London Borough of Newham (202348528)

Background

1. The resident occupied a flat. In August 2022, he reported antisocial behaviour from a neighbouring property, including cannabis use. In April 2023, he reported further antisocial behaviour involving a different neighbour. This included noise nuisance and the reported theft of his doormat. The resident remained dissatisfied with the landlord’s response to these reports. He has since moved to another property.

What the complaint is about

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

Our decision (determination)

3. There was no maladministration by the landlord in its handling of reports of ASB.
4. The landlord made a reasonable offer of redress, which in our opinion, resolved the errors of the landlord’s handling of the complaint.

Summary of reasons

5. The landlord investigated the reported ASB incidents from both neighbours in line with its ASB policy.
6. The landlord acknowledged there were errors in its complaint handling when it provided its responses during its complaints process and offered the resident proportionate compensation to recognise these complaint handling errors.

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.

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.

7. It is outside our role to establish whether someone has committed ASB, but rather, we will assess the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports. We will consider whether the landlord’s response was fair and reasonable in view of all the circumstances and whether it acted in line with its own internal policies, the law and industry best practice.
8. The resident reported various ASB incidents from 2 different neighbours living at different properties. For ease of reference, this report will refer to neighbour A and neighbour B. The reports of cannabis use relate to neighbour A. The reports of noise nuisance and the alleged theft of the resident’s doormat relate to neighbour B.
9. In August 2022, the resident reported cannabis use at neighbour A’s property. He said the neighbour smoked cannabis daily on the balcony and that there was a persistent strong smell. The resident made further reports of cannabis use by neighbour A in September 2022 and November 2022. In response, the landlord opened an ASB case, in line with its ASB policy. It also referred the matter to the police safer neighbourhood team. This was appropriate, as the police are responsible for investigating potential criminal activity, including drug use.
10. In November 2022, the landlord visited neighbour A’s property to discuss the allegations. During the visit, it did not detect any cannabis smell. Following this, the landlord updated the resident. It explained that neighbour A had denied the allegations and that it had not identified evidence of cannabis use during its visit. It therefore advised that it could not take enforcement action against the neighbour. This approach was in line with the landlord’s ASB policy, which requires sufficient evidence before it can take formal action.
11. The resident also informed the landlord that the reported cannabis smoking from his neighbour impacted him and his son’s health as they both had asthma. We acknowledge this has been a very difficult time for the resident and his son. However, it would be fairer, more reasonable, and more effective for the resident to make a personal injury claim for any injury caused through the courts or the landlord’s liability insurance. The courts are best placed to deal with this type of dispute as they will have the benefit of independent medical advice to decide on the cause of any injury and how long it will last. We’ve not investigated this further.
12. In April 2023, the resident told the landlord that the cannabis use at neighbour A’s property had reduced. However, he said he could still occasionally smell it. In the same month, the resident reported noise nuisance from neighbour B. He said the neighbour, who had recently moved into the property, appeared to remain in the flat and was banging against the wall throughout the day. The resident also reported that neighbour B had taken his doormat and placed it outside their own front door. In response, the landlord wrote to neighbour B about the reported ASB. This was an appropriate initial step in addressing the allegations.
13. The ASB officer assigned to the case contacted the resident and provided their contact details. This enabled the resident to report further noise nuisance incidents directly. The ASB officer also asked the resident to use a noise recording application and submit recordings of the reported noise. The noise application is an important tool to understand the type of noise nuisance and also the volume of the noise. Therefore, this was an appropriate step to gather evidence of the alleged noise nuisance.
14. In May 2023, the resident continued to report noise nuisance from neighbour B. Shortly after this, the landlord visited neighbour B at his property in June 2023 to discuss the allegations. Neighbour B stated that the noise may have been coming from the flat above. The resident made further reports of noise nuisance in July 2023. In response, the landlord issued a verbal warning to neighbour B. It also reminded the resident to use the noise recording application and submit recordings of the reported noise. These actions were in line with the measures set out in the landlord’s ASB policy to address reports of ASB.
15. In August 2023, the landlord informed the resident that there was insufficient evidence to support a statutory noise nuisance from neighbour B. It therefore advised that it could not take enforcement action. The landlord explained that it had visited neighbour B at their property and assessed the kitchen and balcony for any equipment that could cause noise. It also confirmed that it had reviewed the noise recordings submitted by the resident. Based on this, it was reasonable for the landlord to conclude that there was insufficient evidence to carry out enforcement action. However, the landlord continued to monitor the case for any further reported ASB incidents before closing it in December 2023.
16. In December 2023, January 2024, and February 2024, the resident reported further cannabis use by neighbour A. He also reported a one-off cannabis use incident involving neighbour B.In response to the new reports, the landlord sent letters to all residents within the block about cannabis smoking and reopened the ASB case.
17. The landlord also referred the reports of cannabis use to the police. It was reasonable for the landlord to refer the matter to the police, as the police are responsible for investigating criminal behaviour such as drug use. The landlord would be expected to assist the police with any investigation, and the landlord may be able to take action following the end of the police investigation, if there was sufficient evidence to support enforcement action. The referral was also in line with the landlord’s ASB policy, which states that it will work closely with the police when reported incidents of ASB are considered a criminal offence.
18. The landlord summarised the steps it had taken to investigate and address the reported ASB involving both neighbours in its stage 2 complaint response. It stated that it did not have sufficient evidence to take enforcement action and asked the resident to continue reporting any further incidents. A few months after the stage 2 complaint response was issued, the landlord closed the ASB case due to insufficient evidence.
19. We recognise the resident was unhappy with the landlord’s decision not to carry out any enforcement action against neighbours A and B. However, it did ask the resident to continue to notify it of any further issues. We acknowledge that ASB can be very difficult for a resident to live with. However, a landlord can only be expected to take formal action against residents for ASB if there is extensive evidence to support the allegations. Overall, the landlord responded reasonably and in line with its ASB policy to the reports of ASB from neighbour’s A and B.

20. The Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code) which sets out our expectations of landlords’ complaints processes states that a landlord’s complaints process should have 2 stages. The Code states a stage 1 response must be sent within 10 working days from the complaint being logged, and a stage 2 response within 20 working days. It also states a landlord must also address all points raised in a resident’s complaint and provide clear reasons for any decisions.
21. The resident submitted his initial complaint to the landlord on 28 April 2023. The landlord provided its stage 1 complaint response to the resident on 2 May 2023. The response was on time and within the 10-working day timescale referenced in the Code. However, the landlord’s stage 1 response did not address all of the resident’s ASB complaint points adequately.
22. On 5 January 2024, the resident escalated his complaint to stage 2 of the landlord’s complaints process. Due to the delay in the landlord providing its stage 2 complaint, the Ombudsman sent several letters to the landlord asking it to issue its stage 2 complaint response to the resident. Following this, the landlord provided its stage 2 complaint response to the resident on 13 May 2024. The response was approximately 3 months late and outside the 20-working day timescale referenced in the Code.
23. The landlord acknowledged in its stage 2 complaint response that there had been complaint handling errors, and it offered the resident £150 compensation to recognise these errors. The overall compensation offered for complaint handling-delays was fair and consistent with our compensation guidance and proportionate to the distress and inconvenience caused by the issues identified.

Learning

Knowledge information management (record keeping)

24. The landlord’s records were detailed enough for us to investigate the landlord’s overall handling of the complaint.

Communication

25. The communication from the landlord to the resident when he reported the ASB incidents was adequate.