Chelmer Housing Partnership Limited (202113954)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202113954

Chelmer Housing Partnership Limited

8 September 2022


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. The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of reports of Anti-Social Behaviour (ASB) and noise nuisance.
  2. The complaint is also about the associated complaints handling.

Background and summary of events

  1. The resident was an assured tenant of the landlord, at the property until the tenancy was terminated on 14 November 2021, due to the resident deciding to move into private rented accommodation.
  2. The resident complained about the landlord’s handling of her reports of noise nuisance in respect of a neighbour’s dog barking, alongside other issues with the dog, namely it being off the lead and allowed to foul on the grass without this being cleaned up.  The resident was also dissatisfied with the landlord’s response to her reports of the smell of cannabis at the block, which she said infiltrated her bathroom in the evenings and impacted her and her daughter.
  3. The landlord’s stage two response to the complaint acknowledged that it could have done more to investigate the issues and that it should not have asked the resident’s teenage daughter to also record the noise. The landlord advised it would visit the neighbours and reiterate the action it can take if the situation continues and it encouraged mediation in a neutral environment.
  4. The resident remains dissatisfied with the landlord’s response, believing it did not do enough to address the issues, which remained ongoing for a significant period of time and beyond the conclusion of the complaint.

Assessment and findings

The landlord’s handling of the ASB and noise nuisance.

  1. In cases concerning ASB or noise nuisance, it is not the role of the Ombudsman to determine whether the ASB or noise nuisance occurred. Rather, it is the role of this Service to assess how the landlord responded to the reports made, and whether its responses were in accordance with its policies and procedures and appropriate and reasonable in all of the circumstances.
  2. In this case, the resident began reporting issues with ASB and noise nuisance from November 2019, culminating in a formal complaint being made 17 months later, in April 2021. A report should be distinguished from a complaint and the issues concerning the landlord’s complaints handling are addressed in the section below.
  3. Once notified of a report of ASB or noise nuisance, this Service would expect the landlord to take reasonable steps to investigate the allegations. This may include considering whether the report does in fact constitute ASB or a nuisance, and the impact the behaviour has on a resident (or residents). The landlord’s ASB Policy emphasises the importance of early intervention, which includes the offer of mediation and for this to take place where both parties agree. The policy explains that it will work alongside partners, such as the local authority and the police where appropriate and that taking tenancy action, whilst an option, will be its last resort. The same policy differentiates between what is considered to be ‘ordinary living noise’ and noise nuisance, with ‘dogs barking persistently’ considered as constituting ASB.
  4. Upon receiving a non-urgent report of ASB or noise nuisance, the landlord aims to contact the individual making the report and investigate the matter, within five working days, according to its policy. Having reported issues with cannabis use by neighbours on 15 November 2019, the landlord acted appropriately by responding within the timescales set out in its policy.  Specifically, it attended within five working days and confirmed the smell of cannabis, sending a warning letter to the neighbours that same day.  It then visited the block around ten days later to carry out a further inspection. The landlord acted promptly and its actions were reasonable and proportionate given the circumstance.
  5. Unfortunately, the landlord’s actions were not affective however, with its second visit again evidencing cannabis use by the neighbours. This cannabis use by neighbours meant that the smoke and smell was coming into the resident’s property, which she believed was having a detrimental impact on her and her daughter. At this time, however, it does not appear that the landlord took further steps, as this Service would have expected. It failed to contact its local partners, including the local authority, as well as the police, who would have been an appropriate and useful resource given the nature of the issue. There is no evidence of the landlord taken further action at this early stage which undoubtedly led to the issue continuing and becoming more difficult to resolve as time passed.
  6. The landlord also missed an early opportunity to offer mediation, which would have enabled the resident to explain the impact of the cannabis use on her and her daughter and to provide the neighbour with a chance to hear this and to put things right.  In such cases of ASB, mediation can be a particularly useful tool in achieving quick and amicable resolution.  Further, the landlord missed opportunities to manage the resident’s expectations early on, for example, by explaining what action it could and would realistically take, and to convey that issues of this nature were often difficult to resolve.
  7. Following the resident’s report on 29 January 2020 of persistent dog barking and cannabis use, the landlord acted appropriately by responding to her promptly and arranging a neighbour visit.  The visit did not go ahead as it was cancelled by the neighbour, however, and the landlord failed to follow this up, despite noting that the neighbour did not deny using cannabis. While a warning letter was sent to the resident on 11 March 2020, it might have also been useful at this time for the landlord to have liaised with the police on the matter, and to have shared data as its policy says it will where criminal activity is occurring. This was not done until four–months later and once the country was in national lockdown, meaning that it was much more difficult to take steps to further investigate and witness the activity at this time.
  8. Providing the resident with the ‘Noise App’ was an appropriate action on the part of the landlord, although this again took too long to provide.  Moreover, the landlord, having listened to the numerous recordings made by the resident over time and agreed that noise nuisance was being caused, did not act on this quickly enough.  This included it taking action by way of visiting the neighbour in September 2020, which was almost one year since the issues began to be reported. Its action to visit the neighbour and discuss the matter with them was appropriate but again, delayed, as was the formal warning about the dog and loud music that it sent the following month, in October 2020.
  9. The landlord’s advice to the resident to report the issues to the local authority – and later, the police – was also appropriate notwithstanding the delay.  The resident had already been in touch with the local authority and had been provided with noise recording equipment by it. This Service does recognise, nonetheless, that there was a lack of a cohesive and joined up approach taken by the landlord and its partner agencies as its ASB Policy says it will do. It is important to add that while there is a role for other authorities and inter-agency working, the landlord retains the overarching responsibility in respect of its tenants and in investigating issues believed to be a nuisance. Although the local authority issued ‘Community Protection Warnings’ to the neighbours in February and March 2020, this did not negate the need for the landlord to continue to monitor and pursue the situation, as it was obliged.
  10. Overall, there was a lack of proactivity and urgency demonstrated by the landlord with it taking time to act, despite the evidence provided by the resident, and to pursue matters more robustly itself. The Ombudsman accepts that as much of the reports of noise were not made within unsociable hours, the landlord would have been somewhat restricted in the action it could take, however a greater effort would have been expected.
  11. This Service additionally notes that the resident advised the landlord of the impact the issues were having on both her and her daughter’s lives and in particular, on her daughter’s wellbeing.  Given that this related to thoughts of suicide, the Ombudsman would have expected a quick response from the landlord and a referral to the appropriate support services. Records indicate that the landlord did carry out a risk assessment and later, made a safeguarding referral. The Ombudsman accepts that it also invited the resident to make contact, within its stage one response, for further support. Still, however, almost two months passed before the landlord acknowledged the issue, from the moment it became aware of it. This did not indicate that it had taken the matter as seriously as it should have.
  12. In summary, the landlord took various appropriate actions to investigate and address the ASB and noise nuisance, much of which was in line with its policy. It is apparent to this Service, however, that the landlord could have been more proactive and that this may have reduced the length of time taken to impose reasonable interventions. 
  13. The Ombudsman has noted that in the landlord’s overall consideration of matters, it acknowledged that mediation should have been offered and that more could have been done to liaise with outside agencies. It subsequently set itself actions to do this. Moreover, in its final response, the landlord accepted that it could have done more to discuss the impact of the issue with the neighbour, to seek alternative ways to investigate the drug use, and to capture the noise – rather than asking the resident’s daughter to record. In the Ombudsman’s opinion, however, in acknowledging its oversights, it would have been reasonable for it to have also considered an offer of compensation. In light of all of the above, the Ombudsman has determined that the landlord’s failure to do so resulted in a service failure.
  14. For completeness, it was appropriate that the landlord provided the resident with the relevant information to enable her to explore her housing options. While the resident remained dissatisfied that the landlord did not provide a management move, this Service cannot see that it would have been obligated to do so.

Complaint handling

  1. Where dissatisfaction has been expressed by a resident, the landlord has a responsibility to recognise this and to consider the matter under its complaints procedure. This should not only be where a resident has explicitly requested a complaint response.
  2. With this in mind, although it was on 7 April 2021 that the resident explicitly expressed that she wished to make a formal complaint, the documentation provided to this Service evidences that six months prior, on 5 October 2020, she wrote to the landlord making clear her dissatisfaction in its response to her reports of ASB and noise nuisance, that she had been reporting for around a year at that point in time. The landlord missed an opportunity here to raise the matter as a formal complaint, which would have allowed for earlier investigation and move towards resolution of the issues.
  3. The stage one response to the complaint was delayed, with the landlord issuing this on 27 April 2021, which was outside of the timescales set out in the landlord’s complaints policy. Additionally, the complaint was not escalated to stage two of the complaints process despite the resident expressing her dissatisfaction with the stage one response in her contact with it of 11 May 2021. Whilst the landlord has stated that it did not escalate the complaint to stage two as this was not specifically requested, it is clear from the resident’s correspondence that she remained dissatisfied with its response and sought to pursue matters further. The landlord’s complaints policy indicates that dissatisfaction with an outcome will need to be made within 20 working days of its response and the resident did this.
  4. The landlord’s failure to escalate the complaint contributed to further delay, resulting in the Ombudsman’s intervention on 5 July 2021, requesting that the landlord reopen the matter.  This led to a stage two complaint response being issued on 27 July 2021, following an appeal meeting on 20 July 2021.
  5. In its stage two response to the complaint, despite recognising failings insofar as it could have done more to investigate the issues, as stated above, the landlord no offer of compensation. There was also no recognition of its handling of the resident’s complaint, and the delay in enabling her to exhaust its process.
  6. Offers of compensation where failures have been recognised is endorsed by the Ombudsman, being included in the published ‘Guidance on Remedies’.  Resolving a complaint is not simply about offering compensation but this can be an important factor in putting things right. In this case, the resident had experienced ASB and noise nuisance for a protracted period of time and had gone to great lengths to evidence and report this and this effort, time and inconvenience, as well as the associated stress, was not recognised by the landlord. Taking all the factors of the case into account and the findings made by the landlord and this Service, the landlord did not do enough to satisfactorily resolve the complaint.

Determination (decision)

  1. In accordance with Paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure by the landlord in respect of its handling of the reports of ASB and noise nuisance.
  2. In accordance with Paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure by the landlord in respect of the landlord’s complaints handling.

Order

  1. Within 28 days of the date of this report, the landlord is ordered to:
    1. Pay the resident £225 compensation comprised of:
      1. £150 for the service failures in its response to the reports of ASB and noise nuisance, and;
      2. £75 for the service failures in its complaints handling.