Clarion Housing Association Limited (202004901)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202004901

Clarion Housing Association Limited

14 July 2021


Our Approach

 

  1. 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 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.

 

  1. 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:

 

3.1. The landlord’s handling of reports of noise disturbance by the resident’s neighbours.

3.2. The landlord’s decision to restrict the resident’s contact with its services.

 

Jurisdiction

 

  1. What we can and cannot consider is called the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction. This is governed by 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.

 

  1. The resident has raised concerns about the landlord’s decision to restrict her access to contact it. This was a new issue raised following the exhaustion of the landlord’s complaints procedure in October 2020. The Ombudsman is not able to comment on specific issues which have not been considered through the landlord’s complaints process in the first instance. This is because we need to be sure that the landlord has had an adequate opportunity to investigate and resolve the issues internally before we intervene.

 

  1. This is in accordance with paragraph 39(a) of the Scheme, which states that the Ombudsman will not investigate complaints which are made prior to having exhausted a landlord’s complaints procedure. The complaint has now been raised with the landlord, and it is dealing with this as a new issue through its complaints procedure.

 

Background and Summary of Events

 

Background

 

  1. The resident is an assured tenant of the landlord at the property, with a tenancy start date of 15 August 2011.

 

  1. The landlord’s ASB policy sets out when it doesn’t consider there to be ASB. It says that includes household noise due to every-day living.

 

  1. The ASB policy also sets out the landlord’s thresholds in respect of noise nuisance. It says it will not investigate noise nuisance under its ASB policy unless one of its thresholds has been met.

 

  1. The thresholds are:
    1.    Three separate incidents reported in the last seven days by the same person or a member of the same household.
    2.    Five separate incidents reported in the past 28 days by the same person or member of the same household.
    3.    Two separate incidents reported in the past 28 days by two or more people from different households.

 

  1. The landlord’s complaints policy (December 2020 version) confirms that the landlord will respond at stage one of its process within 10 working days, with a second stage response (peer review stage) to be provided within 20 working days.

 

Summary of events

 

  1. There is evidence of the resident having made a number of noise related reports to the landlord dating back at least as far as 2012.  In 2012 and 2013, the resident told the landlord her neighbour was ‘banging’ on her walls. The landlord asked the resident to complete incident sheets, but ultimately concluded that the noise was from every-day living and took no further action.

 

  1. The landlord’s formal complaint correspondence included reference to a large volume of noise reports from the resident, starting in 2018. The Ombudsman has not been provided with the full details of these multiple reports, though there is evidence of further resident reports, during 2018 of ‘banging’ and ‘humming’ from her neighbours. On these occasions, the landlord advised the resident that the noise she had reported was not enough for it to take any action and that she could contact environment health at her local council about noise nuisance.

 

  1. On 4 November 2019, the resident made a formal complaint with the landlord. She said she had been troubled by a neighbour from the start of her residency around eight years earlier, with the neighbour banging on the wall and making loud noises all through the night and day. She said she had reported this to the landlord, and it had not given her any help. Although the landlord had spoken with the neighbour, she said the neighbour had just denied everything.

 

  1. The landlord provided its Stage One complaint response on 4 February 2020, which it said was in response to a complaint received 23 January 2020. It said that, following a home visit on 19 December 2019, the ASB case had been closed on 3 January 2020. It confirmed that it had not received any further reports since then. It advised the resident to contact it again if she was continuing to experience issues. The landlord also confirmed that she could report noise nuisance to the environmental health officer of her local council.

 

  1. On 16 March 2020 the landlord confirmed to the resident that, in respect of a recent allegation of ASB against her neighbour, she had been advised to contact the police or the local council about noise nuisance. On 17 March 2020, the landlord advised the resident that it was taking no further action in respect of ASB she had reported.

 

  1. Around a week later, the resident made a further report of ASB. The landlord advised her that it was investigating this in line with its ASB policy. On 30 March, the landlord wrote to the resident confirming her ASB case reference number and the actions that would be taken. It asked the resident to complete incident diaries and confirmed that it would not be taking further action at that stage.

 

  1. On 9 April 2020, the landlord wrote to the resident. It said that the resident had reported that her neighbours on either side harassed her by banging on her walls, and generally causing a nuisance (one in particular). The landlord confirmed that it had spoken with the neighbourhood officer and had also made enquiries with the police. It said records showed that the neighbourhood officer had recently visited the resident’s neighbour after the resident had reported an “eyesore” garden. The officer found the garden to be in ‘immaculate’ condition. The landlord further said that the resident had made several complaints about that particular neighbour, but after liaising with the police and speaking to other residents, it had decided that it would not be investigating her complaints any further. It confirmed that was because it appeared from the information it had, that the complaints were ‘not true’. Though it confirmed it would ask an officer from its Advice and Support team to contact the resident to assess whether there was anything else that could be done to assist her.

 

  1. In May 2020, the landlord decided to put in place a restricted access process against the resident. It noted that the resident had raised over 120 incidents of alleged banging on her walls from neighbours on either side of her. Its neighbourhood officers had investigated, and its Tenancy Sustainability team had been involved. It was thought that the resident was being vexatious and her complaints were exacerbated by her mental health and sensitivity to noise. It noted that both the resident’s neighbours were extremely frustrated by the situation, and thought the landlord was harassing them whenever it called to discuss the incidents. It noted that one of the resident’s neighbours was elderly and very frail. It further noted that the other neighbour did not share a party wall with the resident, so it did not think the resident would be able to hear any noise from that property.

 

  1. In August 2020, the resident complained of a loud bang. The landlord decided not to take any action. Later in the same month, the resident told the landlord her neighbour had tapped on her bathroom wall. Again, the landlord did not take any action. It advised the resident (18 August 2020) that it would not log the incident as ASB.

 

  1. On 7 September 2020, the landlord advised the resident that, due to the excessive contact she had made with it about the noise nuisance, and that it thought her complaints were vexatious, it was going to restrict access with her. It explained that meant it reserved the right not to take further action in the event of a complaint if it thought the complainant was being unreasonable, vindictive or vexatious. It said that since October 2018, the resident had raised more than 123 incidents of alleged banging of walls from neighbours either side of her property, but the landlord had not been able to substantiate her complaints. The landlord further confirmed that it would not take further action in relation to the specific complaint (relating to noise nuisance) because on investigation, it had found no evidence of the resident’s neighbour banging on the wall. It said the resident could therefore only contact it once a week to report anything other than this issue, apart from cases of emergency. It said it would review the restriction after 12 months.

 

  1. In response, the resident’s mental health officer contacted the landlord. The landlord discussed the option of mediation, and it was decided that the resident would appeal against the landlord’s decision to restrict access, and they could consider mediation at that point. 

 

  1. On 18 September and 30 September 2020, the landlord advised the resident that it was taking no further action in respect of the ASB she had reported.

 

  1. After the resident brought a complaint to this service, the landlord provided its Stage Two complaint response to the resident on 20 October 2020. It said the following:

 

24.1.      It thought its stage one response to the resident’s complaint had been sent shortly after her initial complaint, which it detailed as having been raised on 31 January 2020. It said that, in its view, the stage one response had been both fair and appropriate.

 

24.2.      Since the closure of the resident’s complaint, she had reported further noise nuisance. After reviewing her ASB report history, it confirmed that her noise complaints did not meet its threshold for action to be taken.

 

24.3.      It explained that its thresholds had been designed to ensure it investigates ASB that reach a sufficient frequency, severity and duration to demonstrate an emerging pattern of behaviour. It further said that it reserves the right not to investigate a case, even when a threshold is met, where it has evidence that the complainant is being unreasonable, vindictive or vexatious.

 

24.4.      Although it was not going to take action under its ASB policy to investigate the resident’s noise complaints, it had asked its Tenancy Sustainment team to contact the resident within two weeks to see if there was any help that could be offered to her.

 

  1. Following completion of the complaints procedure, there is evidence of the landlord having contacted the resident to see if there was any further assistance it could provide, outside of the ongoing noise disturbance/ASB issues that had been reported. This was in accordance with the agreement it had made in the stage two response (above). The notes from this discussion confirm that the resident provided more details about her individual circumstances. A separate issue was identified in relation to fencing at the rear of the property and the landlord agreed to progress this.

 

  1. On 22 December 2020, the resident contacted the Ombudsman that she desired the complaint to be formally investigated. She said that the landlord had not been honest about the complaint and was acting in an intimidatory manner towards her.

Assessment and Findings

 

Noise Reports

 

  1. The Ombudsman’s role in the investigation of an ASB related complaint extends to consideration of the reasonableness of the landlord’s response, in the context of the landlord’s ASB procedure as well as its legal obligations and any other relevant factors. In reaching a decision, the Ombudsman will consider whether or not the landlord has taken proportionate actions and whether it has balanced the needs of all potentially affected parties.
  2. In this case, it is evident that there is a long history of noise related reports from the resident in relation to her neighbours on each side. Whilst the Ombudsman’s role here is not to investigate historical issues, it is relevant in the context of the complaint under investigation that there is evidence of the landlord having responded to these previous noise reports and having reached a conclusion that any noise experienced by the resident amounted to ‘everyday’ disturbance, upon which it would take no further action.
  3. A landlord is entitled to consider the history of a case in its handling of new noise disturbance reports. Moreover, it is often appropriate that it factors in previous incidents into its decision-making process as doing so means that it is less likely to consider a new issue as a one-off, or standalone issue. ASB can exist as low-level disturbance over an extended period and it is important that a landlord can identify when this is the case as this will likely warrant alternative, more robust action if a pattern has emerged.
  4. In this case however, it is evident from the landlord’s response to the complaint, that its investigation into the resident’s reports had not identified any noise disturbance that would warrant further action. There is evidence that it conducted a home visit, liaised with the police and worked closely with its neighbourhood team to identify if there was any substance to the resident’s reports. Having identified that this was not the case, it was appropriate that it closed down the ASB cases that it had raised.
  5. The landlord also confirmed to her that it was not prepared to take action on any further such reports that it received, on the basis that its ASB policy provided this option in cases where, in its view, the reports had become vexatious. The landlord was entitled to take this position given the volume of unsubstantiated reports it had received. Any member landlord has a difficult role in ensuring that its limited resources are spread across all facets of its service delivery obligations. It is important that a landlord identifies and takes action to address instances where an unreasonable volume of resources have been expended on one specific area as failure to do so can result in a weakening of general service delivery elsewhere.
  6. Though the landlord confirmed that it would no longer investigate the resident’s reports of noise disturbance, it did confirm that it would contact her in relation to identifying any further support needs. There is evidence of the landlord having done this, following the completion of the complaints process, though it is not clear to what extent this was successful, other than identifying a separate repair issue. Nonetheless, it is encouraging that the landlord exercised its discretion here and considered what other options it has at its disposal for improving the wellbeing of the resident.

 

Determination (decision)

 

  1. In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Scheme, there was no maladministration with respect to the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports about noise disturbance from neighbours.

Reasons

 

  1. The landlord took reasonable and proportionate action to identify whether the resident’s reports of noise disturbance required further intervention. Having identified that this was not the case, it was appropriate that it took no further action and closed down the ASB cases it had opened. The landlord also confirmed that it would not investigate any further such reports from the resident due to the large volume of unsubstantiated reports it had received, in accordance with the landlord’s ASB policy.