Camden Council (202226779)
REPORT
COMPLAINT 202226779
Camden Council
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
- The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of:
- The resident’s concerns about the landlord’s housing points allocation for rehousing.
- The resident’s reports of antisocial behaviour (ASB) and harassment on his estate.
- The resident’s reports of noise nuisance from his neighbour.
- The resident’s reports of a leak and issues with heating and hot water at his property.
- The landlord’s complaint handling has also been investigated.
Jurisdiction
- What we can and cannot consider is called the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction. This is governed by the Housing Ombudsman Scheme (the Scheme). When a complaint is brought to the Ombudsman, we must consider all the circumstances of the case as there are sometimes reasons why a complaint will not be investigated.
- The resident considers the landlord has awarded insufficient points under its housing allocations scheme to allow him to be rehoused. The Ombudsman cannot consider complaints which relate to an application for rehousing. Therefore, complaints about the assessment of such applications, or the award of points, would likely be considered by the Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman (LGSCO) which deals with issues around the allocations scheme by councils. The resident may wish to refer this aspect of his complaint to the LGSCO.
- This is in accordance with paragraph 42(j) of the Scheme, which states that the Ombudsman will not investigate complaints which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, fall properly within the jurisdiction of another Ombudsman, regulator, or complaints-handling body. Any further reference in this report to the issue of the awarding of points or the allocations scheme would be for contextual purposes only.
Background
- The resident lives with his wife and child in a 1-bedroom flat in a purpose-built block owned by the landlord. The resident’s wife has a secure tenancy with the landlord, a local authority since September 2018. The resident is named as an occupant on the tenancy agreement and his wife has provided consent to the Ombudsman for the complaint to be made on her behalf. The landlord has no vulnerabilities recorded for the family.
- On 31 May 2022, the resident reported a leak in his kitchen, running into his kitchen light. The landlord attended the same day repairing the leak and made the light safe. It advised the resident a further leak would continue for 3 to 5 days due to “water trapped between floors”. The resident asked on 1 June for support with draining water, food vouchers and compensation for damage to his property and possessions. The landlord asked the resident to contact its repairs team about these matters. It is unclear what action took place following this. Electricity was restored to the kitchen light on 14 June as the landlord confirmed the kitchen ceiling was dry.
- Between 27 June 2022 and 26 January 2023, the resident raised several issues with the landlord. The issues raised and the response are detailed as follows:
- On 27 June 2022, the resident stated there was noise nuisance from his neighbour above causing noise until 3 am. On the same day, the landlord asked the resident to log any noise. However, the resident told it on 30 June 2022 he would not do this, and the noise had been ongoing for 4 years. The landlord would go on to warn the resident about noise on 14 January 2023. He made counter reports the same day raising his neighbour had hard flooring. The landlord would go on to remind the neighbour of the flooring requirements of their property. The flooring in the neighbour’s property was changed on 7 April 2023. The landlord completed a sound test on 26 April 2023 and found no noise nuisance. It advised him to report further noise to environmental health.
- The resident reported ASB and harassment in the green space and courtyard near his property from 2 September. This included people using and dealing drugs, fighting and making noise. He said someone “threatened to stab” him and was using “racist language” towards him. He said people were also training their dogs nearby and food was being thrown regularly out of a nearby building’s window. He detailed the detriment it was causing to the whole family, including their mental and physical health. The landlord took the following action:
- It arranged targeted day and night patrols in July and November 2022. It said he had been threatened due to approaching the perpetrators. It told him on 11 November not to approach them and to contact the police or its patrol team.
- It completed a risk assessment of the family and considered obtaining the resident’s reports to the police. It found the police were unable to determine who the perpetrators were and had not been able to take further action. It found that ASB was often unreported to the police and itself and the resident should continue to report as it happened.
- It closed access to the green space near the resident’s building and removed furniture to stop people from congregating there.
- It wrote to all residents in a nearby building warning of a tenancy breach if food or rubbish was thrown from windows. The resident’s concerns and later threats were from a dog walker in the same building. The resident asked the landlord not to take any further action about this.
- From 19 November 2022 the resident said there was a problem with heating and hot water in the property. He said the boiler was too big and often overheated. As a result, the temperature was always “too hot” and water in the shower was either “too hot or too cold.” He also said there had been a noisy pipe in the property for 4 years. He said these issues were affecting his child’s respiratory symptoms. A surveyor visited the property on 7 December 2022 and found it in a “good state of repair”. It would raise a work order for the noisy pipe the same day. It is unclear if this was completed. A landlord contractor on 19 December 2022 completed a temporary fix for the heating and found the boiler needed to be replaced. The boiler was replaced by the landlord around 6 March 2023.
- The landlord’s housing officer provided its stage 1 complaint response on 11 November 2022 following a complaint from the resident on 4 November. It explained how it allocated the resident’s housing points and options for mutual exchange. It confirmed it would consider adding harassment points to the housing points allocation. It also advised the resident to report ASB to the police and not approach perpetrators. It confirmed it would arrange further patrols.
- The resident escalated his complaint on 12 November 2022. On 17 December when he received no reply, he chased a response. On this date, he raised concerns that despite complaining about his housing officer they had provided his stage 1 complaint response. The landlord provided its stage 2 complaint response on 1 February 2023. It believed the ASB was not targeted at the resident and his family but would continue to work with the police and complete patrols. As such it said it could not award maximum housing points for harassment. It confirmed it was working with his neighbour to reduce noise at the property. Moreover, it had written to residents about the importance of reporting incidents. It shared the result of its December 2022 survey and had raised the noisy pipe.
- The Ombudsman accepted the resident’s complaint for investigation on 12 April 2023. He told the Ombudsman on 6 November he had been affected by drug activity in the area for 5 years. He said this had exacerbated his wife and child’s health issues. He said he was left without a functioning shower or access to hot water for over 4 years. On 18 July 2024, the Ombudsman received confirmation from the resident he and his family had moved from the property.
Assessment and findings
- In the resident’s correspondence, he has referred to historical issues of ASB, noise nuisance and disrepair in his property. Paragraph 42 (c) Housing Ombudsman Scheme states that we may not consider complaints that were not brought to the attention of the landlord as a formal complaint within a reasonable period, which would normally be within six months of the matters arising. Given the time periods involved in this case, considering the availability and reliability of evidence, this assessment does not consider any specific events before 4 May 2022. The historical issues provide contextual background to the current complaint, but the assessment is focused on the landlord’s actions in responding to the more recent events and, specifically, to the formal complaint made on 4 November 2022.
- The purpose of this investigation is not to establish if ASB occurred, or which party in the neighbouring dispute was responsible. It is for the Ombudsman to determine whether, in response to reports of ASB, the landlord acted in accordance with its relevant policies and procedures and if its actions were fair and reasonable in all the circumstances of the case.
- The resident said that his and his family’s mental and physical health suffered because of how the landlord handled his reports of ASB and noise from his neighbour. Whilst we do not doubt the resident’s comments, the Ombudsman is unable to conclude the causation of, or liability for, impacts on health and wellbeing. The resident may be able to make a personal injury claim against the landlord if he considers that his health has been affected by its actions or inaction. This is a legal process, and the resident may wish to seek independent legal advice if he wants to pursue this option. However, we have considered the general distress and inconvenience that the resident experienced because of the landlord’s handling of the situation involving his property.
- In further correspondence with the Ombudsman the resident advised of an issue of “mould on the pavement.” It is unclear if the resident has raised a separate complaint about this. However, there is no evidence of the resident raising this prior to the completion of the landlord’s internal complaints procedure. As this is a separate issue to the complaint raised with the Ombudsman, this is not something that the Ombudsman can adjudicate on at this stage, as the landlord needs to be provided with the opportunity to investigate and provide its final complaint response to this aspect.
The resident’s reports of antisocial behaviour (ASB) and harassment on his estate.
- The landlord’s website confirms it takes all reports of ASB seriously and follows a set procedure once it receives a report. Once a report is made it confirms the victim will receive a reference number and acknowledgement of their report in 48 hours. Any behaviour that makes a victim or others unsafe should be reported, this includes drug-related ASB (use and dealing), threatening behaviour and threats (physical and verbal) and dog-related ASB. Once it receives a report it may ask for information from the police. It will keep in regular contact with the victim and keep them informed of what it is doing to resolve the problem. It confirms if the victim is in immediate danger or witnessing a crime to contact 999 and 101 to report non-emergencies.
- Its Remedies for ASB Policy confirms when the perpetrator is not a tenant of the landlord the police are responsible for taking formal action. This includes dispersal powers, in asking a person to leave a specific location. The police can also enact community protection notices and public space protection orders to stop perpetrators from causing ASB against communities or protecting public spaces from persistent ASB from individuals. The landlord has a ‘dogs’ hub’ to “support responsible dog ownership” and in “more difficult cases” enact behaviour modification programmes or enforcement for ASB or tenancy conditions related to dogs.
- The Ombudsman can find no evidence of the resident reporting ASB to the landlord prior to 28 June 2022. He would later state he had been reporting issues for over 4 years. The Ombudsman can find no evidence of this. In reviewing the case in January 2023, the landlord would find no evidence of reports of ASB from the resident prior to June 2022. On 28 June 2022, the landlord told the resident to report incidents to its community safety team who could “inform patrols”. Its response was in accordance with its ASB Policy and ensured the resident was aware it could take action when it received reports from him. The landlord took proportionate action on 6 July in arranging day and night patrols on the estate for a period of 2 weeks. It is reasonable to conclude in the absence of further reports from the resident that this was effective.
- The resident would next make a report to the landlord and a councillor on 2 September 2022. He said “homeless people” were using “crack” under his window and screaming. There is no evidence the landlord contacted him within 48 hours as its policy suggests. There is no evidence the landlord took any action on the reports until 16 September when it asked him for further details. It followed this up on 20 September asking him to call. There is no evidence it advised the resident about reporting the issues to the police at this point as its policy suggests. It tried to call him on 28 September and was unable to reach him so emailed him. He made a further report the same day of people around his door and a “big fight” happening a few days prior. There is no evidence the landlord acknowledged this report or took any further action.
- On 19 October 2022, the landlord’s community safety officer asked the housing officer internally whether they had “contact with the resident” about his issues. The housing officer confirmed they had not despite the resident’s reports “in the summer” of people in the “courtyard or green spaces.” They suggested they could request further patrols and ask the resident to report incidents to the police and its patrols. There is no evidence they took this action at this time. The inactivity on the case coincided with a new housing officer taking over at the end of October.
- The resident informed the new housing officer of his ongoing issues with drug-related ASB on 31 October. He informed them someone had previously attempted to stab him and used racist language about him. It is unclear when this is alleged to have taken place. He would then raise a complaint about the same issues on 4 November. The landlord’s website states there is “no place for hate” and it is “committed to tackling and challenging racial abuse and harassment”. Although it is unclear if the resident raised this with the police, there was no evidence of the landlord “tackling” or “challenging” this. The landlord would only advise the resident not to approach the perpetrators. There is no evidence it enacted any hate crime procedure or support for the resident.
- The landlord arranged further day and night patrols for two weeks on 9 November 2022. This was a proportionate response and within the limited steps it could take due to the reports being about the public and not landlord tenants. Its stage 1 complaint response of 11 November addressed the residents’ concerns about drug-related ASB and harassment. It said the issues were “not targeted at the resident” specifically. It said the resident was “threatened” as he had confronted the perpetrators. It “strongly advised” him not to engage with them and report incidents to the police to take action. This was in accordance with the policy and focused on the safety of the resident.
- Following the landlord’s stage 1 complaint response it began to take more proactive action to tackle the resident’s reports of ASB.
- It would arrange further targeted day and night patrols on the estate on 17 November 2022.
- It visited the resident on 17 November 2022 to listen to his concerns that incidents had been ongoing for years. It obtained reports made by the resident to the police on 18 November. It found the resident had only made reports on 21 May, 22 June, and 29 June. The police confirmed they had been unable to take action as they were unable to identify the perpetrators. The landlord found on 18 November that despite the resident stating there were numerous incidents he had not reported these to the police or landlord as they were happening. It reiterated the requirement to report incidents as they happened and provided the resident with details of its patrol teams.
- It completed a risk assessment with the resident and his family on 23 November 2022. It decided as a result of this to remove furniture from the grassed area to “discourage people sitting there.” It completed this on 24 November and this was an appropriate step to stop people congregating near the resident’s property.
- The resident would make further reports on 7 December 2022 reporting people urinating near his windows and “sexual activity and drug activity” near the bin area. He confirmed he reported his concerns to the police. The resident had acted as requested by the landlord in this regard. It should have acknowledged this to him and whether it would take any further action such as further patrols. Its failure to do this gave the resident the impression it was not listening, despite its positive action in November.
- The resident reported shouting, swearing and drug use outside his window on 8 January 2023. There is no evidence of the landlord acknowledging or taking action on this report. He reported drug use and dealing in the area on 10 January and the landlord arranged for its patrol to attend who moved people away from the estate. This was appropriate action and action it could also have taken on 8 January. The patrol team would also remove people from the area on 13 January. The landlord worked with the police on 24 January to arrange further patrols. It found there was a history of all residents not reporting incidents. It took the appropriate step of writing to all residents “encouraging them to report incidents.” The resident reported drug use near his property on 25 January confirming he had reported this to the police. There is no evidence the landlord responded. Again, it should have acknowledged this in accordance with its policy and to provide assurance to the resident.
- The landlord addressed the resident’s concerns with drug-related ASB in its 1 February 2023 stage 2 complaint response. It reassured the resident he was “not being specifically” targeted and that issues were “estate based.” It confirmed it had liaised with the police and had arranged patrols during the day and night on the block. It also said it had encouraged other residents to report incidents. It sent further correspondence to the resident on 15 February 2023 confirming its patrols found no ASB in November and December 2022. Following completion of the landlord’s complaint procedure, the resident continued to report ASB to the landlord and confirmed he had reported issues with non-tenants to the police. The resident and his family have since moved to another property.
- The resident reported issues with dogs being trained near his property from 30 June 2022. The landlord organised patrols on 6 July, but it is unclear if this was aimed at dog-related ASB. The Ombudsman can find no communication from the landlord following this regarding the action it was taking or if it had made any referrals to its “dog hub” in accordance with its policy. A new housing officer was in place in October and the resident asked if they were aware of issues he was encountering. This included dogs being trained and barking near his windows. He repeated his concerns with dogs in his complaint of 4 November. However, the landlord’s stage 1 complaint response of 11 November failed to acknowledge or address ASB related to dogs as a separate issue. It therefore failed to manage the resident’s expectations of what it would do to manage the situation.
- The resident would report the same issues with dogs near his property on 12, 18 and 19 November 2022. He raised the issue with a local authority councillor on 9 December and with the landlord on 11 December. Up to this point, the landlord had taken no specific action relating to the ASB relating to dogs. It established following conversation with the resident on 29 December it had made an error in its understanding. It had believed up to that point the dog-related ASB and drug-related ASB were linked. It believed the perpetrators responsible for drug-related ASB were also responsible for the dogs. However, the resident confirmed it was landlord tenants from a nearby building who were training and walking dogs in the area and feeding birds near his property. The landlord should have investigated the resident’s initial reports further to understand his specific concerns relating to its tenants, which he considered were responsible. It would then have been in a position to consider preventative action sooner.
- The landlord did act in an appropriate timescale when it was aware its tenants were responsible for the reports of dog-related ASB. It sent letters to all residents in the adjacent building on 3 January 2023 advising them not to exercise dogs or feed birds in the “green space.” This was a proportionate response and an effective first step in providing a warning before taking further informal or formal action if complaints continued. There were no further reports from the resident until 24 January 2023. On this date, he said there was one particular tenant of the landlord walking dogs in the green space allowing them to fight and bark. He told the landlord he did not wish to disclose their identity. The landlord was unable to take further informal or formal action at this point due to not being able to identify the perpetrator.
- The landlord could have gone on to explain how it would manage the situation, particularly as it would provide its stage 2 response a week later on 1 February 2023. This could have involved its use of patrols on the matter to allow the landlord to observe the tenant with the dogs organically and take any appropriate action, as necessary. Its failure to do this caused uncertainty to the resident on what the landlord’s approach would be. The resident would later agree in July 2023 for the landlord to interview the perpetrator whilst he was out of the country on holiday with his family. This was following a threat made by the same person.
- The resident requested to be rehoused numerous times throughout the complaint assessed in this report. The decision to rehouse the resident and his family is based on the housing points allocated to the resident. As previously stated, this will not be assessed within this report. However, the Ombudsman has seen evidence of the landlord informing the resident about alternative options, including mutually exchanging properties using ‘Homeswapper.’ It did this on 28 June, 31 October and 11 November 2022. This was appropriate advice to the resident whilst it considered his concerns with the allocation of housing points.
- The landlord’s ASB policy confirms limited evidence of what it should do to support residents reporting ASB. It only suggests it can “include appropriate offers of support” and consider if there are “support needs” when interviewing a person reporting ASB. The resident was detailing the impact on his family and the mental health of his wife and child throughout. The landlord did appropriately complete a risk assessment in November 2022 and later completed a professionals meeting in July 2023. However other than this, there is no evidence of the landlord offering support to the resident or signposting him to services of support. This could have included emotional support or coping or managing ongoing issues. This would have been particularly relevant when the resident reported racist abuse and threats against his wellbeing.
- The landlord did not uphold the resident’s complaint and said it was “satisfied it had taken all measures taken to assist the resident.” It did not offer compensation due to not upholding the complaint. Its Remedies Policy states it can offer financial remedies for distress, time and trouble and risk of harm. It should have considered compensation for the following reasons identified in this report:
- In all but his report of 28 June 2022 the landlord failed to acknowledge the resident’s ASB reports in 48 hours and provide a reference number. This was not in accordance with its policy. It failed to follow up with the resident between 28 September and 31 October. It did not advise the resident to start reporting incidents to the police until 11 November.
- Each time the resident reported ASB where he had contacted the police the landlord failed to acknowledge this. It failed to provide assurance or manage the resident’s expectations each time.
- Between 30 June and 29 December 2022, the landlord failed to take appropriate action to tackle the resident’s reports of dog-related ASB. This was due to it misunderstanding the situation and taking no steps to further investigate in this period.
- The landlord offered no support to the resident or his family other than completing a risk assessment of their situation. It should have continued additional support to help their wellbeing. There is no evidence it took the resident’s reports of racist abuse seriously or took steps “tackle” or “challenge” it.
- In summary the landlord’s approach to ASB before the end of October 2022 was limited. Up to this point, it failed to inform the resident to report issues to the police. Activity to tackle issues improved once a new housing officer was in place from around 31 October. The landlord was limited in the action it could take with non-tenants and had to rely on the police to take action. It was also limited in the action it could take by the resident and other residents not reporting incidents as they were happening to it and the police. Encouragement was given by the landlord to residents to continue to report incidents. There is evidence it effectively used its patrols in the area to move perpetrators on and they were a deterrence to further ASB. It also closed the green space and removed furniture to discourage perpetrators from congregating there. Local residents were also appropriately advised not to use the green space to feed birds or walk dogs. Support should have been offered to the resident and his family throughout the complaint as well as acknowledgement of his reports even when he had reported the issue to the police.
- The Ombudsman acknowledges the impact and detriment on the resident and his family throughout the period. However, the situation was complex involving members of the public as the alleged perpetrators who the landlord had limited influence over. In all maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of ASB. Compensation of £300 has been awarded to the resident for the failures identified in this report. This is in accordance with the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance where there has been a failure with moderate impact on the resident.
The resident’s reports of noise nuisance from his neighbour.
- The landlord’s Noise and Nuisance Guidelines and Policy confirms it will “act quickly to prevent an issue escalating”, not appropriating blame and “remain aware to informal and formal remedies. Informal remedies include conversations with perpetrators, sending letters which can include details of tenancy or lease breaches and mediation. Formal remedies include conditions of tenancy or lease warnings and civil injunctions.
- To support a case, it will consider visiting to witness noise or consider if the noise may be due to the structure of the building. It can provide diary sheets to the victim to complete so it can assess the extent of any nuisance. When complaints continue the policy confirms the landlord will liaise with third parties such as caretakers, noise patrol or the police. Consideration will be given as to whether the noise constitutes a “statutory nuisance.” If so, it will work with environmental health to take make an assessment and take appropriate enforcement action.
- The landlord spoke with the resident on 27 June 2022 and in the call the resident raised his concerns about noise nuisance from his neighbour above. The Ombudsman can find no evidence of reports of noise nuisance prior to this. The landlord asked him on the same day and in an email on 28 June to keep a log of the noise nuisance. It is unclear if the landlord explained why it was important for the resident to complete logs, to support further informal or formal action from the landlord with the neighbour.
- The resident rejected the use of completing a diary on 30 June, which was his prerogative. Again, it is unclear if he was made aware of the importance of completing a log. On the same day, he said the noise had been ongoing for 2 years, 10 to 20 times a night. He reported his neighbour was a student and they had recently been making noise until 3:30 am. He made repeated reports of noise from his neighbour on 3 and 4 July. He said the neighbour was throwing items and woke his family up every night. He said the landlord “did not care” and it had “not come to visit.” There is no evidence the landlord did visit at this point or take any other action. The use of noise logs was not its only option and the resident’s unwillingness to complete these should not have affected it taking any other action. In accordance with its policy, it could have considered noise apps. It could also have visited both the resident and the neighbour to discuss the residents reports and consider the potential causes of noise nuisance and investigate whether adaptations could be made at either property to alleviate the issue. It would later find incorrect flooring was a cause of noise nuisance and had the opportunity to establish this at this point. In failing to do this it prolonged any discomfort and distress for the resident and his family.
- The Ombudsman can find no further reports of noise nuisance from the resident until his complaint of 4 November 2022. It is uncertain if his failure to report was due to his belief the landlord would take no action or that there was no noise nuisance during this period. In his complaint, he just stated that “noise” had been affecting his family for “over 4 years”. The landlord’s stage 1 complaint response failed to address the resident’s concerns about noise, focussing instead on the ASB on the estate. It should have taken further action at this point in accordance with its policy and recognised it had not taken action at the beginning of July. The resident reported on 11 November his neighbour was playing “usual loud music”. There is no evidence of the landlord directly reacting to this or enacting any steps in its policy. The landlord did arrange to visit of the property on 14 November, but it is not believed this was to inspect noise nuisance. This was never mentioned in its findings and the issue with the neighbour’s flooring was not identified at this point.
- The landlord did appropriately arrange a risk assessment on 23 November which highlighted the housing officer should deal with “neighbour issues”. It is unclear if this was in relation to the ASB or noise nuisance issues. However, following this, there is evidence that the landlord acted in a more proactive manner from this point. On 23 December it confirmed internally it was working with the managing agent responsible for the neighbour’s property to change the flooring there. The resident would chase this on 28 December asking when “rugs would be put in” at the neighbour’s property. There is no evidence the landlord responded to this or managed the resident’s expectations on the matter.
- On 14 January 2023, the resident reported he had received a warning from the housing officer for playing music loudly. This was following a complaint from his neighbour. He raised that he had previously complained about noise from his neighbour and no action was taken by the landlord. The Ombudsman has not seen evidence about the counter complaint about the resident, so is unable to assess this. However, the resident’s point about the landlord failing to investigate his reports was a fair one, particularly as it had not followed up on his reports in June and July 2022.
- The resident reported further noise from his neighbour on 14 January 2023. He said he could hear their TV and was being woken every day at 5 am. The landlord acted appropriately and sent noise diary sheets to him to complete. It also asked him for further details about the noise. The resident replied with his concerns about the “hard flooring” in the neighbour’s property. There is no evidence he completed the noise logs. It confirmed internally on 24 January 2023 that the neighbour had installed rugs prior to any work to replace the flooring. It would later confirm that during this period it was reminding the neighbour of their obligations under their lease agreement of not having wooden flooring without underlay. This was an effective option for expediting the work to be completed.
- There were no further reports of noise nuisance up to the landlord’s stage 2 complaint response of 1 February 2023. Its response effectively managed the resident’s expectations on the matter. It confirmed the neighbour had laid down rugs whilst work was ongoing to lay carpets or wooden flooring with 2 layers of underlay. It also confirmed it would assess the sound-reducing qualities of the proposed flooring types. It continued to liaise with the managing agent about the flooring covering replacement at the property on 13 February.
- The flooring at the neighbour’s property was replaced on 7 April 2023. In total, this was 200 calendar days from the first report on 27 June 2022. The Ombudsman understands the complexity of replacing the flooring as this was the responsibility of the neighbour and managing agent. However, after chasing the issue on 24 January it only followed up on 13 February. On 27 March it would find “work was regularly pushed back”. It had the option of taking further informal or formal action to support expediting the replacement. There is no evidence it took these steps, which further delayed rectifying the issue and prolonged discomfort for the resident and his family.
- The resident reported concerns with noise on 18 April stating “noise was worse” than before the flooring was replaced. The landlord took effective steps in assessing this and completed a sound test in both properties on 26 April. It found there was only “minimal noise from the living room” and not enough to cause a nuisance. It closed the case at this point and appropriately advised the resident to raise further concerns to environmental health so “noise officers” could further assess noise nuisance and gather evidence if necessary. There is no evidence the resident contacted environmental health following this. On 26 April 2023, the landlord confirmed to the Ombudsman that the neighbour installed double underlay to reduce noise by 46 decibels and carpet to reduce noise by 35 decibels. There is no evidence it confirmed this to the resident. It should have done so as this may have helped with the resident’s understanding of the situation.
- In its final complaint response, the landlord did not uphold the resident’s complaint nor offer compensation on the matter. It should have done so for the following failures identified within this report:
- It failed to explain the importance of completing noise logs to the resident to support any investigation against the noise nuisance.
- The landlord failed to take any action on the resident’s reports at the end of June and beginning of July 2022. It had other options other than noise logs including the noise app and visiting either property.
- It failed to establish inappropriate flooring was an issue until 23 December 2022. This was over 5 months after the resident had raised an issue with noise.
- The landlord did raise lease requirements with flooring with the neighbour. However, it did not follow up on informal or formal action with the neighbour to expedite the replacement of the neighbour’s flooring. It took 5 months for the flooring to be replaced.
- In summary the landlord failed to act in accordance with its Noise Nuisance Policy at the resident’s property. It appropriately provided noise logs but failed to make clear the importance of completing them. It failed to take any further proactive action to investigate the leaks. Using noise apps, investigating issues at the property and speaking to both parties were options it could have taken. It did arrange a risk assessment 4 months after the initial report and took action with the neighbour after 5 months to rectify the issue with the neighbour. It took a further 5 months for the flooring to be replaced. Although this was a complex issue the landlord had the opportunity to expedite completion and did not take it.
- The Ombudsman’s spotlight report on noise complaints states “although a lack of statutory noise levels does limit landlords’ options, particularly tenancy enforcement action, it does not absolve them of the requirement to explore other suitable resolution.” As such the resident and his family were left in discomfort for a prolonged period being “woken early” and inconvenienced. As such a determination of maladministration has been identified. Compensation of £400 has been awarded as the landlord failed to promptly and efficiently manage the resident’s reports of noise nuisance. It will also be recommended for the landlord to self-assess against the spotlight report.
The resident’s reports of a leak and issues with heating and hot water at his property.
- The landlord’s Repairs Policy confirms it wants to “make it as easy as possible” for residents to use its repairs service. This is to ensure residents can enjoy living in their home and it can keep homes in good condition for the future. The landlord is responsible for repairing and maintaining the structure and outside of the property, appliances it has installed such as a boiler and supply of heating and hot water. The resident is responsible for decoration or replacing or repairing the finish in the property.
- The Repairs Policy advises it “prioritises repairs depending on how urgent they are.” It states it would like to do all repairs “straight away” but it “saves money” if it has longer to complete “less urgent ones.” It prioritises repairs as follows:
- Emergency repairs. Out of hours or where there is immediate danger its contractor will attend in 2 hours. In the daytime, it will attend before 8 pm on the same day. Examples include unsafe light sockets, no water in the home, total or partial loss of spatial or water heating (between November and April) or a severe leak from a water or heating pipe or leak from a water supply pipe or storage tank.
- Urgent repairs, where a repair is not considered an emergency but where not repaired quickly could cause significant nuisance. It will attend within 5 working days. Examples include partial loss of water to one room only, loss of space or water heating (between October and May), no heating, hot water or both and temporary repairs to a roof leak to make it safe.
- Routine repairs, where a repair is the landlord’s responsibility but is not an emergency or urgent. It will attend within 20 working days. The policy provides no examples of routine repairs.
- The resident reported a leak in his property on 31 May 2022 which was confined to his kitchen and flowing into his ceiling light. The landlord acted in accordance with its policy and treated the report as an emergency. It attended the same day making the property safe, completing a repair, and disconnecting electricity to the ceiling light whilst the property dried out. The landlord would restore the electricity when it was aware the ceiling had dried out, which was appropriate action to take.
- The landlord took appropriate steps to consider a decant for the resident and his family on 31 May 2022. It told him the following day it was unable to authorise this as it had repaired the leak the day before. This was effective in managing the resident’s expectations on the matter. The resident asked on 1 June for support in draining any water, making good his kitchen, compensation for damaged items in his kitchen and food vouchers. The landlord replied the same day and asked him to speak to its repairs team about the issues and assistance. It is uncertain if the resident took this step. There is no further evidence from the resident or landlord on this matter from this point. As such the Ombudsman is unable to assess the landlord’s response to the resident’s request at this point.
- On 4, 8 and 12 November 2022 the resident reported to his housing officer his property was in “disrepair” and the air was always “hot and dry” even when using a humidifier. He also said water was either too hot or too cold for a shower and he had 5 floods in the past 4 years. It is not believed he was raising flooding as a current issue at this point. In its stage 1 complaint response, the landlord advised the resident how to report repair issues online. There is no evidence of the resident reporting this. However, the landlord could have taken a proactive approach and raised the issues on his behalf as part of its complaint response. It should have started investigating the issues from this point and inspected the property.
- The resident’s GP wrote to the landlord on 17 November 2022 that the resident’s child’s respiratory issues symptoms were affected by the “issues in the house”. The resident told the landlord on 19 November the boiler was causing issues at his property. He said it was “too big.” He also reported pipe noise had been ongoing for 3 years and had 20 heating repairs and 5 floods in 4 years. The resident made a further report on 30 November that the temperature in his property was 30°C. The landlord told him again to report the issues to its repairs team so that its surveyor could assess the issues. Reporting repairs in the property is the resident’s responsibility. Up to this point he had reported to his housing officer and not to the repairs team as requested. The resident had previously explained in June he had communication issues as English was not his first language. Moreover, as the resident was reporting the worsening impact on his child and raised communication issues the landlord should have enacted a more holistic approach. It should have supported him in investigating the repairs at this point as it should have done at the start of November. The landlord’s approach was overly focussed on process rather than the resident’s specific circumstances.
- The landlord began taking a more proactive response to the resident’s reports in December 2022. On 7 December, a surveyor inspected the property and found that it was in “good repair”. The surveyor reported it would raise the issue of the noisy pipes with a heating engineer. They also told the resident the landlord could not consider installing mixer taps as these were “an improvement.” It could have explained this further by referring to the responsibilities of the resident and landlord in its policy.
- The resident raised a complaint with a councillor on 9 December 2022. He told them his “heating was off” and he could not take a shower. Following this the landlord arranged for a heating engineer to attend at the property on 19 December. They were able to complete a temporary repair and “reinstate” the resident’s heating and hot water. It found the issue was caused by private work completed elsewhere in the building. The engineer reported that “the boiler needed further parts or to be replaced.” The issues reported by the resident fit its classification for an “urgent repair” as the ongoing issue caused “significant nuisance” to the resident and his family. As such the landlord should have attended within 5 working days of a report. From the resident’s initial reports of 4 November, the landlord took 32 working days to attend at the property, exceeding the timescale in its policy.
- There is no evidence of reports of issues with heating or hot water from the resident following this up to the landlord’s stage 2 complaint response of 1 February 2023. In its response, it said it had raised the “noisy heating pipe” issue with its heating contractor. It had inspected and found this to be an issue on 9 December 2022. It is uncertain why it had not raised the repair by 1 February 2023. Its complaint response failed to address issues with the boiler and whether it would complete repairs or replacement as recommended on 19 December 2022. The landlord recognised this failure internally on 3 February 2023 suggesting a further survey be completed. It arranged a further inspection of the boiler on 13 February 2023 and completed replacement of the boiler around 6 March 2023. The Ombudsman acknowledges replacing the boiler was a complex job. It took 53 working days to fully resolve the boiler issue from the recommendation on 19 December 2022. This was not in accordance with its policy for a routine repair, which should take no longer than 20 working days. It is uncertain if the noisy heating pipe was repaired at this time. The evidence shows no further reports from the resident from this point, suggesting the issue was resolved.
- The landlord did not uphold the resident’s complaint or consider offering compensation to him as part of its complaints process. Its Remedies Policy allows only for the loss of heating or hot water, so it was appropriate not to make an award regarding this. This was due to the resident’s reports about the heating and hot water being too high in temperature, rather than not being in place at all. However, the landlord also had the discretion to consider compensation for time and trouble, distress, delay, and unsuitable accommodation. It should have considered this in the resident’s case for the following failures identified in this report:
- It was delayed in treating the resident’s reports from 4 November 2022 in accordance with its policy. It should have treated the reports as an urgent repair issue and attended in 5 working days but instead attended in 32 working days. It had the resident’s reports of the impact on his family and medical evidence from a medical professional to prompt it but failed to expedite any attendance.
- It failed to take a proactive approach in supporting the resident to make reports to its repairs service. This was despite the detriment reported by the resident.
- It was delayed in replacing the boiler from the recommendation to repair or replace it on 19 December 2022, in accordance with its policy. It should have completed further repair or replacement in 20 working days but instead this took 53 working days.
- The landlord in accordance with the occupancy agreement is required to keep in repair the resident’s boiler. It failed to do so over a short period which caused distress, inconvenience, and deterioration in the landlord/tenant relationship. It was delayed in repairing the boiler but completed this in just over a month. It was further delayed in replacing the boiler. However, due to the temporary repair that had already been completed, the delay to replace the boiler had minimal effect on the resident. In all the circumstances of the case, a determination of service failure has been identified. Compensation of £250 has been awarded as there is evidence that the landlord failed to “maintain the property to a reasonable standard” and failed to communicate and support the resident. Its failure to offer compensation was not proportionate to the failings identified by this investigation.
Complaint handling.
- The landlord’s Complaints Policy confirms good complaint handling involves getting and putting it right, being involved, acting fairly and proportionately, and doing it in a timely way. It states it will learn from complaints and seek continuous improvement. It aims to resolve a matter at the first point of contact as a service request. When it has not resolved an issue to the resident’s satisfaction it will start the formal complaints procedure. It will log the complaint within 5 days of the issue being raised.
- The landlord’s formal complaint process comprises two stages:
- Stage 1 is its “local resolution stage” which is dealt with by the officer or manager responsible for the particular service area. It will acknowledge the complaint in 5 working days and provide its response in 10 working days.
- Stage 2 is its “review or appeal stage” which is dealt with by a complaints officer not previously involved with the case. It will acknowledge the escalated complaint in 5 working days and provide its response in 20 working days.
- It can extend either response by a further 10 working days in exceptional circumstances. It will provide a clear explanation and timeframe for when the resident will receive its response. Any extension beyond this has to be agreed by both parties. Where agreement cannot be reached the landlord will provide details for the Ombudsman.
- The resident complained to the landlord on 4 November 2022. It acknowledged the complaint on the same day, advising him it would respond in 10 working days, which was all in accordance with its policy. It provided its stage 1 complaint response on 11 November which was within its 10-working day timescale.
- In the resident’s 4 November 2022 complaint, he raised concerns about his housing officer. He said they “minimised big problems.” The landlord’s housing officer provided the complaint response on 11 November. This was in accordance with its policy of having the “officer responsible for the service area” reply. It must also be acknowledged the housing officer at the time of response was only in post for around a month at the time of the complaint response. However, the landlord’s failure to ascertain there was a staff complaint element meant its investigation was neither fair nor impartial. It should have identified an alternative member of staff to complete the investigation including against the staff member. As such the resident’s concerns about the behaviour of the housing officer (past and present) were never addressed.
- As part of his complaint escalation on 17 December 2022 the resident raised his concerns that the housing officer replied to a staff complaint he made about them. There is no evidence of the landlord investigating this point and did not acknowledge or address this in its later stage 2 response of 1 February 2023. Its failure to investigate this point meant it had not “put things right” or “acted fairly or proportionately.” In failing to address this point the landlord had no opportunity to “learn from complaints” and did not “seek continuous improvement.” It could have considered if its approach was correct in the circumstances and sought to act differently in applicable cases in future. An order will be made for the landlord to consider this.
- On 12 November 2022, the resident escalated his complaint in direct reply to the landlord’s stage 1 email response. Although the resident did not state this was an escalation request the landlord should have treated this as such, but there is no evidence it did so. It did not acknowledge his escalation within 5 working days or give him a timescale in which it would respond. The resident chased the response from the landlord on 19 December, stating he was waiting 30 days for a reply. This should have prompted the landlord to acknowledge his complaint escalation and progress with its investigation. There is no evidence it did either of these things at this point, causing further uncertainty to resident on whether it would reply.
- The landlord provided its stage 2 complaint response on 1 February 2023. Its policy states it will keep the resident updated on the progress of the complaint. There is no evidence it acknowledged the resident’s complaint or managed his expectations for a response until 25 January 2023 when it said it would write to him with its findings “shortly.” The landlord’s response took 54 working days to provide, which exceeded the 20 working days timescale in its policy. There is no evidence it acted in accordance with its policy to discuss an extension with the resident or provide him with details for the Ombudsman. It did not provide a “timely response” as its policy suggests and prolonged resolution for the resident. The landlord failed to acknowledge its response was delayed or that it had not acted in accordance with its policy in its reply. It should have done this to learn from the complaint and prove to the resident it takes adherence to its policy seriously.
- In his complaint escalation of 12 November 2022, the resident raised concerns with his boiler and the impact on the temperature and hot water supply in the property. The landlord failed to address this point in its stage 2 response, despite its contractor informing it on 19 December 2022 that the boiler needed replacing. This left the issue unresolved for the resident at that point. It would go on to recognise its lack of action on the issue on 3 February 2023 and began to take action.
- The landlord’s Remedies Policy confirms it can award financial remedy for distress, time and trouble and delay. The landlord considered no award of compensation for the resident attributed to its complaint handling. It should have done so for the following reasons:
- It failed to act impartially by having its housing officer investigate a complaint about where allegations were made about the staff member. It then failed to acknowledge or investigate the resident’s concerns about this or learn from the issue.
- It failed to acknowledge or reply to the resident’s complaint escalation within the timescales allowed in its policy. It failed to communicate sufficiently between the escalation and the reply and as such did not effectively manage the resident’s expectations.
- It failed to address all of the resident’s concerns, failing to noise nuisance at stage 1 and failing to address its inaction on the boiler issue reported at his property at stage 2.
- A landlord’s complaint process enables them to learn from issues and identify trends so it can take preventative action and learn from this. The landlord failed to adhere to its own Complaints Policy in its stage two complaint acknowledgement, response time and its communication with the resident. It failed to ensure an impartial staff member investigated a staff complaint and did not address the resident’s concerns about this or the property’s boiler. A determination of maladministration has therefore been determined. To reflect the resident’s distress and inconvenience due to the landlord’s failures, £250 compensation has been ordered. This is in line with the Ombudsman’s guidance in relation to cases where service failure has occurred over a protracted period with some impact on the resident throughout that period.
Determination
- In accordance with paragraph 42(j) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme the resident’s concerns about the landlord’s housing points allocation for rehousing is outside the jurisdiction of the Ombudsman to consider.
- In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was maladministration in respect of the resident’s reports of antisocial behaviour (ASB) and harassment on his estate.
- In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was maladministration in respect of the resident’s reports of noise nuisance from his neighbour.
- In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was service failure in respect of the resident’s reports of a leak and issues with heating and hot water at his property.
- In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was maladministration in respect of the landlord’s complaint handling.
Orders
- The landlord shall carry out the following orders and must provide evidence of compliance within 4 weeks of the date of this report:
- The landlord is ordered to apologise, in writing, to the resident for its failings in the handling of the resident’s reports of ASB, noise nuisance, leaks, heating and hot water issues and its complaint handling failures.
- Pay the resident a total of £1150 in compensation. Compensation should be paid directly to the resident and not offset against any arrears. The compensation comprises of:
- £300 for the distress and inconvenience caused to the resident by the landlord’s inefficient handling of the resident’s reports of ASB and harassment on his estate.
- £400 for the distress and inconvenience caused to the resident by the landlord’s inappropriate handling of the resident’s reports of noise nuisance from his neighbour.
- £200 for the distress and inconvenience caused to the resident by the landlord’s inefficient handling of the resident’s reports of a leak and issues with heating and hot water at his property.
- £250 for the distress and inconvenience caused to the resident by the landlord’s inappropriate complaint handling.
- If it has not already done so the landlord will complete its staff investigation into the previous housing officers. The Ombudsman is aware the landlord cannot share the outcome of such an investigation. However, it must confirm to the Ombudsman and the resident that a fair and impartial investigation will be completed. The landlord must consider its approach to staff complaints and confirm to the Ombudsman that a process is put into place for staff complaints to be investigated impartially and fairly. It must also confirm to the Ombudsman that all its staff members are aware of this process.
Recommendations
- The landlord should self-assess against the Ombudsman’s Spotlight report on ‘Noise Complaints.’ It should consider the recommendations provided within the report.