Women’s Pioneer Housing Limited (202440949)

Background

1. From August 2022 the resident was reporting noise transference from a new neighbour in the flat above hers, including heavy footfall and moving furniture, sometimes at unsociable hours. The landlord spoke to the neighbour and inspected the flooring. The resident was unhappy with how the landlord handled her reports of noises. She believed it damaged relations with her neighbour leading to the problem worsening and them making counter reports. She was also dissatisfied with the time it took the landlord to investigate her complaint.

What the complaint is about

2. The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of the resident’s:
   1. Reports of noise and antisocial behaviour (ASB).
   2. Complaint.

Our decision (determination)

3. We found service failure in its handling of the:
   1. Reports of noise and ASB.
   2. Complaint.
4. We have made orders for the landlord to put things right.

Summary of reasons

5. The landlord took some actions that were proportionate to the evidence available to it and in keeping with its ASB policy. However, it failed to follow its ASB process to complete a risk assessment and keep the resident regularly updated. The landlord failed to escalate a complaint through its process 4 times. It then left some of her concerns about its approach to counter reports unaddressed. It also missed an opportunity to consider awarding compensation to remedy the impact of its poor communication and delays through the complaints process.

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.

6. The landlord’s ASB policy at the time stated that it did not consider reports of domestic noises made during reasonable hours under its policy. It was clear from the resident’s initial reports from mid-2022 that the noise she was reporting was from the neighbour’s daily life and there was no mention in the earlier reports of it occurring regularly during unsociable hours. It was therefore in keeping with its policy not to deal with the reports as ASB. The records show the landlord explained its approach to the resident in February, March, and August 2023 which was appropriate.
7. As we have seen no evidence of another policy or process in place that it should have followed in this circumstance, we have assessed the landlord’s actions during this period based on reasonableness. It would have been reasonable for the landlord to respond to the resident’s requests for assistance with practical advice. There is no evidence, that we have seen, that it gave any meaningful response until November 2022, when the records show it encouraged her to complete diary sheets and record the sounds. This was 3 months after her first report which was too long and caused the resident to chase the matter up several times. As the landlord acknowledged, it also mismanaged the situation by using the word “complaint” to describe the reports to the neighbour. This may have contributed to a deterioration in the relationship between the parties.
8. The records show that the landlord did then take some reasonable actions to investigate the reports from late 2022, such as:
   1. Better explaining the situation to the neighbour and making it clear that it was exploring a solution to the noise transference.
   2. Encouraging the resident to keep records and recordings of the sounds and at what times they were happening.
   3. Inspecting the neighbour’s flooring.
   4. Considering if there was further soundproofing it could add.
   5. Advising the resident she could contact her local environmental health team to help decide if the noises could be classed as a statutory noise nuisance.
9. On 10 November 2023, the landlord told the resident it would open an ASB case to investigate recent reports she had made that the noises were deliberate and excessive. It agreed actions, including speaking with the neighbour. While completing an action plan was in keeping with its ASB process, it should have also completed a risk assessment to identify how it was affecting the resident and consider if there was support it could offer. As the landlord acknowledged in its final response, it did not do this which was a failing. It also appropriately recognised that it should have kept the resident more regularly updated on the progress of its investigation, which is something its ASB policy commits to doing.
10. The landlord updated the resident on 27 March 2024. It advised it had spoken with the neighbour who had not agreed they were making excessive noises. It explained it needed the resident to provide evidence and again asked her to complete diary sheets and to make recordings. The landlord’s response at this time was in keeping with its ASB policy and with best practice in social housing to require substantial evidence to consider taking more serious actions, such as for breach of a tenancy agreement.
11. During the complaints process, in October 2024, the resident and her neighbour were both reporting a deterioration in the situation. The landlord acted in line with its ASB policy in informing both parties about the nature of the reports that it was investigating. It also offered mediation, inspected the ceiling, and agreed to liaise with the local authority’s environmental health team. Though it identified no unreasonable noise level from its investigations, it did complete some further soundproofing. The resident advised this has not resolved the problem, which we appreciate is disappointing. However, we are satisfied the landlord acted reasonably and sought to find a solution.
12. The resident asked several times, including her May 2023 email, for clarity about a counter report the neighbour had made against her for being intimidating. We have seen that the landlord asked the resident not to approach her neighbour about the situation and explained how it made them feel. There is no evidence that we have seen that it did this as part of a formal ASB investigation. It was not then required to investigate and provide the resident with a written outcome. However, it would have been reasonable to address the resident’s concerns and questions about the reports. The complaints process was a further missed opportunity to do this. We recommend that the landlord contact the resident to see if she has any outstanding questions relating to how it dealt with any counter reports it informed her about.
13. The compensation of £175 for its mismanagement of the resident’s reports is, in our view, proportionate to recognise the cumulative impacts of the failings on the resident. It is both within the range (£100-£600) its compensation policy and our guidance on remedies recommends for impacts that are not expected to be long lasting. As such we have not ordered that it pays further compensation. However, it should have considered if compensation was warranted during the complaints process. We have also identified a failing that it did not.
14. We have therefore made a finding of service failure but have not ordered it to take any further actions. Our reason is that the landlord advised us that it has improved its ASB process and procedures to ensure better oversight of cases and staff training. This is consistent with its 2024 complaint handling report, published on its website, which identified the need to improve its handling of ASB cases.

15. The landlord’s 2-stage complaint process complied with the requirements of the Housing Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code). It defined a complaint as “an expression of dissatisfaction” with its service or staff. It then aimed to acknowledge both stages within 5 working days. It would then respond within 10 working days at stage 1 and 20 working days at stage 2. If more time was needed to respond, the policy allowed it to extend the timescale by a maximum of 20 working days but only with the agreement of the person complaining.
16. We have seen that the resident’s 9 May 2023 email expressing dissatisfaction with its handling of her reports was sent to the landlord’s complaints team and other individual members of staff. It should have followed its complaints process outlined above but, for reasons unknown, it did not. She then resent the email on 2 August 2023 and the landlord confirmed it would respond though it again did not. The landlord also missed further opportunities to investigate the resident’s complaint in November 2023 and between March and July 2024. It was only formally acknowledged as a complaint on     23 August 2024, around 15 months after it was first received. This was clearly a significant failing and led to the resident having to wait much longer than she should have to exhaust the complaints process.
17. The landlord responded at stage 1 within its 10 working day timescale on                          9 September 2024. However, it took 45 working days from the resident escalating her complaint on 29 September 2024 to respond at stage 2 on 3 December 2024. And the communication during this time was not always in line with its policy. While it did acknowledge the complaint within its 5 working day service standard, it did not then follow its process by agreeing a revised timescale. This led to the resident chasing updates that should have been forthcoming.
18. The Code requires a landlord at each stage to “consider all relevant information and evidence carefully.” It also must address all aspects of a complaint. The complaint responses show the landlord did consider some relevant records and addressed the resident’s complaint about its handling of her reports. Where it fell short was both stages overlooked her complaint about its investigation and communication over the counter reports.
19. While the stage 1 did not address its failure to escalate the complaint, the stage 2 did recognise this. However, as explained earlier, it should have considered the impact of not following its complaints process, and whether it warranted a financial remedy under its compensation policy. The complaints policy also states it will complete a lessons learned exercise, but we have not seen any record that it sought to learn from this case. Therefore, the quality of the landlord’s investigation and its responses did not meet the appropriate standards.
20. We acknowledge the landlord later apologised and awarded £400 compensation for the failing in its initial response. This amount is in keeping with the amount our remedies guidance recommends for impacts that are serious but not permanent. It is proportionate in this case given the significant delay and repeated missed opportunities to escalate the complaint. However, this was after the complaints process ended so we have still made a finding of service failure but have not awarded more compensation. We have though ordered it to complete a lessons learned exercise, in line with its complaints policy.

Learning

Knowledge information management (record keeping) and communication

21. Based on the records, the landlord did not appear to have a separate case management system for recording ASB cases. This may have contributed to some of the acknowledged failures to provide regular updates. While the landlord has advised us about some improvements it has made, including a new case management system, we encourage it to also consider recommendations we made in our spotlight report on dealing with noise complaints. This includes having a defined policy or process that is separate to its ASB policy.