Greenoak Housing Association Limited (202303986)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202303986

Greenoak Housing Association Limited

12 December 2024

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 handling of the resident’s:
1. Reports of antisocial behaviour (ASB) including noise nuisance.
2. Reports of parking issues.
3. Associated complaint.

Background

The resident is an assured tenant of the landlord and has occupied the property, a 1-bedroom flat, since 2008. The resident has mental health difficulties that are known to the landlord.
The resident reported noise nuisance to the landlord in February 2022. The context of the reports has not been provided to this Service; however, it is known that they were in relation to a neighbour. The landlord responded on 14 February 2022 and asked the resident to provide further information about any previous incidents in the previous 3 weeks, as it “sensed” from his correspondence that it was not an isolated incident. This Service has seen no evidence that the resident responded to the landlord.
On 9 and 11 April 2022, the resident informed the landlord of 2 separate noise disturbances at unsociable hours from the neighbour above. The noises included banging, slamming of doors, and raised voices. He said that the issue was affecting his mental and physical health. There is no evidence that the landlord responded to the resident.
The resident contacted the landlord on 28 and 29 June 2022 and stated that:
1. He had experienced new incidents of noise nuisance. The disruptions were at all hours of the day and night. When he had made the neighbours aware that they had made too much noise, their response was to make further noise.
2. There had been some additional ASB incidents, including rubbish accumulation which had since been removed, an untidy garden, and “pungent” odours coming from the flat above.
3. He was dissatisfied that the landlord had not responded to his emails in April 2022.
On 4 July 2022, the landlord responded to the resident’s reports of ASB and stated that it would attempt to contact other neighbours to establish if they were also experiencing similar issues. The resident responded the same day and said that he had already spoken to other neighbours who had noticed the “pungent” odours from the neighbouring property, but they had not experienced the same noise disturbances. He said that he felt this did not diminish the problems he had been experiencing. The landlord responded to the resident and advised that asking other neighbours in the area was the first step in the process to support his claims, as it wanted to “avoid turning the matter into one person’s word against the other”.
On 4 July 2022, the landlord sent a letter to all residents within the vicinity and asked them to confirm if they had experienced any noise nuisance from a particular property. The letter stated that it would expect a certain amount of noise to be generated between properties during the day, however the allegations it had received were around the banging of doors and raised voices late at night and into the early hours of the morning.
On 15 July 2022 the landlord informed the resident that as 3 of his neighbours had not experienced any noise nuisance, it could not pursue the matter any further until it had evidence to support his claims. It suggested that the resident could provide supporting evidence from a friend or a family member who had visited his home and witnessed the disturbances first hand, or he could speak with the local authority which could install recording equipment in his home to monitor the noise levels.
The resident contacted the landlord on 24 July 2022 to provide details of an ASB incident from the previous day that he had reported to the police. He stated that when the banging started from the neighbouring property, he banged back. There was then an altercation at his front door where the neighbours had started “a barrage of verbal abuse” against him. He explained that a previous incident from 20 years ago where a neighbour had beaten him unconscious had left him traumatised. He asked the landlord if there were any bungalows available locally for him to move to. The landlord responded the following day and said that the email he had sent was addressed to an individual who had since left the organisation. It said it would thoroughly review the information he had sent, along with any previous interactions, and would be back in touch with an update. This Service has seen no evidence that the landlord followed this up with the resident.
The resident contacted the landlord on 5 occasions between 9 and 18 December 2022 to report further ASB incidents. Within the correspondence he stated that the noise nuisance had affected his mental health and sleep patterns, had caused migraine headaches, and that he felt himself becoming increasingly jumpy and agitated by the neighbour’s behaviour.
The landlord and resident discussed the incidents on 19 December 2022. The landlord followed this up with an email to resident to confirm the action plan agreed:
1. The landlord would arrange for a plumber to investigate a potential airlock and a “bubbling” drain issue in the building which could have been causing the noise disturbances.
2. The landlord would speak with the neighbour to discuss the reports.
3. The resident would attempt to record any future noise disturbances. If his phone could not capture the noise, he would contact the local authority’s environmental health service to request installation of noise equipment.
The landlord’s repair contractor attended on 20 December 2022 and found no issues with airlocks or blockages in the block of flats. There is no evidence that the landlord informed the resident of the outcome of the repair.
The resident contacted the landlord on 30 and 31 January 2023 to report a neighbour for having no valid MOT certificate. He told it that he had reported them to the DVLA. He also provided a photograph of the neighbour’s car parked across 2 parking bays, which meant he was unable to use the space. The landlord responded on 31 January 2023 and asked the resident to confirm the address of the owner of the vehicle, so it could contact them to ensure they parked appropriately in the future. It informed the resident that it did not have the authority to enforce any issues with MOTs and taxing of vehicles and advised him to continue to report it to the police and DVLA. This Service has seen no evidence that the resident responded to the landlord.
On 14 February 2023 the resident informed the landlord that he had walked out of his flat that morning due to the noise nuisance caused by the neighbour in the property above. He said that he had considered moving home because of the issues and the landlord talked him through the process of how to do this. He said that he had recordings of the noise and would try to send them to the landlord, but they were big files. He also advised that he had reported the pungent odour issues from the neighbour’s property to environmental health, and they were due to visit to investigate further. The landlord agreed that this was a positive step, and that environmental health should contact it should there “be a real issue there”.
The resident emailed the landlord on 24 February 2023 to report further noise nuisance in the early hours of the morning. He stated that he had offered to send the recordings previously but as the files were too large, he invited the landlord to visit his home to listen to them.
On 4 March 2023 the resident provided the landlord the same photographs of car parking issues that he had reported previously in January 2023. Within his correspondence, he also requested to make a formal complaint. He said that he was unhappy that the landlord had:
1. Failed to respond to his email on 24 February 2023.
2. Failed to address the continued noise disturbances from the neighbour.
3. Ignored his invitation on 2 occasions to review his recorded evidence of the disturbances.
4. Failed to address the drainage issues he had raised in December 2022 that he felt the neighbour had caused.
5. Failed to address his concerns about a “pungent odour” from the neighbour’s property.
6. Told him that internal property transfers were no longer an option.
This Service has seen no evidence that the landlord acknowledged the resident’s request to make a formal complaint. The resident contacted this Service on 2 May 2023 for some advice on how to pursue the matter further with the landlord.
The Ombudsman contacted the landlord on 3 May 2023 and again on 12 July 2023 to ask it to provide a stage 1 complaint response to the resident. In line with paragraph 13 of the Scheme, a Complaint Handling Failure Order (CHFO) was then issued to the landlord on 31 July 2023 as it had not complied with the Ombudsman’s instructions. This Service received an automated email from the landlord on 3 August 2023 that stated that the staff member whose email address we had on record had left the organisation in January 2023. Following a review request from the landlord, the CHFO was later rescinded by the Ombudsman.
The Ombudsman sent an updated ‘final chaser’ to the landlord on 8 August 2023 and requested that it provide a stage 1 response to the resident.
The landlord’s complaints team contacted the resident on 9 August 2023. It apologised to the resident for the delays and confirmed it had opened his complaint. The housing team also contacted the resident the same day to inform him that it was looking into his reports of ASB. The resident responded and stated that he was “outraged” that a particular individual from the housing team was investigating his complaint, as he felt that there was a conflict of interest, and the landlord should be impartial.
The landlord provided its stage 1 response on 23 August 2023 and offered the resident £300 in compensation. Within the response, the landlord stated that:
1. It was sorry for its poor communication in relation to complaint handling. It offered the resident £150 in compensation for the time and trouble he had expended in pursuing the matter.
2. It had received 2 reports of ASB from the resident in 2017 and 2018, and then in February 2022 it received a report to which it responded asking for a summary of what had happened in the previous 3 weeks. It stated that it could not find the emails he had referenced from 9 and 11 April 2022.
3. The next record of contact it had from the resident was on 28 and 29 June 2022. It responded on 4 July 2022 to request further information from him. It confirmed that it would write a warning letter and would arrange contact with other neighbours to see if they were experiencing issues. It then wrote to him on 15 July 2022 to advise that it could take no further action as the other residents had not experienced any issues. It had asked if he could help find any independent witnesses and signposted him to the local authority for noise monitoring equipment.
4. It was sorry that the resident did not receive a response to the email he had sent to a member of its executive team as they had left the organisation.
5. It had received further reports from the resident in December 2022 and agreed an action plan with him. The plumber found no airlocks in the property.
6. It was unable to get hold of the resident or the neighbour to discuss the incidents further.
7. It had received correspondence from the resident regarding a neighbour not having a valid MOT certificate and had directed him to the DVLA.
8. It had provided him advice on alternative housing options as he had indicated he wanted to move. However, it had not followed this up with him.
9. It offered a further £150 in compensation in recognition of it not providing clarity on the action it was taking and failing to arrange a home visit.
The resident requested to escalate his complaint to stage 2 on 26 August 2023. He said this was because:
1. The landlord had failed to address the main issue of effectively dealing with the neighbour.
2. It had no records of correspondence on certain dates.
3. The plumbing visit it referenced was for a different matter and not the one it had mentioned.
4. He had received the stage 1 response late.
The landlord acknowledged the stage 2 complaint on 5 September 2023 and provided its final response on 18 September 2023. It stated that:
1. It was sorry for the breakdown in communication. Its complaints team had recently received further training on the importance of communication and timescales to improve the service being delivered.
2. It had made an error within its stage 1 response where it referenced that the resident had contacted a member of the executive team. It clarified that it was the Ombudsman who had done this and apologised for the confusion.
3. It offered the resident an additional £125 for its poor complaint handling.
4. It had arranged for the relevant team to contact him to resolve the issues with the neighbour.
On 21 September 2023 the resident told this Service that he remained dissatisfied following the stage 2 response from the landlord. He said that he was “insulted” by the £425 compensation offer.

Events after the end of the complaint process

The landlord agreed a further action plan with the resident on 13 October 2023. It supplied him with evidence gathering logs and offered mediation. It stated that it would change the status of his case to “dormant” until he provided details of the ongoing issues he was experiencing.
The resident made further reports of ASB between October 2023 and December 2023.
The landlord conducted a “stage 2 review” of the resident’s complaint on 22 November 2023 and provided this Service with a copy. It reiterated its offer of compensation and noted that it had been attempting to engage with the resident regarding his reports of ASB.
The ASB case was closed by the landlord on 6 February 2024 as it had not received any further evidence from the resident or the neighbour.
An ASB case review (formerly known as a community trigger) was undertaken in May 2024 by the local authority. This Service has not been informed of the outcome of this review.
During contact with this Service in November 2024, the resident confirmed that he had not accepted the compensation offered by the landlord.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

While it is acknowledged that the tension between the resident and his neighbour was longstanding, the available records indicate there were periods when the resident was not reporting ASB. The fact that the problem was a recurring one is not disputed, but the evidence suggests it was not continuous. This investigation will focus on the landlord’s actions from February 2022 which were considered within its complaint responses. This is in accordance with paragraph 42c of the Scheme, which states that the Ombudsman may not consider matters that were not brought to the attention of the landlord within a reasonable period (usually 12 months from the matters arising).
In September 2023, the resident also referenced an issue with maggot infestations allegedly caused by his neighbours. Any new issues that the resident has raised since the landlord issued its stage 2 complaint response will not be considered as part of this investigation. If the resident is unhappy with how the landlord has dealt with such issues, he has the option of raising a new complaint with the landlord. He may then refer any further complaint(s) to this Service if he is dissatisfied with the final response.
When the resident raised his formal complaint with the landlord on 4 March 2023, he stated that he was unhappy it had failed to address his concerns regarding “pungent odours” coming from the neighbour’s property. However, this Service has seen no evidence that the landlord investigated the handling of this issue, as it did not reference its findings in the stage 1 or stage 2 responses. Paragraph 42a of the Scheme states that the Ombudsman may not consider complaints which are made prior to having exhausted the landlord’s complaints procedure. Therefore, this Service will not make an assessment on the handling of the substantive issue but will address any complaint handling failings within the relevant section of this report.
In June 2022 and August 2023, the resident raised his concerns about the landlord’s handling of the accumulation of rubbish within his neighbour’s garden. However, he did not raise this issue within his formal complaint on 4 March 2023. The resident later confirmed to this Service that he raised these issues with the local environmental health service, not the landlord. Therefore, in line with paragraph 42c of the Scheme, the Ombudsman will not make an assessment of the landlord’s handling of this issue.
The resident has described how the landlord’s handling of the ASB and his associated complaint has negatively impacted on his mental health. While this Service does not doubt or underestimate the resident’s concerns, it is outside our remit to determine the causation of, or liability for, impacts on health and wellbeing. This is in accordance with paragraph 42f of the Scheme, which states that the Ombudsman may not consider complaints concerning matters where it is quicker, fairer, more reasonable or more effective to seek a remedy through the courts, other tribunal or procedure. This matter is best suited for investigation through the courts or a personal injury insurance claim.

Handling of ASB including noise nuisance

The role of the Ombudsman is not to establish whether the ASB reported by the resident happened. Instead, this Service’s role is to establish if the landlord carried out a proportionate investigation, and that it responded to the resident’s reports in line with its legal and policy obligations.
Within its ASB policy, the landlord defines ASB as:
1. Conduct that has caused, or is likely to cause, harassment, alarm or distress to any person.
2. Conduct capable of causing nuisance or annoyance to a person in relation to that person’s occupation of residential premises.
3. Conduct capable of causing housing-related nuisance or annoyance to any person.
The landlord’s ASB policy states that it will record and monitor cases of incidents of ASB. Between February 2022 and February 2023, the resident reported 11 noise-related ASB incidents to his landlord. However, the evidence suggests that not all the incidents were logged as an ASB case on the landlord’s internal systems, which was inappropriate and indicative of poor record keeping processes.
The landlord told the resident that it had not received his emails on 9 and 11 April 2022 about the noise nuisance. The evidence shows that the resident sent the emails directly to an individual staff member with whom he had liaised previously in relation to ASB. The resident emailed the same email address on 24 July 2022 to report noise nuisance, and the landlord responded to the resident the following day advising him that the staff member had left the organisation. In the Ombudsman’s opinion, the landlord should have had effective mechanisms in place earlier to monitor the inbox. For example, it could have considered setting up automated responses and/or diverting emails to the appropriate account (if it did not do so). This may have prevented the delays in responding to the resident’s reports of ASB.
Within its response on 25 July 2022, the landlord said it would contact other neighbours to discuss the resident’s claims and that it would provide him with an update. This Service has seen no evidence that the landlord spoke with the neighbours or update him on the actions it had taken, which was inappropriate, although it is accepted that the landlord would have been limited in the level of update it could share for reasons of data protection. It was also unreasonable that the evidence of these email trails was provided to this Service by the resident and not the landlord. This is a further service failing within its record keeping.
The landlord’s ASB policy states that it does not consider ‘tit for tat’ neighbour disputes with no evidence, and daily living sounds from neighbouring properties such as footsteps and doors closing, to be ASB. Therefore, it was reasonable for the landlord to contact other residents in the block of flats in July 2022 to attempt to obtain further evidence to support the resident’s reports of noise nuisance.
The landlord’s ASB policy states that it may issue diary sheets or sound recording technology to support clear, detailed and accurate records. There is no evidence that the landlord provided the resident with any diary sheets until October 2023. This was 20 months after he first reported the noise, which was inappropriate.
As the other neighbours did not corroborate the resident’s claims of noise nuisance, the landlord’s suggestion to the resident to seek a witness or contact the local authority for noise monitoring equipment was reasonable. However, it would have been helpful for the landlord to provide the resident with clarity around the purpose or how the recordings were going to be used. Additionally, given the resident’s comments about how the noise was impacting him, it would have also been reasonable for the landlord to take ownership of the case and do more to assist the resident in liaising with the local authority.
Following the resident’s reports of noise disturbance throughout December 2022, the landlord agreed an action plan with him. This was good practice and in line with its policy. Sometimes, noise caused by environmental factors such as the fabric of the building may be mistakenly attributed to the actions of a person. Therefore, the landlord’s suggestion to inspect for potential air locks in the pipework of the flats was an appropriate action in aiming to identify the root cause of the noises. However, in the Ombudsman’s opinion the landlord could have taken its inquisitive approach further by inspecting the flat above for potential issues with flooring or soundproofing. It would also have been appropriate for the landlord to inform the resident promptly of the outcome of its inspection. Its omission to do so likely caused him some uncertainty and avoidably prolonged his distress.
The resident told the landlord that the recordings he had made on his phone of the noise nuisance were too large to send via email. It was therefore unfair that it did not take up the resident’s offer to visit his home to listen to the recordings, or otherwise explore ways of accessing them.
This Service acknowledges that between February 2022 and July 2022, the landlord did not have substantial evidence to take action against the neighbour. However, the Ombudsman’s Spotlight Report on Noise Complaints explains that where noise reports do not meet the statutory threshold, landlords should adopt a proactive good neighbourhood management policy, distinct from their ASB policy, with clear options for maintaining good neighbour relationships. This includes mediation, which should be offered to residents at the earliest opportunity to establish a mutual understanding of each other’s lifestyles. In this case, there is no evidence that the landlord considered offering mediation between the 2 parties and documented its decision. This was unreasonable.
Statutory guidance for frontline professionals linked to the Anti-social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Act 2014 provides agencies with guidance on how to identify and support victims of ASB. It is best practice for landlords to complete a risk assessment to assess a resident’s vulnerability and risk of harm at the earliest opportunity following a report of ASB. This was particularly important in this case, as the resident told the landlord he was distressed and anxious on several occasions and said that he was “still traumatised” from a violent incident involving a previous neighbour. Indeed, the landlord commented on how he had presented during telephone calls on 19 December 2022 and 14 February 2023. Despite this, it failed to evidence it had carried out a risk assessment between February 2022 and September 2023, which was inappropriate.
In the Ombudsman’s opinion, the landlord did not go far enough in considering the resident’s vulnerabilities. It should have been aware that even low-level noise could be very distressing and triggering to someone who suffered with mental health problems including features of PTSD. In addition, a regularly reviewed risk assessment would have provided the landlord with the opportunity to assess any potential harm arising from the resident’s concerns. Further, it would have also allowed the landlord to consider what support the resident required.
The landlord’s compensation policy states that when determining the level of compensation payable to the resident, it will consider whether the failure was minor, moderate, or severe. To decide upon this category, it will consider the duration of the problem, the extent or severity of the service failure, and the impact on the resident. When assessing impact on the resident it will also consider vulnerabilities. The policy does not, however, include a matrix for calculation of the compensation payments, which would demonstrate openness and promote consistency. It instead states that it follows the Ombudsman’s guidance on remedies when calculating the payments. The landlord offered the resident £150 at stage 1 of the complaint, and no further offer was made at stage 2 (disregarding the offer of £275 for complaint handling). In the Ombudsman’s opinion, the level of redress the landlord offered did not reflect the impact on the resident.
Overall, as the landlord consistently failed to follow its ASB policy, there was maladministration in its handling of the resident’s reports of noise nuisance. As the landlord also failed to offer appropriate redress in recognition of the failures identified within this report, we have made an additional order of compensation to put things right for the resident. As the landlord’s compensation policy does not provide a calculation matrix, the compensation offer has been calculated in line with the Ombudsman’s guidance on remedies. The offer made is in recognition that the landlord’s failure adversely affected the resident.

Handling of parking issues

The resident contacted the landlord on 30 January 2023 to report a neighbour’s car for not having a valid MOT certificate. He also provided a photograph of the same car parked across 2 parking bays, which he said prevented him from using the space. He sent a further email the following day and told the landlord that he had reported the neighbour to the DVLA.
The landlord responded promptly on 31 January 2023 and asked the resident to confirm the address of the owner of the vehicle. It said that it would then contact the neighbour to ensure that they parked their car appropriately in the future. This was a reasonable response from the landlord as its ASB policy stated that “parking in other than designated locations” could be categorised a nuisance, and it could therefore take appropriate action under the tenancy agreement.
The landlord also correctly stated that it did not have the authority to enforce any issues with MOT and taxing of vehicles. It encouraged the resident to continue to report the issue to the DVLA and the police. This was reasonable, as its ASB policy stated that where it did not have a responsibility or could not intervene, it would make the reasons for this clear to the resident.
On 4 March 2023 the resident sent the landlord the same photograph of the parking issues from his previous correspondence on 30 January 2023. Within his email, he requested to make a formal complaint; however, he did not clarify if the parking was an ongoing issue. The landlord’s failure to respond to the resident’s complaint will be assessed in the complaint handling section of this report, but separately, its communication in relation to the parking issue at this stage was poor. This Service has seen no further correspondence from the resident or the landlord in relation to this matter.
As mentioned earlier in the report, the landlord’s ASB policy states that it will record and monitor cases of incidents of ASB. Aside from copies of the emails, this Service has seen no evidence that this incident was recorded on the landlord’s internal systems. This was inappropriate, as its ASB policy states that it will consider inconsiderate parking as ASB if it involves blocking of access. The landlord therefore failed to follow its own ASB policy and retain comprehensive ASB records.
The landlord’s ASB policy also states that it will only close a case after it has consulted with a resident or where the resident has stopped engaging. The Ombudsman does not expect the landlord to keep a case open indefinitely. However, had the landlord opened a case in relation to the reported parking issues, it would have been easier for it to monitor the resident’s response and follow up before it closed the case.
Overall, the advice the landlord provided the resident in relation to the parking issues was appropriate. However, due to the lack of evidence of robust recording keeping and effective communication on the case, the Ombudsman finds there was service failure in its handling of the resident’s reports of parking issues.

Complaint handling

The Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (‘the Code’) defines a complaint as “an expression of dissatisfaction, however made, about the standard of service, actions or lack of action by the landlord”. In June 2022, the landlord acknowledged the resident’s new reports of ASB but failed to address his dissatisfaction about its handling of the issues he had reported in April 2022. When receiving a complaint about ASB, it is important that the landlord establishes whether the resident is making a report of ASB or complaining about its handling of the case. The risk of not recognising the difference can lead to a delay in formally investigating the matter as a complaint and a missed opportunity to put things right at an early stage for the resident, as was seen in the handling of this case.
At the time of the complaint, the landlord operated a 2-stage complaints process. It stated that it would focus on a fast resolution for complaints and that at both stages, it would acknowledge a complaint within 2 working days of receipt and aim to respond within 10 working days. If an extension was required, it would notify the resident of the expected timescale. However, if the extension was beyond 20 working days, this would be agreed with the resident.
The landlord’s complaints policy states that it will accept complaints via a range of methods, including email. The landlord did not inform the resident of the reason why it then failed to acknowledge his request to make a formal complaint on 4 March 2023. However, as the resident required intervention from the Ombudsman to progress his complaint to stage 1, this Service finds that the landlord acted inappropriately. It also failed to comply with the timescales set out its own complaints policy.
As the landlord did not respond to the Ombudsman’s requests on 3 May 2023 and 12 July 2023, it was issued with a CHFO on 31 July 2023. Within the same period, there are no records to show that the resident contacted the landlord about ASB or the associated complaint, as he was anticipating the intervention of this Service. On 3 August 2023, this Service identified that the email address on record for the landlord was no longer in use. It is therefore reasonable to conclude that although it should have responded to the complaint on 4 March 2023, the landlord did not receive any further correspondence about the complaint until 8 August 2023. It is for this reason that upon review, this Service rescinded the CHFO in December 2023. Despite the delays being caused by an administrative error, it does not diminish the impact the delays had on the resident. As a member of the Scheme, the landlord should endeavour to keep the Ombudsman updated with any changes or updates in records and contact details.
Upon receipt of the complaint request on 8 August 2023, the landlord acknowledged the stage 1 complaint with the resident and this Service within 1 working day. This was appropriate and in line with its complaints policy.
The resident said he was “outraged” on 9 August 2023 when a member of the landlord’s housing team contacted him to inform him that they were looking into his reports of ASB. However, the evidence suggests that they were not investigating the formal complaint as the resident had thought, and therefore there was no conflict of interest. However, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, the landlord could have been clearer within its correspondence to the resident to avoid the confusion between an ASB investigation and formal complaint investigation. It also could have gone further in reassuring the resident once it became aware of his concerns.
The landlord’s records show that it issued its stage 1 response on 22 August 2023, which was 9 working days from the date of acknowledgement. This was appropriate and in line with its policy timeframe. It also provided this Service with a copy of the response the following day. However, the resident stated that he received the response from the landlord on 24 August 2023. While the Ombudsman does not dispute the resident’s claims, this Service has seen no documentary evidence of this, so is unable to reach a conclusive finding on this matter.
The Code states that landlords must address all points raised in the complaint and may only exclude complaints where there is a valid reason to do so. When the resident raised his formal complaint with the landlord on 4 March 2023, he said he was unhappy that it had failed to address his concerns regarding the “pungent odours” coming from the neighbour’s property. Although the landlord’s complaint definition included “reports of ASB”, this Service has seen no evidence that the landlord investigated its handling of these specific concerns, as it did not reference them within its stage 1 or stage 2 response. Therefore, the landlord acted inappropriately, and this was a failing within its complaint handling.
Within its stage 1 response, the landlord acknowledged and apologised to the resident for its poor complaint handling, which was appropriate. It offered the resident £150 in compensation for the time and trouble he had expended in pursuing the matter. The landlord’s compensation policy states that discretionary payments are dependent upon the severity of the service failure. However, as mentioned previously it does not include a compensation calculation matrix, which is best practice within the sector. This would have provided clarity to the resident and this Service on how it had calculated the compensation. Taking into consideration the Ombudsman’s guidance on remedies and the delays and inconvenience the landlord had caused the resident, this offer of compensation was low and therefore inappropriate.
The landlord acknowledged the resident’s request to escalate his complaint after 6 working days. Although the Code stipulates that members of the Scheme have 5 working days to acknowledge a complaint, the landlord’s complaints policy at the time allowed for 2 working days. The landlord did not acknowledge or apologise for this delay within its stage 2 response, and this was unreasonable. This Service notes that the landlord has since updated its complaints policy to reflect the timescales set out within the Code.
The Code states that landlords must not stop their efforts to address an issue if the resident complains. Within its acknowledgement of the stage 2 complaint, it was therefore appropriate for the landlord to recognise that the resident was still experiencing ongoing issues with the neighbour and to arrange for the appropriate team to contact him while the stage 2 investigation was ongoing.
The landlord then provided the resident its stage 2 response within 10 working days, which was appropriate and in line with the timescales outlined in its complaints policy.
The Code states that landlords must use complaints as a source of intelligence to identify issues and introduce positive changes in service delivery. Within its stage 2 response, the landlord said that its complaints team had recently undertaken training on communication and timescales, with the aim of improving service delivery. Therefore, this was a positive action from the landlord and showed that it was learning from its complaint handling.
A stage 2 complaint is the final opportunity for the landlord to review its handling of the substantive issue, as well as the complaint handling process, and to put things right for the resident. However, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, the landlord’s stage 2 response failed to answer the complaint appropriately. It failed to acknowledge, explain or evaluate its handling of the resident’s primary concern about ASB (which included noise nuisance, parking issues and pungent odours). It also did not address the issues and questions the resident had raised within his escalation request. It would have been appropriate for the landlord to investigate these matters and state its findings. Alternatively, it could have opened a separate complaint in relation to any new issues, or asked the resident whether he would like it to do so.
The landlord offered the resident an additional £125 at stage 2 for its poor complaint handling. This was a total of £275 compensation (not including the £150 for the handling of ASB). In line with Ombudsman’s guidance on remedies, this was a reasonable offer of financial redress for the failures identified. However, it did not reflect all of the failures identified by this investigation, as outlined above.
In summary, the landlord failed to:
1. Recognise the resident’s initial dissatisfaction in June 2022.
2. Open a stage 1 complaint in March 2023.
3. Provide updated contact details to the Ombudsman, which subsequently prolonged the delays in its complaint handling.
4. Answer all aspects of the resident’s complaint.
5. Provide clarity on the findings of its stage 2 investigation.
As the landlord failed to identify and apologise in its final response for all the failings identified within this report, it is the Ombudsman’s opinion that it did not go far enough to put things right for the resident. It is for this reason that there was service failure with the landlord’s handling of the associated complaint. Additional compensation has been ordered to reflect the failures not accounted for by the landlord’s offer.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of noise nuisance.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was service failure in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of parking issues.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was service failure in the landlord’s handling of the associated complaint.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

The landlord is ordered to do the following within 6 weeks of this report (allowing for the Christmas period):
1. Apologise to the resident in writing for the failings set out in this report.
2. Pay the resident £875 compensation. This must be paid directly to the resident and is made up as follows:
  1. £500 for its handling of his noise reports. This includes £150 previously offered by the landlord at stage 1, plus an additional £350 in recognition of the failures identified within this report.
  2. £50 for its handling of the parking issues.
  3. £325 for its handling of the associated complaint. This includes £275 that was previously offered by the landlord at stage 2, plus an additional £50 in recognition of the further failures identified within this report.
3. Contact the resident to ask if he would like it to open a formal complaint about its handling of his reports of pungent odours.
4. Ascertain if there are any ongoing ASB/noise issues. If the resident reports continued issues, it should open an ASB case, carry out a risk assessment, and agree a plan of action in line with its ASB policy.
The landlord is ordered to do with following within 12 weeks of this report:
1. Carry out a review of the resident’s case, in accordance with paragraph 54g of the Scheme, to ensure its handling of noise nuisance cases is in line with the recommendations outlined in the Ombudsman’s Spotlight Report. A copy of the resulting report should be provided to this Service. It should include an assessment of (but is not limited to):
  1. The completion of risk assessments and action plans.
  2. The collection and use of evidence, including the recording of noise.
  3. The circumstances when mediation will be offered.
  4. The consideration of its vulnerable persons policy.
  5. The consideration of any further staff training needs and whether any amendments are required to the ASB policy.
2. Arrange training for relevant staff involved in complaint handling via the Ombudsman’s dispute resolution e-learning. This should be done with the aim of:
  1. Ensuring all complaint definitions are answered.
  2. Producing comprehensive and appropriate stage 2 responses.

Recommendations

The landlord is recommended to review its compensation policy. This should be done:
1. With reference to the Ombudsman’s own guidance on remedies.
2. With the aim of providing clarity to its staff and residents on levels of payments for consistency.