Aster Group Limited (202201448)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202201448

Aster Group Limited

29 September 2023 (amended at review)

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

The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports about:
1. The allocation of a neighbouring property.
2. Anti-social behaviour (ASB).
3. The resident’s request for a management move.

Background and summary of events

Background

The resident is a fixed term assured tenant of the landlord. The property is a one bedroom first floor flat. The tenancy started in 2015. For the purposes of this report, the neighbour who lives below will be referred to as neighbour A.
The tenancy agreement sets out that the tenant is responsible for dealing with ASB. They are expected to try to resolve issues with neighbours directly and be tolerant of different lifestyles. The tenancy agreement lists the following as examples of nuisance, annoyance or disturbance:
1. Loud music
2. Slamming doors
3. Intimidating or threatening behaviour
4. Shouting or swearing.
The landlord has told this Service that it does not hold any information to say that the resident has any vulnerabilities, however, the resident has said during this investigation that the situation has affected her mental health.
The landlord has a two stage complaints policy. Complaints are responded to within 10 working days at stage one and within 20 working days at stage two.
The landlord has a lettings policy that sets out its approach to letting its properties. It states that “every effort will be made to ensure that the homes allocated reflect applicants needs and that tenancies are sustainable in the long term.” It also says that it will “work closely with applicants and partner agencies to identify any vulnerability or support needs and ensure support packages from appropriate agencies are in place.” The policy will be applied fairly and consistently and will not discriminate against any person on grounds of their race, colour, ethnic or national origins, religion, sexual orientation, disability, gender or age or any other matter that may cause a person to be treated with injustice.
The landlord has an ASB policy and procedure that set out that it takes a harm centred approach to managing ASB. The procedure states that a problem-solving approach will be taken, and non-legal actions will be taken before legal action. Consideration should be given to each case to assess if multi agency working is appropriate to resolve the ASB. It also sets out that where any complainant or other person involved wants to move because of “an incident or risk of significant harm,” the landlord can refer for a management move and that each case will be considered on its merit.
The landlord has a management transfer procedure that says that “customers can be considered as a priority for a management transfer if they are a victim of serious crime, serious sexual assault, domestic abuse, severe harassment, or serious nuisance which can be evidenced through a current ‘react’ case, and/or supporting information from external partners”.

Summary of events

Neighbour A moved into the flat below the resident in November 2021, and around four days later the resident contacted the landlord to report that neighbour A had been up until 4am playing music and banging around all night.
The landlord responded on the same day. The resident told the landlord that she had spoken to neighbour A on the day she moved in, and she had told her that she had “severe mental health issues.” The resident explained that she was concerned that neighbour A might be a risk to her because of her mental health, and that for three nights in a row, neighbour A had been playing loud music, slamming doors, and talking loudly. She told the landlord that she had been unable to sleep and that she had anxiety that was triggered by noise.
The landlord gave reassurances and advice about calling the police if she felt unsafe. It also discussed the resident’s request to move (the resident explained that she wanted to move as she had arthritis in her legs and the property was upstairs). Further, it explained that the situation with her neighbour would not meet the criteria for a management move and advised her to contact the local authority to see if her choice-based lettings application banding could be increased. The landlord confirmed that a visit had been arranged to see neighbour A on 22 November 2021, and after that it would consider if a full ASB case could be opened (its criteria for this is three separate ASB incidents in a week or five in one month). It also discussed using the noise app, and the resident requested additional security measures to make her feel safer, which the landlord agreed to send.
Further reports were made in November 2021 and the landlord asked the resident if she had downloaded the noise app to gather evidence of the nuisance. On 24 November 2021, the resident told the landlord that the noise had improved.
On 1 December 2021, the resident told the landlord that there had been further incidents on 25 November 2021 and 29 November 2021, when on both occasions neighbour A was shouting and swearing on the telephone before 8am. She said that since the landlord had visited neighbour A, the noise due to music being played at night had quietened down, however, she thought that neighbour A seemed to have an issue with phone calls and argued all the time. She had tried to use the noise app but did not think that it picked up the same volume. She was concerned for her own well-being and was anxious and using cotton wool in her ears at night in case the noise started. The landlord discussed support and told the resident that it could refer her to an appropriate agency. She said that she had asked other neighbours if they could hear anything, and that they had said that they were able to hear their own neighbours so the resident thought that there might be a soundproofing issue.
The resident made further reports of noise on 4 and 6 December 2021 and told the landlord that she had to see her GP because of the impact of the situation on her mental well-being, and that she dreaded going home, and was spending evenings at her mother’s house. The landlord said that it would review the situation with an ASB officer to see if there had been sufficient reports to escalate to a full ASB case and asked her to continue to use the noise app and explained why it needed evidence of ASB to be able to take further action.
The issue was made a full ASB case on 13 December 2021. The resident made several more reports of noise and ASB and sent noise app recordings to the landlord. It responded on 13 December 2021, to confirm that it had received the noise apps and needed time to review the evidence and allow time for improvements to be made. It said that if there were no improvements, or if the nuisance continued there would be more action taken.
The resident continued to report incidents throughout December 2021, and on 20 December 2021 she contacted the landlord and asked for an update as she had not heard anything from it. The landlord responded by email the same day to say that it was due to contact her with an update that week and arranged a suitable time to call her. The landlord also contacted neighbour A’s support agency and explained the potential impact on the tenancy if the ASB continued.
The resident called the landlord again on 21 December 2021, it was noted that the resident was “crying throughout the call”. She told it that she had been to see her GP who had prescribed medication because of the noise and had sent a letter recommending that she should be moved. She also said that the noise was having a “severe impact on her, she is more depressed, crying a lot, tired and not sleeping, which is impacting on her job.”
The landlord contacted the resident on 22 December 2021, and agreed that neighbour A would be issued with a written warning regarding her behaviour, and that it would support the resident to apply for a move. The landlord sent the warning letter dated 22 December 2021 to the neighbour’s support worker, as it was agreed that they would issue it to allow them to explain the implications to neighbour A. The landlord asked for it to be issued as soon as possible. The landlord also completed an internal management move request for the resident to be considered for a transfer to alternative accommodation.
During the Christmas holiday between 24 December 2021 and 5 January 2022, the resident sent the landlord 56 noise app recordings. She contacted the landlord on 4 January 2022, and said that the noise had been “awful” and that she was “at breaking point”. It responded on 5 January 2022, to say that it had received the recordings and would listen to them and arranged a time to call her back. The landlord also contacted neighbour A’s support worker who said that they had not yet given the neighbour the warning letter. This information was explained to the resident.
On 8 January 2022, the resident made a formal complaint to the landlord. She said that neighbour A was causing a “serious” noise issue and should not have been allocated the property. She explained that her neighbour had mental health issues and should have been allocated a property in supported accommodation. She also said that the noise was making her ill and that she felt that neighbour A was a risk to “herself, me and others” and that she thought the lettings team had made a mistake by allocating the property to her.
On 12 January 2022, the resident said that the noise was so bad and neighbour A had threatened her, so she had to call the police. The landlord responded and said that it would chase up the management move situation for her. It also updated about a visit to neighbour A and the warning letter being issued. The landlord also spoke to the support worker again who confirmed that they had been to see neighbour A and issued the letter and discussed the implications on the tenancy. They expressed concerns about the sound proofing in the properties and said that support visits to neighbour A would be increased.
On 13 and 14 January 2022, the landlord contacted the resident to discuss the complaint, and the resident explained further that the complaint was not about the ASB service, her specific complaint of service failure was around the allocation of her neighbour’s property. It also spoke to two other neighbours to see if they were affected by the noise. Both said that they had not been disturbed. It also referred the case to the local authority environmental health team to request support with noise monitoring equipment and spoke to the support agency to arrange a professionals meeting, it then updated the resident about its actions.
On 28 January 2022, the resident emailed the landlord and asked could her management move request be reconsidered. Internal discussions followed, and the ASB officer was told by housing services that it was not being reconsidered, and that “customers can’t request management transfers.” No further explanation regarding this was offered.
The landlord sent its stage one complaint response on 28 January 2022. It said that following a conversation with the resident on 19 January 2022 they considered that the complaint was about the following:
1. She was concerned that the person recently housed below was not able to live on their own and was a danger to themselves and the community.
2. The noise and “colourful language” coming from the property below was causing sleepless nights and made her feel uncomfortable.
3. Information regarding the new customer had been missed or not given to it by other agencies.
4. The new neighbour should be rehoused elsewhere to resolve the complaint.

The landlord made the following findings:
1. They were satisfied that neighbour A could live alone, and that aspect of the complaint was not upheld.
2. It explained that due to GDPR legislation it could not go into detail about neighbour A’s circumstances, but that it was reassured that information available to it did not indicate that neighbour A was a risk to her or other neighbours. This aspect of the complaint was also not upheld.
3. Regarding the noise and swearing at night, the landlord apologised for this and said that it had asked the neighbourhood team to liaise with neighbour A and that this part of the complaint was upheld.
4. Regarding missed information, the landlord confirmed that all paperwork had been provided and that there was no reason to refuse to rehouse neighbour A and that this part of the complaint was not upheld.
On the same day, the resident contacted the landlord to say that she wanted the response reviewed at stage two and said that:
1. She disagreed that neighbour A was not a danger as she had received threats to kill that had been referred to the police and questioned how much longer she had to live like that.
2. Neighbour A had been abusive to workmen who were at her home.
3. The landlord’s ASB team had told the resident that neighbour A did not understand its communication so how could she change her behaviour if she did not understand the letters sent.
4. She believed that the landlord had made a mistake by housing neighbour A.
5. She was concerned that her request for a management move had been refused on the grounds that the issues were not serious enough and explained that the situation was “ruining her life and wellbeing,” she was not sleeping and had been to see her doctor.
6. She wanted neighbour A to be moved to supported housing and if that was not possible, she wanted the landlord to move her.
On 31 January 2022, the resident reported that neighbour A, and her support worker had knocked at her property and told her that the landlord had said that it was her who was making reports about neighbour A. She said that all weekend the neighbour had made abusive comments about her.
On 1 February 2022, the landlord’s ASB officer sent an internal email raising concerns about the situation escalating and asking that the management move request made by the resident be reconsidered and suggesting an alternative property. Senior members of the landlord’s staff refused this. Consideration was given to another way to stop the ASB (evidence of which has been seen by this Service). At this time, the landlord could not disclose this information to the resident.
The resident contacted the landlord on 4 February 2022, to ask why her request for a management move had been refused. The landlord responded by email on 8 February 2022, to confirm that as this was a continuation of the issues raised in the current complaint, it would be investigated as part of that.
The landlord received reports of noise from the resident about neighbour A and counter allegations made by neighbour A about the resident during February 2022. On 18 February 2022, the landlord contacted the resident and explained that it hoped to have a positive resolution to the situation soon, and that due to data protection it could not provide any more information at that time. It also reassured the resident of its continued involvement and said that if this solution did not work it would continue with the ASB process. The resident called the landlord later to complain that it was not dealing with the ASB properly as it had refused to disclose information about action against her neighbour.
The landlord sent its stage two complaint response on 18 February 2022, which said that:
1. It apologised for the response not being as definitive as it would like to communicate but due to GDPR regulations it was not possible to share information about other residents. It offered reassurances that it was taking appropriate action and hoped to resolve the situation soon. It said that it appreciated that this was a difficult situation for the resident.
2. The management transfer request had been refused as the policy states that a management transfer will only be considered if the resident has been a victim of serious crime, serious sexual assault, domestic abuse, severe harassment, serious nuisance and explained that this must be supported by other agencies such as the police. Her case did not meet the criteria for a management transfer.
The landlord called the resident on 4 March 2022, and said that since the last update on 21 January 2022, there was a solution that it had been working on that had been progressed but that it was still not able to disclose the information.
On 18 March 2022, the resident asked the landlord to let neighbour A know that she was having some maintenance work carried out and that there would be some noise, to avoid any conflict. After the work started the resident reported that neighbour A was abusive to her and the operatives, and that she had called the police. The resident told the landlord that she could not cope any longer and felt unsupported by the landlord.
The landlord contacted the resident on 25 March 2022. It suggested that the resident could move to respite accommodation until the situation was resolved and the resident said that she would consider this. It also informed the resident that they were working on moving neighbour A to more suitable accommodation. It said that it could not give a timescale at this point but said that neighbour A would also be issued with a final warning.
The resident contacted the landlord on 28 March 2022, to say that she did not want to move to respite.
On 8 April 2022, the landlord called the resident to update her on the case. It said that there had been positive progress, and although it could not give any more details nothing had stopped the plan to move neighbour A. It updated the resident about the visit to issue the final written warning and discussed the banging noise that can be heard on the noise apps and said that it was the washing machine and that she did not need to record this anymore. The resident said that there had not been any further incidents and the landlord agreed to maintain fortnightly contact.
On 11 April 2022, the resident contacted the landlord to say that she was not happy with the conversation that she had with it on 8 April 2022. She disagreed that the banging was because of the washing machine and said that the landlord never updated her about what was happening. She also asked for her allocated ASB officer to be changed.
The landlord responded on 12 April 2022, and spent time explaining that the ASB officer had worked to try to resolve this situation and that it felt that it was “nearly there with the outcome” and said that it would take weeks now and not months. Respite was offered again which the resident agreed to reconsider. The landlord also asked the resident if it needed to refer her to victim support or if she had already done that herself. The resident responded by email to say that the police had given her the details.
On 21 April 2022, the resident said that she did not require a referral to victim support. The landlord emailed to ask if she wanted it to call her as arranged and the resident emailed back said that was not necessary.
The resident approached this Service on 21 April 2022, to complain about how the landlord had responded to her reports of ASB and said that she wanted the ASB to be dealt with and that she wanted to move because of the ASB and due to medical grounds.
The landlord contacted the resident on 4 May 2022, to tell her that neighbour A would be moving to alternative accommodation. The resident asked that (when neighbour A moved) it install soundproofing to avoid any further issues with noise.
The resident made a further complaint to the landlord on 28 May 2022, that said:
1. She wanted to complain about how her ASB case had been dealt with. She felt that her feelings and wellbeing were not considered and that she was not listened to and had to fight to get anything done. She said that the landlord had not been able to update her in two months.
2. She also wanted to complain about the way a staff member had spoken to her and about the things that had been said to her.
3. The landlord had told her that it would install sound proofing but then said that it was not necessary.
4. She felt that the ASB policy should be changed as the process to evict someone can take up to a year and she thought that was too long.
5. She explained that her neighbour had now been moved but there was a wrong decision made at the start and she wanted answers as to why she was put in this position as she felt that the neighbour should not have been moved there in the first place.
The landlord contacted the resident on 6 June 2022 to discuss the complaint. The resident then contacted the landlord on 9 June 2022, to ask that details of the conversation on 6 June 2022 were set out in writing. She confirmed to the landlord that she did not want a formal complaint response to these issues but wanted an email confirming what had been discussed. She also said that her issue with the officers who had dealt with the ASB was a separate issue to the complaint and that she would raise another complaint after receiving the follow up email from the landlord. The landlord sent a follow up email on 9 June 2022, that confirmed that there were three main aspects to the conversation and the landlord’s responses were:
1. The resident felt that the ASB officers lacked empathy and questioned her reports. In response the landlord said that it would speak to the officers mentioned and let them know how she felt. It also explained that some questions had to be asked to make sure that if at any point it was going to take legal action against neighbour A it had to ensure that any evidence relied on was robust enough to withstand scrutiny.
2. The resident was not happy that the landlord had housed neighbour A and felt there had been errors made by it in allowing neighbour A to move into a general need’s property. The landlord said that this had formed part of the previous complaint and referred the resident to the findings at stage one and stage two of her complaint.
3. The resident asked about soundproofing her property and said that she could hear noise from her last neighbour, and the neighbour before and felt that the soundproofing was inadequate. The landlord confirmed that it was sending a surveyor to inspect the properties to ensure that they meet building regulations in accordance with the year that they were built. The resident asked could they be brought up to today’s standard, and the landlord said that if the properties do not meet building regulations it will consider ways of reducing noise transference between the properties.
4. The landlord ended by asking the resident if she had support in place as she had mentioned that she had been struggling with her mental health because of neighbour A’s behaviour. The resident confirmed that she had support.

Assessment and findings

Scope of the investigation

It is noted that the resident has stated that the situation has affected her mental health. The Ombudsman does not doubt the resident’s concerns about her health, but this Service is unable to draw conclusions on the causation of, or liability for, impacts on health and wellbeing. Therefore, this Service cannot confirm the effect of the landlord’s actions or inaction on the resident’s health and the resident may wish to seek independent advice if she wishes to pursue this aspect of her complaint. However, we have considered the general distress and inconvenience which the situation involving the allocation of the neighbouring property caused the resident.
It is evident that the resident contacted the landlord on many occasions to express her dissatisfaction with the landlord’s service. The landlord is responsible to ensure that communications are managed properly and that all reports are considered, and responses given. It is not the resident’s responsibility to understand how the landlord works. It is noted that whilst the resident has said that she was not complaining about ASB until after the stage two complaint response was issued, it was the landlord’s responsibility to ensure that the resident understood what that meant in terms of her complaints following the correct internal complaint response process. This Service acknowledges that although the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of ASB has not fully exhausted the internal process, in line with paragraph 35(b) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, this Service has exercised discretion in considering that the complaint has exhausted the landlord’s internal complaint process and that it would not be appropriate to find that this part of the complaint is outside jurisdiction and has therefore included it within this investigation.

The allocation of a neighbouring property

The landlord’s lettings policy sets out a reasonable approach to letting its homes to people in need of rehousing. It says that it will not discriminate against any person on several grounds including disability, which is relevant to this case. It also says that it will ensure that a support package is in place when considering applicants with additional needs. The landlord acted reasonably by checking this prior to offering the property to the neighbour. As part of this Service’s investigation, evidence was reviewed that the landlord took all information into consideration prior to the allocation.
The resident had previously reported that she could hear noise from neighbours before neighbour A moved in, and in an email the landlord said that it was aware of this (email dated 28 January 2022). That said, the landlord had no evidence to suggest that neighbour A had caused noise nuisance in her previous property so could not be expected to consider that noise nuisance would be an issue in this one.
Considering the concerns expressed about neighbour A and that the resident had reported noise from previous neighbours, the landlord should have considered further whether this property was suitable. While this Service accepts that the landlord followed its lettings policy and advised neighbour A’s support worker that there had been reports about noise in the past, it did not consider what impact this might have on other residents, only on neighbour A.
It is apparent that the allocation of the neighbouring property has caused the resident distress. The evidence provided shows that the landlord was reasonable in its approach and followed its policy and procedure when allocating the property and considering the needs of neighbour A. However, this Service has not been provided with any evidence that shows consideration was given to the impact of the allocation on existing residents. There was, therefore, service failure regarding the landlord’s allocation of the property to neighbour A.

The landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of ASB

The Ombudsman acknowledges that this was a complex situation involving mental health issues. It is also not disputed that the resident reported issues with neighbour A from the start of the tenancy. The landlord responded appropriately and reasonably, in the first instance, by contacting the resident to discuss the reports and arranging to see neighbour A as soon as the reports were made.
The landlord was proactive in asking the resident to use the noise app to gather evidence and working with relevant support agencies and issuing a verbal warning and then a further written tenancy warning letter.
In December 2021, the resident sent in 56 noise apps over a two-week period. The landlord has not provided evidence to show that these were listened to or indeed that any feedback was given to the resident or neighbour A that explicitly set out what the noise app had recorded in terms of the times of the noise or volume. This was a failing on the landlord’s part as the resident should have been offered guidance about what the recordings consisted of and whether this was considered ASB in line with the landlord’s policy.
In February 2022, when it became apparent to the landlord that the tenancy was no longer sustainable, the landlord decided to find alternative accommodation for neighbour A, which was a reasonable response to resolve what was evidently a complex set of circumstances. However, the resident reported that the ASB continued until neighbour A eventually moved in May 2022. This left the resident to endure several more months of ASB with little intervention, which was too long.
The landlord had evidence of noise obtained by the noise app, it also had another neighbour reporting issues with neighbour A, and reports from operatives and the landlord’s own staff about neighbour A’s conduct. This should have been sufficient to consider taking further action such as legal action or other appropriate interventions, even while the move was under consideration. There is no evidence that legal action was considered or indeed that legal advice was obtained. This Service acknowledges that the landlord might have decided not to take legal action but should have considered it and documented its decision-making process.
The Ombudsman acknowledges that respite was offered to the resident, which was a reasonable response, however, the offer of respite was not made until 25 March 2022, this was despite the resident telling the landlord:
1. On 4 December 2021, that she was “concerned for her own well-being and was anxious and using cotton wool in her ears at night in case the noise started”.
2. On 6 December 2021, that she had to see her GP because of the impact of the situation on her mental well-being, and that she dreaded going home, and was spending evenings at her mother’s house.
3. On 21 December 2021 that the noise was having a “severe impact on her” and that she was more depressed, crying a lot, tired and not sleeping, which was impacting on her job.
4. On 4 January 2022, that the noise had been “awful” and that she was “at breaking point”.
5. On 8 January 2022, that the noise was “making her ill”.
6. On 28 January 2022, that the situation was “ruining her life and wellbeing”, that she was not sleeping and had been to see her doctor.
7. On 18 March that she “couldn’t cope any longer” and felt “unsupported” by the landlord.
This Service therefore considers that although the landlord took reasonable action to deal with the ASB at the start, it did not respond to all the recordings on the noise app and fully explain to the resident what was and was not considered as ASB. This might have managed the resident’s expectations better and made her feel that the landlord was listening to her. It also failed to evidence that it had considered other actions or interventions to manage the situation after the decision to move neighbour A was made. The Ombudsman acknowledges that respite was offered, however, this offer was not made until 25 March 2022, which was approximately six weeks after the decision to move neighbour A was made and almost two months before she moved out.
Furthermore, the landlord failed to fully consider the impact that the situation was having on the resident, despite the resident telling the landlord on at least seven occasions as listed above. This is not in line with its harm centred approach to ASB that it sets out in its ASB policy There was, therefore, maladministration in the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of ASB.

The landlord’s response to the resident’s request to move

The resident told the landlord when she made the first report about neighbour A that she wanted to move and explained that she had a medical condition (arthritis) and that her flat was on the first floor. The landlord responded appropriately by offering support to help with rehousing.
In December 2021, when the situation with neighbour A escalated and the resident told the landlord about the impact that this was having on her well-being and that her doctor had written to the landlord saying that she should be moved, the landlord supported her further by applying for a management move. Again, this was appropriate and a reasonable response to the situation. Unfortunately, the management move was refused.
This Service has not seen any evidence that this process was explained fully to the resident before or after the request was made. The resident had said in November that she wanted to move, as the situation escalated and she told the landlord that her wellbeing was being seriously affected, that request became more important to her. However, by not explaining the process or the criteria, in advance of the request being made, the landlord failed to manage the resident’s expectations, which led to further disappointment and her felling that the landlord was not supporting her.
This Service has not been provided with any evidence to support how the decision to refuse the management move was made. This was not reasonable and not in line with the landlord’s own management move procedure that says that “any officer can apply for a management transfer on behalf of the customer, the application should be officer led on the basis that it is the most appropriate solution to deal with a particular set of circumstances”.
In January 2022, the resident had to contact the landlord to find out if the management move request was approved. This was not reasonable as the procedure included a form to be completed and authorised or refused by the head of housing and sent back to the officer making the application to advise the resident. This Service has no evidence that this happened on this occasion.
The resident asked why her management move request had been refused as part of her stage two complaint. The response given did not establish why her application did not meet the threshold set by the landlord, it only stated what the criteria was. The procedure states that management moves will be considered if the resident is experiencing “serious nuisance that can be evidenced by an open react case and/or supporting advise from external partners.” In this instance, there was an open ASB case, the resident said that the situation was “ruining her life” and the resident told the landlord that her doctor had written to the landlord supporting a move to alternative accommodation, there had also been reports made to the police who could have confirmed this by way of the local community safety partnership data sharing protocol. However, there is no evidence that this was requested to support the resident’s application. The landlord was therefore not proactive, or solution focussed in trying to assist the resident regarding her request for a management move.
The landlord also does not say what it considers to be “serious nuisance” and its stage two response is lacking in that it is not explicit as to why the resident’s situation does not meet its criteria for a management move. It also did not discuss obtaining any supporting documentation that would fulfil the criteria of nuisance that was “serious” enough to meet that criteria for it to reconsider the request.
The landlord did not comply with its management move procedure; it was also not proactive in assisting the resident. There was therefore maladministration in its response to the resident’s request for a management move.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure in the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports that the allocation of a neighbouring property was incorrect.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of ASB.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s response to the resident’s request for a management move.

Reasons

The landlord followed its allocations policy in letting the property above the resident by considering the needs of the applicant and not discriminating. However, it failed to consider the impact of the allocation on its existing residents, and whilst this is not explicit in its policy, this Service considers that it should be and makes a further recommendation regarding this below.
The landlord followed its ASB policy in the first instance by responding to the resident’s reports of ASB. When things escalated it alerted senior managers to the situation and supported the management move request process. However, the resident was left to experience ASB for too long, which was unfair and unreasonable, despite her telling it that she “couldn’t cope” and the impact of the situation was making her ill. The landlord should have considered other interventions, such as the use of legal action for example injunction proceedings particularly when the behaviour of one person is impacting so greatly on other residents, and if it decides not to use other interventions it should have evidence of its decision-making process, clearly setting out its reasons.
The landlord did not follow its own management move procedure. It refused the resident’s request, saying that the situation with the neighbour did not meet the criteria, but did not set out how this decision was reached. It was clear that the situation was impacting on the resident, the resident told the landlord about the impact on the occasions listed above. Also, its own call log noted that the resident was “crying throughout the call” and yet the landlord did not feel that the resident was subjected to “serious nuisance” but did not explain what it considered to be “serious nuisance”.

Orders

Within 28 days of the date of this report the landlord to apologise to the resident.
Within 28 days of the date of this report the landlord to pay the resident a total of £600 which consists of:
1. £100 in respect of its failure to consider existing residents when allocating its properties.
2. £250 in respect of its failure to respond to the resident’s reports of ASB in line with its ASB policy.
3. £250 in respect of its failure to respond to the resident’s request for a management move in line with its procedure.
Within three months of the date of this report the landlord to review its management move procedure to include a further explanation regarding its criteria, and to provide further training to its staff (including senior staff) on the correct use of the procedure.

Recommendations

Within three months of the date of this report the landlord to review its lettings policy to ensure that consideration is given to existing residents to any allocation where there have been previous reports of noise nuisance.
The landlord to consider the findings of the Ombudsman’s spotlight report on noise complaints – The landlord to share the findings with relevant staff, including training where appropriate and to incorporate the findings of this report in its management of such cases in future.