ForHousing Limited (202006953)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202006953

Four Housing Group Limited

23 December 2021

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 response to the resident’s reports of ASB (noise) from a neighbour.

Background and summary of events

The resident is a leaseholder and the lease was signed in March 1998.
The ASB policy states that ASB can include noise nuisance (but this excludes DIY which occurs at a reasonable time of day). In respect of resolving ASB the policy states that it will explore all avenues and always try to resolve ASB cases through informal action. This includes working to resolve the case seeking additional support as required (where additional needs are identified), making use of warning interviews, good neighbour agreement and mediation methods.
The anti-social behaviour procedure sets out the various action pathways in respect of reports of ASB. The procedure includes an acknowledgment, interview with the complainant, a victim risk assessment and action plan, an interview with the perpetrator and gathering evidence to ensure appropriate support and resolution. Where a report is about noise nuisance, the procedure states that sound recording equipment can be used to prove or disprove the alleged ASB and it is an effective method in gathering evidence in the absence of independent witnesses.
The resident’s reports date back to 2012. The reports were about noise nuisance from the neighbour. The landlord completed a victim risk assessment for the resident which captured the frequency and duration of the ASB (November 2012) and interviewed and wrote to the neighbour.
In 2013 the landlord investigated several other reports of noise nuisance. It did not find evidence of the noise. Noise monitoring equipment was installed for a two week period and the landlord did not find evidence of the noise. At the time, it met with the resident to discuss its findings and noted that the resident disputed this and said that there had been noise. It also assessed diary sheet entries which the resident provided alongside the noise recording findings and did not find that the reports were corroborated. It closed the case but explained that if the noise did become excessive, then it would re-open its investigations (November 2013). In the complaint correspondence the landlord said that the local authority also installed noise monitoring equipment, and this did not detect the reported noise.
The landlord communicated the closure of its ASB investigations with the resident after not having found the appropriate evidence. It explained the reason for its approach (that it could not take further or legal action, due to the lack of evidence). It also suggested mediation, however, this was not mutually agreed to.
In 2014 the landlord wrote to both residents about a separate ASB matter. It warned them not to use or threaten to use violence or cause nuisance, harassment or distress.
There were further reports of a similar noise nuisance in 2018 and 2019. The landlord met with the resident in January 2019 and the resident reported that the neighbour was disturbing the resident “by using heavy machinery at all times of the day and night”. The resident said this occurred daily but then said this occurred 3 or 4 times a week. The landlord met the resident at the MP office on 22 January 2019.
It also visited the resident on 1 February 2019. It followed up in writing (11 February 2019):
1. The landlord’s letter of February 2019 set out the discussion it had with the resident. The landlord asked the resident to explain the problems he was experiencing (“heavy machinery at all times of the day and night”, “buzzing and screeching type sounds, possibly the use of drills”).
2. The landlord said that after an alleged assault from the neighbour in 2012 it had written to both parties and reminded them that they were responsible for their own behaviours and the consequences of further acts of violence could result in legal action.
3. The landlord asked the resident about his daily routine and discussed if the resident would be interested in getting involved in community type work to break up the day and meet new people, but the resident was not interested in this.
In February 2019 the landlord said that the neighbour had declined mediation after the landlord spoke to them about the noise. The landlord had questioned another resident who did not witness or experience noise nuisance in the block. It also said it had not witnessed any noise nuisance during the visit.
In January 2020 after receiving similar reports of noise nuisance from the resident (13 January 2020) the landlord arranged to meet with the resident and his sister (17 January 2020).
1. Prior to the meeting (of 17 January 2020) it asked the resident to attempt to capture the noise on a recording device to bring to the meeting.
2. During the meeting the resident said that he experienced heavy machinery type noise virtually everyday for the past few weeks.
3. The resident’s sister also attended and said that the resident had become distressed and anxious.
4. The resident also told the landlord that he had been “threatened and assaulted” in recent weeks by the neighbour, including an incidence in December and another one when he walked his dog. He told the landlord of a physical assault by the neighbour which left him with bruised ribs (which had healed at the time of the meeting).
5. The landlord asked the resident if he had reported this to the police but the resident did not, after a previous experience in 2012 where the resident said that he had reported the neighbour to police but no action had been taken.
6. The landlord enquired into the interaction between the resident and neighbour prior to the assault; the resident explained that there was a dispute about the resident listening to the radio at 10am.
7. The landlord offered to investigate and speak with the neighbour about the report of violence, but the resident did not think this would do any good.
8. The landlord offered to send a block letter to the residents about noise, but the resident did not think it a good idea.
1. The resident’s sister agreed that such actions would “aggravate” the neighbour.
2. The landlord then offered to send a block letter (excluding the neighbour) to see if anyone else was experiencing noise, but this was also declined.
3. The landlord asked the resident what it could do to help; the resident wanted the landlord to visit the neighbour to see what he is doing (and there was a concern raised by the resident that he was fixing appliances in there).
4. The landlord told the resident that it could not go into the flat to see what the neighbour was doing as its powers were limited and the neighbour was a leaseholder.
5. The landlord said that the resident and his sister explained that he struggled with the hearing aid which experienced interference in the form of a buzzing sound.
6. The landlord then discussed the possibility of moving; the resident’s sister considered that some kind of sheltered accommodation with the dog would be a good idea. The resident “came across as open to this idea” and the landlord directed the resident to sheltered accommodation properties which it owned and advertised on the home search (and allocated using a bidding system). It directed the resident to register on the website. This formed part of a series of recommendations/action plan.
7. It also recommended that the resident visit the doctor to check over his mental health and his hearing aids.
8. It also recommended that the resident report any issues (threats) to the landlord and police.
9. Finally, it said it would see if it could help the resident to sell the property. Since the meeting, it said that it could not purchase the flat and the best way to do this would be through and estate agent (24 January 2020).

On 2 June 2020 the resident reported further noise problems from the neighbour. The landlord said that it would not investigate the noise (report of loud machinery) as previously advised. The resident said that his doctor found nothing wrong with him. The landlord tried to arrange to speak with the resident’s sister (who had attended the meeting in January).
The resident reported the noise again, and the landlord said that it would re-investigate the noise if he had new information or evidence (1 September 2020 and 30 October 2020). It said that the resident had not registered on the home search website and offered to help him with this.
The resident contacted the Ombudsman in September 2020 about noise. He explained that he had raised a complaint but did not receive a response. He explained that this was affecting his mental health and wellbeing and his neighbour was working day and nights, using machines which were constantly making noise. He explained that he was 74 and cannot stand the noise and he sought for the landlord to resolve this so that he could get some peace, quiet and rest.
The Ombudsman contacted the landlord in November and December 2020 and asked it to escalate the complaint. The landlord emailed back and explained that whilst it had been dealing with the resident’s reports of ASB it had not logged a formal complaint for him but would now do so. It issued the resident with an update letter on 27 November 2020 to acknowledge the formal complaint.
The landlord issued a stage one response on 8 December 2020. It outlined the historic reports that the resident had made in 2012, 2013, 2014 and 2019. It outlined its historic responses and said that previous investigations had not found any evidence of the noise nuisance which the resident was reporting. It also highlighted its meetings with the resident and the outcomes of this (January 2020 action plan, as set out above) including that if the resident was able to provide evidence of the noise, then it would investigate this again.

On 21 December 2020 the local authority Environmental Protection team updated the landlord about its discussion regarding the noise with the resident. It told the landlord that:
1. Previously it installed noise monitoring equipment and did not find evidence of the allegations.
2. The resident also advised that the noise had not significantly changed from then and that the installation of the monitoring equipment had been a waste of time.
3. The landlord said that it advised that if nothing had changed since the last investigation, then the outcome was likely to be the same.
4. It also said that it explained the use of the noise equipment (while this was perceived as a waste of time it assisted them in establishing what was going on).
5. If the resident was unwilling to have this installed again then it could not assist.
6. It explained that it needed evidence to prove that what the resident was reporting “is occurring and it is significant and persistent in its nature”.
7. It also explained that the resident and neighbour had a low tolerance to each other.
On 11 January 2021 the landlord’s notes indicate that the complaint was escalated to stage two.
The landlord issued the stage two response on 27 January 2021.
1. It acknowledged the resident’s outstanding request for the landlord to enter the neighbour’s property to observe what was happening inside.
2. It said that it sympathised with the impact on the resident but it did not have a legal right to enter the property as the neighbour was a leaseholder.
3. It considered that it had previously thoroughly investigated the resident’s reports including attending a meeting with the MP, offer of mediation, installation of sound monitoring equipment and supporting recommendations following a meeting with the resident (ie the action plan set out in the stage one).
4. It acknowledged that the local authority was planning to install sound monitoring equipment and said that they would update the landlord about the outcome and any action that they could take.
5. The landlord’s complaint panel considered that there was no further action that it could take.
The resident referred the matter to the Ombudsman in April 2021 and confirmed that he sought the neighbour to stop carrying out manual labour in this property as the machinery was causing a noise nuisance.

Assessment and findings

The resident has reported noise from the neighbour to the landlord for approximately seven years. Though the early reports of the ASB are not within the scope of this investigation, because they would have needed to be raised as a formal complaint at the relevant time, the Ombudsman has considered the early reports to see if the landlord’s final response to the current complaint has been substantiated. In other words, the Ombudsman has looked at the evidence of the historic reports and actions taken to see if the landlord’s current position (that it has already investigated the reports) was reasonable.
The resident’s reports of noise from the neighbour have been consistent in nature. The landlord historically investigated the reports and engaged in the use of noise monitoring equipment (which did not provide evidence of machinery noises) and offered mediation. There was no evidence of statutory noise nuisance, as the monitoring equipment did not pick up the noise. The landlord contacted the parties and liaised with the local authority’s Environment team to discuss investigations into the noise and outcomes. There has historically never been evidence to substantiate the resident’s reports and the landlord has demonstrated that it responded in line with policy in the actions that it can take.
The landlord’s complaint response following the renewed reports of noise from the resident pointed to the historic investigations and it has provided records to substantiate its previous actions. It explained that it would not take further steps unless the resident could provide evidence. As the noise reports were similar to those raised before and there has been no material change, the landlord was reasonable to focus its ASB response in the way that it did (ie to require evidence before it could proceed with a new ASB investigation).
Importantly, though the landlord did not open a new ASB investigation about the ongoing concerns, because it did not have evidence of the noise, it continued to communicate with the resident and explain its approach. It invited the resident to provide evidence or recordings, which he did not do. The landlord’s continued engagement with the resident and willingness to engage with his sister about the issue was reasonable, given the resident’s circumstances (he was 74 and anxious about the situation).
It acknowledged the resident’s reports and recognised the resident’s circumstances. It met with the resident and his sister to discuss the broader circumstances, such as the resident’s personal health and the options he had to adapt his living situation (ie look for alternative accommodation). The landlord has demonstrated willingness to facilitate a resolution although it did not do this by carrying out the action which the resident sought (to visit the neighbour and inspect the property). The actions which it took were therefore reasonable.
To expand, the landlord engaged with the resident by meeting with him to arrange an action plan to address the noise (including inviting him to bring recordings to the meeting) and explain its position and the reason for this. It also considered the resident’s broader circumstances and proposed steps to approach the issue in a holistic way (eg discussing the resident’s day to day lifestyle and proposing actions for wellbeing, proposing that the resident speak to his doctor and check over his hearing aid equipment and also offering to help the resident to register on the home search site to move). The landlord was resolution focused as it met with the resident and offered to contact the neighbour in addition to offering the steps to engage with the resident despite not having evidence and deciding that it could not proceed with an ASB investigation into the continued reports.
Although the resident remained dissatisfied and wanted it to visit the neighbour’s property, the landlord explained its position and why it could not do this. It provided the resident with the avenues to capture evidence in order for it to be able to proceed with a new investigation. It was reasonable for the landlord to seek evidence to corroborate the ASB reports, and as this has not been provided, the landlord’s actions were not unreasonable.
The landlord’s response to the resident’s report of assault was also reasonable. It offered to contact the neighbour to investigate this and encouraged the resident to report to the police and the landlord about such acts if they continued.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration in the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of ASB (noise) from a neighbour.

Reasons

The landlord’s records show that it has given reasonable consideration to the resident’s circumstances and reports of ASB and offered an action plan to address his concerns in the absence of evidence of the noise.

Recommendation

Within four weeks of the date of this report, the landlord is recommended to write to the resident and update him on his options in respect of ongoing concerns about the noise he has reported (eg his housing options and to try to record the noise or make new reports if this continues so that the landlord can assess if this is sufficient to proceed with an ASB investigation).