Hammersmith and Fulham Council (202113955)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202113955

Hammersmith and Fulham Council

15 November 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

The complaint is about:
1. The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of antisocial behaviour (ASB) and noise disturbance.
2. The landlord’s handling of the resident’s concerns about soundproofing.
3. The landlord’s handling of the resident’s request for a garden screen.

Background and summary of events

Background

The landlord has provided this Service with a copy of its ASB policy and procedure, which sets out its responsibilities for investigating ASB. It also sets out a grading system for reports of ASB as follows:
1. Grade one cases include incidents that indicate a likelihood of a serious injury or any act of hate crime. Grade two includes ASB that is intentional, targeted and may be continuous and prevents quiet enjoyment of the home and/or affects physical and mental well-being. It includes threatening verbal abuse. Grade three includes noise nuisance.
2. Grade one and two cases require any investigation to commence within 2 or 3 working days, an update within ten working days and monthly contact with the person reporting the ASB. Grade three cases require the investigation to commence within five working days, an update within 15 working days and monthly contact. Grade four cases require recording on the system and an update within 5 working days.
The range of actions that can be taken include: working with outside agencies; working with residents; completing reports; gathering intelligence; convening panel meetings to discuss complex or difficult cases; keeping accurate records and recording all interviews and action taken; agreeing an action plan with the complainant; providing comprehensive advice to the complainant; advising the complainant in writing of its actions and keeping them informed on a monthly basis.
The procedure has a section on keeping records which states that details should be kept of all investigations, interviews, notes of telephone conversations and all written correspondence; action plans and copies of NOSPs.
The landlord’s complaints procedure states that stage one complaints should be responded to within 15 working days and stage two complaints within 20 working days.
The resident has raised a previous complaint with this Service about the handling of his reports of noise and ASB, which concerned issues up until December 2019. As the Ombudsman does not consider complaints concerning matters that the Ombudsman (or any other ombudsman) has considered, this investigation focuses on matters occurring after December 2019. In the review response sent on 19 October 2020 this Service noted that a soundproofing request was made after this time therefore resident needed to raise a new complaint.

Summary of Events

The resident is a tenant of the landlord. The property from which he raised his formal complaint is a ground floor flat. Another tenant, (the neighbour( is the resident in the flat above. The property has a communal garden.
The landlord’s surveyor inspected the resident’s property on 11 December 2019. On 3 February 2020 the landlord advised the resident that whilst soundproofing was not something that it would do normally, due to long-standing noise complaints, it would consider whether to take this action and advise him of the decision.
On 13 March 2020, the resident wrote to the landlord stating that he continued to experience noise from the neighbour’s property, in particular squeaky floorboards, banging and stamping, shouting and slamming of cupboard doors. He also advised of verbal abuse and threats and intimidating behaviour, disturbance from visitors and the wiping of feet on his post. The landlord’s notes indicate that it made an appointment to meet the resident on 18 March 2020 to discuss the present situation but the resident could not turn up. After speaking to the resident on 25 March 2020, who expressed concerns about he and his neighbour having to remain in their properties over lockdown, it spoke to the neighbour who made counter-allegations. The landlord also spoke to the resident’s social worker and the police, who advised about an altercation between the resident and’s partner. After, on 1 April 2020, the landlord advised the resident of the action it had taken and that it anticipated some improvement.
Internal correspondence during March 2020 showed that the landlord had rejected soundproofing it as it was not a repair but an improvement. It also noted that soundproofing works may not significantly improve creaky floorboards.
On 19 April 2020 the resident advised that he was starting a training course for a job which he would attend from home, online, due to Covid 19 lockdown restrictions. He asked that the landlord request the neighbour be quiet in her kitchen (which was above his bedroom) until the lockdown was over so he could concentrate on the course. In a separate email sent that day the resident reported noise from another property, adjacent to his flat, which he understood did not have carpet or underlay, He requested the landlord to explain to the occupants that they should be quiet in their kitchen (which was adjacent to his bedroom) and stop running up and down stairs.
Following a phone call of 20 April 2021, the resident on 21 April 2020 gave consent for the landlord to make a referral to the Council’s Environmental Services department for an independent witness.
On 21 April 2020 the resident wrote to the landlord stating that the surveyor who visited his property in December 2019 had stated the property needed soundproofing. He asked the landlord to confirm whether the works would proceed after lockdown. The landlord responded advising that it had been in regular contact with the resident and the neighbour, and would continue to investigate the case. It advised it would seek a decision on the installation of soundproofing from the member of staff responsible.
On 27 and 28 April 2020 the resident wrote to the landlord providing a diary of incidents over the previous 10 days. He noted that the noise affected his work and sleep. He also enquired about the use of the independent witness.
On 5 May 2020 the resident asked the landlord to provide him with ASB forms, a transfer form and an update on the possible use of an independent witness. He asked what the independent witness would check for and what it would do if his reports were corroborated.
The resident made further reports of noise which he stated were worse when the neighbour’s partner came, and the landlord’s internal records indicate that on or around 28 May 2020, the resident accepted an offer of mediation. However, the neighbour declined the offer.
The landlord enquired with Environmental Services whether an independent witness could attend the resident’s property. However, Environmental Services informed it on 20 May 2020 that it was not taking on new cases due to Covid-19 and then on 10 July 2020 that it was not sure when the witness service would resume.
On 4 June 2020, the resident reported that he had used an air freshener in the communal area as a smell of cigarettes and cannabis had wafted from the neighbour’s property. However, the neighbour had objected to his use of an air freshener. He asked the landlord to remind the neighbour not to approach him as he thought she was trying to provoke a confrontation. In further correspondence on 20 June 2020, he advised that he had not received a call back from the landlord. He also asked about the independent witness and requested that the landlord contact him solely by email.
Also in June 2020 the resident reported noise from the adjacent property which he believed did not have any carpet or underlay.
On 22 June 2020 the resident asked the landlord to instruct the neighbour to install a suitable underlay and carpet as this was what the surveyor who attended in December 2020 suggested. On the same day the landlord advised that it would be speaking to the neighbour and the adjacent neighbour to although it required details of the noise coming from the latter’s property. It also advised the resident to report any “really bad” noise in the evening to Environmental Services.
Between 5 and 8 July 2020 the resident described other incidents where the neighbour retaliated and made noise after he sprayed air freshener and where she argued loudly with her partner who pounded/banged doors. He advised that the police would not intervene due to insufficient evidence and asked the landlord to tell the neighbour that her and her partner’s behaviour was unacceptable. On 9 July 2020 the landlord advised that it would be raising the resident’s situation with the Council and would speak to the neighbour about his report of his door being kicked.
After another altercation with the neighbour on 14 July 2020, on 29 July 2020 the landlord advised it was seeking a solution with the Council and the police to issues arising from them living next to each other.
After the resident enquired further about the action being taken on his case, on 1 and 8 September the landlord advised him it had found a solution involving the neighbour; however on 1 September 2020 the resident advised that he wanted a swift transfer as he did not feel safe or comfortable living at the address.
The landlord allocated a new member of staff to deal with the resident’s ASB case. On 22 October 2020 the resident asked her for an update, noting that she had advised him that she would speak to the previous case officer before having another discussion with him. He asked for monthly updates as per the Ombudsman’s recommendations.
On 31 October 2020 the resident sent the landlord a video of noise from the neighbour’s property and asked that it confirm how it would respond.
On 24 November 2020 the resident reported that the neighbour was making a lot of noise from stamping, jumping on the ceiling, slamming doors and shouting.
Between 7 and 9 December 2020 the landlord installed feather edge fencing with posts to divide the garden into two separate gardens.
A Multi-Agency Risk Assessment Conference (MARAC) was held in December 2020 to consider a Community Trigger application of the resident regarding incidents in June / July 2020. It was decided that the landlord should assess the floorboards of the neighbour’s property and the flooring of the next-door neighbour’s property.
On 21 December 2020 the resident submitted a formal complaint stating the problems he was having with the neighbour and her partner had not changed. He stated that he made further reports to his housing officer and his manager. The resident also contended that the landlord was supposed to have installed sound-proofing to his property.
On 22 December 2020 the resident reported that the neighbour had acted aggressively and made threatening comments when contractors entered her garden to remove garden rubbish from his garden. The landlord approached the subcontractor which did not provide a statement. The landlord spoke to the neighbour who denied the allegation against her and that she had placed rubbish in the resident’s garden.
On 14 January 2021, the landlord sent the Stage 1 response. It advised:
1. It would discuss the resident’s report of noise and homophobic abuse, then decide whether to make a referral to the ASB team.
2. In response to the resident’s reports of 12 January 2021 of noise from floorboards, its repairs team would be vising the neighbour on 15 January 2021 to inspect the floorboards.
3. In response to the resident asking whether the neighbour had adequate flooring, it had visited in August 2019 and noted she had carpet throughout except in in the kitchen and bathroom where alternative flooring was allowed. It would check the flooring again during the visit of 15 January 2021.
4. It had asked the neighbour not to contact him and to report any concerns to it.
5. Regarding the adjacent property, that property had laminate on the ground floor which was allowed. It would check whether there were carpets on upper floors.
6. It would update the resident weekly.
7. It could arrange a sound test at both properties with the Environmental Services team once Covid-19 restrictions had been lifted.
8. It had asked its Community Safety Team to confirm whether it could meet the resident’s request for CCTV.
9. It had sent the resident a transfer form on 31 December 2021.
10. Its repairs team would consider a request by a resident to install a screen in the garden. However, this was not guaranteed as the garden had already been separated.
On 4 January 2021 the resident emailed the landlord stating he was unhappy that its surveyors had advised that there was nothing wrong with the neighbour’s floorboards without visiting his flat. On 6 January 2021 the landlord advised it would consider carrying out a joint-visit with repairs staff to assess whether repairs to the floorboards were required.
On 25 January 2021 the resident stated that despite his complaint being partly upheld he was unhappy with the decisions made on his requests. In a further submission he stated:
1. He was unhappy about the actions of the member of staff who had been dealing with his case. He was still experiencing ASB.
2. He experienced continued noise. He understood that a contractor had glued the neighbour’s floorboards, but this did not resolve the issue. He wanted the landlord to install alternative flooring in the flat.
3. He also wanted adjoining walls to be soundproofed.
In January 2021 the landlord allocated a new member of staff to deal with the resident’s ASB case.
On 25 January 2021 the resident reported that the neighbour had shouted and sworn in the communal area about his use of an air freshener. The landlord considered video footage (which has been provided to this Service) and noted no direct comments were made to the resident nor did she approach him. The landlord warned the neighbour about her behaviour advising she should be mindful of her language in the communal area and that she should keep the communal door closed. The landlord advised the resident of the action it had taken.
On 8 February 2021, the resident reported that he believed that the neighbour had stood on a letter for him that has been posted through the letterbox.
On 19 February 2021, the landlord sent the Stage 2 response to the complaint. It advised:
1. It had transferred the resident’s ASB case to another staff member who had been in regular contact with the resident, responding to phone calls and emails. The staff member had agreed to contact the resident every Friday.
2. In respect of alleged homophobic abuse from the neighbour it had sent an ASB form in the post which the resident needed to return so that it could consider the allegations. It had asked the neighbour not to contact him but could not compel her to do this.
3. It had asked the adjacent neighbour whom the resident had complained about to confirm that carpets were in place.
4. It was not its practice to install soundproofing as it would consider other ways to reduce noise transference, such as mediation. Household noise would be heard in even modern buildings and at the time the building was built the property would have met building regulations. It would perform a sound test at the resident’s property once lockdown restrictions were lifted.
5. It was liaising with the Community Safety Team regarding cameras being installed in communal landing/spaces.
6. It had put a fence between the resident’s and the neighbour’s garden. This was an exception to its normal practice and it would not install a screen.
7. It partly upheld the resident’s complaint as it was not clear about his request for soundproofing when he first asked. It hoped the resident would understand why it could not facilitate its request but it was happy to discuss further.
The landlord received a response from the Community Safety Team which advised that “it did not have any cameras for communal landing / spaces, its cameras were only to be installed on the streets and to provide an overview of wider issues occurring on the street / public realm”.
On 2 March 2021, the resident raised another Community Trigger referring to the incidents of 22 December 2021, 25 January 2021 and 8 February 2021. On 13 April 2022 MARAC decided that the criteria for the Community Trigger was not met but it agreed an action plan based on commitments from the landlord and the Council’s Environmental Services / Noise Team. This was for the resident to keep diary sheets of noise disturbance for 10 days then for the Noise Team to install noise recording equipment. On 26 April 2021 the landlord phoned the resident and advised him to complete diary sheets for two weeks then send them to the Noise Team.
MARAC met again on 22 May 2021 the result of which was that the resident and the neighbour should be separated to prevent harm. The landlord subsequently agreed to consider awarding the resident a management transfer, with the resident to provide supporting documents. A social worker sent a supporting letter dated 27 May 2021.
There have been further monthly multi-agency meetings. The landlord noted that the resident provided a noise diary on 1 June 2021 for the period 26 April – 7 May 2021.
The landlord has provided evidence that it visited the neighbour in June 2021 to inspect the floorboards. Loose flooring in places was glued and repaired in places with the intention of reducing creaking. The landlord also raised a repair order to prevent the need for her to force shut a kitchen cupboard door, and for all cupboards and drawers to be fitted with door bumpers.
On 23 June 2021 the Noise Team offered sound recording equipment, but the resident declined advising that it had been quiet for the previous two weeks. With regard to the garden the landlord advised the resident that it would not install another garden fence as this would block sunlight into another property and noted that it had previously explained this to him.
On 21 July 2021, the landlord attended the neighbour’s and resident’s property for a sound test and whilst it heard walking and talking noises, it considered that soundproofing would not prevent all noise transference. It noted that the floorboards were in satisfactory condition and carpets had been installed. The landlord has explained to this Service that it ascertained that there was no tenancy breach by the resident in respect of flooring that was not permitted.
The landlord received the resident’s management transfer application in September 2021. At this time, it also confirmed that it was working with the police and the Community Safety Team in respect of another reported incident.
On 27 October 2021, the resident reported that the neighbour had shouted and sworn at him because he had vacuumed a room. He had filmed it and the police would be dealing with it. The landlord explained that it had also received counter allegations that resident banged on the neighbour’s ceiling. The MARAC meeting for November 2021 noted that the police had reviewed footage of an argument between the parties and considered that no further action was necessary.
On 11 November 2021 the landlord in response to the resident asking again for soundproofing advised that “Sound proofing isn’t offered usually and only in rare circumstances due to the cost. The resolution has been a management transfer for you”.
In October 2021 the landlord identified a property for the resident as a management transfer and placed it on hold pending a viewing. However, the resident declined the offer as it was not a purpose-built property.
The resident accepted another management transfer offer in December 2021 and moved to another property on 9 February 2022, with the landlord providing support for the move including the cost of removals.

Assessment and findings

It is important to reiterate at the outset that it is not for this Service to determine if the behaviour evidenced here constituted ASB, as that was a judgement which fell to the landlord to determine. The landlord, however, has responsibility to ensure that it takes appropriate and proportionate action to address and seek to resolve reported ASB, and that it has adequate and effective procedures in place for doing so.
It should also be noted that a resolution which suits all parties may not be possible in cases where there are lifestyle differences or personality clashes, resulting in neighbour disputes rather than ASB, for example.
Upon receiving reports of alleged ASB the landlord first needs to gather evidence to establish whether the behaviour is unreasonable and constitutes ASB. Its procedures must also ensure that it remains impartial and does not seek to apportion responsibility for behaviour until it has established the facts. It is therefore important that a landlord has in place procedures to ensure reports of ASB are appropriately and effectively responded to. The landlord’s policy and procedure for addressing ASB was comprehensive and appropriately structured. It allowed for the prioritisation of reports and provided a number of measures that could be taken either in isolation or in conjunction, depending on the severity and urgency of the reports. This Service must therefore consider whether the landlord followed its own procedure in response to the reported ASB.
The landlord took initial steps to resolve the resident’s concerns about the neighbour by speaking to the parties in March 2020. However, after the resident returned diary sheets, there is no evidence that the landlord considered the sheets and advised what further actions would result. Also, having suggested that it would employ an independent witness the landlord did not consistently respond to the resident queries about this option. Whilst it was dependent on the Council as to whether an independent witness could be provided, it did not keep the resident informed.
It was reasonable that the landlord offered mediation in May 2020. Mediation is an option often used by landlords to resolve disputes between neighbours, including cases when there are lifestyle differences. The process allows parties to better understand the views of the other party and arrive at an agreement for living together with minimal impact. However, agreements can be reached without formal mediation; in this case, after mediation was refused the landlord did not take further steps to explore whether the parties could agree on steps to reduce noise transference, according to the evidence provided to this Service. For instance, there is no evidence that the landlord asked the neighbour to be mindful of causing noise in the kitchen whilst the resident was studying in his bedroom during lockdown, as he requested.
The difficulties between the resident and the neighbour escalated during June and July 2020 when altercations over smells arose. He raised additional concerns about noise from an adjacent property. Although the landlord advised it would speak to both neighbours, there is no evidence that it did so. As such it cannot be confirmed that the landlord raised the resident’s reports with the neighbours or otherwise took responsive action at that point with the intention of preventing further incidents and the deterioration of the relationship between the parties. There is also no evidence that the landlord responded to the resident’s reports of October and November 2020.
The landlord discussed the resident’s case with other agencies at MARAC meetings, including the police which was aware of resident’s reports and counter-allegations. This coincided with the resident making a formal complaint about the handling of his case. In its Stage 1 response the landlord set out an action plan including reapproaching the neighbours, inspecting their properties and testing for noise.
Whilst it was in line with its ASB policy that the landlord set out the range of actions to investigate the ongoing issues, it failed to investigate its previous handling of a case. The Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code states that “landlords must address all points raised in the complaint and provide clear reasons for any decisions, referencing the relevant policy, law and good practice where appropriate” and “Where something has gone wrong a landlord must acknowledge this”. By not investigating its previous handling of the resident’ case, the landlord failed to acknowledge the distress the resident had experienced from the situation with his neighbours and his dissatisfaction over how long his ASB case had been ongoing. It should also be noted that the complaints process is an opportunity for the landlord to explain how it has dealt with a case and the significance of any mitigating circumstances; however, the landlord did not take up this opportunity.
Following the complaints procedure the landlord continued with the MARAC meetings, discussing how best to proceed with the resident’s case. It also took a range of actions, allowed for by its ASB Policy and line with the complaint responses, to investigate the situation at that time. This included inspecting the neighbour’s floorboards and carrying out works to the floorboards to reduce noise, carrying out works in the neighbour’s kitchen to reduce noise, asking the resident to complete diary sheets, offering to install sound monitoring equipment and carrying out a sound test.
The landlord ultimately decided to offer the resident a management transfer, which it then facilitated. Whilst neighbour disputes can be extremely stressful and upsetting, the landlord is not required to move a resident due to ongoing neighbour disputes; in facilitating a management transfer, including meeting costs of the move and allowing the resident time to prepare, the landlord acted pragmatically and to the resident’s benefit.
However, in the complaint responses the landlord had advised that it would keep in contact weekly. The landlord has not provided evidence that it maintained this level of contact. It has advised that it has not been able to access the full records of phone text or email contact with the resident. It has advised of difficulties in dealing with the resident who did not like being contacted by housing staff and often did not answer his phone or respond to messages. The landlord states a complete record of calls would not always be kept when he did not answer or respond. As recognised by the landlord’s ASB Policy, clear record keeping and management is a core function of an ASB service, not only so that a landlord can provide evidence of its actions to the Ombudsman when requested, but also because this assists the landlord in fulfilling its obligations. Accurate and complete records ensure that the landlord has a good understanding of the case, enable unresolved cases to be monitored and managed, and enable the landlord to provide accurate information to residents. It is also important that a landlord records any difficulties in contacting the parties as it can consider such difficulties when deciding what further action to take on the case.
Furthermore, having noted the resident’s concerns about noise from the adjacent property in the Stage 2 response, there is no evidence that the landlord then updated the resident on the action taken and its position on this matter.
In summary, it is evident that the landlord has responded to the resident’s reports about his neighbour. It has spoken to the neighbour on occasions, offered mediation worked with other agencies through MARAC meetings. It has also taken actions outlined in its responses to the resident’s complaint and ultimately offered a management transfer to resolve the resident’s ASB case.
However, it is not evident that the landlord responded to all reports made by the resident or consistently kept him updated on the status and progress of his case. For instance, it did not advise of what consideration it had given to diary sheets provided in May 2020, nor did it keep the resident informed on his request for a professional witness. It did not explore whether noise could be reduced during lockdown when the resident was studying at home. There is also no evidence of the landlord’s responses to the incidents reported in June and July 2020. Compounding these failures, the landlord failed to investigate its prior handling of the resident’s case, which would cover these periods, after he raised a formal complaint.
The landlord in the complaint responses advised that it would keep in contact with the resident weekly. The landlord however, has not provided evidence that it maintained this level of contact. This was especially unreasonable as the Ombudsman had found when investigating the resident’s previous complaint that there was a lack of evidence that it had investigated his reports of ASB in accordance with its published policy and procedure. In respect of the resident’s reports about noise from the adjacent property, the landlord also did not update the resident on the action taken and its position on this matter.

Soundproofing

Soundproofing works constitute an improvement outside of the landlord’s repair obligation and the Ombudsman accepts that landlords are not responsible for soundproofing homes above the standards applicable at the time of building. Moreover, landlords are entitled to take into account the consistency of the service it provides to residents reporting noise from neighbours.
The resident requested that the landlord install soundproofing and the landlord inspected the resident’s property in December 2019. It informed him in February 2020 that it was considering his request for soundproofing. The resident chased up a response to soundproofing in April 2020. However, the landlord did not provide a definite response to the resident’s request for soundproofing at this time despite agreeing to chase up the request, thereby failing to manage his expectations and contributing to his frustration. The landlord’s internal communication of March 2020 indicates that it had already taken the view that it would not install soundproofing. The landlord’s failure to provide a response to the resident indicates that there were failings in its internal communications.
This culminated in the resident within his complaint of December 2020 raising concerns that soundproofing had not been installed. It was not until the landlord’s Stage 2 response that it clarified that it would not be installing soundproofing. The landlord accepted that it had delayed in responding to the resident’s soundproofing request. However, given the length of time of the delay this did not provide sufficient redress.
Whilst landlords do not have a repair obligation to install additional soundproofing, the Ombudsman advises landlords to consider whether actions taken to prevent and/or mitigate for the typical sources of noise nuisance will, in the long run, be more cost-efficient than handling the subsequent noise nuisance report. Landlords should also consider their net zero plans for insulation to ensure that the thermal insulation activity planned will also provide noise insulation and will not make any existing noise transference issues worse.

Garden Screen

The landlord installed a fencing to divide the communal garden into two separate gardens. This was an improvement to the property and therefore over and above its repair obligation. By doing so, it demonstrated an intention to reduce contact between the resident and his neighbour.
The landlord’s complaint responses indicate that the resident asked that the landlord additionally install a screen within the garden. Again, these were works which were an improvement to the property and therefore over above the landlord’s obligation to carry out. Taken together with the fact that the landlord had already carried out works to separate the garden to reduce contact between the parties and its overarching responsibility to manage its repair and maintenance budget, it was reasonable that the landlord declined the resident’s request for a screen.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was maladministration by the landlord in respect its handling of the resident’s reports of ASB and noise disturbance.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was service failure by the landlord in respect its handling of the residennt’s concerns about soundproofing.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was no maladministration by the landlord in respect of the request for a garden screen.

Reasons

It is not evident that the landlord responded to all reports made by the resident or consistently kept him updated on the status and progress of his case. For instance, it did not advise of what consideration it had given to diary sheets provided in May 2020, nor did it keep the resident informed on his request for a professional witness. It did not explore whether noise could be reduced during lockdown when the resident was studying at home. There is also no evidence of the landlord’s responses to the incidents reported in June and July 2020. Compounding these failures, the landlord failed to investigate its prior handling of the resident’s case, which would cover these periods, after he raised a formal complaint.
The landlord in the complaint responses advised that it would keep in contact with the resident weekly. The landlord however, has not provided evidence that it maintained this level of contact. This was especially unreasonable as the Ombudsman had found when investigating the resident’s previous complaint that there was a lack of evidence that it had investigated his reports of ASB in accordance with its published policy and procedure. In respect of the resident’s reports about noise from the adjacent property, the landlord also did not update the resident on the action taken and its position on this matter.
The landlord did not have an obligation to install soundproofing between the resident’s and his neighbours’ properties. However, it delayed in responding to the resident’s request for soundproofing. Whilst it acknowledged the delay in the Stage 2 response, it did not provide sufficient redress for the failure.
The landlord did not have an obligation to install a screen. Given that it already had carried out works to separate the garden and considering its responsibility to manage its repair and maintenance budget, it was reasonable that the landlord declined the resident’s request for a screen.

Orders

The Ombudsman orders that, within the next four weeks:
1. The landlord pays the resident £300 compensation in respect of the distress and inconvenience caused by its handling of his reports of ASB and noise.
2. The landlord pays the resident £75 compensation in respect of the distress and inconvenience caused by its handling of his concerns about soundproofing.
The Ombudsman orders that, within the next six weeks:
1. The landlord takes steps to ensure that it considers and responds to all reports of ASB as appropriate and maintains records of all actions taken in response. The landlord should also consider whether the staff dealing with ASB cases can easily retrieve the full case records when required.