Gateshead Metropolitan Borough Council (202334170)

Background

1. The resident’s lives in a block of flats, in which there is a property above his. It is this property which was the subject of the reports of anti-social behaviour (ASB). The resident has autism.

What the complaint is about

2. We have looked at the landlords:
   1. Handling of the ASB.
   2. Complaint handling.

Our decision (determination)

3. We have found that there was:
   1. Maladministration in its handling of the ASB.
   2. Maladministration in its complaint handling.

We have made orders for the landlord to put things right.

Summary of reasons

Handling of the ASB.

4. In the first instance, the landlord responded to the ASB in line with its policy, it completed an action plan which it kept regularly updated, had consistent communication with the resident, provided diary sheets, the noise app, monitoring equipment and completed a sit-in to help corroborate the resident’s concerns. It liaised with third party agencies and offered support to the resident, which was especially important given his vulnerabilities.
5. It also considered any other actions it could take to mitigate the sound for the resident including installing carpet in the neighbouring property.
6. However, it did not evidence that it completed a risk assessment in the first instance or after the resident reported that threats had been made and it was clear the issues had escalated. Its communication at times was not in line with its agreed action plan and it did not evidence that it appropriately managed the resident’s expectations around what action it could take when the issues escalated.

Complaint handling.

7. The landlord did not respond in line with its policy or the Complaint Handling Code.

Putting things right

Where we find service failure, maladministration, or severe maladministration we can make orders for the landlord to put things right. We have the discretion to make recommendations in all other cases within our jurisdiction.

Orders

Landlords must comply with our orders in the manner and timescales we specify. The landlord must provide documentary evidence of compliance with our orders by the due date set.

Our investigation

The complaint procedure

What we found and why

The circumstances of this complaint are well known by the parties involved, so it is not necessary to detail everything that’s happened or comment on all the information we’ve reviewed. We’ve only included the key information that forms the basis of our decision of whether the landlord is responsible for maladministration.

What we have not looked at.

8. In communication with us and throughout the complaint, the resident raised the impact the ASB had on his mental health. While we do not dispute this, such a determination is more appropriate for a Court as a personal injury claim. We have however considered the overall distress and inconvenience caused to the resident.
9. The resident has told us that the issues with excess noise in the property has been going on since 2017. While we do not dispute that, we can only investigate complaints that were brought to the attention of the landlord as a formal complaint within 12 months of the issue occurring. We can also only investigate issues which have exhausted the landlord’s internal complaints procedure. Therefore, this investigation will consider the period from November 2022, 12 months prior to the resident’s complaint, until his stage 2 response in April 2024.

What we have looked at

10. When the resident first reported the issue with noise from the neighbour on 6 November 2022, the landlord contacted the resident on 8 November 2022, in line with its policy within 5 working days.
11. During that call it discussed the issues and agreed an action plan with the resident. The action plan detailed the frequency of contact and a method for the resident to record any incidents. This was in line with its policy.
12. Following continued reports of noise reported to the landlord via the diary sheets throughout November 2022, the landlord agreed to give the resident the use of its noise application to record the noise. On each occasion that it received the noise reports, the evidence shows the landlord reviewed the recordings and found no evidence of noise above normal living noise.
13. It appropriately wrote to the resident on 28 December 2022 to inform him that it had found no evidence of excess noise, would be taking no further action and closing the case. In the absence of evidence to support the residents claim, it was reasonable for the landlord to close the ASB case and take no further action.
14. On 10 January 2023, the resident reported further noise reports and that the neighbour had sent “thugs” to his property and confirmed he had called the police. The landlord called the resident the same date, in line with its policy which says where there is a threat of violence, it would contact a resident within 24 hours.
15. Given the reported threats, it would have been appropriate for the landlord to complete a risk assessment. Not undertaking a risk assessment after a report of ASB can lead to other failings throughout the lifetime of a case. Getting a risk assessment right is an essential foundation for responding effectively. This would have helped assess risk, identify support needs, and consider measures to mitigate any risk. It has provided no evidence that it did so.
16. The landlord then appropriately spoke to the resident on 16 January 2023, opened a new ASB case and completed a further action plan with the resident.
17. The action plan noted the landlord would contact the police for details about the resident’s report. Evidence confirms the landlord did so on 23 January 2023. This highlighted the police had taken no further action.
18. The landlord agreed for the resident to monitor the noise for a period of 2 weeks, during which time he continued to report further noise which he had recorded on his phone. In response, the landlord appropriately gave him access to the noise application again.
19. The landlord reviewed the resident’s noise recordings and found no evidence of excessive noise. Due to this, it offered a sit-in visit, which was appropriate given the resident’s persistent reports and the distress it had caused. This aligned with its policy.
20. During the sit-on on 14 March 2023, the landlord found no evidence of excessive noise. The resident continued reporting issues, but there is no evidence the landlord communicated its position to manage expectations around the action it would, or would not, take after finding no evidence to support the residents reports of excess noise. It would have been useful for the landlord to have clarified its stance to the resident.
21. The resident continued reporting noise throughout April 2023. On 25 April, the landlord spoke with him about any support he might need and referred him to adult social care. This was appropriate given the ongoing distress to the resident and was reflective of its duty of care towards residents. The landlord also encouraged the resident to contact his GP and offered to liaise with the GP on his behalf, highlighting its commitment to support him.
22. On 2 June 2023 the resident asked the landlord to install noise monitoring equipment. We cannot see that the landlord responded to this request but on 14 June 2023 an internal note shows it agreed to install the equipment. However, internal emails from 24 July 2023 show it decided it was unable to offer such equipment due to the lack of evidence. While the landlord is entitled to decide on the best use of its equipment, given the continued reports of noise, it may have been useful for it to have installed the equipment at the earliest opportunity.
23. Due to the continued noise reports, the landlord appropriately wrote to the neighbour to warn them about excess noise on 26 June 2023. This was in line with its policy.
24. Throughout July the resident continued to report noise, however, we cannot see that the landlord responded to these reports or spoke to the resident to discuss his concerns. As the ASB case was still open at this stage, it would have been appropriate for the landlord to have continued the fortnightly contact with the resident and to have provided an update on what action, if any, it would take to help resolve the situation, in line with its action plan. Its failure to do so highlights a lack of effective communication.
25. The evidence shows that the neighbour was adamant the noise was from a different flat, and so the landlord spoke to the resident about this on 8 August 2023 and completed a further action plan. That action plan included it contacting its private rented team to reach out the other property and completing a letter drop about the noise to all properties to try to gather evidence of ASB in the area. The evidence shows the landlord completed both these actions within a reasonable timeframe.
26. However, given that by this point the ASB case had been open for 8 months, it is unclear why the landlord did not consider completing a letter drop to neighbouring properties sooner.
27. The landlord agreed to install the noise monitoring equipment and did so on 6 September 2023. During the 1 week period, the equipment picked up 1 incident where it could hear music playing loud. It was following this and due to continued counter-allegations of ASB that the landlord referred the case to its neighbourhood relation team (NRT), in line with its policy.
28. On the 28 September 2023, the resident raised a formal complaint in which he said the neighbour had made threats to kill. The resident also made threats against the neighbour. Given the threats, this would have been another opportunity for the landlord to have completed a risk assessment in this case to understand the risk and consider if it needed to put in any measures to mitigate the risk. We have not seen any evidence that it did so.
29. The landlord invited the resident to its office to discuss the ASB on 10 October 2023, including his reactions to the noise. Given the ongoing volatility between neighbours, a face-to-face meeting was appropriate. The landlord appropriately reminded the resident to avoid reacting to the noise and to continue reporting incidents.
30. It also updated the action plan with the resident and agreed to meet in person every 2 weeks. Changing the contact with the resident to face-to-face visits highlighted the landlord’s commitment to help resolve the issues for the resident, especially given his known vulnerabilities.
31. The resident had made threats of violence toward the neighbour, so the landlord gave him a warning about his behaviour and said it had referred the threats to the police. The landlord has a duty to act on all threats of violence and was entitled to escalate its concerns in this instance.
32. Throughout October the resident continued to report the noise and the landlord invited him into the office on 26 October 2023, which the resident declined. It therefore appropriately reached out to the resident via email and explained he was welcome to go into the office for a meeting at a time convenient to him.
33. Following further reports of noise, the landlord contacted the resident on 1 November 2023 to again invite him to visit the office to discuss the noise. During this appointment the landlord explained to him that it did not consider the noise he was hearing was ASB and therefore it was unable to take further action. It was appropriate of the landlord to manage the resident’s expectations and explain it could take no further action without evidence to support his claim.
34. However, it did confirm it was looking to see if it could install carpet into the neighbour’s property to minimise the noise. It had already obtained a quote for carpet and underlay on 30 October 2023. This was a reasonable step to take to help resolve the issues for both parties. Especially given the landlord was aware that the resident was sensitive to noise.
35. On 17 November 2023, the landlord issued a warning letter to the resident. Given the ongoing issues including counter-allegations and evidence of direct threats of violence by the resident, the landlord was entitled to take this step, in line with its policy.
36. On 6 December 2023, the landlord confirmed the neighbour had moved out. It closed the ASB case on 12 December after the noise reports ceased and the property was empty. It confirmed this in writing and issued a closure letter on 10 January 2024. In the absence of evidence and with the property being empty, it was reasonable for the landlord to close the ASB case and take no further action.
37. During the complaint, the resident said the landlord had disclosed personal information about him to the neighbour. In such instances we would expect the landlord to complete an investigation into the issue. In this case, the landlord said it had spoken to all staff members involved and was satisfied it had not shared personal information. Having completed its investigation, the landlord was entitled to conclude it had not shared any data.
38. Throughout the complaint, the resident also said that he wanted to move. The evidence shows the landlord supported the resident in receiving a higher banding to enable him to be in a better position to move. Given the ongoing issues, this support was appropriate.
39. In this case the landlord responded in line with its policy. It completed an action plan and provided different means for the resident to gather evidence to support his claim of excess noise. However, its communication at times fell short of the standard expected and it did not evidence that it ever completed a risk assessment in this case.

40. Our Complaint Handling Code (the Code) sets out when and how a landlord should respond to complaints. Our findings are:
    1. The landlord’s published complaints policy complies with the terms of the Code in respect of timescales.
    2. The landlord has not evidenced that it acknowledged the resident’s formal complaint or his escalation request, in line with the Code.
    3. The landlord provided its stage 1 response 39 days outside of its published timescales. It did not evidence that it wrote to the resident to inform him of the delay.
    4. The stage 1 response in this case was completed by a senior manager who had been directly involved in the handling of the ASB and was named in the resident’s complaint. TThe Code sets out that a complaint response must be completed by someone with no conflict of interest. Given the resident’s complaint, it was inappropriate for that member of staff to assess the actions it had taken in this case.
    5. The landlord responded at stage 2 in line with its published timescales.

Learning

Knowledge information management (record keeping)

41. The landlord’s record keeping in this case was of a good standard. The evidence given showed the landlord kept a comprehensive and clear record of all reports of ASB, its response and its internal communications. This enabled us to undertake a thorough investigation into the issues complained about.

Communication

42. The landlord’s communication in this case was of a good standard at the early stages of the ASB. However, as the resident continued to report the issues, its communication fell short of the agreed timescales it had given to the resident, and it did not evidence that it responded to some of the serious concerns raised. Its needs to ensure that it has clear and effective communication with residents, especially in cases where the landlord is aware there is little action it can take. Having effective communication would have enabled the landlord to clearly manage the resident’s expectations and can prevent the escalation of a case.