Gloucester City Homes Limited (202429315)

Background

1. The resident lives in a first-floor studio flat. He told the landlord that his neighbours caused noise nuisance. This included arguing and shouting at each other throughout the day and night. The resident also said the landlord treated him differently and took legal action against him when other residents complained about him. He said the landlord’s actions were unfair and discriminatory. He wanted the landlord to take action against his neighbours and offer him compensation for the distress and inconvenience caused.
2. The resident told this Service he has post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD), depression and anxiety.

What the complaint is about

3. The complaint is about:
   1. The landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of unfair treatment and discrimination.
   2. The landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of noise nuisance.
   3. The landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint.

Our decision (determination)

4. The resident’s reports of unfair treatment and discrimination are outside the jurisdiction of this Service.
5. There was service failure by the landlord in its handling of the resident’s reports of noise nuisance.
6. There was no maladministration by the landlord in its handling of the resident’s complaint.
7. We have made orders for the landlord to put things right.

Summary of reasons

8. The resident’s complaint of unfair treatment and discrimination is outside the jurisdiction of this Service. This is because the Ombudsman cannot consider complaints that are or were the subject of legal proceedings.
9. In the main, the landlord acted in accordance with its ASB policy and good neighbourhood management policy. It did not, however, offer mediation or keep the resident updated at times.
10. There was a slight delay in acknowledging the resident’s complaint. The delay was unlikely to have had any significant impact or detriment on the resident.

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.

11. What this Service can and cannot consider is called the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction. This is governed by the Scheme. When a complaint is brought to this Service, the Ombudsman must consider all the circumstances of the case, as there are sometimes reasons why a complaint will not be investigated.
12. This Service is unable to investigate the resident’s complaint of unfair treatment and discrimination. This is because the Ombudsman cannot consider complaints which are the subject of court proceedings or were the subject of court proceedings where judgement was given.
13. In this case, the landlord secured a possession order against the resident for noise nuisance in August 2022.

14. It is noted that the resident said he had reported issues with noise nuisance since 2022. This Service encourages residents to raise complaints with their landlord in a timely manner. This is because with the passage of time, evidence may be unavailable and personnel involved may have left an organisation, which makes it difficult for a thorough investigation to be carried out and for informed decisions to be made.
15. Taking account of the availability and reliability of evidence, it is considered fair and reasonable for this assessment to focus on the landlord’s handling of the events leading up to when the resident made a complaint in August 2024, up to October 2024, when the landlord issued its final complaint response.
16. In cases involving noise nuisance, it is not this Service’s role to establish whether the reported incidents occurred, but to determine whether the landlord responded in accordance with its relevant policies and procedures and if its actions were fair in all the circumstances.
17. In this case, the resident sent the landlord a number of noise recordings in June 2024. The landlord told the resident on 12 June 2024 that it had reviewed the recordings and was unable to take any further action. It said this was because loud voices did not constitute antisocial behaviour (ASB). This was consistent with the landlord’s definition of ASB as set out in its ASB policy and ensured it managed the resident’s expectations. There is no evidence the landlord offered mediation or encouraged the resident to speak to his neighbour about the noise. Neither did it tell him to keep a record of what was happening. Its good neighbourhood management policy says it will do this.
18. The resident sent the landlord further noise recordings in July 2024 and August 2024. The landlord did not acknowledge receipt of the recordings when they were received. This was not consistent with the landlord’s good neighbourhood management policy and meant the resident was not clear on what action, if any, was being taken by the landlord to address his concerns.
19. The noise recordings were reviewed by the landlord and it was determined there was evidence of noise nuisance on one occasion. It wrote to the resident’s neighbour on 19 August 2024. This was appropriate. It asked them to adjust their noise levels and consider the impact it could have on other residents. The landlord also noted that noise nuisance could be a breach of the tenancy agreement and if it continued it would ask the local authority’s environmental protection team to investigate further. This was consistent with the landlord’s ASB policy. The resident was provided with an update on the same day and asked if he had experienced any further problems with noise nuisance. There is no evidence the resident responded to the landlord’s request for an update.
20. The landlord issued its stage 1 complaint response on 18 September 2024.
21. When considering how a landlord has responded to a complaint, this Service considers not just what has gone wrong, but also what the landlord has done to put things right in response to the complaint. This includes the steps the landlord has taken to address the shortcoming and prevent a reoccurrence, as well as any compensation offered.
22. In this case, the landlord confirmed that talking loudly was not considered ASB. This provided clarity and was consistent with the landlord’s ASB policy and good neighbourhood management policy. It also said it issued a warning letter after reviewing the evidence provided by the resident. Whilst this was consistent with the landlord’s ASB policy, the landlord again failed to offer mediation. This was a failure and meant the landlord did not use all of the tools available to it.
23. The resident told the landlord on 30 September 2024 that it had ignored his reports of noise nuisance and it needed to take legal action against his neighbours. He said he would not provide any further recordings. The landlord told the resident that it would be unable to take any action against his neighbour without evidence. This was appropriate. It also noted the resident could submit diary sheets rather than noise recordings if he wanted to. This demonstrated the landlord was sensitive to the resident’s circumstances and wanted to put things right for him.
24. The landlord reconfirmed its position on 21 October 2024 in its final complaint response. This included noting it had reviewed the noise recordings provided by the resident and concluded that the majority of the recordings did not meet the threshold to take action against his neighbour. It also noted a tenancy warning letter was issued to his neighbour following receipt of one recording of noise nuisance. The landlord confirmed it had received no further reports of noise nuisance from the resident and asked him to continue submitting diary sheets. It said it needed evidence in order to take action. This provided clarity and demonstrated the landlord wanted to put things right for the resident.

25. It is unclear from the housing records when the resident made a complaint. He told the landlord on 29 August 2024 that he was still waiting for a response to his complaint about noise nuisance.
26. The landlord acknowledged the resident’s complaint on 6 September 2024 and said it would respond within 10 working days. This was consistent with its complaints policy and the Housing Ombudsman’s complaints handling code (the Code). It also telephoned the resident on the same day to ensure it understood his complaint and the outcomes he was seeking. This was appropriate.
27. The landlord issued its stage 1 complaint response on 18 September 2024 in accordance with the timescales set out in its complaints policy.
28. The resident escalated his complaint on the same day. The complaint escalation request was acknowledged by the landlord on 24 September 2024. This was in accordance with the 5 working day target set out in the landlord’s complaints policy. It also telephoned the resident. This was consistent with its complaints policy.
29. The landlord issued its final complaint response on 21 October 2024. This was 19 working days after the resident escalated his complaint and was in accordance with the 20 working day target for responding to complaint escalation requests.

Learning

Knowledge information management (record keeping)

30. We did not identify any concerns regarding the landlord’s record keeping in this case.

Communication

31. The landlord’s overall communication with the resident was good. It did not, however, acknowledge receipt of many of the noise recordings he submitted.