Aster Group Limited (202328085)

Background

1. The resident is a tenant of the landlord. The resident has reported anti-social behaviour (ASB) from her neighbour to the landlord, specifically noise nuisance. The neighbour is also a tenant of the landlord.

What the complaint is about

2. The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of anti-social behaviour.
3. We have also considered the landlord’s complaint handling.

Our decision (determination)

4. The landlord made an offer of redress, which in our opinion, resolved the errors in its handling of anti-social behaviour.
5. There was no maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the complaint.

We have not made orders for the landlord to put things right.

Summary of reasons

6. The landlord failed to log the resident’s report of ASB in October 2023 however she had an alternative means of reporting the noise nuisance to the local authority, which took action at the time to investigate.
7. The landlord acknowledged that its handling of the resident’s reports of ASB fell short of its expectations. Its offer of £100 compensation adequately reflected the distress and inconvenience caused to the resident by its failures.
8. The landlord took appropriate action once it logged the ASB case. These actions were in line with its ASB policy.
9. The landlord slightly delayed responding to both complaints in line with its policies and procedures. However, the delays were minor and did not have an overall impact on the outcome of the complaint.

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.

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.

10. This investigation has considered events from the resident’s reports of ASB in October 2023 up until the landlord’s final complaint response in November 2024. This is because whilst we understand the resident has been experiencing ASB from her neighbour for a number of years, we usually expect such issues to be brought to the attention of the landlord as a formal complaint within 12 months of the matter arising.
11. We also understand the resident has continued to experience ASB from her neighbour after the landlord’s final complaint response in November 2024. Whilst we understand this has caused her further distress, it is outside the scope of investigation to look at more recent reports of ASB because the landlord needs to have the opportunity to respond to this through its complaints process before the Ombudsman becomes formally involved. The resident can raise a formal complaint with the landlord if she wishes to pursue her concerns about these reports of ASB further. If she remains dissatisfied with the landlord’s final response, she may then be able to refer the new complaint to us for consideration.
12. The resident did not include the issue of a parking dispute and numbering of parking bays in her escalation request to the final stage of the landlord’s complaints process. We have therefore not assessed the landlord’s actions in relation to this as part of our investigation as the landlord has not had the opportunity to consider this issue through both stages of its complaints process.
13. The landlord failed to log the resident’s ASB case promptly when she made reports to it in October 2023. It only did so when the local authority made it aware of her further reports in March 2024. This was a failing by the landlord which caused the resident distress and inconvenience. However, the resident was able to report noise nuisance during this time to the local authority which investigated her reports using noise monitoring equipment and served the neighbour with a noise abatement notice. There is also no evidence that the resident chased the landlord for a response to her reports to it during this time. Therefore, although the landlord should have recorded the resident’s reports as an ASB case sooner, the overall impact was reduced as she was still able to make reports during this time which resulted in action being taken against the neighbour.
14. The landlord’s ASB policy states it will consider a range of options for tackling ASB but will only consider legal remedies as a last resort after all other appropriate options have been exhausted.
15. Therefore, the landlord acted appropriately and in line with its ASB policy when it took the following action after logging the resident’s reports of ASB. It:
    1. Contacted and worked alongside partner agencies including the police and local authority.
    2. Visited the resident at her home to discuss her reports of anti-social behaviour and completed a risk assessment.
    3. Reviewed evidence from the resident including videos and sound recordings.
    4. Sent the resident’s neighbour formal written warnings.
    5. Visited the resident’s neighbour to discuss her behaviour and had her sign an acceptable behaviour contract.
    6. Offered mediation between the resident and her neighbour.
    7. Gave the resident details of how to apply for an ASB case review.
16. It was appropriate for the landlord to provide evidence of the ASB to the local authority to support it with a potential prosecution of the neighbour. This is because if the local authority had been successful in prosecuting the neighbour, this could have increased the landlord’s chances of taking successful legal action against the neighbour’s tenancy.
17. After the local authority decided not to prosecute the neighbour as the noise levels had reduced, it was appropriate for the landlord to consider the likelihood of success if it were to take legal action itself. It was reasonable for the landlord to conclude that this would not be proportionate due to the level of noise being reported and the personal circumstances of the neighbour. The landlord appropriately explained this to the resident and asked her to re-consider mediation as an alternative to legal action.
18. It was positive that the landlord placed the resident on the management move list. This showed it look the resident’s request for it to re-house her seriously. The landlord was not responsible for the time taken for a suitable property to become available as this was outside of its control. It was reasonable that the landlord advised the resident the chances of a property becoming available would increase if she considered other areas and property types such as flats.
19. The landlord offered the resident £100 compensation for distress and inconvenience caused by errors in its handling of ASB, including poor communication. When the landlord has made an offer, it is the Ombudsman’s role to assess whether the offer is fair and reasonable. Our approach to compensation is set out in our remedies guidance, published on our website. The compensation the landlord offered is in line with the amount we would have ordered if it had not made an offer. The remedies guidance suggests awards in this range where there was failure by the landlord which adversely affected the resident, but there may be no permanent impact from the failure.
20. We have found the landlord has made an offer prior to our involvement that suitably resolves the complaint. If it has not already done so, we recommend it pay the resident the £100 compensation offered to her in March 2024.

21. The landlord operates a 2 stage complaints procedure. The timeframes in its procedure mirror that of our Complaint Handling Code (the Code), which sets out our expectations of a landlord’s complaint handling practices. The Code states stage 1 complaint responses must be sent within 10 working days, and stage 2 complaint responses sent within 20 working days.
22. The landlord took 17 working days to respond to the resident’s stage 1 complaint and 24 working days to respond to her stage 2 complaint. The landlord did not respond within its published timescales. However, these delays were minor and did not have an overall impact on the outcome of the complaint. As such, there was no maladministration in respect to its handling of the resident’s complaint.

Learning

23. The landlord did not contact the resident to inform her its complaint responses would be delayed. The landlord may wish to remind its staff that they should contact residents when an extension to the complaint handling timescales is needed.
24. The landlord did not appropriately identify ASB was being reported to it in October 2023. It should consider if there is a need for training for staff members outside of its ASB team to know what to do when receiving reports of ASB from residents.