Bromford Housing Group Limited (202342434)

Back to Top

 

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202342434

Bromford Housing Group Limited

23 August 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

  1. This complaint is about the landlord’s handling of the resident’s antisocial behaviour and noise nuisance reports.

Background and summary of events

  1. The resident is a leaseholder. The landlord is the freeholder for her flat.
  2. The evidence shows the resident has made reports of antisocial behaviour (ASB) or noise nuisance from neighbours multiple times to the landlord for several years. One of the most common reports was of neighbours causing noise during the day by doing what was described as “DIY” work. Most of the reports and communication between the resident and landlord in this case has been through a messaging app.
  3. At the end of 2022 the only reports from the resident were of occasional slamming doors. She told the landlord in early 2023 that the problems had diminished since a neighbour had moved out.
  4. In April and May 2023 the resident started reporting DIY noise and slamming doors again. She gave the landlord recordings of the noises she was hearing. The landlord told her it had visited the neighbours, was seeking advice from the local authority noise team, and was considering what steps it could take.
  5. In May and June 2023 the landlord tried unsuccessfully to arrange a visit to the resident. There were no further reports in June and July, but in August the resident started reporting barking noises from a dog she believed was being left unattended in a neighbour’s home. Similar reports, as well as the DIY noises and slamming doors were made to the landlord intermittently for the rest of 2023.
  6. The resident complained to the landlord at the end of January 2024. She said she had experienced noise disturbance and ASB from her neighbours for several years, and was dissatisfied with the way it had dealt with it. She explained that until recently she had been a shift worker and had regularly found it difficult to rest during the day because of the DIY noise, and recently the barking dog. She also explained in detail how the disturbances had affected her physically and mentally.
  7. The resident said her own efforts to resolve the problem with the neighbours had been unsuccessful, and had resulted in her being verbally abused. She asked for compensation, and that the landlord restrict the neighbours from undertaking the types of activity causing the problems.
  8. The landlord sent its complaint response in February 2024. It explained the actions it had taken in response to the resident’s reports, including unannounced visits to the neighbours. It said its investigations had not been able to identify that noise levels from the neighbours’ DIY work or similar were of an inappropriate level.
  9. The landlord explained it could not restrict tenants from doing things in their home which they were entitled to do, even if a certain level of noise was generated. However, it had asked the neighbours to be considerate of the time when doing any work. It noted that household noise is not usually considered to be ASB, but confirmed the resident had a noise app with which to record future incidents, and provided
  10. The resident disputed the landlord’s decision not to take further action, and asked it to escalate her complaint. She acknowledged that a certain level of noise was to be expected when living in flats, but felt that the frequency and intensity of what she was experiencing was not reasonable, especially as the DIY work had been happening for several years.
  11. The landlord sent its final complaint response in May 2024. It repeated much of what it had said in its first response, but also gave a list of actions it had taken following the resident’s reports. These included working with the police and liaising with the local council. It explained that none of the evidence it had received from the resident or obtained itself supported formal action against the neighbours. However, it also explained further steps it planned to take to try and resolve the problem, including visiting the neighbours again, arranging a visit with a safety manager, and investigating a recent occasion of the neighbour’s door being slammed. The landlord empathised with the resident’s situation, but concluded it had taken appropriate steps. It referred her to the Ombudsman if she remained dissatisfied.

Assessment and findings

Investigation scope

  1. Many of the ASB and noise incidents the resident referred to in her complaints to the landlord and to the Ombudsman occurred in 2022, or earlier. Her complaint to the landlord was in January 2024.
  2. There are time limits on complaint issues which the Ombudsman will consider. Usually, the Ombudsman may not consider a complaint about something which was not previously raised with the landlord as a formal complaint within a reasonable amount of time of the issue arising. A reasonable amount of time is generally considered to be 6 months. Because of that, this investigation centres on the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports since mid-2023. References to earlier events is for background and context only.

Relevant policies and procedures

  1. The landlord has an ASB and Tenancy Breach Procedure (the policy). It sets out that not all reports it receives are considered to be ASB. Reports relating to general everyday activities, people “not being pleasant”, or what tenants do in their own homes (and not contravening their tenancy agreement), are described by the policy as not being things the landlord will investigate.
  2. The policy sets out the steps the landlord takes when it receives ASB or nuisance reports. These include opening a casefile, following up with the reporter, and undertaking a ‘victim risk assessment matrix’. The landlord will consider the reports and whether there are possibilities for the parties to resolve matters between themselves. If it concludes that is not likely, it will open a ‘tenancy breach case’ against the alleged perpetrator.
  3. Some of the actions the policy states the landlord can consider using to resolve the problem involve meeting both parties, working with other organisations (such as the police), asking the reporter to document dates and times of further incidents, surveillance, and referring victims to relevant sources of support. The policy states the landlord will agree with the reporter any timescales for its investigations, and formally review the case at least every month.
  4. The policy notes that all matters relating to the case should be documented in the landlord’s case management system in a factual and robust manner suitable for it to be used as court evidence. It also refers to ‘Community Trigger’ complaints, and explains the landlord’s commitment to dealing with such complaints in accordance with the local council’s processes.
  5. If the landlord concludes there is insufficient evidence to proceed with formal action following ASB and nuisance reports, the policy states it should close the case. It should also inform the reporter, explain its decision, and explain the options available to them if problems reoccur.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s antisocial behaviour and noise nuisance reports

  1. Most of the resident’s reports to the landlord about noise nuisance and ASB have been done by messaging. Copies of the messages have been provided, which show the landlord responding to her reports promptly, managing her expectations about what actions it might be able to take, and informing her of the actions it had taken, or planned to take.
  2. The landlord’s responses to the resident’s complaint also described and listed a range of steps it had taken to investigate and resolve the resident’s concerns. These actions, such as visiting the resident and the neighbours, seeking advice from the local council, liaising with the police, and undertaking unannounced visits to the property to witness noise for itself, were proportionate and relevant, in line with its policy and basic good practice.
  3. The landlord also clearly attempted to manage the resident’s expectations in regard to the nature of the some of her reports. Many of her reports were of noise during the day from actions thought to be DIY work (which, within reason, is not something a tenant would usually be restricted from doing), or of slamming doors. There were more reports of other incidents, but these were among the most common. In general circumstances, these sources of noise would not usually be considered unreasonable, even if they were disturbing the resident’s rest during the day. The landlord explained this to the resident. Its explanations were appropriate as they ensured she knew that not all of what she was reporting could be prevented.
  4. However, the landlord has not provided evidence supporting or showing the actions it said it had taken. No evidence has been seen of an ASB case file, a victim risk assessment, internal assessment of the resident’s reports, the results of regular monthly reviews, case closure letters or discussions, or the outcomes of its meetings with the alleged perpetrators. These are all steps set out in its policy, which also emphasises the need for robust records of the actions taken, suitable for later scrutiny. It may be that these steps were taken at some point in the history of the resident’s reports. If so, they needed to be provided for this investigation so a full assessment of the landlord’s actions could be made.
  5. The risk assessment was of particular importance. The messages from the resident regularly explained the distress she was experiencing and the noise’s effect on her wellbeing. The purpose of a risk assessment is to identify any specific needs or circumstances which require further attention, action, or support from the landlord. It is an important element of handling ASB and reducing the impact on the victim. In this case either no such assessment was done, or it was, but no record of it has been kept.
  6. Local councils play a role in resolving ASB and noise nuisance complaints. One of their key roles is in arranging and coordinating an ASB case review with all the relevant parties, such as landlords, police, and the council (this role has historically been known as the ‘Community Trigger’). Victims of ASB have the right to ask their local council, either directly or via their landlord, to arrange such a case review if they believe their concerns are not being addressed or resolved. The case review considers what issues have been reported and the actions taken by the landlord and other parties. It can suggest further options for resolving the problem or providing support, and it can provide reassurance to the victim that all which can be done is being done.
  7. The landlord’s policy includes the case review process and commits it to working with local councils in regard to such a review. No evidence has been seen of such a review happening, or the landlord suggesting it to the resident. There are usually certain criteria to be met before a council will agree to a case review, but they generally centre on the frequency and nature of the ASB or noise reports. It is not for this investigation to say whether a case review would have been agreed by the council, but the details of the resident’s reports suggest it would likely have been accepted. In any case, given her clear dissatisfaction with its actions, not considering it or suggesting it was a missed opportunity and failing by the landlord.
  8. The steps and actions the landlord said it had taken in its complaint responses were sound and appropriate, in line with its policy and good practice. However, it has not provided evidence of these actions or their outcomes, which suggests it has not kept the robust records its policy requires it to. Nor has it provided evidence of other actions its policy sets out. It also appears to have failed to suggest to the resident the important option of asking the local council to review the case. These omissions show failings in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports.

Determination (decision)

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure by the landlord in regard to the complaint.

Reasons

  1. The landlord has not provided evidence for many of the actions it has said it has taken in response to the resident’s reports, or of several steps its ASB policy states it should have taken. It also failed to consider, or explain to the resident the option of a local council case review.

Orders

  1. The landlord is ordered to review this investigation’s findings with a view to improving its current and future handling of the resident’s reports. In particular, it must explain how it intends to adhere to its ASB policy, and how it will ensure it records her reports, and its actions and decisions in a reliable manner. Evidence of this review and its communication to the resident must be provided to the Service within 5 weeks of this report.
  2. The landlord must also pay the resident £450 compensation for its poor handling of her reports. Evidence of payment must be shown within 4 weeks of this report.