Bromford Housing Group Limited (202204989)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202204989

Bromford Housing Group Limited

26 February 2024

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 way the landlord handled the resident’s:
1. Reports of noise nuisance and antisocial behaviour (ASB);
2. Reports that a neighbour was running a business from their property;
3. Tenancy breach warning;
4. Complaint.

Background and summary of events

The resident is an assured tenant of a 2 bedroom house that is owned by the landlord. She moved into the property in November 1996. The resident has a mental health condition, about which the landlord was aware at the time of the complaint.
On 13 June 2022, the landlord visited the resident following a report from one of her neighbours that her music was too loud. During the visit, she complained that her neighbour had broken her television by slamming their doors. The landlord told her it would not be able to prove this but discussed its noise nuisance process with her. The landlord told her that, if it were to take any action, the resident would need to contact Environmental Health (EH) or download the Noise App. The resident added that her neighbour was also breeding cats and that another neighbour had been switching channels on her TV.
The resident contacted the Service on 13 June 2022 to say she had made a complaint to the landlord about its response to her reports of ongoing ASB but had not received a response. She stated that her neighbour had subjected her to noise, harassment and property damage. She added that the neighbour had been slamming doors, putting things in her bin, taking photos of her and running an illegal business. The Service contacted the landlord on 16 June 2022 to inform it that the resident had made a complaint and asked it to consider this under its internal complaints procedure.
The landlord acknowledged the resident’s stage 1 complaint on 17 June 2022. It spoke to the resident on 28 June 2022. She stated that she felt she was being harassed by her neighbour’s noise and that the landlord was not doing enough to support her. She told it she believed her neighbour had “made her have psychosis” and that they were causing structural damage to the property and belongings by slamming their doors. She added that she had “invested in a microphone” that picked up the “right level of frequency” and was recording the noises.
The resident wrote to the landlord on 30 June 2022 to say she was still experiencing noise from door slamming and that this was disturbing her sleep. She stated she had recorded some of the noise and that the landlord needed to listen to it.
The landlord sent the resident its stage 1 response on 14 July 2022. In its response it:
1. Apologised for the distress the situation with her neighbour was causing her;
2. Asked for evidence of the noise so it could conduct a thorough investigation. Her neighbourhood coach was hoping to visit her to discuss matters in further detail. She had also made it aware that she had been reporting noise disturbance and other ASB to the police;
3. Agreed she had a number of recordings that her neighbourhood coach would listen to. It confirmed it had received these and would be working through them;
4. Agreed it would take actions to move things forward. It was aware the resident had also approached EH about the noise. EH had confirmed it would not get involved in the matter as it was confident the landlord could resolve the issue;
5. Was satisfied it had followed its ASB policy when responding to her reports of noise disturbance. It urged the resident to continue to work with her neighbourhood coach and the police, and to continue to provide evidence.
The resident wrote to the landlord on 25 July 2022 and stated:
1. Her neighbour was still slamming doors, stamping on the floor and banging on the walls. This was waking her up at night;
2. The neighbour had been asked to move a camera to a different location so it did not invade her privacy. Despite this, they had positioned it as close to her boundary as possible;
3. The cats were still there even though tenants were only supposed to have 1 cat;
4. They had taken down outbuildings the council had told them to remove but had since rebuilt them;
5. Due to the harassment she had endured over the years, she had spent several months in hospital, lost her earnings and career, and was on disability benefit for the rest of her life. She asked for her complaint to be escalated to the next stage.
The landlord met with the resident on 23 August 2022 to discuss the noise and ASB issues she had been reporting. It explained to her that, if it received complaints regarding her behaviour, along with corroborating evidence, it would have to take appropriate action.
On 12 September 2022, the landlord sent the resident a letter regarding a breach of her tenancy agreement. It stated that it had received several complaints and evidence that she had been “making obscene gestures towards others” and “banging on the walls”. It said it had also noted that she had built a “permanent structure” in her garden without its permission. It stated that it would not start legal action at that time but that this was her “final warning”.
The resident responded on 27 September 2022 to say she had not erected a permanent structure. She explained that it was a “pergola”, which she had bought in a shop for “DIY installation”.
On 11 October 2022, the resident wrote to the landlord. In her letter she stated:
1. The noise was still continuing and she had “months of recordings” of slamming doors, and banging on floors and walls;
2. There were 5 people living in a 2 bedroom property and the amount of noise generated by the family had affected her mental health to the extent she had been in hospital twice;
3. She had a recording where her neighbour was teaching his children to bang the back door harder;
4. The landlord had not properly listened to the recordings she had provided. The noise continued and her neighbour was not only slamming doors but banging on the floor as well;
5. The landlord had authorised a stud wall to be built in her neighbour’s property to create an extra bedroom. The children ran backwards and forwards from one bedroom to another, which generated a “massive amount” of noise;
6. Her neighbour’s outbuilding was not 2 meters away from their property and required planning permission;
7. She had been subjected to abuse and obscene gestures. Her neighbour had called her a “child abuser” and threatened to put detergent in her pond again;.
8. They were using a CCTV camera for to harass her, which was breaking the law;
9. The landlord said residents could apply to run a business from their home, which was not what it stated in her tenancy agreement;
10. In a meeting held on 23 August 2022, she was not told it was an official tenancy warning. The landlord had told her not to contact social services, a solicitor or the police;
11. She received a final warning without having had a previous warning;
12. The landlord claimed that she had erected a permanent structure at her property, which was not the case. The structure was a temporary pergola;
13. She listed various “false allegations” she stated had been made against her.
The landlord wrote to the resident on 18 October 2022. It said it was writing to her following a request from the Ombudsman, on 17 October 2022, for her complaint to be escalated to stage 2. It stated that, due to issues experienced following a recent cyber incident, it had not received her previous escalation request.
The resident responded on the same day to thank it for raising her complaint to stage 2. She stated that her neighbour woke her up at 11:30pm with persistent banging of the doors and walls. The landlord visited the resident on 18 October 2022 and the resident said her neighbour was making noise at all times of the day. She stated that the Noise App was not picking anything up and that she would purchase her own recording device to see if that would pick up the noise.
The landlord carried out a further home visit on 24 October 2022, in which the resident’s local councillor and parent were present. During the meeting, the resident played some of her recordings. There was also discussion about whether EH would agree to install its own noise recording equipment in her home.
On 11 November 2022, the landlord sent the resident its stage 2 response. It stated:
1. The resident’s original complaint focused on noise disturbance from her neighbour and the lack of support from the landlord. It would have normally dealt with her letter of 11 October 2022, which detailed several other issues, as a new stage 1 complaint. However, it was conscious about the resident’s “depth of feeling” around the issues she had reported and therefore decided to address all her concerns in its stage 2 response.
2. She had provided a variety of recordings, which the landlord reviewed together with EH and the police. All parties agreed that there was no evidence of noise disturbance. In addition, the recordings were also played to her parent, who also confirmed he could not hear anything.
3. Should a home be deemed overcrowded, it would work with the tenants to try and find a new property.
4. The resident mentioned a recording of her neighbour teaching their children how to bang doors harder. It had listened to the recording and could hear a door slam and a voice. However, it was unable to determine the content of the conversation.
5. The neighbourhood coach had been in regular contact with EH. It confirmed it had listened to the resident’s recordings, which did not corroborate her reports.
6. The works in the neighbouring property had been approved and were legal.
7. The outbuilding the resident referred to was a cage rather than an outbuilding, and was more than 2 metres away from the property.
8. The resident reported she had been subjected to obscene gestures and verbal abuse. She also felt she was being watched. It confirmed that, without any evidence, it would be unable to take further action.
9. It had visited the property with the police, checked the cameras and carried out spot checks to ensure the cameras were legal. It had found no issues with regard to the CCTV cameras that were present.
10. It had previously advised the resident that, if someone wished to run a business from one of its properties, they could ask for permission. It did have other residents who ran businesses from home.
11. The resident was correct to say that the landlord had not confirmed the meeting of 23 August 2022 was an official tenancy warning. However, it did explain that, if it received further complaints about her and there was sufficient evidence, it would take appropriate action.
12. Residents were entitled to reach out and seek advice from anywhere they wished. It would not have had anything to gain by telling her not to approach external agencies.
13. After her neighbour confronted her, the resident’s father reported this and confirmed the resident had a recording of the incident. To ensure the matter was taken seriously, it confirmed it would visit the neighbour as a priority and ask to view the video footage. However, the resident would not give her consent and asked it not to investigate any further.
14. When it had originally looked at the photographs of the resident’s pergola, it thought it looked like a permanent structure. After visiting the property, it confirmed the structure was only temporary and needed no planning permission. It asked the resident to accept its apologies for any misunderstanding.
15. It had approached other residents and relatives who the resident said had witnessed the ASB incidents she reported. However, they were unable to corroborate her reports.
16. It encouraged the resident to continue to reach out to her neighbourhood coach, should any further incidents happen.
17. It offered £25 compensation for its failure to provide a stage 1 response to her letter of 11 October 2022. It also offered £25 for its failure to log her stage 2 complaint in line with its policy.
The resident wrote to the Service on 25 February 2023 to say she had been “pushed to the limits” of her mental capacity by “years of harassment and incidents caused by an immediate neighbour”. She stated that her neighbour had moved out but that it had appeared to her that her landlord had a “strong preference” in support of him rather than her. She said that the landlord had failed to address any of her complaints and that, every time she made a complaint, its response was to ask her to keep a diary. The resident added that she would appreciate the Ombudsman’s consideration in order to allow her to move forward.

Assessment and findings

The landlord’s policies and procedures

The tenancy agreement states that residents must make sure no member of their household or any of their visitors cause a nuisance or annoyance or general inconvenience to neighbours, their visitors or any of the association’s tenants. In addition, the agreement says that residents must not create any noise so loudly that it causes a nuisance to neighbours.
The landlord’s Anti-Social Behaviour (ASB) and Tenancy Breach Procedure states that the landlord is committed to taking a victim centred approach to responding to reports of ASB. It will do this by using, where possible, an incremental approach to tackling ASB. It would use legal action only when proportionate and reasonable. It would take early intervention and prevention measures to resolve the problem as quickly as possible and partnership working where appropriate
When receiving ASB reports, the landlord should arrange to meet with the resident and any witnesses. It will carry out information gathering from other agencies such as the police, EH, and social services, ask the resident to keep diary sheets or agree another method of reporting incidents when they happen. It will work with other agencies such as the police, refer residents to other agencies that may be able to help and support them through the case and decide if offering mediation is appropriate in the circumstances.
The procedure also states that the landlord will have 5 working days to respond to a resident after they have reported ASB. Following this, it should complete a full victim risk assessment matrix. The landlord’s aim is to develop an action plan with the resident and keep them informed of progress during the case at least every month, or in accordance with the agreed ‘contact contract’.
The landlord’s complaints policy sets out its 2 stage complaints process. Residents should receive an acknowledgement of their complaint within 5 working days and a stage 1 response will be issued within 10 working days. If the landlord requires more time, it will discuss and agree an extension of the timescales directly with the resident. Generally, any extension will not exceed a further 10 working days, without good reason. This is in line with the Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code). The landlord’s policy states that it will respond to stage 2 complaints within 20 working days and any extension will not exceed a further 10 days without good reason.
The landlord’s compensation policy states that awards for service failure, maladministration, financial loss and distress and inconvenience are made at the landlord’s discretion, on a case by case basis. It states it will consult the Ombudsman’s Guidance on Remedies when considering discretionary awards.

Scope of investigation

The resident has raised concerns that her mental health had been detrimentally affected by the noise disturbance she had experienced. The resident’s comments regarding her health are noted, and are not disputed. However this Service is unable to draw conclusions on the causation of, or liability for, impacts on health and wellbeing. Matters of personal injury or damage to health, their investigation and compensation, are not part of the complaints process. They are more appropriately addressed by way of the courts or the landlord’s liability insurer (if it has one) as a personal injury claim. However, we have considered the impact of the landlord’s actions and the distress and inconvenience that they caused to the resident.

Noise nuisance and antisocial behaviour (ASB)

It is noted from the records that there is a long history of noise and ASB reports from the resident about her neighbour. The Ombudsman encourages residents to raise complaints with their landlords at the time the events happened. This is because with the passage of time, evidence may be unavailable and personnel involved may have left an organisation, which makes it difficult for a thorough investigation to be carried out and for informed decisions to be made. Taking this into account and the availability and reliability of evidence, this assessment has focussed on the period from June 2022 onwards. This is when the evidence shows the resident made reports of noise nuisance that led to her raising a stage 1 complaint.
It is acknowledged that the resident has reported noise nuisance and ASB for a significant period of time and that the situation has had a profound impact on her. However, when considering complaints relating to noise and ASB, it is not the role of the Service to reach a decision on whether they have occurred. Instead, the Ombudsman’s role is to consider whether the landlord has taken reasonable and appropriate steps, in line with its policies and procedures, to investigate the reports, and if it took proportionate action and followed good practice.
It is relevant to acknowledge that ASB cases involving reports and counter-allegations over an extended period of time, sometimes with limited or no corroborating evidence, can be among the most difficult for a landlord to manage. That difficulty is not the fault of any party, but it is important our assessment of the landlord’s actions recognises this fact.
The Ombudsman’s Spotlight Report on Noise Complaints, published in October 2022, states that being clear on how a noise report will be handled can only aid good communication and expectation management.It will avoid the perception felt by many residents that they kept endless diary records for no purpose or outcome. Although the report was published shortly before the landlord issued its stage 2 response, it encompasses the good practice landlords would reasonablyhave been expected to follow when responding to complaints about noise.
The evidence shows that the resident had been completing a diary of noise incidents from March 2022 to February 2023. She told the Service that, every time she made a complaint, the landlord’s response was to ask her to keep a diary. In its stage 2 response, the landlord states that the noise recordings did not match what the resident had said in her reports. However, it is unclear how the landlord considered the evidence the resident had provided in her diary sheets. The landlord’s records do not indicate that it had discussed her diary entries with her, despite the fact she had continued to keep a diary for nearly a year. Instead, it asked her to continue keeping a diary without properly explaining how it would use it, or considering the information she had already provided. It is acknowledged that the landlord was following its policy by asking her to keep a diary. However, the landlord’s failure to explain the purpose of keeping the diary would have led to her frustration and loss of confidence in its handling of the case. This also showed that the landlord had failed to properly manage the resident’s expectations about what actions it would be able to take as a result of the information she was providing.
The landlord had not provided any record of a completed victim risk assessment matrix. This was a departure from the landlord’s policy, as set out above. However, the evidence shows that it was in regular contact with the resident’s care coordinator. There is internal correspondence from 14 July 2022 that states that the landlord had spoken with her care coordinator, who was visiting the resident “daily”. It is positive to note the landlord was liaising with the resident’s health provider and consulting with it. The resident did not give consent for her care coordinator to share information with the landlord. However, it was positive to note that it was making attempts to gather information about the resident’s health in order to establish how best it could support her.
This demonstrates that, although there was no evidence of a written risk assessment, the landlord was actively assessing any risk by working in partnership with external agencies. However, given that the need for a risk assessment is set out in the landlord’s policy, the landlord should have made a record that it was departing from the policy. It would have been reasonable for it to have explained that its discussions with the care coordinator replicated what would ordinarily have been covered by the risk assessment. Considering the resident’s vulnerabilities, the landlord’s records should have demonstrated that it had taken sufficient steps to ensure the resident was adequately supported if it was going to depart from its own policy and not carry out a risk assessment.
There is no evidence the landlord had developed an action plan with the resident or agreed any kind of contact arrangement. A comprehensive and meaningful action plan would have been an opportunity to agree a preferred method of contact, and to arrange convenient dates and times when the landlord could catch up with the resident. It would also have been a chance for the landlord to manage the resident’s expectations in terms of what it was able to do and to set realistic objectives. The plan could have set a formal contact arrangement and helped form a better working relationship between the resident and the landlord. It should also have set out specific actions the landlord agreed to take in response to her reports. This would have given the resident some reassurance it was providing the appropriate support. The consequence of poor action planning was that communication from the landlord was sporadic and often reactive, and this would have provided little assurance to the resident that it was taking all reasonable steps to improve the situation.
The landlord acted appropriately asking the resident to use the Noise App, although it is evident she had also been using her own recording device. The landlord was correct to explain the difference between the app and other recording devices, and to recommend she used the dedicated app. The landlord correctly informed her that the app gathered “a baseline level of information of noise occurrences” and that it would “pick up incidents of door closing”.
The records indicate that the landlord took appropriate action by listening to the sound recordings the resident had provided. Internal correspondence from July and October 2022 shows that, following its review of the recordings, it had not been able to document anything that would suggest “any form of noise nuisance”. Internal correspondence also states that the recordings show “single incidences of a door opening or closing during reasonable hours” and describes this as “general living noise”.
It is noted the resident did not meet the criteria for installation of Environmental Health (EH) sound recording equipment. Despite this, the landlord supported the resident’s request for the equipment to be installed in her property. It was appropriate that the landlord exercised its discretion in order to try and help corroborate the resident’s reports, demonstrating it was taking a customer focused approach. The evidence shows that the EH equipment was in situ for a short while between the end of November and beginning of December 2022. The landlord also correctly followed its policy by working in partnership with other agencies such as the police, EH, the resident’s care coordinator and the resident’s family, in order to review the sound recordings. This demonstrated it was making efforts to take a multiagency approach and draw support from a wide area of expertise.
The Ombudsman’s spotlight report recommends that, to handle noise reports that do not meet the statutory threshold, landlords should adopt a proactive good neighbourhood management strategy, distinct to the ASB policy, with clear options for maintaining good neighbourhood relationships. It states that, this requires some landlords to recognise noise transference is often the key issue, and address the implications of this. By doing so, landlords could stop escalating complaints into ASB and focus more on prevention. There is no evidence the landlord had explored ways in which any noise transference could be minimised. Although the noise may not have been caused deliberately, this does not lessen the impact it would have had on the resident. Given the nature of her vulnerabilities, the landlord should have given more consideration to her sensitivity to the noise, even if it was deemed “general living noise”.
The resident stated in her complaint escalation request that she had discussed with her neighbourhood coach on 29 September 2022 whether the landlord would look at soft close hinges for her neighbour’s doors. The landlord could have considered whether there were practical measures that would have helped lessen the noise. It could have worked with the resident and her neighbour to find ways to dampen the noise from doors or flooring, for instance. It could also have explored whether there were any improvements or alterations the resident could make to her property to help lessen the noise disturbance. Although it may have concluded that no alterations were necessary or appropriate, it would have been reasonable in the circumstances for the landlord to consider whether noise transference was an issue and to look at ways of minimising its impact.
There is nothing to indicate the landlord had taken other factors other than noise recordings into account. The evidence suggests the resident had not made any previous complaints about noise before her current neighbours moved in. She stated that there had been previous tenants, including those with children, but she had not raised concerns about noise when they were living there. The landlord should reasonably have considered this when responding to her reports. For example, there are no records of any visits by the landlord to her neighbour to discuss the noise and ASB reports, or to check for any living arrangements that would have made the noise worse than before.
The landlord mentioned in its stage 2 response that it had spoken to witnesses that the resident had referred it to. However, there are no contemporaneous records of discussions with potential witnesses, or visits to neighbouring properties to check whether other residents were experiencing similar noise disturbance. The failure to take a more holistic approach in its investigation meant the landlord could not demonstrate it was doing everything it could to support the resident. The landlord’s ASB policy list its roles and responsibilities for dealing with initial reports of low level nuisance or carrying out investigations to prevent “escalation in behaviours”. These include visits to “complainants and perpetrators” and “convening round table meetings with complainants and perpetrators to resolve issues”. Although it would not have been the landlord’s intention, it is understandable that its reluctance to approach the neighbour would have left the resident with the impression it was being dismissive of her reports. It would have also increased her feelings that the landlord was acting in favour of her neighbour.
The records also show that there was a large family, with children, living in a small property. It is evident the landlord focused on evidence from noise recordings. It is evident it was treating the resident’s noise reports under the general umbrella of ASB rather than a separate noise issue. There is no evidence the landlord took steps to try and encourage a better relationship between the resident and her neighbour, such as mediation. This would have helped create a situation where the 2 parties could work together to find a solution. The resident told the Service that during a meeting with the landlord on 29 September 2022, she had asked for mediation but that it had “never been offered”. Although the landlord may not have considered mediation to have been appropriate, it would have been reasonable for it to have followed up the resident’s request and explained why it did not feel mediation would have been beneficial. That the landlord failed to appropriately respond to the resident’s request for mediation and the cumulative failure of not exploring the noise transference further amounted to maladministration.

Reports that a neighbour was running a business from their property

The evidence shows that the resident’s neighbour was also a tenant of the landlord. We have not been provided with a copy of the neighbour’s tenancy agreement; however, the resident’s tenancy agreement states that residents must keep any pets under control and make sure they do not cause nuisance. Residents must also get prior permission before keeping a dog, cat or any other large animal. In addition, the resident must not use their property to run a business without the landlord’s prior written permission.
The evidence shows the landlord conducted a proportionate investigation in response to the resident’s reports. It spoke to the neighbour and gave the resident correct information in its response with regard to resident’s right to run businesses from their property as long as they had the requisite permission. It was appropriate that the landlord did not share any personal information about the neighbour in its response.
However, it could have further explored whether or not the neighbour’s pets were causing the resident any nuisance and then taken reasonable steps to ensure the neighbour was properly following their obligations under the tenancy agreement. It would also have been reasonable for the landlord to consider whether any conditions attached to the permission had not been adhered to. lt should then have advised the resident she could report any nuisance caused by the neighbour’s pets and what action it could take in response. We have therefore made a recommendation that the landlord reminds the neighbour of their obligations when owning pets, and running a business from their property.

Tenancy breach warning

When considering breaches of tenancy, the landlord’s ASB and Tenancy Breach Policy states, where there are concerns regarding a perpetrator’s disability including any mental health issues, it may be necessary to complete a justification exercise and/or public sector equality duty assessment before taking any action.
The policy also states that, where residents are not meeting the terms and conditions of their tenancy, the landlord will make realistic and meaningful agreements to not just address the presenting problem but also its root cause. It will aim to resolve issues by discussion and negotiation with the resident and others. It lists 3 stages of action followed by referral to the landlord’s Community Safety Team to consider possible legal action. The first stage involved gathering evidence, agreeing what steps resident can take to resolve the issue and communicating the consequences if the issues remain unresolved. The second stage involves being clear of consequences and the third stage is when the landlord reviews the situation at least every month.
It is evident that, prior to issuing its breach of tenancy final warning letter to the resident, the landlord had gathered evidence of a tenancy breach. The records show it had also given the resident an initial warning about her behaviour during a meeting on 23 August 2022 prior to issuing the warning letter. In its letter it explained the consequences of a continued breach. There is internal correspondence that states the landlord told the resident the purpose of the meeting was to discuss tenancy issues. It stated that it wanted to “listen to her side but also to let her know of concerns and issues raised by others”. There is also evidence from internal correspondence that the landlord has been liaising with the police through November and December 2022 to review the situation.
It is important that the landlord considers the resident’s vulnerabilities and how they may have contributed to her behaviour. The landlord’s policy expects it to take an incremental approach before considering legal action. It is therefore appropriate that the landlord takes appropriate steps to support vulnerable residents and make any adjustments that would help them improve behaviour that breaches their tenancy. However, this must also be balanced against the impact of the resident’s actions on her neighbours. The resident’s vulnerabilities would not prevent her from facing any reasonable and proportionate consequences of breaching her tenancy agreement. The evidence shows that the landlord conducted a Justification Exercise and Public Sector Equality Duty Assessment prior to issuing the warning letter. It is acknowledged therefore that the landlord had correctly followed its policy prior to issuing its letter.
However, it was inappropriate for the landlord to include its concerns that the resident had built a “permanent structure” in her garden as part of the letter. This is because the landlord had not carried out proper checks to ascertain whether it was a permanent structure prior to issuing its warning. It should have visited the property first to look at the structure, where it would have established that it was a temporary ‘pergola’. It was not until the resident wrote to the landlord, following receipt of the letter, that it properly assessed the structure and admitted that no permission was required.
The landlord’s failure to carry out proper checks and to issue a letter based on what was an assumption would have caused the resident unnecessary upset. It would have also damaged the relationship between the landlord and resident and helped support her belief that it was acting against her interests. That the landlord failed to conduct reasonable enquiries before including its concern as part of a final warning of a tenancy breach was a failing. It was appropriate for the landlord to apologise for its error in its stage 2 response. However, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, the apology does not go far enough to put things right or to recognise the impact its failure to make proper enquiries had on the resident. The landlord will therefore have to provide some redress in recognition of distress and inconvenience caused.

Complaint

The resident wrote to the Ombudsman on 14 June 2022 to state that the landlord had not responded to her complaint. There is internal correspondence from 20 June 2022, after we made contact with the landlord. In this, the landlord says it was “a little confused” as it had not received any recent complaints from the resident. There is evidence of a meeting between the landlord and resident on 13 June 2022, where she raised concerns about noise nuisance from her neighbour’s property. However, there are no records to show that the resident had raised a formal complaint prior to that date.
It took 16 working days from the Ombudsman’s contact for the landlord to issue its stage 1 response. This was outside the 10 working days, as allowed by its policy. There is no evidence the landlord attempted to discuss and agree and extension of the timescales directly with the resident. Although the delay was not excessive, that it did not communicate appropriately with the resident, was a departure from its policy and the Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code.
The records show that the resident wrote to the landlord on 25 July 2022 to escalate her complaint. There is no evidence that the landlord had acknowledged her email or that it had opened a stage 2 complaint at that time. On 18 October 2022, the landlord acknowledged the resident’s letter of 11 October 2022, where she raised further concerns. It said that it understood the resident had asked to escalate her complaint previously but that “due to issues experienced through the recent cyber incident” it had not received her previous request. The landlord has confirmed that the period in which it was unable to fully access its computer systems was from 20 July 2022 to around the end of September 2022. It is recognised the landlord would not have had full access to its computer systems shortly following the cyber incident, and would therefore have not seen the resident’s escalation request until it was accessible.
However, there is no record the landlord had alerted the resident to the fact there had been a cyber incident, or that it gave her any explanation at the time. It would have been reasonable for it to have been transparent with residents about the impact of the cyber incident and the likely delays caused by it. It would also have been reasonable for it to have signposted the resident to its website or any other source of information where it published updates.
It was appropriate that, in view of its delay in acknowledging the escalation request, the landlord exercised its discretion. Although many of the concerns the resident raised on 11 October 2022 were not part of her stage 1 complaint, the landlord agreed to investigate and respond to them in its stage 2 response. It is also noted that the landlord provided a full and comprehensive response to all the points the resident had raised. It offered £50 compensation for its delay in acknowledging the resident’s letter of 11 October 2022 and its delay in responding to her escalation request.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in the way the landlord handled the resident’s reports of noise nuisance and ASB.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration in the way the landlord handled the resident’s reports that a neighbour was running a business from their property.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure in the way the landlord handled the resident’s tenancy breach warning.
In accordance with paragraph 53(b) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the landlord has made an offer of reasonable redress in recognition of its complaint handling failures.

Reasons

The landlord made efforts to try and corroborate the evidence of noise disturbance the resident had provided. It listened to her recordings, provided appropriate noise recording software and worked with external agencies including the resident’s care coordinator in order to provide support. However, it failed to consider noise transference, to evidence it had spoken to the alleged perpetrators or other potential witnesses or follow up on the resident’s request for mediation.
The landlord carried out a proportionate investigation into the resident’s concerns about her neighbour running a business for their property. It correctly advised her that residents were able to run a business from their property as long as they had received permission.
The landlord followed its policy prior to sending the resident a breach of tenancy warning letter. However, it failed to carry out proper checks before including reference to the structure erected in her garden as part of its warning.
The landlord delayed responding to the resident’s stage 1 complaint and escalation request. However, it exercised its discretion and provided a full and comprehensive response to the further concerns she raised, despite them not having been raised at stage 1.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

Within 4 weeks of the date of the determination, the landlord to pay the resident £350. This replaces the landlord’s original offer of £50. The payment is comprised of:
1. £200 in recognition of the landlord’s failure to follow up on the resident’s request for mediation or to consider noise transference.
2. £100 in recognition of the distress and inconvenience caused by its failure to conduct proper checks prior to issuing a breach of tenancy warning letter.
3. £50 that it had offered in its stage 2 response for its complaint handling failures. If it has already paid this, the landlord to deduct it from the overall total.
4. Provide, with a copy to the Ombudsman, an apology to the resident from a senior member of staff for its failures.
Within 8 weeks of the date of this report:
1. The landlord to undertake a review of how it follows its process for issuing warnings for breach of tenancy, particularly in relation to carrying out proper factual checks before sending letters to residents. This is particularly relevant for residents who have vulnerabilities that mean the letters would cause them particular distress. The landlord to report back to the Ombudsman with the outcome of its review and any changes it has made as a result.
2. The landlord to carry out a review on how it deals with complaints about noise nuisance and consider any amendments it makes to the relevant policy and procedure against the recommendations made in the Ombudsman’s spotlight report. The landlord to report back to the Service with the outcome of its review.
3. The landlord is ordered to contact the resident to discuss if there are is any advice or support it could provide in order to minimise any noise transference from neighbouring properties. Consideration should be given on any improvements or alterations the resident could make to ensure any noises from other properties are less acute. With the resident’s permission, the landlord may also consider liaising with her care coordinator to establish if there are any adjustments the landlord could make to minimise any distress caused by external noise.

Recommendations

If it has not done so already, the landlord to review its practices so that it can provide some continuity of service in the event of a future cyber incident or similar incident that may severely affect its service provision.
The landlord to remind staff that any consideration of risk or whether further support is required should be logged as a formal risk assessment. This will ensure that it follows its procedure in all cases.
The landlord to remind its residents of their obligations under their tenancy agreement if they intend to set up a business from their home, and to ensure they first seek permission from the landlord.