East End Homes Limited (202413273)

Background

1. The property is a maisonette within a residential block. The resident lives there with his wife and children. In November 2023, the resident began reporting noise nuisance caused by a dog barking in a neighbouring property.

What the complaint is about

2. The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of noise nuisance.
3. We have also assessed the landlord’s complaint handling.

Our decision (determination)

4. There was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of noise nuisance.
5. There was service failure in the landlord’s complaint handling.

We have made orders for the landlord to put things right.

Summary of reasons

6. The landlord has not evidenced that it appropriately responded to the resident’s reports of noise nuisance. It failed to communicate effectively with the resident and has not provided any records to show that it managed the case in keeping with its antisocial behaviour (ASB) policy.
7. The landlord failed to escalate the resident’s complaint to stage 2, despite him requesting this twice. This caused him to approach us for assistance and led to a delay of nearly 5 months before he received the landlord’s stage 2 response.

Putting things right

Where we find service failure, maladministration or severe maladministration we can make orders for the landlord to put things right. We have the discretion to make recommendations in all other cases within our jurisdiction.

Orders

Landlords must comply with our orders in the manner and timescales we specify. The landlord must provide documentary evidence of compliance with our orders by the due date set.

Recommendations

Our recommendations are not binding, and a landlord may decide not to follow them.

Our investigation

The complaint procedure

What we found and why

The circumstances of this complaint are well known by the parties involved, so it is not necessary to detail everything that’s happened or comment on all the information we’ve reviewed. We’ve only included the key information that forms the basis of our decision of whether the landlord is responsible for maladministration.

8. When investigating complaints about noise nuisance, it is not our role to determine whether the nuisance occurred. Instead, we assess how the landlord handled the reported nuisance and whether it responded reasonably, and in keeping with its policies and procedures.
9. As an outcome of his complaint, the resident wants the landlord to have his neighbours’ dog removed from the property. This is not an outcome we are able to deliver. As established above, we cannot determine whether the dog in question caused a noise nuisance. It is for the landlord to investigate this and decide how to apply its relevant policies and powers based upon its findings.
10. It is apparent that the resident had previously reported issues with noise from the same neighbours in late 2022. In February 2023, the landlord wrote to him advising that it had closed the case as he had not reported any recent incidents. We have not seen any evidence that the resident reported further noise nuisance until November 2023. Therefore, our investigation will start at that point.
11. On 25 November 2023, the resident emailed the landlord. He asked for it to phone him and discuss noise from the neighbours. The landlord replied on 29 November 2023 saying it would phone the resident later that day. The landlord has not provided any records to confirm whether it did so.
12. Later that same day, the resident emailed the landlord again. He detailed several incidents of loud music and shouting from the neighbours. He also said that “for the last few weeks” he had been hearing a dog barking in the neighbours’ property. He said this was having a “significant impact” on his family’s health and sleep. The resident sent further emails on 5, 7 and 10 December 2023 about the dog barking late at night and early in the morning. He asked the landlord to remove the dog. We have not seen any evidence that the landlord responded to these.
13. The resident emailed the landlord on 17 December 2023, reporting that the neighbours had left the dog unattended on the communal landing. He said this had frightened his wife (who has a phobia of dogs) when she went to leave the property.
14. This time, the landlord did respond on 20 December 2023. It said it has discussed the resident’s reports with the neighbours, who had denied them. The landlord said it had advised the neighbours to “monitor their noise levels taking [their] neighbours into account”. It told the resident it would be writing to the block about the noise nuisance and provided him with diary sheets to log any further incidents. These were reasonable initial actions by the landlord in making the neighbours aware of the reports and giving them words of advice.
15. The landlord also told the resident that his neighbours were in the process of applying for retrospective permission for the dog – which it “would not unreasonably refuse”. The landlord’s tenancy agreement says that it “will not allow any animal to be kept at or brought into your home…which causes a nuisance to others”. It continues that any dogs should be “kept under appropriate control” and “not allowed to roam free on the estate”.
16. In keeping with this, it would have been reasonable for the landlord to withhold permission until it had appropriately investigated the resident’s reports. The landlord does not appear to have adopted this approach. It told the resident that “you and family having a phobia is not a consideration when Eastend Homes come to a decision on whether to give permission or not.” This failed to show due regard for the nuisance incidents reported by the resident, which may have been in breach of its tenancy agreement.
17. Between 1 January 2024 and 1 April 2024, the resident completed and returned diary sheets to the landlord. These mostly contained entries relating to the dog barking, including late at night and early in the morning. He also sent recordings of the barking. The landlord has not provided any evidence that it responded to or acted upon these reports. This led to the resident making his complaint on 1 June 2024.
18. The landlord’s ASB policy defines ASB as “conduct capable of causing a nuisance or annoyance”. Considering the impact of the barking reported by the resident, it would have been appropriate for it to manage the case under its ASB policy.
19. The landlord’s ASB policy says that it will:
    1. Open a case whenever a specific incident of ASB is reported.
    2. Interview the complainant including taking witness statements to record case details and agree case progression making it clear what the likely outcome of the case is from the outset.
    3. Consider at an early stage all options for amicable resolution including Acceptable Behaviour Contracts (ABCs) and mediation.
    4. Record details of incidents and outcomes of investigations.
    5. Keep in weekly contact with complainants.

The landlord has not evidenced that it completed any of these relevant actions.

20. In its stage 1 complaint response, the landlord said that “following previous visits to your neighbour, the dog in question was not causing a disturbance”. The landlord has not provided any evidence of these visits, or that it informed the resident of them at the time. It was unreasonable for it to discount months of reports by the resident based on such a limited investigation.
21. In its response, the landlord also introduced an issue of dog fouling, which had not featured in the resident’s complaint. It failed to address the reports of loud music, screaming and shouting which had featured in the complaint. We have not seen any evidence that the landlord contacted the resident during its complaint investigation. Had it done so, it could have better clarified the nature of his complaint and provided a more appropriate response.
22. The landlord’s stage 2 complaint response was not provided until almost 6 months after its stage 1 response. We have not seen any evidence that the resident continued to report noise nuisance during that period. In an email of 8 December 2024, he told us that “To avoid wasting my time, because of the in-action from East End Homes (EEH) I have not made further complaint to EEH but I had to sought help other avenues”.
23. Based upon this, the landlord’s position that “as there has been no further reports of the dog barking or confirmed disturbances to other residents, there is no reason to remove the dog from your neighbours property” was reasonable.
24. However, the landlord has not provided us with any records of its contact with other residents to ask about the noise. We note also that the resident has said “the only wall connected to the dog is from my property” and so feels other residents would not be affected to the same degree.
25. In summary, the landlord has failed to evidence that it appropriately responded the resident’s reports. It failed to manage the case in keeping with its ASB policy or to communicate effectively with the resident. This led to a breakdown in the landlord-tenant relationship where the resident lost faith in the landlord and stopped reporting incidents. Due to this we make a finding of maladministration and order the landlord to pay the resident compensation of £300 for the distress and inconvenience caused to him and his family.
26. We have also ordered the landlord to contact the resident and establish if the dog barking, or other noise issues from the neighbours, are still an ongoing concern. If so, the landlord is to open an ASB case and carry out an appropriate investigation in keeping with its policy.

27. The landlord’s complaints policy says that it will:
    1. Provide a stage 1 complaint response within 10 working days of receiving a complaint.
    2. Acknowledge a stage 2 complaint within 5 working days.
    3. Aim to provide its stage 2 response within 20 working days of this acknowledgement.
    4. Contact the resident where this is not possible, explaining the reasons why and the date when it will provide its response.
28. The resident made his complaint on 1 June 2024. The landlord provided its stage 1 response 9 working days later, in keeping with its policy.
29. On 19 June 2024, the resident emailed the landlord expressing his dissatisfaction with its response and asked it to “look at this again”. This can reasonably be considered a clear request to escalate his complaint. This email was sent directly to the landlord’s complaints team, which failed to acknowledge or respond to it.
30. The resident re-sent this email to the landlord’s complaints team on 8 July 2024, advising that he had now approached us about the complaint. The landlord again failed to respond.
31. On 5 November 2024, we contacted the landlord and asked it to provide its stage 2 complaint response to the resident. On 18 November 2024, the resident told us the landlord had not contacted him. This was not in keeping with its policy requirement to acknowledge a stage 2 complaint within 5 working days.
32. The landlord provided its stage 2 complaint response on 5 December 2024. This was 22 working days after we had requested this. We do not consider this brief delay to have caused significant detriment to the resident.
33. In its stage 2 complaint response, the landlord apologised that it had failed to appropriately escalate the resident’s complaint after his email of 19 June 2024. It is positive that the landlord acknowledged this failure. However, considering the near 5 month delay this caused for its stage 2 response, it would have been appropriate for it to have offered redress.
34. The landlord’s compensation policy says that it can make discretionary payments of compensation where “inconvenience” has been caused by its “action or inaction”. This includes failure to follow policy and procedure. Due to the landlord’s failure to apply this, we make a finding of service failure and order it to pay the resident compensation of £100.

Learning

Knowledge information management (record keeping)

35. The landlord has failed to provide any records of its action taken in response to the resident’s reports. Landlords should log all reports of noise nuisance and ASB and ensure they maintain appropriate records to support their decision to take, or not take, action.

Communication

36. The landlord’s communication with the resident was poor throughout. It routinely failed to acknowledge or respond to his emails. It has also not provided any evidence that it contacted him during the complaints process to discuss his complaint. This contributed to it incorrectly defining his complaint.
37. The landlord’s complaint responses lacked substance and failed to provide a satisfactory response to the issues raised. This is likely due to its lack of records, as detailed above.