Home Group Limited (202227295)

Back to Top

 

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202227295

Home Group Limited

29 February 2024

 

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

  1. The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of noise nuisance.

Background

  1. The resident lives in a three-bedroom house under an assured tenancy which began on 26 January 2009.
  2. The resident began reporting noise nuisance from her neighbour in May 2022. This noise consisted of shouting, banging and screaming from the adjoining neighbour’s property. The resident stated that she often heard this before 6am in the morning and at other anti-social hours.
  3. The resident raised her complaint on 5 February 2023 in which she outlined the ongoing noise issues and the impact this was having on her family. She felt it was unfair that they needed to move and requested that the landlord move her neighbour instead.
  4. The landlord issued its stage 1 complaint response on 3 March 2023. It explained that it had been in regular contact with the neighbour and had put multi-agency support in place. As the neighbour was engaging with this support, it was not able to consider enforcement action at this time. The landlord had offered the resident a managed move but had not been able to identify a suitable property at this point.
  5. The resident’s escalated her complaint to stage 2 on the same day as she felt that the landlord had not taken any action to address her family’s distress and inconvenience.
  6. The landlord issued its final response on 30 March 2023. It outlined that it had followed its policies in handling this “delicate situation” and was not able to move the neighbour at this time. The landlord remained committed to offering the resident a managed move when a suitable property became available.
  7. The resident remained dissatisfied with the landlord’s responses and escalated her complaint to the Ombudsman on 6 May 2023 seeking action against the neighbour or a managed move into a like-for-like property.

Assessment and findings

  1. Part 2 of the Antisocial Behaviour Crime and Policing Act 2014 (‘the Act’) states that to be anti-social behaviour (ASB), the behaviour must have caused, or be likely to cause, harassment, alarm, distress, nuisance, or annoyance. This includes unreasonable noise but specifically excludes normal household noise such as children crying, white goods or movement around the property.
  2. The leading legal case of Southwark Borough Council v Tanner / Baxter v Camden is clear that normal household noise will not amount to a nuisance. This is also set out in the guidance that accompanies the Act. Therefore, for the landlord to act, the behaviour complained of must be an unreasonable use of the neighbouring property.
  3. The Act sets out a range of powers that the landlord, local authority, police, or courts can utilise in cases of antisocial behaviour. This includes mediation, warning letters, advice and guidance, injunctions, community protection notices, criminal behaviour orders, closure orders and public space protection orders. Ultimately cases of ASB can lead to eviction or other similar enforcement action if this is appropriate.
  4. The landlord’s ASB policy notes that it will work in conjunction with other professionals to address cases and will always consider vulnerabilities within the households, such as mental health, learning disabilities or substance misuse.
  5. The landlord has provided evidence to this Service that shows the resident’s neighbour’s household has complex needs, which are known to the landlord and other services. Given that much of the information provided is confidential to that household it will not be possible to outline this in full within this determination.
  6. It is not disputed, by any party involved in this complaint, that the neighbouring household has engaged in excessive noise over an extended period, including shouting, banging and screaming. It is also acknowledged that this has been, on several occasions, during antisocial hours, often early in the morning. This has been substantiated by over 140 noise recordings submitted by the resident.
  7. The landlord has not been able to share details of the action it has been taking with the neighbour in its complaint responses due to confidentiality and data protection requirements. Whilst it is fully appreciated that this will be frustrating for the resident, it is right that the landlord protected the personal information of the neighbour in this way.
  8. Alongside its complaint responses, the landlord has taken other steps to attempt to resolve the noise issues including:
    1. Offering mediation between the two households, to explore the impact of the noise in a productive way. The resident declined this.
    2. Seeking regular updates from services supporting the neighbour’s family. This has included regular updates on the support in place for the family and the ongoing impact of their behaviour on the resident. It is noted that the neighbour has remained engaged with this third-party support throughout.
    3. Considering moving the neighbour to a different, larger property to assist with some of the challenges in the household. This was not viable as the landlord does not own properties that are large enough for this.
    4. Taking advice from its internal legal team about the viability of possession proceedings against the neighbour. Whilst its legal team said it could consider this, it gave no view on the chance of success at court. The landlord also felt that this approach was heavy-handed, given the family’s vulnerabilities and was not in line with its values.
    5. Submitting safeguarding referralsitself with relevant partner agencies when it received concerns.
  9. Whilst it is acknowledged that this situation has caused distress and inconvenience to the resident and her family, there has been substantial evidence provided of the landlord taking action to address this. It has not been possible for the landlord or this Service to fully outline what this has entailed due to the sensitive nature of this and the right to privacy and confidentiality for the resident’s neighbour.
  10. The Ombudsman considers that the landlord has taken reasonable steps to address the noise with the neighbour and other third party services and can find no maladministration in its handling of this aspect of the complaint.
  11. Alongside these attempts to resolve the issues, the landlord also acknowledged that the ongoing pressure on the resident and her family was not acceptable and offered a managed move. The resident requested a like-for-like property in the same area to avoid further disruption to her family. Whilst offers have been made by the landlord, and one viewing undertaken, it has not yet identified a property which the resident has found suitable.
  12. The evidence shows that the landlord has remained open to offering this managed move, and it confirmed this in correspondence in February 2023 and in both complaint responses. Despite this, the evidence shows that no further offers of properties have been made to the resident since February 2023. There is also no evidence of ongoing contact with the resident to explain this or give reasons for this. This amounts to over 12 months without an offer of a property being made, or any meaningful explanation for this to the resident.
  13. In cases like these, the landlord could also have considered a temporary move into a private sector home, rather than solely relying on its own housing stock. Similarly, the landlord could have creatively explored options with the local authority to support the resident to seek rehousing via the housing register. There is no evidence that the landlord has explored these options.
  14. Alongside its efforts to move either party to a different property, the landlord could also have considered structural changes to both properties which may have positively impacted the noise transference being experienced. This could have included soundproofing or other structural alterations. There is no evidence that the landlord has undertaken any assessments or works of this nature.
  15. The Ombudsman considers that this is maladministration as the landlord should have kept the resident updated with possible properties for the managed move. This would have provided the resident with reassurance that ongoing action was being taken and may have alleviated some of the distress and inconvenience that she was experiencing. Additionally, the landlord should have considered alternative sources of accommodation and the potential for structural alterations whilst this was ongoing. The landlord must now apologise to the resident, pay compensation for this communication failure, undertake a structural assessment of the property and expand its support for finding the resident a new home.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there has been maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of noise nuisance.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

  1. Within 28 days of the date of this determination, the landlord must:
    1. Arrange for a senior officer to apologise to the resident in writing for the failures identified in this report.
    2. Pay the resident £450 compensation for the distress and inconvenience caused by failures found in this report which was exacerbated by the landlord’s lack of communication and creative problem-solving.
    3. Provide the resident with a nominated point of contact who will provide regular updates on suitable properties to the resident. This must be at least monthly.
    4. Undertake a structural assessment of both properties to determine if structural changes (for example soundproofing) or any reorganisation of the internal layout may positively impact the level of noise transference. The landlord must provide this Service with a copy of the report within 5 days of receipt and undertake all recommended works within 6 weeks.
    5. Support the resident to make an application to the local authority’s housing register to broaden the scope of potential properties available for her to move to.

Recommendations

  1. The landlord should consider supporting the resident with a move into private sector housing, should an appropriate property for either party not become available within a 12 month period.