that this also posed a risk to the “climate” as trees and fencing could be damaged. He was also concerned that other young people would “flock” to the area which would increase the noise nuisance and risk of damage. He had asked why the landlord could not erect a ‘no ball games’ sign. He noted that this would not be enforceable but may be a deterrent with the addition of letters to tenants, asking them to be mindful of their children kicking balls and the potential consequences on their tenancies. He felt his suggestions were belittled and dismissed by the staff member. He had also asked for CCTV to be installed which was also dismissed.
4. He did not believe that the landlord cared about vulnerable tenants. He had moved to the retirement bungalows and did not expect to have to put up with noise nuisance and potential damage to his property. He asked why the bungalows were built amongst those with young families and asked what the landlord would do to resolve his concerns.
5. He advised that he did not feel his concerns related to his neighbours’ breeding dogs and the noise from the dogs were dealt with appropriately by the same staff member. He asked the landlord to consider implementing a one dog per household policy to address the issues of excessive noise.
The landlord emailed the resident on the same day to advise that the member of staff would be opening an ASB case to record and manage his reports of ASB. It sent a further email to advise that a manager would be in touch to discuss his complaint. On 9 November 2021, the landlord confirmed that it would investigate his complaint.
The resident emailed the landlord on 16 November 2021 and explained the following:
1. He was dissatisfied that he had not yet received a response to his complaint. He had not been informed of any delay and a response had not been provided within the landlord’s timescales of 5 working days. He asked that his complaint was reviewed by a director and maintained that he did not want to be contacted by the member of staff he had complained about regarding his reports of ASB.
2. He advised that the telephone conversation with the staff member had caused significant distress and that they had dismissed his concerns about how his health and PTSD was impacted by noise nuisance. He believed that this was an equality issue and that the staff member had dismissed his disability as irrelevant. He expressed concern that the staff member had advised that the issues reported were not considered to be ASB and said that he believed he had been discriminated against by the staff member.
3. He again expressed concern that his previous report of his neighbours breeding dogs was not dealt with appropriately as this was a breach of the tenancy agreement. There was still one puppy and one older dog in his neighbour’s property who barked constantly. This was frustrating and affecting his disability. He advised that the noise was now unbearable.
4. He had been informed that the grab rails as recommended by OT could not be installed due to the “hollow” walls and was told that the landlord would not pay for the walls to be adapted so that the grab rails could be installed. He was now left without rails and in a vulnerable position with the risk of falling. He wanted this looked into by the landlord.
5. He also raised concern that he was not able to leave his property the previous year when there was snow as he could not get his car out of the street which meant he was not able to attend medical appointments. The local authority had advised him that it was the landlord’s responsibility to put plans in place for this. He asked that the landlord reviewed its winter policies and looked to have staff lay grit, insert grit boxes in the street or clear the roads.
The landlord emailed the resident on 17 November 2021 to advise that it was due to send its complaint response that day but would now consider the additional issues raised. It asked the resident if he was available to discuss the issues over a phone call. The resident responded and asked that the matter was referred to the landlord’s senior management team and escalated. The landlord further explained that reports of ASB had their own policy and procedure and were dealt with outside of the formal complaints procedure. It confirmed that the resident’s complaint about the member of staff had initially been raised at ‘stage 0’ but could be dealt with at stage 1 of its formal process.
The evidence shows that a call took place between the staff member’s manager and the resident on 22 November 2021. The call records show that the resident reported no further incidents of a young person playing with a football since his initial report but he raised concern that this would increase after the winter months. The landlord offered to monitor the case and review the circumstances in a couple of weeks. The record shows that the resident was happy with this course of action. He also raised concern about noise from his neighbours’ dogs. The landlord explained that it would initially need to approach the neighbour about any issues, but the resident did not want this to happen. It explained that it had not received any other complaints and advised of tools such as the noise app, professional witnesses and noise monitoring equipment to gather evidence. The resident raised concern that these would not be suitable due to his mobility issues and that professional witnesses took too long to attend. The landlord confirmed that dogs barking was not in itself noise nuisance so it would need to investigate whether the duration of the noise was reasonable. The resident agreed that no action would be taken, and the landlord would discuss the matter again when it next reviewed the circumstances. It was agreed that the complaint would be dealt with at stage 1 of the process in the first instance. On 23 November 2021, the landlord confirmed that it would respond at stage 1 within 5 working days.
The landlord issued its stage 1 complaint response to the resident on 26 November 2021 and explained the following:
1. It confirmed that the resident’s concerns about young people playing football and potential damage would be dealt with under its ASB policy. This would usually be managed by a housing officer, but the landlord confirmed that the complaint handler (a team leader) would review the case and ensure all necessary action was taken.
2. It apologised that the staff member’s response to the resident’s concerns fell short of what was expected. It said that it had not identified any discriminatory behaviour but accepted that the matter could have been dealt with differently. It confirmed that it would be carrying out an internal investigation regarding the staff member’s behaviour. It would not be able to share the details of this but confirmed that the outcome of the investigation would be actioned accordingly.
3. It advised that due to the number of concerns raised and difficulties in finding a suitable time to contact the resident, the time taken to respond to the complaint had been longer than it aimed for. It apologised and offered £25 as a good-will gesture.
4. It noted the resident’s concerns about the mix of older and younger family accommodation on the estate. It said it aimed to provide inclusive communities by bringing all members of the community together and not isolating individual demographics. It did not uphold this element of the resident’s complaint and confirmed that the resident could continue to report ASB issues so that it could manage this in line with its policy.
5. In relation to noise from his neighbour’s dog, it noted that the resident was reluctant for it to approach his neighbour. It had discussed some other options and the resident had confirmed that he would consider these options. It said that these matters would be dealt with under its ASB policy and procedures.
6. It noted the resident’s concerns related to a previous ASB case and his concern that his neighbours had breached their tenancy agreement. It confirmed that it would review this matter to ensure that appropriate action was taken and address any opportunities for learning with those involved.
7. It confirmed that a member of its adaptations team was looking into the matter of the grab rail installation. It would then be able to plan works. It added that the local authority was now responsible for the roads. It noted that the resident had raised concern about cats fouling in the area. It confirmed that this was not something it was able to control.
The resident emailed the landlord on 26 November 2021 and expressed concern that the landlord could not identify any discriminatory behaviour. He advised that his medical disabilities were exacerbated by the ASB and that these concerns were dismissed by the member of staff; they had said that his disabilities were not relevant and that he would “have to get on with it”. He said that he felt frustrated, belittled, demoralised and let down. He asked that the complaint was escalated for the following reasons:
1. The landlord had not properly acknowledged or addressed that he had suffered disability discrimination by a member of its staff. He was dissatisfied that the landlord had not identified discriminatory behaviour or how this had affected him. He confirmed that it was his perception, as a disabled person, that discrimination had taken place. He believed that the landlord should share the outcome of its internal investigation of the staff member and hoped that equality training was provided. He wanted matters to be reviewed by senior management and for the landlord to offer financial compensation as the matter had exacerbated his disability. He also wanted assurances that the member of staff would no longer be his housing officer or contact him moving forward.
2. He asked what the review into his reports of noise and ASB related to the green area of land would entail and what actions would be taken. He asked whether the landlord had considered erecting signs, writing to residents or inserting additional bushes on the land to deter any ASB. He did not feel his suggestions had been listened to and wanted action to be taken to prevent the ASB reported.
3. He did not feel that the landlord’s offer of £25 compensation was proportionate in view of the landlord’s service failures in its handling of his complaint. His initial email on 4 November 2021 was not acknowledged and he needed to chase. It had also failed to respond to his complaint within 5 working days. He also noted that following his complaint, the staff member had contacted him indirectly regarding his reports of ASB.
4. He asked why the landlord had placed vulnerable residents next to young families when there was a risk of ASB and noise. He was not happy that the landlord has isolated vulnerable people so that they were victims of noise nuisance and ASB.
5. In relation to the noise from his neighbour’s dog, he explained that due to his mobility related disability he would not be able to manage any monitoring equipment the landlord had suggested. He had recorded noise on his phone and felt that this should be accepted as evidence. The landlord had also discussed speaking to his neighbours which would leave him in a difficult position.
6. He was dissatisfied that the staff member had allowed his neighbours to breed dogs in their property and sell them. The tenancy agreement stated that a tenant could not run a business or breed dogs from a property. He said that he was now suffering as the landlord had allowed the dogs to remain. He asked that the landlord’s senior management reviewed the situation and that letters were sent to residents of the street regarding noise from dogs.
7. He was disappointed with the length of time it had taken to progress the installation of grab rails in his property and that he had needed to live in the property without the required adjustments. He asked that senior management looked into the lack of communication about the adaptations and offered compensation.
8. He advised that the local authority did not appear interested in the condition of the roads during winter months. He asked what could be done for vulnerable residents who needed to leave their properties for medical appointments. He asked that more grit boxes were installed or that the landlord liaised with the local authority to request a road clearing service during heavy snowfall for vulnerable residents.
The landlord acknowledged the resident’s complaint at stage 2 of its complaints process on 29 November 2021. It confirmed that it aimed to respond by 8 December 2021. The resident raised concern that this timescale was outside of the landlord’s 5 working day timescale. The landlord explained that the member of staff dealing with the complaint would need slightly longer to respond due to absence.
The landlord’s records show that work to install grab rails at the property was completed on 30 November 2021.
The landlord issued its stage 2 complaint response to the resident on 8 December 2021 and explained the following:
1. It apologised that the resident did not feel it had properly addressed or acknowledged how he felt and that he was discriminated against when reporting ASB. It was apparent from speaking to him that he felt upset, degraded, frustrated and belittled due to his concerns not being taken seriously and the impact this had on him due to his disability not being recognised. It had acknowledged that the level of service he had received was below the level it expected to deliver. It confirmed that an internal investigation would be carried out and would ensure any training needs were addressed.
2. It apologised for the lack of empathy and recognition of the impact the matter had on the resident. It was confident that it was never the intention of the staff member to make him feel this way but recognised the upset this matter had caused. It respected that it was the resident’s perception that he was discriminated against due to his disabilities. Having reviewed the case, it could not see any evidence of indirect or direct discrimination. It partially upheld this aspect of the complaint.
3. It advised that all reports of ASB would be dealt with under its ASB policy rather than its formal complaints process. It confirmed that a team leader would review his most recent reports and discuss the actions it could take. It was confident that they would consider his suggestions and discuss them further.
4. It noted that it had previously acknowledged that it had exceeded its timeframe for responding to his complaint. It apologised and upheld this aspect of the complaint.
5. It advised that it was common to have a mix of tenures and property types, including family accommodation, housing for older/disabled people and homeowners. It was required to make the best use of its housing stock whilst accommodating the needs of the local authority. As such, it would allocate properties to those with the highest priority. There had generally been good community cohesion in housing developments of this nature and there was no evidence to suggest that there was an increased risk of ASB where young families live near older/vulnerable people. It acknowledged that ASB could happen in all tenure/property types, and this was not necessarily linked to a mix-tenure development. It confirmed that it did not intend to diminish the resident’s experience and that it had not received any other reports of ASB linked to the grass area near the property or in other areas close to the street.
6. It confirmed that it had discussed the issue of the neighbour’s dogs during a phone call with the resident. It confirmed that it had never granted his neighbour permission to breed dogs for business purposes and it would not do so if this was requested. When it had received the resident’s allegations, an officer visited the neighbour the following day and advised the neighbour in relation to their tenancy. The complaint was closed with the resident’s agreement at this stage. It was satisfied that the allegations were dealt with appropriately and did not uphold this element of the resident’s complaint.
7. In relation to noise experienced due to the two remaining dogs in the property, it noted that the resident had advised that he was reluctant for the landlord to approach his neighbours as he may be identified as the complainant. The resident had initially stated that a letter could be sent to all residents regarding dog barking, but it mentioned that, as the resident was the only person without a dog, this may still identify him as the complainant. It acknowledged at the time of the conversation that the resident was undecided on whether he wished to pursue this matter. It confirmed that it would be willing to investigate the matter further once the resident had decided.
8. In relation to the installation of grab rails at the property, it noted that these had now been fitted. The resident had said that he was not informed as to why there was a delay and had not been told when the works would take place. It explained that there was a misunderstanding by the contractor in relation to the works. It acknowledged that no one had contacted the resident to explain the reason for the delay or its intention to have the contractor re-visit the property. It apologised and upheld this aspect of the resident’s complaint, noting that its communication should have been better.
9. It noted that the resident had raised concern about the clearance of roads and paths following snow and ice. It confirmed that the roads had been adopted by the local authority and would be their responsibility to clear. It confirmed that it would usually only clear snow where these were places of work for its staff as this was a legal requirement. It did not have the resources, nor was it logistically possible, for it to clear snow where it had vulnerable residents due to the geographical spread of its accommodation but where it identified a potential issue, it may provide grit bins. It confirmed that there was a grit bin at the bottom of the resident’s street, and it would ensure that this was replenished. It could not guarantee that the local authority would grit the area, but the grit bin could be used by all residents when needed. It confirmed that it regularly carried out estate walkabouts and any issues could be highlighted.
10. In relation to his request to no longer have contact with the member of staff, it did not have the means or resources to change officers. It also did not feel that this was appropriate or required in this case. It explained that the housing officer would need to contact the resident from time to time to fulfil their duties. It was generally able to conduct its services without needing to attend the property, however, this may be required on occasion, including, but not limited to, where there were any welfare concerns or health and safety concerns. It confirmed that the current officer (the member of staff) would remain responsible for tenancy related matters in the first instance.
11. The landlord apologised for the failures identified and increased its goodwill offer to £75 in recognition of its handling of the resident’s initial ASB report, the time taken to respond to the complaint and the lack of communication in respect of installing grab rails at the property.
The landlord’s records show that the landlord called the resident on 20 December 2021 to discuss his reports of ASB and noise nuisance further. The resident advised that he was not happy to close the case related to the young male playing with a football and wished for it to be monitored into the new year. He advised that he still had issues with noise from the neighbours’ dogs but was reluctant for the landlord to speak to his neighbours. He did not want the landlord to do anything at this stage. The landlord discussed keeping a record of incidents if he wished to report any further issues in the future.
The resident initially referred his complaint to this Service in December 2021 as he felt he had been victimised and discriminated against by the landlord. He advised that he had discussed his request to have no further contact with the staff member on the phone to the landlord, and it had agreed that he could communicate with the staff member’s manager but that this had been ignored within the landlord’s complaint response. He maintained that he did not want any further contact with the staff member. He also remained dissatisfied with the landlord’s handling of the complaint, his reports of his neighbours breeding dogs, noise from the dogs, the time taken to install the grab rails in his property and his concerns about snow clearance. He did not feel that landlord’s offer of £75 was sufficient or reflected the distress and inconvenience caused.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

In his communication with this Service and the landlord, the resident advised that the noise issues he experienced were having a negative impact on his health and wellbeing. He also advised that the landlord’s handling of the matters as detailed in his complaint had impacted his medical conditions. While the Ombudsman does not doubt the resident’s comments, it is beyond the remit of this Service to draw conclusions on the causation of, or liability for, impacts on health and wellbeing. The resident therefore may wish to seek independent advice on making a personal injury claim if he considers that his health has been affected by any action, or lack thereof, by the landlord. Nonetheless, consideration has been given to the general distress and inconvenience which the situation may have caused the resident.
In the resident’s complaint to this Service, he explained that he felt the landlord had discriminated against him because of his disabilities. This Service cannot determine whether discrimination has taken place, as this is a legal term which is better suited to a court to decide. Should the resident wish to seek further advice with regards to this specific issue, he may wish to contact the Citizens Advice Bureau or the Equalities Support and Advisory Service. While this report will not investigate whether discrimination has taken place, it will look at whether the landlord responded fairly and appropriately to the resident’s concerns.
The resident continued to report issues of ASB and noise nuisance from his neighbour following the landlord’s stage 2 complaint response in December 2021. It is noted that the resident raised a new complaint with the landlord regarding these issues and this is due to be investigated by the Ombudsman under case reference 202213806. As such, the resident’s ongoing concerns will not be investigated within this report. This report will focus on events up until the landlord’s final response to the resident on 8 December 2021. Any reference to events following this response is for contextual purposes only.

The resident’s reports of noise nuisance and a tenancy breach by his neighbour.

It is evident that this situation has been distressing for the resident. There remains a dispute between the resident and the landlord regarding whether the landlord responded appropriately to his reports that his neighbour had breached their tenancy. The role of the Ombudsman is not to establish whether the neighbour had breached their tenancy or not. Our role is to establish whether the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports was in line with its legal and policy obligations and whether its response was fair in all the circumstances of the case.
The landlord’s tenancy agreement states that a tenant must not keep any animal or pet at their home without prior written consent. It also states that tenants must not breed any animals without written consent. The landlord’s pet policy states that residents must not keep more than two reasonably sized dogs (no larger than a Labrador), subject to the size of their property, and that commercial breeding was not permitted in the landlord’s properties.
The resident raised concern within his complaint that his reports of his neighbours breeding dogs was not dealt with appropriately, maintaining that this was a breach of his neighbours’ tenancy. When it receives a report of a tenancy breach, the landlord would be expected to investigate and take proportionate action. The evidence provided to this Service shows that the resident reported these concerns on 14 September 2021. The landlord acted appropriately by visiting the neighbour on the same day and advising them in relation to their tenancy.
While it is noted that the resident did not feel that this action was proportionate in relation to the alleged tenancy breach, the landlord would be entitled to use its discretion when deciding whether there has been a breach of tenancy and what action to take. It would need to ensure that the actions it takes are proportionate. In this case, the landlord was satisfied that this was a one-off litter and there is no evidence to suggest that the neighbours intended to run a dog breeding business for commercial purposes. It is noted that once the puppies had grown and were able to move to their permanent homes, the neighbour had two dogs, which was in line with the landlord’s pet policy. In the Ombudsman’s opinion, it was proportionate for the landlord to advise the neighbours in relation to the terms of their tenancy and not to take formal enforcement action.
The resident initially raised concern about noise from the puppies following the visit to the neighbour’s property on 14 September 2021. The landlord acted appropriately by monitoring this. The resident advised on 1 November 2021 that he had no further issues to report and it was, therefore, reasonable for the landlord to close the case.
The resident raised additional concerns about noise from the neighbour’s dogs on 16 November 2021 within his complaint communication. It was reasonable for the landlord to handle his concerns under its ASB procedures in the first instance rather than its complaints process as it had not yet had the opportunity to investigate his concerns or confirm its position. Nonetheless, the records show that the landlord acted appropriately by explaining the actions it was able to take to the resident on 22 November 2021, including approaching the neighbour to make them aware of the issues reported and the methods it could use to gain evidence of the alleged noise form the dogs.
Ultimately, at this stage, the resident did not want the landlord to approach his neighbours about the concerns he had due to the risk of identification and was undecided on whether he wished to attempt to use noise monitoring equipment at the time of his complaint. As such, it was reasonable that no further action was taken at this stage at the resident’s request. There is no evidence of any service failure by the landlord.

The resident’s reports of ASB, the conduct of a staff member and disability discrimination.

As above, it is not within the Ombudsman’s remit to determine whether discrimination has taken place. As such, this section of the report will look at whether the landlord responded fairly and appropriately to the resident’s concerns.
The landlord’s tenancy handbook states that the landlord does not classify issues such as noise from children playing or impact noise from other properties as ASB. It notes that these examples could become a concern if they occurred regularly, late at night or early in the morning. Issues such as harassment, including using threatening and abusive language, or damaging or threatening to damage a person’s property would be considered ASB.
The landlord’s ASB policy reiterates the above. It also states that reports of noise associated with everyday living are considered to be tenancy and/or estate management issues rather than issues to be dealt with under its ASB policy. The ASB policy further states that the landlord would carry out intervention work to prevent and deter people from acting in an anti-social manner and will take swift and decisive enforcement action when necessary. It would also carry out an assessment of ASB complaints at the earliest opportunity. This will include consideration of the individual needs of the victim and the risk of harm using a risk assessment matrix. This will allow the support provided to be tailored to the victim’s needs.
It is noted that following the resident’s reports of a young male playing with a football and kicking this against walls and close to the resident’s car, the landlord acted appropriately by arranging for a staff member to contact him about his concerns. There is a lack of evidence to confirm exactly what was said on the call on 8 November 2021 by the staff member, however, the Ombudsman has reviewed the call note and the resident’s communication regarding this matter. The records show that the staff member explained that there was little action they could take in response to the resident’s concerns. In line with the landlord’s ASB policy, it is noted that issues such as children playing would not be considered ASB under its policy and it was reasonable that it decided that there was limited action it could take. However, the resident later advised that he did not feel listened to, felt his concerns and suggestions were dismissed, the staff member had not considered the impact the noise had on his PTSD, and he was dissatisfied with the lack of empathy shown.
In this case, it is not disputed that the staff member’s handling of the resident’s initial ASB report could have been handled differently. The landlord acknowledged that the level of service provided was below what it aimed to deliver. The landlord acted appropriately, following the resident’s initial complaint about the staff member’s behaviour on 8 November 2021, by assigning the matter to a different member of staff to investigate. It is noted that a risk assessment was completed on 22 November 2021 during a phone call with the resident in line with the landlord’s ASB policy. It is also noted that the issue was not ongoing, but the landlord acted reasonably by confirming that it would monitor the situation and reassess at a later date. The records show that the landlord sought to gain an update from the resident following the complaint in December 2021 which demonstrated its willingness to consider the resident’s concerns. It managed the resident’s expectations effectively by confirming that it did not consider the young male kicking the football to be considered ASB. This is in line with best practice and the landlord’s policy on such matters.
The landlord initially advised that it would be investigating his staff conduct allegations internally within its stage 1 complaint response on 26 November 2021. It explained that it would not be able to share the details of the investigation. The landlord advised within its stage 2 complaint response on 8 December 2021 that it would be completing the investigation, indicating that it had not yet completed this.
It was reasonable that the landlord could not share the outcome of any investigation in terms of any disciplinary matters as this was related to employment, which would be confidential. However, it would have been appropriate for the landlord to have completed its investigation into the matter in order to show that it had taken the resident’s concerns seriously. It would have also been appropriate for the landlord to have demonstrated that it had investigated his allegations (without compromising confidentiality) by commenting on whether it had found any wrong doing by its staff member and apologising if there was evidence that something inappropriate was said. The landlord failed to demonstrate that it had fully investigated the resident’s concerns at this stage which was likely to have caused distress to the resident as it remains unclear as to whether his allegations had been investigated.
However, within its complaint response, the landlord acted fairly by acknowledging and apologising for how the conversation with the staff member had made the resident feel and upholding this aspect of his complaint. The landlord’s response was reasonable in the circumstances given the comments the resident had made about his experience of the call and the impact this had on him.
As part of his complaint, the resident explained that he wished to have no further contact with the staff member he had complained about. The landlord noted that the staff member involved was a housing officer and it was not able to reassign this staff member due to limited staff resources. This was a reasonable explanation and somewhat outside of the landlord’s control. It acted reasonably by explaining the circumstances in which the staff member would need to contact the resident in order to manage his expectations. The landlord acted appropriately by considering this request and confirming its position.
The resident has advised that he was told within a phone call on 2 December 2021, prior to the landlord’s stage 2 complaint response, that the staff member would remain his housing officer but would not contact him directly and that he could communicate with the staff member’s manager. He noted that the complaint response failed to mention this. The Ombudsman has not seen evidence of this phone call and cannot confirm what was said. However, there is no evidence that the staff member had any further communication with the resident regarding this matter. In addition, it is noted that the resident’s ongoing communication in relation to his further ASB and noise concerns was dealt with by a different staff member. This shows that the landlord had taken his concerns and preferences into consideration which was reasonable given that it was not able to replace the staff member due to limited staff resources.
The landlord acted appropriately by confirming its position in relation to the resident’s concerns about the mix of older and younger families on the estate and in the local area. It is the Ombudsman’s view that the landlord’s response was reasonable. There is a large demand for social housing and the landlord would be required to make the best use of its stock. As such, it is reasonable for there to be a mix of younger and older families and demographics across housing estates.
The landlord offered a total of £50 compensation in recognition of its handling of the resident’s ASB report along with its communication regarding the installation of grab rails (which will be investigated below). While the landlord did take steps to consider his concerns and acted fairly by apologising for the way the resident felt as a result of the conversation on 8 November 2021, the offer of £50 compensation is not considered proportionate given the landlord’s failure to demonstrate, to either the resident or the Ombudsman, that it had carried out an internal investigation into the staff member’s actions. As such, the landlord is ordered to offer additional compensation as detailed in the orders made below.

The installation of grab rails at the property.

The landlord’s adaptations policy states that it would undertake minor adaptation works up to the value of £1000. Priority adaptations, including grab rails, would be processed by the landlord’s customer relationship team. In some circumstances, minor adaptations would require an assessment by an Occupational Therapist. The landlord’s repair policy confirms that standard repairs should be completed within 20 working days.
In this case, the landlord’s records show it initially received a request that two grab rails were fitted to the resident’s shower and front access area from OT on 17 August 2021. A further grab rail, to be placed by the resident’s toilet, was requested by OT on 19 August 2021. Operatives attended on 9 September 2021 with the intention to fit the grab rails. This was initially in line with the landlord’s standard repair timescales.
The grab rails were not fitted on this date as the operative reported that the bathroom walls were hollow and that the external wall was cladded in plastic, meaning that the walls were unsuitable for the installation of the grab rails. The landlord’s records show that it asked the resident to contact OT to see if they had a solution for this.
The landlord was entitled to rely on the opinion of its qualified staff and contractors who determined that it would not be appropriate to install the grab rails. While this was somewhat outside of the landlord’s control, the Ombudsman would have expected to see evidence that the landlord had proactively sought advice on what other options may have been available to support the resident given the identified need for the adaptation. There is no evidence to suggest that the possibility of the grab rails was explored further until the resident pursued his concern within his complaint on 16 November 2021. The work to install grab rails was then reported as completed on 30 November 2021, approximately three and a half months following the initial request. There is no evidence to suggest that the landlord had communicated effectively with the resident regarding why the grab rails could now be installed. This was likely to have caused some confusion and uncertainty to the resident around the reason for the delay.
The landlord acted appropriately within its complaint responses by acknowledging that it had not communicated effectively with the resident and the inconvenience this may have caused. However, the landlord’s combined offer of £50 compensation is not considered proportionate and does not satisfactorily take into account its poor communication and the delay in making reasonable adjustments to the property. As such, an order has been made below.

The resident’s concerns regarding access to the property and road during winter months.

The landlord’s gritting policy states that it proactively implements a gritting policy to sites which are a place of work for its staff. It would not normally grit housing schemes but where schemes are accessed via a steep gradient, or where a high proportion of customers are vulnerable or have impaired mobility, a grit bin will be provided. The grit bin will be filled at the beginning of the winter season and replenished as and when necessary.
Within his complaint, the resident raised concern that he had previously experienced difficulty leaving his property for medical appointments during periods of heavy snow. He asked the landlord to review its winter policies and look to have staff lay grit, insert grit boxes in the street or clear the roads. In his escalation request, he asked that more grit boxes were installed or that the landlord liaised with the local authority to request a road clearing service during heavy snowfall to assist vulnerable residents.
The landlord acted appropriately by confirming its position to the resident within its complaint responses. It explained that the clearance of the road was now the responsibility of the local authority and that it was only obliged to clear snow where its staff needed to access places of work in line with its legal requirements. It acted reasonably by confirming that there was a grit bin on the street and that it would ensure that this was filled. It also carried out estate walkabouts and advised that any issues would be highlighted to the local authority if needed.
Overall, the landlord satisfactorily explained its position to the resident. The landlord would not be obliged to take steps to clear snow from the roads or paths on the local authority’s behalf. Its response was reasonable in the circumstances and in line with its gritting policy. While it is noted that there were no outstanding issues with heavy snowfall at the time of the resident’s complaint, the resident may wish to contact the local authority in the first instance should he experience heavy snowfall which affects his access to the property. There has been no maladministration by the landlord in its handling of the resident’s concerns regarding this matter.

The landlord’s handling of the associated complaint.

The landlord’s complaint policy states that it has a two-stage formal complaints process. It may initially handle complaints informally at ‘stage 0’. Complaints handled informally should be responded to within five working days. At stage one of the landlord’s formal complaints process, a response should be issued within 5 working days. If the resident remains dissatisfied, they can escalate their complaint to stage two. At stage two, the landlord should respond within 5 working days. If at any stage there is likely to be a delay, the landlord would be expected to contact the resident to explain the reason for the delay and provide a new response timeframe. The policy further states that a first request for service would not be investigated as part of the landlord’s complaints process.
The Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (Code) sets out requirements for member landlords that will allow them to respond to complaints effectively and fairly. The Code states that landlords must ensure that efforts to resolve a resident’s concerns do not obstruct access to the complaints procedure or result in any unreasonable delay. It is not appropriate to have extra named stages (such as ‘stage 0’ or ‘pre-complaint stage’) as this causes unnecessary confusion for residents. When a complaint is made, it must be acknowledged and logged at stage one of the complaints procedure within five days of receipt. The Code further states that the landlord must respond to a complaint at stage one within 10 working days and at stage two within 20 working days.
In this case, the resident initially asked for a complaint to be raised on 4 November 2021. This related to his reports of a young person playing with a football and the potential damage this could cause. There is no evidence to suggest that these concerns had been raised at an earlier date or that the landlord had the chance to act on his reports earlier. As such, it was reasonable that this was not considered under the landlord’s formal complaints procedure at this stage as it was a first request for service. However, it would have been appropriate for the landlord to have clearly explained this to the resident from the outset in order to manage his expectations effectively. There is no evidence to suggest that it did so until 18 November 2021,which was likely to have caused the resident confusion.
The resident raised a further complaint on 8 November 2021. As this complaint related specifically to the resident’s dissatisfaction with the landlord’s service, it would have been appropriate for the landlord to have investigated the complaint under its formal complaints process at stage 1. While the landlord acknowledged the resident’s complaint on 9 November 2021 and said it would investigate, it failed to confirm what stage the complaint was at or provide an expected response timeframe, which was again likely to have caused uncertainty.
The resident sent a further email on 16 November 2021 outlining the concerns he wanted the landlord to address; this included additional issues that were not raised in his initial complaint. The landlord confirmed on 18 November 2021 that the complaint was being dealt with at ‘stage 0’ but could be escalated to stage 1 of its formal process. Ultimately, the inclusion of a ‘stage 0’ is not in line with the Ombudsman’s Code as detailed above and a recommendation has been made below in relation to this. Given that the resident raised additional concerns, it was reasonable for the landlord to require additional time to respond. It is noted that the complaint was formally acknowledged at stage 1 on 23 November 2021.
The landlord issued its stage one complaint response on 26 November 2021. This was 14 working days since the resident’s initial request for a complaint to be raised on 8 November 2021. The landlord acted fairly within its stage one complaint response by acknowledging the delay at this stage and offering £25 compensation for any inconvenience caused.
The resident asked for his complaint to be escalated on 26 November 2021 as he remained dissatisfied with the landlord’s response. The landlord issued its stage 2 complaint response to the resident on 8 December 2021, 8 working days later. This was outside of the landlord’s policy timescales of 5 working days at stage two. The landlord acted appropriately by explaining that this was due to the complaint handler being absent and the extended timeframe was to allow adequate time to investigate and respond. However, it would have been helpful for the landlord to have explained this within its acknowledgement of his stage 2 complaint on 29 November 2021 to prevent the resident needing to spend additional time and trouble questioning the response time provided.
While the landlord acted fairly by acknowledging the delay at stage one, the landlord’s offer of £25 compensation for this aspect of the complaint is not considered proportionate given the identified failures in this case. The resident needed to spend additional time and trouble pursuing the complaint which necessitated in an unreasonable level of involvement by the resident due to a lack of effective communication from the landlord. An order for the landlord to pay additional compensation to the resident has been made below in recognition of the inconvenience caused.
In addition, both responses were issued outside of the landlord’s published timescales. It is therefore recommended that the landlord reviews its complaint policy alongside the Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code and considers altering its policy timescales for responding to complaints to ensure that these are achievable. It should also review its inclusion of a ‘stage 0’ complaint stage and take steps to ensure its policy aligns with the Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration by the landlord in respect of its handling of the resident’s reports of noise nuisance and a tenancy breach by his neighbour.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure by the landlord in respect of its handling of the resident’s reports of antisocial behaviour (ASB), the conduct of a staff member and disability discrimination.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure by the landlord in respect of its handling of the installation of grab rails at the property.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration by the landlord in respect of its handling of the resident’s concerns regarding access to the property and road during winter months.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure by the landlord in respect of its handling of the associated complaint.

Reasons

The landlord demonstrated that it took proportionate action in response to the resident’s report that his neighbours were breeding dogs. It acted appropriately by explaining the actions it could take in response to his reports of noise and it was limited in the steps it could take at the time of the complaint as the resident did not want the landlord to approach his neighbours.
The landlord acted fairly by acknowledging that the resident’s report of ASB could have been handled differently. While it took steps, such as reassigning the ASB case to another member of staff, which demonstrated that it had taken the resident’s comments on board, it failed to demonstrate that it had adequately investigated his staff conduct allegations.
The landlord acted appropriately within its complaint responses by acknowledging that it had not communicated effectively with the resident about the grab rails and the inconvenience this may have caused. However, the landlord’s combined offer of £50 compensation is not considered proportionate and does not satisfactorily take into account its poor communication and the delay in making reasonable adjustments to the property.
The landlord acted reasonably within its complaint responses by confirming that the local authority was responsible for the roads around the property and that it had placed a grit box that residents could use during periods of heavy snow or ice. The landlord would not be obliged to carry out actions that would fall under the responsibility of the local authority.
The landlord acted fairly by acknowledging delays within its complaint response timeframe. However, the level of compensation offered is not considered proportionate given the time and trouble spent by the resident in formally pursuing his complaint.

Orders

Within four weeks, the landlord is to:
1. Write to the resident and apologise for the service failures identified within the report.
2. Pay the resident £325, comprised of:
  1. £50 as previously offered in relation to its handling of the resident’s ASB report, if it has not yet been paid.
  2. £100 in recognition of the inconvenience caused by the landlord’s failure to demonstrate that it had investigated the resident’s staff conduct concerns.
  3. £100 in recognition of the inconvenience caused by the landlord’s poor communication around delays in completing work to install grab rails at the resident’s property.
  4. £75 in recognition of the inconvenience caused by the landlord’s poor complaint handling and lack of effective communication. This includes the landlord’s previous offer of £25, if this has not yet been paid.
The landlord is to provide evidence of compliance with the above orders within the timeframe specified.

Recommendations

It is recommended that:
1. The landlord reviews its complaints policy alongside the Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code and considers altering its policy timescales for responding to complaints to ensure that these are achievable. It should also review its inclusion of a ‘stage 0’ complaint stage and take steps to ensure its policy aligns with the Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code.
2. The landlord considers carrying out staff training for complaint handlers to ensure that residents are informed of what stage complaint is at and when they can expect to receive a response. If there is likely to be a delay outside of the landlord’s published response timeframes, the resident should be provided with the reason for the delay and an expected response timeframe.
The landlord should confirm its intentions in respect of these recommendations within four weeks of the date of this report.