The Guinness Partnership Limited (202332493)

Background

1. The resident lives in flat and is elderly. She reported antisocial behaviour (ASB), specifically noise nuisance from her neighbour in May 2023. She was dissatisfied with the landlord’s handling of her reports and said it had not taken sufficient action to resolve the matter. The resident’s daughter supported her throughout, reporting the noise andmaking a complaint on her behalf.This report will refer to both the resident and her daughter as ‘the resident.’

What the complaint is about

2. The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of ASB.
3. The landlord’s handling of the associated complaint.

Our decision (determination)

4. We have found the landlord responsible for:
   1. Maladministration in its handling of the resident’s reports of ASB.
   2. Service failure in its handling of the associated complaint.

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

Summary of reasons

Reports of noise nuisance

5. The landlord acknowledged its failure to manage the resident’s expectations appropriately and in its communication. However, it did not consider her vulnerabilities and offer her support in using the noise app in a timely manner. It did not exhaust all other options for collecting evidence including pro-actively contacting other residents, providing diary sheets, and supporting her in contacting environmental health. As such, its total offer of compensation was not sufficient to put things right.

Complaint handling

6. The landlord responded to the resident’s stage 2 complaint within its published timescales. However, it failed to identify the resident’s initial expression of dissatisfaction as a formal complaint and did not issue its stage 1 response within its published timescales. It did not identify this failure and therefore made no attempt to put things right.

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.

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.

7. The landlord contacted the resident promptly on 3 May 2023, the day after her report of noise nuisance from her downstairs neighbour. The landlord also contacted the alleged perpetrator, completed a risk assessment, and agreed to contact the resident every 2 weeks. This was appropriate and in line with the landlord’s ASB policy.
8. The landlord agreed an action plan with the resident, but this was only in relation to the frequency of its contact with her. It failed to manage the resident’s expectations at a crucial point in its handling of the ASB case as it did not explain to her how it would investigate, what evidence it needed, or what actions it could reasonably take when it first opened the case. This was not in keeping with its ASB policy. However, it did acknowledge this failure, and it did provide her with this information as part of its stage 2 response to her complaint. This was appropriate.
9. The resident told the landlord in June 2023 that she could not use the noise app to record evidence of the noise nuisance. The landlord did not ask how it could support her in doing so until 26 April 2024. It should have done this much sooner, especially as the resident was vulnerable due to her age. During this period, it failed to clearly explain that without evidence of noise recordings, its ability to act was limited.
10. The landlord advised the resident to contact the local authority’s environmental health department to install noise monitoring equipment in July 2023. In October 2023, the resident told it that she had contacted them but that they had not responded. It was therefore incorrect for the landlord to state in its stage 2 response that the resident had not acted on its advice to contact environmental health.
11. The landlord could have made this referral itself or contacted environmental health to follow up with the matter in attempts to support the resident at this point. However, following its final response, the landlord did liaise with the local authority and discussed the matter further with the resident’s family member. It should have done this sooner, especially given the resident’s vulnerability.
12. The landlord made a referral to a mediation service in April 2024. This was appropriate and in line with its ASB policy. However, it might have considered doing this sooner, and before the resident told it that the noise nuisance had escalated. Had it done so, both parties might have been more receptive to the offer.
13. The landlord did not advise the resident to complete diary sheets to record the details of the noise. It should have considered doing this especially as the resident could not use the noise app. Although this would not be considered evidence of the noise itself, it would have helped the landlord build up a clear picture of the frequency and times of the noise. This could have then supported the landlord in its investigation.
14. The landlord considered installing buffers on the doors in the alleged perpetrator’s home to reduce noise transference in October 2023. It also said it would need to conduct a sound test to check the noise from the alleged perpetrator’s home was the noise nuisance that the resident was hearing. The landlord attempted to visit the alleged perpetrator a number of times to do this but could not gain access. Whilst it was positive the landlord attempted these visits, it does not appear to have given the alleged perpetrator reasonable notice each time. Had it done so, it might have been able to progress the case further.
15. The resident told the landlord in July 2023 that her neighbour was also experiencing the same noise nuisance. While we will not comment on the landlord’s handling of another resident’s ASB case, the evidence shows that someone else had reported similar noise nuisance. It was therefore incorrect for the landlord to state in its stage 2 response that no other neighbours had reported the issue. Given the lack of evidence and the difficulty accessing the alleged perpetrator’s home, the landlord should have pro-actively asked other residents in the block whether they had similar concerns. This would have been an appropriate way to gather further evidence and might have helped progress the ASB case. It provided no evidence it did so at the time.
16. During this time, the landlord’s communication with the resident was inconsistent and it did not keep to its commitment of contacting her every 2 weeks. It often failed to respond to the resident when she asked for an update. This exacerbated the distress and inconvenience already being caused to her by her experience of the noise nuisance. However, the landlord acknowledged this failure and made attempts to put this right by offering the resident compensation.
17. The landlord acknowledged its failures in communication and its lack of explanation regarding how it investigates ASB cases. However, it did not fully consider her vulnerability and did not identify its delay in offering support to the resident in using the noise app. It did not identify that it had not exhausted all avenues of investigation including providing diary sheets, pro-actively contacting other residents and supporting the resident in contacting environmental health.
18. The landlord’s offer of £250 was therefore not proportionate to the overall impact on the resident. Our remedies guidance sets out that payments of up to £600 are appropriate where the landlord has acknowledged some failings and made some attempts to put things right, but the offer was not proportionate to the failings identified by our investigation. In ordering £400 (inclusive of the £250 already offered), we have considered the further failings highlighted above which the landlord did not acknowledge.

19. The landlord’s complaint policy sets out a 2-stage complaint process. It aims to acknowledge both stages within 5 working days. It says the resident should then receive a formal response to stage 1 complaints within 10 working days and stage 2 complaints within 20 working days of the complaint acknowledgement. It can agree an extension, but this will not exceed a further 10 working days for stage 1 complaints and 20 working days for stage 2 complaints.
20. The landlord said it could not find a record of the resident’s formal complaint, but we have seen evidence that she asked for an update on her complaint on 5 February 2024. If the landlord was unclear on whether the resident meant a formal complaint or her complaint of ASB, it should have contacted her to discuss. However, later emails showed she was dissatisfied with its handling of the case, and the landlord should have identified this.
21. As there is no evidence of an earlier complaint, we have treated 5 February 2024 as the date of the complaint. The landlord was therefore delayed in its stage 1 response as it replied after 25 working days (on 14 March 2024). Furthermore, this required our involvement which caused additional time and trouble to the resident. The landlord did not identify these failures in any of its responses and missed an opportunity to put things right.
22. The landlord responded to the resident’s stage 2 complaint within 29 working days. However, it agreed an extension on 10 May 2024. The overall time it took to respond at stage 2 was therefore in line with its policies and procedures.

Learning

23. The landlord may wish to consider ways it could help vulnerable residents access its noise app and other technology to support evidence collecting. It could look at current examples of best practice in the housing sector.

Knowledge information management (record keeping)

24. The landlord’s ASB case details were not always clear. It should consider ensuring that records are clearly dated and detailed.

Communication

25. The landlord failed to contact the resident every 2 weeks as agreed. Had it done so, it might have reduced the distress and inconvenience already being caused to the resident by her experiences of ASB.