Hammersmith and Fulham Council (202102912)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202102912

Hammersmith and Fulham Council

12 May 2022


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

  1. The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of anti-social behaviour (ASB).

Background

  1. The resident is a tenant of the landlord. Her reports of ASB concern a neighbour who lives directly above her.
  2. In January 2020 the landlord organised for a warden to patrol the estate following the resident’s reports of noise from the neighbour. There were further reports concerning the neighbour in June and July 2020. There is no evidence of reports after that until November 2020. She said her neighbour would bang on her ceiling, and throw items over the balcony.
  3. The resident raised a complaint concerning the landlord’s handling of her ASB reports in March 2021. She requested a management move. The landlord explained what actions it had taken to investigate and resolve her concerns. It declined her request for a management move as it said it had not identified any ASB.
  4. In her complaint to this Service, the resident explained that the ASB was ongoing. She reiterated that she wanted a management move. She said that there was water damage in her bathroom which remained unresolved.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

  1. The resident has referred to water damage in her bathroom. No evidence has been provided for this investigation to show the resident raising this matter as part of her formal complaint to the landlord. As such, in accordance with paragraph 39 (a) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, we will not investigate this matter. This is because we can only look at issues which have exhausted the landlord’s complaints procedure. The landlord needs an opportunity to investigate the issue itself before the Ombudsman becomes involves. The resident should raise the issue with the landlord first, and then bring it to this Service if necessary.
  2. The resident’s reports of current and ongoing nuisance need to be made to the landlord, who will handle them as necessary in line with its ASB policy and procedures.

Handling of ASB

  1. The landlord’s ASB policy sets out that when it has not found a breach of tenancy, it will write to the tenant who reported the alleged ASB, and explain that it cannot take any further action. It may give residents diary sheets to record any incidents of ASB. In cases where the alleged perpetrator is making counter allegations against the resident, if the landlord finds both parties are causing ASB, it will refer them to mediation. It will only consider a management transfer when the ASB case is serious or life threatening. 
  2. The resident raised a stage one complaint in March 2021. She explained what she was experiencing (banging doors, items being left on her balcony and door step). In its complaint responses, the landlord set out how it had responded to her concerns. It said it had spoken to the neighbour (who denied the allegations), asked them to install a rug to minimise the noise transfer, asked a warden to monitor the area, offered mediation, and suggested she install a noise recording app. The resident was dissatisfied as she believed its actions were insufficient.
  3. For a landlord to be able to take formal action in respect of ASB it needs to have appropriate evidence of the behaviour being reported. In this case, the landlord took reasonable steps to investigate the resident’s reports and obtain evidence. Advising the resident to download a noise recording app was a reasonable suggestion as it would allow her to capture the disturbances. Asking the neighbour to install a rug was also a pragmatic suggestion, as this would ideally reduce noise transfer as the resident had reported in November 2020 that the neighbour would bang on her ceiling.
  4. The resident said the ASB had been occurring daily for the past year. No evidence of incidents of that frequency being reported to the landlord has been provided. As such, the landlord’s actions and responses were reasonable and proportionate to the ASB reports it did receive. This is because the ASB reported did not appear to be persistent or severe. Nevertheless, the landlord still took reasonable steps to investigate (by providing diary sheets), and alleviate the nuisance (suggesting the neighbour put carpet down).
  5. The evidence provided for this investigation shows the neighbour made counter allegations about the resident. The landlord recommended mediation. Mediation is a technique used by landlords in which all parties involved meet with a trained mediator to attempt to reach a resolution to their disagreement. The landlord’s suggestion was reasonable as it was in line with its ASB policy. Also, it was an attempt to allow the resident and neighbour to voice their concerns and make each other aware of what in particular was causing the nuisance.
  6. The resident asked for a management transfer. The landlord declined her offer. As explained above, management transfers are carried out in extenuating circumstances when there is an immediate threat to life. No evidence has been provided for this investigation to show such a situation which would meet the threshold for an immediate move. The resident was unable to identify the perpetrator of the incidents she reported, and as such, without this information the landlord would be limited on what action it could take. Therefore, it was reasonable for the landlord to decline her request as it was acting in accordance with its policy.
  7. The resident explained to the landlord that her experiences had exacerbated her physical and mental health problems. In its stage two complaint response, the landlord said it had completed a safeguarding referral in order to provide her with additional support. This was a reasonable attempt from the landlord to demonstrate that it had acknowledged the impact the situation was having on her, and wanted to help alleviate her distress. Ultimately, it is understandable that the situation would have been distressing for the resident. Nonetheless, given the circumstances, and nature of her reports, the landlord’s actions and responses were reasonable and proportionate.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration by the landlord in respect of the complaint.