Birmingham City Council (201915833)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 201915833

Birmingham City Council

17 March 2023

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 response to the resident’s reports of antisocial behaviour (ASB).
The Ombudsman has also investigated the landlord’s complaint’s handling.

Background and summary of events

Background

The resident has been a secured tenant at the property of the landlord since 4 April 2016. The landlord is a local authority. The property is a ground floor flat with another flat located above, which has been occupied by the resident’s neighbour since 24 June 2019.
The landlord operates a two stage complaints procedure. Its policy notes it will provide a stage one response within 15 working days of a complaint, and a stage two response within 20 working days of an escalation.
The landlord operates an unreasonable/unreasonably persistent complaints policy. The policy notes that excessive amount of contact sent to multiple members of staff is considered unreasonable. In such circumstances, the landlord may adopt measures to manage the behaviour, such as limiting contact.
The landlord also operates an ASB policy. The policy notes that noise nuisance and verbal abuse amount to ASB. When investigating ASB, the landlord will create an action plan which will include a frequency of future contact to discuss the case. To support any potential legal action, it may request diary sheets of the ASB be completed. If the landlord has any safeguarding concerns, it may signpost a resident to various external organisations who can provide further assistance. To address the ASB, it may seek to arrange mediation, send warning letters, discuss behaviours with perpetrators, or involve third party organisations. The policy also notes that where a person makes persistent complaints, it may seek to manage their behaviour accordingly.
The resident has previously referred a complaint to this service relating to the landlord’s response to his reports of ASB between 2019 and January 2021. The Ombudsman subsequently determined this complaint (reference number 201913028) on 27 May 2021. The investigation determined there was no maladministration by the landlord in relation to is handling of the resident’s reports of ASB.
The Ombudsman notes that the resident raised ASB complaints of a similar nature against the previous occupant of the neighbour’s property, prior to them moving out.

Summary of events

It is not disputed that following the resident’s initial reports of noise nuisance, the landlord involved the local authority’s environmental health team in its investigation. This investigation included attending the resident’s property to witness the reported noise. It is not disputed that the environmental health team witnessed raised voices during its visit. This service has not been provided with a report from the environmental health team; however, it is evident that a ‘Section 80’ noise abatement notice was served on the neighbour in July 2020.
In November 2020, the environmental health team also installed noise monitoring equipment and amassed 170 minutes of recordings; however, these did not result in a finding of statutory noise nuisance.
It is also evident that the environmental health team offered to follow up its investigation with a ‘subjective noise assessment’, which would involve a member of its staff being present in both properties to assess the noise. The neighbour agreed to this investigation; however, the resident declined this offer. The resident has since noted that the environmental health team has previously witnessed noise and wanted the landlord to take action based on this evidence.
Following this service’s previous investigation, the resident continued to report ASB noise nuisance to the landlord, following which it opened a new ASB case. This service has received a high volume of correspondence sent from the resident to the landlord detailing instances of ASB. This investigation report will not detail every report made. Across the resident’s correspondence, he reported the following:
1. The neighbour was deliberately stomping or banging to cause him distress or intimidate him.
2. The neighbour was intentionally attempting to cause damage to his ceiling by stomping.
3. The neighbour frequently played loud music and shouted throughout the night, making it impossible for him to sleep.
4. The resident’s reports also detailed instances of verbal harassment, which are discussed further below.
5. The resident noted that he considered the neighbour to have multiple other occupants living with them, all of whom contributed to the noise.
6. He additionally reported frequent drug use and possible drug dealing occurring at the property.
In addition to his reports of ASB, the resident also repeatedly expressed his dissatisfaction with the action the landlord was taking to investigate his concerns. He considered the landlord’s actions to be discriminatory, and frequently appealed for the neighbour to be urgently evicted. Alternatively, he requested for the landlord to relocate him to a more suitable property.
Throughout the course of the complaint, the resident has logged many reports as ‘new’ ASB complaints. The landlord subsequently advised the resident on a number of occasions that it has an open investigation and that his reports should be made under that case number to avoid any confusion.
In or around late 2020, the landlord sought to arrange mediation between the resident and the neighbour. The neighbour agreed to mediation, however, the resident declined. He advised that he did not consider he had done anything wrong, and so shouldn’t have to make any sort of concessions as part of mediation.
It is evident that in December 2020, the landlord’s mediation team endeavoured to contact the resident to discuss with him the benefits of mediation, but that it was unable to reach the resident by telephone.
The landlord contacted the resident on 24 December 2020 to advise that the option for mediation remained open, as was the option for the environmental health team to carry out a subjective noise test, which would be the next step in its investigation required to take further action.
The landlord also addressed an incident of water ingress into the resident’s property which the resident attributed to the deliberate actions of the neighbour. The landlord advised it had carried out repairs in the neighbour’s property which have addressed the source of the leak, and that its investigations did not determine that the water ingress was intentional. The resident disputed this finding and has repeatedly reasserted his concerns that the water ingress was a deliberate act. The Ombudsman notes that during repairs, the landlord moved the resident into temporary accommodation.
On 27 December 2020, the resident noted that the noise he was reporting was contrary to the conditions of the Section 80 notice, and requested that the landlord therefore take action. The landlord replied on 29 December 2020 and advised that in order to demonstrate this, further evidence would be required. It encouraged him to liaise with the environmental health team in order to arrange a further inspection.
On 3 January 2021, the resident raised concerns that the neighbour was allowing visitors to enter into their property, which was contrary to the COVID-19 lockdown restrictions in place at that time. The landlord replied on 4 January 2021 and advised the resident to forward these concerns to the police, who were the appropriate body to investigate these concerns.
On 21 January 2021, the environmental health team contacted the resident again to encourage him to arrange the subjective noise test. It advised that evidence older than six months would have less weight in any potential court action against the neighbour, and that it would therefore be beneficial to collect up to date evidence. The resident subsequently declined this offer on the basis that he did not want the environmental health team operatives in his property during the COVID-19 lockdown.
In early 2021, the resident reported that broken glass had been left outside his property, which he attributed to the neighbour. In March 2021, the landlord advised it had raised these concerns with the neighbour, who had denied it was them. The landlord subsequently advised that in the absence of any additional evidence, it was unable to take action regarding the broken glass.
Additionally, in April 2021, the resident reported damage to his rear door, which he also attributed to the neighbour. The landlord requested that he raise it as a repair with its repairs team in the first instance, who could assess the cause. It is not evident that the resident did this. The landlord also advised the resident to report his concerns to the police.
The landlord has provided this service with its ASB case notes from this period, which include correspondence with the neighbour demonstrating it raised the resident’s concerns with them, and that it reminded them of their responsibilities under the tenancy agreement.
On 27 April 2021, the landlord set out an overview of the actions it had taken. It advised it had spoken with the police regarding the resident’s reports and noted the police had not taken any further action. It noted it had made a referral for mediation, which remained open, but that the resident had declined. It also noted the resident had raised concerns about how the ASB was impacting his physical and mental health, and that it had referred him to his GP as well as other organisations who could provide support. It further noted the resident had requested to be relocated and that it had previously given him information about how to bid on new properties, or otherwise request a mutual exchange. Finally, it noted that the resident had continued to refer to incidents going back two years. It advised that these had been previously investigated under its complaints procedure and by this service, and that it would not revisit these concerns.
In May 2021, the resident reported an altercation with the neighbour in which the neighbour had grabbed a weapon and threatened to stab the resident. The resident advised he had reported this incident to the police and that he had video evidence. The landlord subsequently gave the resident advice regarding the police assessing the danger and ordering emergency temporary accommodation if they deemed it necessary. It is evident that the landlord liaised with the police, who did not take any further action. The landlord also reviewed the recording made by the resident and noted that they could not see a weapon, nor could they hear a threat based on the recording.
Throughout 2021, the resident liaised with this service about his ongoing concerns regarding ASB, and advice was given that he raise a new formal complaint with the landlord. On 30 May 2021, the resident raised a formal complaint about the ongoing ASB, and in particular the landlord’s response to his concerns about the threatening behaviour from his neighbour.
The landlord provided a stage one response on 7 June 2021. It once again outlined the steps it had taken (which have been detailed above) and that its offer for a subjective noise test and mediation remained open. It confirmed it continued to raise the resident’s reports with the neighbour, but that in the absence of any further substantive evidence, it would close the case following a review in the coming week. It also noted the resident continued to note he considered he was being discriminated against by the landlord given its refusal to take action. The landlord noted this had been assessed by this service, and that the Ombudsman had found no maladministration in relation to his concerns about discrimination. In the absence of any further evidence, it considered this matter to be closed.
The resident subsequently expressed his dissatisfaction with the landlord’s response and requested an escalation of the complaint.
On 15 June 2021, the landlord sent a further letter in which it reiterated its position and noted that the resident had the option to request a review of its stage one response.
On 23 June 2021, the landlord noted that the resident had expressed concern about the suitability of his property, and that he considered it to be “uninhabitable.” The landlord requested to arrange an inspection of the property, however, it is not evident the resident engaged with this request.
On 22 July 2021, the resident noted that he was yet to receive a stage two response. The landlord subsequently replied on 6 August 2021. It noted it had provided a stage one response on 7 June 2021. It went on to advise that given that this service had found no maladministration in the investigation from May 2021, the complaint had now been closed. Following this, the resident repeated on numerous occasions throughout 2021 that he wished for his complaint to be reopened and for the landlord to provide a stage two response so he could then take his complaint to this service.
On 23 September 2021, the resident reported a further instance of water ingress which he again attributed to the deliberate actions of the neighbour. The landlord requested that the resident report this to its repairs team, however, the resident advised he did not consider a repair was required, and that the landlord should instead take enforcement action against his neighbour. The landlord’s internal records show it raised works on 28 September 2021 to investigate the neighbour’s property, but that it subsequently had difficulty arranging access.
On 29 September 2021, the landlord wrote to the resident to “acknowledge the acceptance of your stage 2 formal complaint,” and advised it would provide a response within 20 working days.
On 1 October 2021, the landlord provided an update regarding the water ingress and noted it was still attempting to gain access to the neighbour’s property. It also requested that the resident allow it to inspect his property. It is not evident that the resident responded to this request.
The landlord provided its stage two response on 26 October 2021. It noted that the resident had continued to raise concerns about issues which occurred prior to its previous formal complaint responses and advised it would not reinvestigate these concerns. It noted that a Section 80 notice had been raised against the neighbour, but reiterated that in order to take action for the breach of the conditions of the notice, further inspections and evidence were required, which the resident had repeatedly declined. It also noted the resident had declined its request to inspect the property to determine its suitability following his concerns. It advised that until it was able to do this, it could not provide an outcome to this concern. It further repeated its guidance for the resident bidding on alternative properties. It also noted the resident had made frequent references to having “won” the previous case referred to this service, but that it was its understanding that no maladministration had been found. It repeated its offer of mediation and a subjective noise test, and confirmed its staff complied with all relevant safety measures in relation to COVID-19 restrictions. It concluded its response by advising that if the resident remained dissatisfied with its response, he could refer the complaint to the Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman (LGSCO), and provided the contact details.
On 11 November 2021, the landlord confirmed its previous response was its “final” response, and advised him to contact “the Ombudsman” for further assistance and advice.
In his further communications, the resident noted that the landlord had previously used a three stage complaints procedure, and repeatedly reiterated a request for a “final” response.
Throughout January 2022, the resident continued to report further ASB issues, including the neighbour throwing cigarette butts in his bin, and a further incident of broken glass outside his property. The landlord continued to respond and requested further evidence such as video evidence. The landlord noted a photo had been provided, but that it was not clear who was in the photo, or what it was depicting, and that based on the available evidence, it was unable to take any further action.
The landlord followed this up on 12 January 2022 and noted that the neighbour worked nights and that they were not deliberately trying to make noise. It advised that, based on the evidence, it considered the issues experienced by the resident to be the result of a “difference in lifestyles.” It also noted the resident’s reports that multiple people were living in the neighbour’s property. It advised that it had investigated this concern and determined this was not the case. It also advised the neighbour was allowed to have visitors stay from time to time.
It is evident that the resident raised a ‘community trigger’ review of the landlord’s response, conducted by the local authority in conjunction with an independent advisor. A report was issued on 11 March 2022 which concluded that the landlord had acted appropriately in its investigation of the resident’s reports. It did, however, identify that the “impact of COVID-19 resulted in a lack of direct engagement with you due to the restrictions in place,” and that its “response times in dealing with your case” were also impacted.

Assessment and findings

ASB

The purpose of the Ombudsman’s investigation is not to definitively determine if ASB was occurring, but to assess the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of ASB to ensure it was fair and reasonable in the circumstances, and in line with the landlord’s policies and best practice.
Where a landlord investigates ASB, the Ombudsman would expect the landlord to make it very clear from the outset what actions it will take to investigate the reports. Equally as important, the landlord must also measure a resident’s expectations as to what action it can take, as the actions available to it may fall short of a resident’s preferred resolution. The landlord’s ASB policy echoes this approach and notes it will create an action plan for its investigation.
Following the resident’s reports, the landlord appropriately endeavoured to arrange for mediation. The resident declined this offer, however, the landlord appropriately reiterated the offer on several occasions. It also arranged for the mediator to try to contact the resident directly to explain the benefits of mediation. This was done over the phone; however, and so it is not evident these benefits were fully articulated. The resident also expressed his reservations about mediation on the basis that he did not consider he had done anything wrong and did not wish to concede that he had. In the Ombudsman’s experience, mediation does not require a victim of ASB to concede any wrong doing, and this lack of understanding prevented the resident from exploring this option. Given that there had only been an unsuccessful attempt to contact the resident by telephone, and that the written communications from the landlord did not go into detail about mediation, there was a missed opportunity to fully articulate the benefits of mediation.
The landlord’s ASB policy notes it may work with external agencies to investigate ASB. One such agency is the local authority’s environmental health team, who are best placed to investigate statutory noise. The landlord appropriately included this team in its investigation, and it is evident that noise monitoring equipment was used to investigate the reports. Given the resident’s further reports, the noise monitoring equipment was appropriately reoffered. Additionally, it was appropriate that other investigative measures were explored such as a subjective noise assessment. Following the resident declining these offers, it was also appropriate that the team explained the need for up to date evidence in order to pursue any legal action and to demonstrate that the Section 80 notice was being contravened. Part of the resident’s reasoning for declining the subjective noise assessment was his understandable concerns about COVID safety. The environmental health team appropriately responded to these concerns by explaining that its operatives complied with all relevant health and safety measures.
Given that the resident had declined further evidence gathering through the environmental health team, it was reasonable that they took no further action, and it was appropriate that they reiterated that the option to proceed with the investigations remained open should the resident change his mind.
While the environmental health team were best placed to investigate noise, the obligation to investigate ASB remains with the landlord. It may be the case that it would not be proportional to offer identical investigations that have already been offered and remain on offer through the environmental health team. Nevertheless, the landlord has a responsibility to clearly set out such a position when receiving the reports. In this case, however, there were instances such as a communication dated 12 July 2021 where the landlord advised that it was not its “remit” to investigate loud music and to report such issues directly to the local authority. While the landlord advised it had included the report in its ASB case, this response was misleading and caused confusion for the resident.
In addition to the environmental health team, the landlord has liaised with the police in the investigation of some of the criminal behaviour reported by the resident. Once again, the police are the appropriate body to investigate criminal behaviour. It is not disputed that police did not take action. Nevertheless, as with above, the landlord still has a responsibility to satisfy itself that it has appropriately investigated the behaviour reported. In this case, the landlord appropriately reviewed footage provided by the resident, and gave its position why it did not consider that further action was necessary. In his communications, the resident repeatedly referred to CCTV cameras on neighbouring properties and that other neighbours may have witnessed the incidents. Given that these were also reasonable avenues to explore, it would have been helpful had the landlord given a position on these actions, which it did not do.
Regarding the actions taken by the landlord directly, it is evident that on occasions it attended the properties and spoke with the parties. It also appropriately sent warning letters to the neighbour highlighting the reports it had received, providing examples of the behaviours reported, and noting the neighbour’s tenancy obligations. These actions were in line with the landlord’s ASB policy and what the Ombudsman would consider good practice. It also appropriately kept the resident informed when it had taken such actions.
In addition to the noise and behaviour complaints, the resident also reported that there had been instances of water ingress caused by the neighbour. The landlord appropriately investigated these reports and carried out necessary repair works which were identified. Based on the evidence provided to this service, its operatives specifically investigated for signs that the water ingress had been deliberate, and in the absence of evidence, it was reasonable for the landlord to conclude this was not a deliberate act from the neighbour. The landlord appropriately articulated this to the resident and also kept him updated about difficulties gaining access, which delayed the repairs.
In summary, it was appropriate that the landlord liaised with the environmental health team to investigate the reports of noise, and that this team explained the importance of gathering up to date evidence. While the resident declined the further investigation options presented, the team appropriately kept these options open. Additionally, the landlord appropriately offered mediation, and worked with the police to investigate specific instances of harassment, as well as carrying out its own investigations.
Where there have been repeated reports of similar behaviour where the landlord has previously concluded that the behaviour did not amount to ASB, the Ombudsman would expect the landlord to measure a resident’s expectations accordingly.
In this case, it is not disputed that the resident has made multiple complaints of a similar nature against both the present neighbour and previous neighbours. While the resident’s reports remained of a similar nature to those previously investigated by the landlord, there were instances of new issues such as verbal harassment and aggressive behaviour. It was therefore appropriate for the landlord to open a new investigation. The resident made it clear throughout his reports that he wanted tenancy enforcement or an eviction. Given, however, that much of the reported behaviour was of a similar nature to previous reports, the landlord should have measured the resident’s expectations in its initial action plan that it may not be able to take the actions the resident had requested. However, it is not evident that the landlord took any steps to measure the resident’s expectations at this time. Instead, it requested diary sheets of the behaviour, and did not clearly articulate over what timeframe it would need to collect such evidence, or what potential outcomes it could explore. This left the resident with an unrealistic expectation of what action might be taken.
While the landlord did appropriately set a timeframe for it to review and close the resident’s complaint in its stage one response, following further reports from the resident after this time, the landlord once again left its investigation open without clear structure of how it would proceed.
The Ombudsman recognises that there has been a very high amount of correspondence from the resident and it is unreasonable to expect the landlord to respond to every communication given its finite resources. Both the landlord’s ASB policy and its unreasonable/unreasonably persistent complaints policy allow for the landlord to put in place measures to manage the resident’s communications. Such measures are not a punishment, but instead serve to help a resident by managing their expectations and focusing the landlord’s ability to respond. The landlord’s failure to implement measures such as a single point of contact or to outline how frequently it will respond left the resident with a false expectation of how often it would respond. This caused him significant distress as he considered his communications were being ignored.
Additionally, it is evident that the amount of communications were causing frustrations for the landlord’s staff. On 15 December 2021, the landlord noted how the resident reported noise daily, but that the neighbour had recently been away. The landlord then demanded the resident “explain to me how you are suffering noise issues 7 days per week when clearly your neighbour was not at his flat.” The tone of this email was combative and not conducive to resolving the resident’s concerns. This demonstrates the breakdown in the landlord/tenant relationship in this case, which could have been managed through contact restriction measures.
A further example of this issue is that the resident repeatedly raised new cases through the landlord’s online system, rather than logging reports to his existing case. While the landlord repeated that the resident should not do this, if it had instead implemented contact restrictions, the resident would not have been left expecting responses from each new case, which ultimately added to his frustration.
The community trigger investigation concluded that COVID-19 had impacted the landlord’s service delivery and its ability to engage with the resident. The Ombudsman does not dispute that the landlord’s service delivery would have been impacted, but this another example of why it should have been proactive in managing how it could respond to the resident and measuring his expectations accordingly.
Throughout the period of the complaint, the landlord provided some updates about the actions it had taken and the options available for further investigation. There were, however, extended periods between these communications where the resident had made many repeated requests for updates without any timely responses. Additionally, while the landlord’s formal responses set out the actions it had taken, its conclusion that the issues experienced by the resident to be the result of a “difference in lifestyles” did not come until 12 January 2022, well over a year after it opened this investigation. The landlord did not at any point over this timeframe explain how long it would investigate the case for, or that this was a likely outcome given the evidence gathered was similar to previous investigations.
In summary, the steps taken by the landlord to investigate the ASB were largely in line with its policies, and what the landlord would expect. It additionally repeatedly reiterated its offers for further evidence gathering procedures and explained why they were necessary. No service failure has been identified in relation to these actions.
Where the landlord’s response has fallen short has been with its communication and management of the resident’s communications and expectations. It failed from the outset to set clear timeframes for its evidence gathering, to explain how it would use the evidence such noise diary sheets, or to explain the possible enforcement actions it would initially take, and more importantly measure the resident’s expectations about which ones it would be unable to take initially. Additionally, the landlord failed to manage the resident’s communications which led to repeated instances of frustration about how he would be responded to. The landlord had many opportunities to identify this and implement its polices, but it did not do so. It is further concerning to note that throughout the course of the complaint, there were several different members of the landlord’s staff that took over the complaint, and none of them took measures to manage the resident’s communications.
In the circumstances, these repeated missed opportunities to manage the resident’s expectations amounted to maladministration. An amount of £300 compensation is appropriate to reflect the impact caused to the resident. It is the Ombudsman’s understanding that the resident continues to have concerns about ongoing ASB. An order has therefore been made for the landlord to contact the resident regarding his ongoing ASB concerns and redefine its current action plan as set out below. An order had also been made relating to staff training for managing instances of excessive communications, and managing expectations when it comes to its ASB investigations.

Complaints handling

The Ombudsman considers it reasonable for a landlord not to open a new complaint for an issue it has already responded to. It is not disputed that at the beginning of the period of this complaint, the resident had a previous complaint being investigated by this service. The previous complaint related to an older period of the landlord’s response regarding ASB. In its correspondence dated 27 April 2021, the landlord noted the resident continued to have concerns about this period, and it appropriately measured his expectations that it would not revisit these concerns as it had already provided a formal complaint response.
It is also not disputed that the resident was continuing to make reports of present ASB. Throughout his communications with the landlord, the resident continually referred to wishing to raise a new complaint. The landlord’s reply was that this service was already investigating a complaint, and it would therefore not open a new complaint. Given that the resident also wanted the landlord’s present actions to be the subject of a formal complaint, the landlord’s approach was not correct in this instance. The Ombudsman notes, however, that the landlord did continue to liaise with the resident on the issue of its present actions throughout this period, outside of its formal complaint process.
Following the resident’s communications with this service, and this service’s subsequent communications with the landlord, the landlord appropriately opened a formal complaint in May 2021, and provided a stage one response in June 2021, which was a reasonable timeframe.
Following the landlord’s stage one response, on 8 June 2021, the resident sent an email in which he wrote “your final response is now immediately required so the housing ombudsman can properly investigate your failures,” and “your absolute final response is required.” In its follow up communication, however, the landlord advised the resident had the option to request a review, but did not acknowledge that he already had made such a request.
The resident made a further request for an update in July 2021, however, the landlord responded that based on the Ombudsman’s determination of his previous complaint, it had closed the present complaint. This action appears to represent a misunderstanding of the complaint procedure, and the Ombudsman’s determination report of the previous complaint made not finding in relation to the landlord’s present actions, or the present complaint. By closing the complaint on this basis, the landlord went against its complaint policy and unreasonably denied the resident the option to escalate his present complaint. This caused him considerable frustration and caused him to expend time and effort in getting his complaint revisited.
The landlord eventually agreed to provide a stage two response, which came in October 2021. The Housing Ombudsman requires that details of this service be provided to a resident at the summation of an internal complaints procedure. However, in this case the landlord provided contact details for the LGSCO instead. This was possibly due to the landlord having a crossover with the wider local authority. It nevertheless represents a failure to provide accurate details to the resident.
It is evident from the context of the resident’s communications, that in the past the landlord operated a three stage complaints procedure. Following its stage two response, the landlord appropriately confirmed its response had been its final response, and that the resident could now refer his complaint to the Ombudsman. Following this, however, the resident continued to request a final response, and the landlord could have done more to make it clear there was no further response, so as to have expediated his referral of the complaint to this service.
In summary, having initially given misleading advice about whether it could open a new complaint, the landlord did appropriately issue a stage one response. Despite the resident requesting a review of this response, the landlord failed to acknowledge the request, and then closed the complaint based on the outcome of a different investigation response from this service. It also failed to provide the correct details in its stage two response, and fell short in helping the resident understand its complaints procedure.
The above failings amount to service failure in the circumstances, for which an amount of £150 compensation is appropriate to reflect the impact caused to the resident. An order has also been made for the landlord to review its complaints handling staff training to ensure its procedure is fully understood and to ensure the correct Ombudsman details are included in its responses.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was maladministration by the landlord in respect of its:
1. response to the resident’s reports of ASB;
2. complaint’s handling.

Reasons

ASB

While the landlord undertook many appropriate steps to investigate the resident’s reports of ASB, its communications failed to clearly set out how long its investigation would go for, and the potential outcomes of that investigation. It also failed to appropriately manage the resident’s communications. This led to the resident having an unrealistic expectation of the outcome of his reports and to the landlord’s level of communication. Given that the landlord had multiple opportunities to manage this expectation, but failed to do so, there was maladministration.

Complaints handling

The landlord failed to acknowledge the resident’s escalation request and also unreasonably closed the complaint, which would have caused him distress. It also provided incorrect information in its stage two response, and its communication regarding the completion of its complaints process could have been improved.

Orders

The Ombudsman orders the landlord to pay compensation of £450, comprising:
1. £300 for any distress and inconvenience caused to the resident by its communication in relation to its ASB investigation;
2. £150 for its ineffective complaints handling.
This amount must be paid within four weeks of the date of this determination.
Within four weeks of the date of this determination, the landlord is ordered to:
1. contact the resident regarding his ongoing reports of ASB. This communication must reiterate the landlord’s offer for mediation, and for a subjective noise assessment through the environmental health team. The communication must also provide an up to date action plan which sets out the timeframe for the investigation, provide detail on how any other evidence such as diary sheets will be used, and the expected outcomes of the investigation available to the landlord at this stage;
2. review its ASB staff training to ensure that they are aware of how to manage excessive communications, and manage expectations when it comes to its ASB investigation outcomes;
3. review its complaints handling staff training to ensure its procedure is fully understood and to ensure the correct Ombudsman details are included in its responses.