Islington Council (202120513)

A picture containing font, text, graphics, logo Description automatically generated

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202120513

Islington Council

20 June 2023

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:
1. Handling of the resident’s reports of antisocial behaviour (ASB).
2. Complaint Handling.
The Ombudsman has also considered the landlord’s record keeping.

Background

The resident is the secure tenant of the landlord which is a local authority. She lives in the property with her daughter who is of school age.
The property is a one bedroom flat on the fourth floor of an eight storey block of flats.

Policies and Procedures

The landlord’s corporate complaints policy in place at the time of the complaint set out how it would deal with complaints. It states that:
1. A complaint response should be sent in letter form which may be attached to an email.
2. All complaints, as well as any accompanying notes and documentation, must be recorded on its customer relations management (CRM) system.
3. Stage one complaints must be acknowledged within three working days and a final response issued within 21 calendar days (excluding bank holidays) of receipt. Details of how to escalate the complaint and timescales should be provided.
4. Stage one complaints should be reviewed before being accepted for investigation at stage two.
5. Stage two complaint responses should be issued within 28 calendar days (excluding bank holidays).
The landlord’s compensation guidance states that when deciding whether compensation is appropriate, there are several considerations to take into account:
1. Whether the complaint has been upheld.
2. Whether the situation was the fault of the Council.
3. Whether the complainant has experienced significant injustice as a result of the complaint issue.
4. Whether the complainant’s own actions contributed to the situation (e.g. failing to provide documents requested).
5. Whether the Council could have rectified the problem more quickly than it did.
6. whether the Council could have offered a remedy to the complaint at an earlier stage.
The guidance sets out that compensation can be considered as follows:
1. Time and trouble between £100 to £300.
2. Distress between £100 to £300. For severe or prolonged stress this is increased to up to £1000.
In the guidance the landlord describes itself as an organisation which aims to use complaints as learning tools. It says it is important that when mistakes have been made, procedures are put into place to prevent them from occurring in the future. Where possible, complainants should be informed of the changes or service improvements that have been made as a result of their complaint.
The landlord’s ASB procedure states that excessive noise can be considered as ASB. All cases of ASB should be recorded on the ‘iWorld’ housing management system which should be updated as the case progresses. Cases will be monitored in monthly reviews with the ASB team leader. The out of hours team operates an evening patrol seven days a week.
The ASB procedure includes the following steps in its ASB case management process:
1. When a new ASB case is opened an ‘ASB 01’ form should be completed and a copy sent to the resident. The form should be given a reference number to be used as the case reference and recorded on subsequent forms and letters as appropriate.
2. The ASB officer should carry out an initial risk assessment matrix in order to identify potential risks. The risk assessment should be reviewed and updated as the case progresses or more incidents occur.
3. An action plan must be completed for all opened ASB case files where the reporter is a resident.
4. A fortnightly telephone call with the complainant should take place and should be seen as an opportunity to discuss progress with keeping of noise diaries or lack of submission of evidence.
5. If there is insufficient evidence to support further action the ASB officer should write to both parties informing them that no further action will be taken at this stage but that the situation is being monitored. If no further incidents are reported at the end of the monitoring period the case will be closed.
6. Cases are closed when, following discussion, the team leader is satisfied that a case can be closed. A case closed letter should be sent within two weeks of identifying the case as suitable for closure.
The ‘Noise App’ is a tool widely used by landlords as part of their investigation into complaints of noise and ASB. The company provide further user information on YouTube via ‘The Noise App – Walkthough’. The user can:
1. Record noise for up to 30 seconds to be submitted to the landlord.
2. Use the app to say how long the noise has been affecting them.
3. Select pictorial images to categorise the source of noise and their location when making the recording.
4. Rate the intensity of the noise on a scale of just audible to unbearable.
5. Provide the address where they suspect the noise to be coming from.
The Noise App website provides information for professionals. It says that professionals can:
1. Manage its users and access to the app with user filtering and blocking.
2. Prioritise and manage cases with filtering.
3. Receive emails to keep them updated of changes.
4. Access the noise app via their browser, tablet or desktop anywhere with an internet connection.
The Government’s guidance ‘Antisocial behaviour principles 2023’ sets out principles which seek to “describe a consistent approach to understanding and addressing antisocial behaviour in local communities.” It says that “agencies will have clear and transparent processes to ensure that victims can report antisocial behaviour concerns, can understand how the matter will be investigated and are kept well informed of progress once a report is made.”

Scope of investigation

The evidence shows that the resident has been reporting noise issues with her neighbour since she moved into the property in 2015. The historical reports were about noise caused by DIY and the neighbour above dropping heavy items on the floor. The landlord took steps to investigate the complaint, including visiting the neighbour. In September 2018 the landlord referred both parties to mediation however, this did not resolve the issues. The landlord then missed an appointment to install noise equipment in December 2018. The missed appointment appears to have been the catalyst for the resident contacting her local councillor in order to try to resolve her complaint in January 2019. This investigation has therefore primarily focussed on the landlord’s handling of the resident’s most recent reports from January 2019 onwards that were considered during the landlord’s recent complaint responses.

Summary of events

On 14 January 2019 the resident’s local councillor emailed the landlord on her behalf. He told the landlord that the resident had seen her doctor due to lack of sleep, and was concerned she had not received responses to noise app recordings she had submitted. She was dissatisfied with how the landlord had handled her request to move and her request for proactive visits to be carried out.
During a phone call with the landlord on 28 January 2019 the resident reported that her neighbour above was dropping heavy objects on the floor. This could happen six or seven times a night, or sometimes not at all. She described the noise as sounding like the neighbour was pushing or pulling something. She also mentioned that there had been drilling and banging which had now stopped. Both parties acknowledged the difficulties of capturing noise of this nature through proactive visits. The resident was concerned about a possible lack of carpet in the neighbour’s hallway and a lack of underlay elsewhere in the property.
The landlord wrote to the resident the following day to confirm that an ASB case had been opened and enclosed an ‘ASB pack, and wrote again on 30 January 2019 to inform her that it would be visiting the neighbour to inspect the flooring and would provide her with an update.
The landlord’s file notes show that following the inspection, it visited the resident on 5 February 2019 to provide an update. It confirmed that:
1. It was satisfied that the flooring in the neighbour’s property was adequate.
2. The neighbour said he had been hanging a picture which the landlord said may account for the drilling and banging reported by the resident.
3. In order to refer the case to the proactive visit team it would need to establish a pattern of noise nuisance.
4. It had considered whether the noise the resident could hear might be caused by the lift which was located next to her property. The resident told the landlord she knew the sound the lift made and the noise she heard was different.
5. The resident was advised to continue to record noise on the noise app and to make sure she identified which room she was in when the recording was taken.
The outcome of the visit was confirmed in writing to the resident on 12 February 2019. The landlord also provided feedback on a number of noise app recordings, concluding that they did not provide evidence of noise nuisance. This was because two recordings were of banging and drilling taken during day time hours, when DIY was permitted. The other two recordings showed only a faint sound, described as being almost like a ‘tap’.
The resident emailed the landlord on 17 February 2019 to raise her dissatisfaction in relation to its response to her reports of ASB. She said she had requested noise equipment be installed but had never received it. She was dissatisfied about the visit that had taken place. She told the landlord that the ongoing noise was impacting on her mental health and emotions due to lack of sleep.
The landlord provided an email response to the resident on 4 March 2019, summarising the actions taken since the ASB case was opened on 29 February 2019. It said it would not pursue any further ASB reports unless there was fresh substantiated evidence. It said that without this, any further service requests would be considered vexatious. It said the resident should continue to use the noise app and it would open a new case if there was further evidence.
Having contacted this Service, the resident emailed the landlord on 27 June 2019 to ask that her complaint be escalated to stage two of the complaints process. She was dissatisfied because the landlord had not told her that she could do so and felt her complaint was being “brushed aside.” She said she was not receiving any feedback on her noise app recordings and/or diary sheets, the last of which she submitted in December 2018. She told the landlord she was suffering from anxiety, feeling depressed, distressed and exhausted most of the time due to sleep deprivation.
The landlord emailed the resident seven months later on 29 January 2020 to introduce members of staff who were investigating her complaint at stage one of the complaints procedure. The resident replied to express her ongoing dissatisfaction. She said that recordings taken on the noise app on 22 January 2020 were still showing as “pending” and she had not received a response from the landlord regarding the recordings.
On 4 February 2020 the landlord emailed the resident to say that the stage one complaint had been accepted and upheld at stage one review. The landlord apologised for not responding correctly to the last stage one complaint and acknowledged that it failed to deal with the complaint effectively. Email communication then followed to arrange a meeting at the landlord’s offices.
The landlord wrote to the resident on 27 February 2020 to tell her that it intended to visit both her and her neighbour’s property to carry out a sound test on 6 March. The landlord’s file note dated 6 March 2020 provides a summary of the visit, noting that there were no issues with the flooring in the neighbouring property or any evidence of excessive sound transmission between the two properties.
The resident emailed the landlord on 16 March 2020 in response to the visit that had taken place. She queried the effectiveness of the sound test having regard to the time of day it was carried out, and the way in which it tested the loudness of objects being dropped on the floor. She said the landlord had told her other residents would be able to hear the noise if it was that bad. She felt that the landlord had implied she was imagining the noise.
The landlord’s internal file note dated 8 April 2020 suggested the case should be closed as there was no evidence of noise as generated by the sound test.
The landlord issued a stage one complaint response on 5 May 2020. It summarised the action taken to investigate the complaint to date and concluded the case should be closed due to lack of evidence. It provided details on the next stage of the complaints process and how to escalate the complaint.
The resident emailed the landlord on 5 July 2020 to express her dissatisfaction about the outcome of the stage one complaint. She then emailed to request escalation of her complaint on 24 August 2021. The landlord’s internal records note that on 25 August 2021 it was unable to locate a copy of the stage one complaint response or review it on the CRM.
This investigation has not seen evidence of any contact between the resident and the landlord during 25 August and 21 December 2021. On 21 December 2021 the landlord advised the resident that she was ‘out of time’ to escalate her complaint as it should have been made within one month of the stage one response being issued. The resident pointed out that there was no information around timescales contained within the stage one response and that she still wanted to escalate her complaint to stage two. The landlord confirmed that the resident would need to restart the complaints process. It said an acknowledgement would be sent within three working days and a full response within 21 working days (excluding 25 December 2021 to 3 January 2022).
The landlord emailed the resident to acknowledge the stage one complaint on 21 December 2021. It said a full response would be issued within 15 working days, excluding bank holidays, making the target date 20 January 2022.
The landlord’s internal records show that it reviewed the status of the case on 10 January 2022. The file note says it had not received any written reports or any call backs regarding the ASB case since May 2020. It noted that:
1. The noise app was sending in recordings. However, the app was showing as ‘not active’ and marked as ‘blocked’. Therefore, it had not received the email notifications.
2. Once it realised, it listened to all the recordings but could not hear anything.
3. It considered opening a new ASB case but concluded it could not justify doing so as there was no evidence of noise.
4. It also considered if it could have done anything differently and was satisfied it had investigated the complaint thoroughly.
On 14 January 2022 the landlord responded to an out of hours noise complaint made by the resident about tapping sounds at 1.15am. It could not reach the resident by phone at 1.45am and so visited site at 1.54am. On arrival the officer checked the floor and outside the “source door” but could not hear any noise.
The landlord issued its stage one complaint response on 17 January 2022, which included the following:
1. It apologised for not providing information on timescales within which to escalate the complaint in the previous stage one response. The impact of this meant that the resident’s request to escalate to stage two of the complaints procedure was made out of time. It awarded £25 compensation to be credited to the resident’s rent account.
2. It confirmed that while investigations were undertaken within 12 months of service failures this response considered events going back to the first stage one response and any incidents raised from May 2020 to date.
3. It had not received any written correspondence or notifications of any call back requests since May 2020.
4. That, having checked the noise app, the resident had been sending recordings but the app was not active and was marked as blocked so the landlord was not receiving notifications. However, on listening to the recordings no noise could be heard, therefore there was no basis on which to open a new ASB case. It apologised for not responding to the noise app recordings in a timely manner.
5. It was satisfied that the ASB complaints had been thoroughly investigated.
6. It was unable to take action against the neighbour due to lack of evidence but the resident should continue to make reports.
7. The complaint was not upheld as there was no evidence of service failure in the way the ASB complaint was handled.
8. Signposting for escalation to stage two of the complaints process, including that it should be made within one calendar month. It said the landlord would contact the resident within ten days of receiving an escalation request.
On 24 January 2022 the resident emailed the landlord to say she was not aware that sound could not be heard on the noise app recordings, and she thought faint sounds were sometimes audible. She said that she was not aware that the noise app had been blocked and she queried how a decision could be made on the case if recordings were not coming through.
The landlord’s internal file note dated 4 February 2022 says that it emailed the resident that same day to apologise that a formal stage complaint review had not been sent. It offered a home visit, which took place on 14 February. The landlord’s subsequent file note of the visit says that the landlord reiterated that the flooring upstairs was considered adequate. It also confirms that the resident was advised to continue to use the noise app and identify which room she was in to try to establish a pattern. If this could be done then the ASB out of hours team may then be able to monitor the noise themselves.
On 31 May 2022 the resident emailed a copy of her follow up complaint to the landlord adding:
1. She had not received a response to her email of 24 January 2022 or to voicemails she had left on 16 and 21 February 2022. She noted the offer of £50 compensation for the first stage one response failure. She added that the failure to advise her of only having one month to escalate her complaint was detrimental to her being able to reach a proper conclusion to her complaint.
2. The confusion around the noise app being blocked caused further detriment to her ability to resolve the noise complaint.
3. The refusal to open a new ASB case was due to lack of evidence on the noise app, but this was due to it being blocked so the landlord should have considered opening new ASB complaint.
4. The landlord concluded there were no service failures but gave apologies for the first stage one complaint response and time taken to respond to noise app which was evidence of service failures.
5. The landlord had failed to respond to her request to escalate her complaint within ten working days.
The landlord’s internal emails show that it considered the resident’s email on the same day it was received. The request to escalate to stage two of the complaints process was considered ‘out of time’, being made over a month after the stage one response was issued. However, the landlord decided to accept the complaint given the delay was a consequence of the landlord misfiling the resident’s email of 24 January.
On 1 June 2022 the landlord emailed the resident to apologise for the lack of response to her email and to the voicemails she had left. It said it had experienced telephony issues which had since been resolved. It confirmed that the complaint would be escalated to stage two of the complaints process and that the resident would receive contact from the complaints team if she hadn’t done so already.
The landlord’s internal records show that on 30 June 2022 it noted that there was no evidence on its system for the last two years relating to reports of noise. However, it noted it had failed to review noise app submissions and decided to review them at that point. After reviewing 41 recordings the landlord concluded there was no evidence of excessive noise but due to the times some were recorded they could be considered annoying or disruptive.
On 22 July 2022 the landlord issued its stage two complaint response, including the following:
1. An apology for the lack of response to the resident’s email of 24 January, which should have been issued within ten working days. This was recognised as a service failure for which £50 compensation was awarded in addition to £50 awarded previously in the original stage one response.
2. An apology for telephony issues which had been addressed.
3. Acknowledgement of the error in the original stage one response for which an apology had already been issued and for which the offer of £50 compensation still stood.
4. It said that the issues relating to the noise app, which it said was not blocked but inactive, meant recordings were still being captured. It confirmed it had received 48 noise app submissions between October 2019 to December 2020 and 40 submissions between January 2020 to June 2022 which it had listened to. It concluded there was not enough evidence of excessive noise to open a new ASB case.
5. It raised the level of compensation for a historical missed appointment in 2017, not considered in the response due to being out of time, from £15 to £25.
6. An acknowledgement of service failures in relation to:
  1. The handling of the email dated 24 January 2022 and subsequent communication.
  2. The failure to advise the resident of timescales to escalate the complaint in the original stage one response.
  3. The failure to update the resident once it had analysed 41 recordings on 30 June, for which £25 compensation was awarded.
7. A compensation award of £225 (£75 for the delayed complaint investigation and £150 for “shortfall in service by tenant team”).
8. Signposting to the Housing Ombudsman Service should the resident remain dissatisfied.
Having notified the landlord by email that she was out of the country until 21 August 2022, the resident emailed again on 24 August 2022. She requested copies of her noise app recordings and disputed that the amount of compensation offered was reasonable. She did not consider that it took into account the time and effort made by the resident to pursue her complaint. She suggested £450 would be a more satisfactory amount.
The landlord emailed the resident on 2 September 2022 to advise that she should make a subject access request (SAR) in order to obtain copies of the recordings. It also confirmed that the level of compensation offered would remain at £225.
In her email to this Service on 16 September 2022, the resident outlined the reasons for her dissatisfaction as follows:
1. The landlord had failed to respond in a timely manner and only responded to emails when she had chased it.
2. The amount of compensation was insufficient as it did not reflect her time and trouble.
3. The noise disturbance had been ongoing since 2015 and was affecting her mental health and daughter’s schooling. She described the noise as “frightening”.
4. It was difficult for her to capture random banging on the noise app and the landlord had declined to organise proactive visits.
5. She did not feel that her complaint had been taken seriously.

Assessment and findings

Handling of ASB Reports

This investigation acknowledges the difficulties landlords and residents can experience in trying to gather evidence of this type of noise nuisance. This investigation has not sought to establish whether there was evidence of noise nuisance, but has considered whether the landlord took reasonable steps to investigate the noise reported, and whether the ASB case was managed appropriately.
The case was opened in January 2019 when the landlord issued a formal letter enclosing an ASB pack, the contents of which has not been seen by this Service. The landlord’s ASB procedure states that ‘iworld’, its data management system, generates reference numbers which can be used as a case reference to be included on letters and other written forms of communication. Allocating a case reference number demonstrates to a resident that their complaint has been taken seriously and has been formally logged. This also assists landlords to log and monitor cases effectively on a centralised system. The landlord did not provide a case reference number on the letter and therefore, did not comply with its procedure.
There is no evidence that the landlord carried out a risk assessment at any stage of the ASB investigation which is also required under the ASB procedure. The resident reported the detrimental impact the noise disturbance was having on her mental health and ability to sleep. She raised concerns about lack of sleep impacting on her daughter when she started school later that year. However, there is no evidence that these risk factors were considered at all, even by way of a more informal contemporaneous file note following an internal review or discussion with the resident. This was a failing by the landlord. Had the landlord reviewed risk of harm it may have considered it appropriate to signpost the resident to services such as the ASB support service, which had been utilised previously.
The initial steps taken by the landlord to visit the neighbour and update the resident about the outcome of both the visit and its review of the noise app recordings were appropriate. It acted appropriately in keeping an open mind as to possible causes of the noise including considering if the position of the lift adjacent to the property was a contributory factor. This investigation accepts that the resident did not believe the lift was causing the noise. However, it would have been reasonable for the landlord to consider carrying out its own checks to satisfy itself that was indeed the case, but there is no evidence it did so.
The landlord acted appropriately in checking the standard of the neighbour’s floor covering. However, this investigation has not seen evidence that the landlord considered checking the condition of the floorboards in the neighbour’s property which would have been reasonable in the circumstances. The Housing Ombudsman’s spotlight report on noise complaints highlights the need for landlords to consider the condition of floor boards in complaints of this nature. It is noted that this Service made a recommendation regarding the spotlight report in a previous determination earlier this year. However, the landlord has not provided a response on this matter, so a further recommendation has been made for it to review its approach to noise nuisance in light of the report.
On 4 March 2019 the landlord advised the resident that any further service requests would be considered vexatious unless they were accompanied by “fresh substantiated evidence.” It failed to explain what evidence would meet this threshold. In the same email it encouraged the resident to use the noise app to submit reports. The landlord failed to qualify what information the resident could submit as evidence without it being considered a vexatious report. This was inappropriate and confusing for the resident, adding to her distress.
In March 2019 the landlord advised the resident to continue to use the noise app and said it would open a new case if there was new evidence. This suggests that the landlord had closed the ASB case however, this investigation has not seen evidence that a closure letter was issued as required in the landlord’s ASB procedure. Closure letters are an important part of effective ASB case management, letting residents know when their case has been closed, why, and what they can do if the behaviour continues. The landlord did not comply with its ASB procedure and in doing so failed to manage the resident’s expectations.
In June 2019 the resident said she had not received any feedback on her noise app recordings and/or diary sheets, the last of which she submitted in December 2018. The landlord’s ASB procedure states that fortnightly calls should be made to residents and provides a good opportunity to review diary sheets. In keeping with the government’s guidance on ASB principles 2023, it is appropriate for landlords to manage resident’s expectations throughout the lifetime of their ASB case. This includes reviewing and responding to any evidence submitted by residents. Residents should know what action can or cannot be taken and the reasons for those decisions.
This kind of effective communication is particularly important when the resident reports that the noise is having a significant detrimental impact on them. In this case the resident told the landlord that she was suffering from anxiety, feeling depressed, distressed and exhausted most of the time due to sleep deprivation. The lack of communication from the landlord was not appropriate because it failed to comply with its own ASB procedure, failed to manage the resident’s expectations in relation to the reports she made, and failed to demonstrate a reasonable or sympathetic approach to the reported impact on the resident.
As part of the landlord’s investigation into the first stage one complaint, it carried out a review of the ASB case which included a sound test. An officer attended each property at the same time in order to assess how loudly sounds could be heard in the resident’s flat. The resident later raised concerns about the methodology of the sound test. However, given the limited evidence of noise, this was a practical and proportionate step for the landlord to take to investigate sound transference levels at that time.
The resident said that the landlord had told her other residents would be able to hear the noise if it was “that bad.” This left her feeling that the landlord was implying she was imagining the noise. When investigating noise complaints it is common for landlords to consider making wider enquiries with neighbours, often through a door knocking exercise, to see if they are also being affected by noise. Having made an observation about other neighbours potentially being affected, it would have been reasonable for the landlord to have considered making further enquiries, but there is no evidence it did so.
The landlord’s records show it considered closing the ASB case in April 2020 due to lack of evidence. This is not consistent with previous correspondence which had implied the case had already been closed. The stage one complaint response in May 2020 then said the case should be closed due to lack of evidence. This investigation has not seen evidence that a formal case closure letter was issued at any point throughout the ASB investigation. This is evidence of poor case management and failure to follow the landlord’s ASB procedure, the impact of which was that the resident was not kept appropriately informed in the case. This amounts to a failing.
The landlord’s file note dated January 2022 states that the noise app was sending in recordings but the app was not active and marked as blocked, therefore the landlord had not received notifications of submissions. Having realised the problem, the landlord acted appropriately in listening to the recordings. It concluded there was no new evidence of noise to justify opening a new case which suggests the previous case had indeed been closed at an earlier date. The landlord acted appropriately in carrying out an internal review of the case. It concluded that it had thoroughly investigated the complaint, including responding to out of hours noise reports.
The landlord rectified the issues with the noise app recordings and fortunately, due to the nature of the case the adverse impact on the resident was limited to distress and inconvenience. However, had the recordings provided evidence of a more significant ASB issue the error could have had more damaging consequences. While the landlord took steps to ‘put things right’ in this case, it failed to consider ‘lessons learnt’ to identify what steps it could take to ensure this could be avoided in the future. Therefore, an order has been made regarding the noise app below.
Throughout January and February 2022 the landlord encouraged the resident to continue to make and submit noise recordings through the noise app. This investigation has not seen evidence that the landlord took steps to clearly outline the context of this advice. It therefore failed to manage the resident’s expectations around when evidence would be reviewed, whether the case was open or closed, and how the landlord would communicate with her on further submissions. This was poor communication and ineffective case management on the part of the landlord.
A file note from June 2022 noted there was no evidence on the landlord’s system for the last two years relating to reports of noise. The landlord’s ASB procedure states that all cases should be recorded on’ iworld’ and updated, to be monitored every month by the ASB team leader. The evidence demonstrates that the landlord did not comply with this requirement. It is particularly concerning that there was no record of the recordings or of the review that was carried out in January that year.
There is no mention of the noise app as an investigative tool in the landlord’s ASB procedure. It is inappropriate that the landlord has not set out what residents can expect in terms of how the landlord uses the app and responds to the information provided through it. A recommendation has been made to the landlord on this point.
It is acknowledged that the landlord noted it had failed to review the noise app submissions. Furthermore, when it realised the failing it acted reasonably by reviewing them at that time. However, this was the second time this exercise had been performed as a delayed response to noise app recording submissions. The landlord also failed to feedback the results of its review to the resident. In not doing so, it failed to update her on the progress of her complaint and did not manage her expectations.
The landlord offered £25 as compensation for its failure to provide feedback. Both the amount offered and the acknowledgement of failings did not go far enough to recognise the detrimental impact this had on the resident. This is because the resident’s ASB case had been drawn out and she had been left confused about what was happening with the evidence she had submitted. Furthermore, the landlord did not take into the account the significance of the failure in terms of fundamental ASB case management.
On the second occasion of reviewing the noise app recordings the landlord concluded once again there was no evidence of excessive noise but that due to the times recordings were made, some of the noise could be considered annoying or disruptive. This investigation has not seen evidence that the latter point was considered further, which was not appropriate. Having made the observation, it would have been appropriate for the landlord to have explored this further in terms of frequency and duration given the time of day the recordings were made. It is important for a landlord to review any changes in behaviour so it can respond appropriately, taking into account any new information. It is appropriate for the content and outcome of such reviews to be recorded in contemporaneous notes on the landlord’s data management system.
The landlord failed to follow its own ASB procedure by not completing a risk assessment. In not doing so it failed to consider the impact the situation had on the mental health of the resident and her daughter. It also failed to manage the case in line with its ASB procedures, including regular clear communication about the status of the case. It is concerning that the landlord failed to log and review the noise app submissions in a timely manner. The resident received a poor service from the landlord which did not follow its own procedure and which failed to effectively manage the resident’s expectations. However, it is acknowledged that if these issues had not arisen it is likely that the outcome of the noise complaint would have remained the same. This was due to the fact the evidence did not provide the landlord with evidence of antisocial behaviour and no formal action could be taken against the neighbour.
The landlord’s compensation policy states that it can offer up to £300 for distress. The landlord offered £75 in relation to its failings in the ASB case. This comprised the £25 for failing to update the resident on the outcome of consideration of noise recordings, and a further £50 for not responding to the resident’s email of 24 January within ten days. However, this did not reflect the detriment to the resident caused by the landlord’s overall failure to manage the ASB case effectively and/or in line with its ASB procedure.
An order has been made for the landlord to pay compensation of £200 in addition to the £75 already offered. This award is in line with the landlord’s compensation policy, and this Service’s remedies guidance. The amount awarded by this Service recognises that there was no permanent impact but that there was a failure which adversely affected the resident. In addition, the landlord failed to acknowledge all of its failings and put things right. Not only does this not align with the Housing Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code, it does not comply with the landlord’s compensation guidance.

Complaint Handling

The resident emailed the landlord details of her first complaint in February 2019. The landlord issued a response by email the following month. In later correspondence with the resident the landlord referred to this email as a stage one complaint response. Given the response was in email format, rather than by letter, and was not headed as a complaint response, the response did not comply with the requirements of the landlord’s complaint policy. This subsequently caused confusion for the resident as to which stage her complaint had reached.
The resident contacted the landlord in June 2019 to request that her complaint be escalated to stage two. She was dissatisfied because the email she received in response to her original complaint did not provide details of her right to escalate her complaint, and was therefore unaware that she had not exhausted the internal complaints process. The request was not actioned by the landlord until a stage one complaint acknowledgement was issued in January 2020, 11 months after the original complaint.
On 4 February 2020 the landlord said it had investigated the resident’s complaint and that at that stage it accepted and upheld the complaint at ‘stage one review’. It went on to apologise for not responding correctly to the previous stage one complaint and acknowledged its failure to deal with it effectively. It offered to meet with the resident to put forward an action plan and “hopefully resolve the matter.” The landlord took appropriate steps to review the current status of the ASB case as part of its complaint response.
It was reasonable for the landlord to review the current reports of ASB to check that its response at the time was appropriate. However, it failed to address the resident’s complaint about its earlier handling of her reports. In June 2019 she complained she had not received any feedback on her noise app recordings and/or diary sheets, the last of which she submitted in December 2018. This was the substantive part of her complaint and the lack of response by the landlord was a failing.
The landlord issued a formal stage one response in email format only in May 2020. This was not in line with the complaints policy which states a complaint response should be sent in letter form but may be attached to an email. The email did not provide information about timescales in relation to escalation of complaint to the next stage should the resident remain dissatisfied. This was not in line with its corporate complaints policy which states timescales should be provided as part of details on how to escalate to stage two of the complaints process. Being well over three months since the stage one complaint was acknowledged, the response was significantly out of time and not within the 21 day response time stated in the corporate complaints policy. There were failings in the landlord’s stage one complaint handling.
Additionally, this Service has not seen any correspondence from the landlord to the resident explaining why the complaint was not escalated to stage two of the complaints process. It is not known whether this was an oversight on the landlord’s part, or intentional. If intentional, it would have been appropriate for the landlord to have explained its decision to the resident. The resident said she was unaware that she could escalate her complaint hence her delayed request. It would have been appropriate for the landlord to have used its discretion to accept, and respond to, the complaint as a stage two complaint. In treating the escalation request as a stage one complaint the landlord created an overly protracted complaints process. This hampered the resident’s ability to resolve her complaint swiftly, and potentially escalate to this Service if she remained dissatisfied. It also caused her time, trouble and inconvenience because she had to return to the beginning of the process once more.
The resident formally requested that her complaint be escalated to stage two of the complaints process in August 2021, well over a year after the stage one response was issued. The landlord’s records show it was unable to locate a copy of its stage one response or review on its CRM at that time. This is evidence of poor record keeping and is not in line with the landlord’s corporate complaints policy which says the complaint process and all associated documents must be logged on its CRM.
The landlord took until December 2021, four months later, to reply to the resident to advise that her request was out of time. It explained a request to escalate her complaint to stage two of the process should have been made within one month of receiving the stage one complaint response. The landlord advised the resident that due to the amount of time that had elapsed she would need to start the complaints process again at stage one. That the landlord did not provide this advice to the resident sooner than four months after her escalation request was unreasonable, and led to a further protracted complaints procedure.
This was also the second time the resident had to restart the complaints process after making a stage one complaint. With this in mind, it would have been reasonable for the landlord to have considered exercising its discretion to escalate the complaint at stage two at that time. The landlord’s failings in the handling of the stage one complaint on both occasions delayed the resident’s access to resolving her complaint through the process. This was unreasonable, and caused the resident additional time, trouble and inconvenience.
When the landlord acknowledged receipt of the new stage one complaint, which was by now the resident’s third stage one complaint, it said a full response would be issued within 15 working days, by 20 January 2022. The subsequent stage one complaint response was then issued on 17 January so within the correct timescale.
In its response of 17 January 2022, the landlord apologised for the error in its stage one response of 4 March 2019. It also made an offer of compensation. Both actions were appropriate in the circumstances. However, it said that the compensation would be credited to the resident’s rent account but no explanation was given as to why. It would have been appropriate for the landlord to communicate its decision making to the resident. This would have managed her expectations, making sure she understood the reasons for this.
The landlord acted reasonably by apologising for the confusion with the noise app recordings however, it did not offer compensation at this stage and there is no evidence that it considered doing so. Given the significant delays reported by the resident in responding to her noise app submissions this would have been reasonable, as a means of ‘putting things right’. It would also have been appropriate given the landlord’s compensation policy which allows for offers of compensation in relation to ‘time and trouble’ and ‘distress and inconvenience’.
The landlord concluded that the complaint had been investigated thoroughly and did not uphold the resident’s complaint. Given that the landlord acknowledged a number of failings it was inappropriate that it did not uphold the complaint. In not doing so, the landlord failed to demonstrate an understanding of the impact some of the failings had on the resident.
The landlord aims to use complaints as learning tools. Its compensation guidance says “it is important that when mistakes have been made, procedures are put into place to prevent them from occurring in the future. Where possible, complainants should be informed of the changes or service improvements that have been made as a result of their complaint.” The landlord’s complaint responses in this case have not demonstrated that it complied with its own compensation guidance.
The resident emailed the landlord in January 2022 to escalate her complaint to stage two of the complaints process. She did not receive a response to the email or to a number of subsequent voicemails she had left, causing her to email again in May to chase a response. She accurately noted that the landlord had failed to respond to her request to escalate her complaint within ten days. In fact, the landlord did not respond until June, five months after the initial email asking to proceed to stage two of the complaints process.
The landlord discovered that January’s email had been filed incorrectly so had not been responded to. The resident’s request to escalate her complaint to stage two of the complaints process was once again out of time but again through no fault of her own. This investigation acknowledges that the landlord acted fairly in recognising this, using its discretion to accept the complaint as a stage two complaint. However, the resident once again experienced unacceptable delays in trying to access the complaints process to resolve her ongoing dissatisfaction. This increased time and trouble for the resident in having to chase the landlord, with the delays causing further distress and frustration.
The stage two complaint response was issued out of time, taking 33 days instead of the 28 days outlined as the response time in the corporate complaints policy. Whilst this was not a significant delay but was another failing in a series of failings in relation to complaint handling, which compounded the inconvenience caused to the resident. The response was reasonable in recognising a number of failures, offering apologies and some level of compensation. However, it failed to take into account the resident’s poor experience trying to access the complaints process from start to finish.
The resident’s first complaint was made in February 2019 and the final response issued on 22 July 2022, meaning it took over three years for the resident to complete the landlord’s internal complaints procedure, largely owing to failings by the landlord. The significant delay also had a further impact on the resident’s ability to resolve her dissatisfaction by escalating her complaint to this Service.
At stage two of the complaints procedure the landlord appropriately acknowledged its failings in relation to this matter. It offered the resident £125 compensation comprising £50 for not providing information on how to escalate the complaint and £75 for the delayed final stage complaint investigation. This was in addition to an offer of £50 which was made at stage one for not responding to complaint correspondence. Compensation totalling £175 was therefore offered by the landlord for failings it identified in its complaint handling.
Where there is an admitted failing by a landlord, this Service’s role is to consider whether the redress offered by the landlord put things right and resolved the resident’s complaint satisfactorily in the circumstances. In considering this the Ombudsman takes into account whether the landlord’s offer of redress was in line with the Ombudsman’s dispute resolution principles: be fair, put things right and learn from outcomes.
The landlord’s has not provided evidence that it adhered to its compensation guidance when considering the complaint. Specifically, it has not demonstrated that it considered the overall injustice experienced by the resident as a result of the complaint handling issues which led to the complaint taking three years to be resolved. Furthermore, it did not take into account the distress this caused and the difficulties it presented for the resident to be able to access this Service to seek a resolution to her ongoing dissatisfaction. There is no evidence that it considered what steps it could take to bring its investigation into its response to the ASB reports and complaint handling to a swifter conclusion. Had it done so, time and trouble and distress to the resident would have been greatly reduced.
The landlord’s compensation policy states that it can offer up to £1000 for severe or prolonged distress. The amount offered will take into account factors such as the length of the complaint and each case should be assessed on its own merits. £175 offered in relation to the failings in complaint handling does not adequately reflect the distress, time and trouble caused to the resident by the very significant delay in resolving the complaint.
An order has been made for the landlord to pay the resident an additional £750. This raises the total amount offered in compensation for failings in complaint handling to £925, which is line with the landlord’s compensation policy and Housing Ombudsman’s remedies guidance.
Taking into account the number of repeated failings and the prolonged, significant detriment caused to the resident, the landlord’s failings amount to severe maladministration.

Record Keeping

The landlord generally failed to provide evidence to demonstrate effective ASB case management because of poor record keeping. This included:
1. Failings in relation to logging and managing the recordings submitted through the noise app, which are concerning. This was a significant failure on the landlord’s part because the information was the primary source of evidence in the ASB case. By not listening to the recordings, the resident’s ASB reports were not considered in a timely fashion and the outcomes of assessments not communicated. This caused frustration, distress and inconvenience to the resident.
2. The landlord did not comply with its ASB procedure in terms of the tracking of, and communication about, the status of the case. This had a detrimental impact on the resident because she was not kept informed of progress of the case and how her noise app submission fitted within that process.
Clear record keeping and management is essential where reports of ASB are made, and investigations into allegations are undertaken. This is because such records form evidence which the landlord may review and reply on in its management of the ASB case. Accurate and complete records also help a landlord review its handling of the ASB case through its complaint procedure, and to provide evidence during other processes including Ombudsman investigations and legal proceedings. The absence of appropriate records, and therefore evidence, presents a significant risk that such processes cannot be fully utilised, and residents are disadvantaged.
An order has not been made regarding ASB record keeping because this Service is aware that the landlord has taken action since the time of this complaint to reduce the risk of similar failings happening again. This includes an updated ‘tenancy services induction pack’ which emphasises the importance of excellent ASB record keeping.
There was also evidence of poor record keeping within the complaint handling process:
1. At the time the resident requested that her complaint be escalated to stage two, the landlord’s records show it was unable to locate a copy of its stage one response or review on its CRM at that time. This caused further delay in the handling of the complaint.
2. When the resident emailed the landlord in January 2022 to escalate her complaint to stage two of the complaints process she did not receive a response. It was only when she chased the response several months later that the landlord found that the email had been filed incorrectly. This resulted in a significant delay in the landlord’s response which came five months after the initial email asking to proceed to stage two. This delayed the resident’s ability to seek a resolution to her complaint in addition to causing inconvenience, time and trouble.
The Housing Ombudsman’s Complaint Code states that a full record must be kept of the complaint, any review and the outcomes at each stage. This must include the original complaint and the date received, all correspondence with the resident, correspondence with other parties and any reports or surveys prepared. Clear record keeping is a core function of the complaint handling process, assisting the landlord to fulfil its obligations. Accurate and complete records ensure that complaints can be monitored and managed throughout the process.
In reviewing the evidence, it is clear that the landlord’s record keeping contributed to its poor management of the ASB reports and complaint handling, impacting both its ability to resolve the substantive issue as well as the associated complaint. This caused delays, as well as further distress, inconvenience, time and trouble to the resident, in her pursuit to resolve matters. There was maladministration in the landlord’s record keeping and an order relevant to this has been made. Compensation for the impact of these failings has been included within the sums ordered for the substantive complaints.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord in its handling of the resident’s reports of ASB.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was severe maladministration by the landlord in its complaint handling.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord in its record keeping.

Reasons

The landlord did not manage the ASB case effectively or in line with its ASB procedure. The delays had a detrimental impact on the resident’s ability to resolve her ASB case. Poor case management meant that the resident’s reports of ASB were not handled appropriately, causing a lack of clarity over the status and direction of the case.
The landlord repeatedly failed to respond to the resident’s complaint effectively, resulting in unacceptable delays. The failings relating to its complaint handling had a seriously detrimental impact on the resident, and the landlord failed to put things right and learn from outcomes. The level of compensation awarded did not reflect the detriment caused to the resident by the complaint handling delays and the poor response to the resident’s reports of ASB.
The landlord’s failure to log basic information relating to the ASB case, including the status of the case and the noise app recordings, was central to the landlord’s failings in relation to its poor response to the resident’s reports of ASB. There were also further examples of poor record keeping within the complaints handling process. Information that should have been logged on the CRM could not be found and an escalation request was filed incorrectly which created a significant delay in the landlord’s response.

Orders

The landlord should pay the resident £1200, comprising:
1. £925 for the distress and inconvenience caused by the complaint handling failings identified by this investigation.
2. £275 for the distress and inconvenience caused by its failure to manage the ASB case effectively.
3. If the landlord’s compensation offers of £250 have been paid to the resident, these should be deducted from the above.
Apologise to the resident for the failings identified in this case.
The landlord is to evidence compliance to this Service with the above orders within four weeks of the date of this report.
Within six weeks of the date of this determination, the landlord must:
1. Considering the failings identified in this case, provide refresher training to staff on:
  1. The processes set out within the ASB procedures, with a particular focus on the importance of completing risk assessments and action plans. The landlord should provide this Service with dates of the training and the training material used.
  2. The processes and systems for recording ASB cases to ensure that all information relating to cases is logged and accessible. This should include the opening and closing of cases and retention of fundamental records including risk assessments, action plans and contemporaneous file notes.
2. Review the complaint handling failures and confirm to this Service whether action has already been taken to ensure that these failings are not repeated and;
3. If not, confirm to this Service what action will be taken to reduce the risk of these failures happening again. This should include training on the Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code.
4. Review the failings in relation to the noise app and confirm to this Service that action has been taken to reduce the risk of these failings happening again, specifically that:
  1. Reports are pulling through from the app to the landlord.
  2. Notifications are set so that staff are notified when a report has been submitted.
  3. Staff know how to log and review information submitted through the app.
  4. Staff are familiar with how to manage users’ accounts including blocking and authorising users, and the impact this will have on any reports submitted by them via the app.
The landlord should provide evidence of compliance to this Service, again within six weeks of the determination.

Recommendations

The landlord should review its:
1. ASB procedure to ensure it includes details around use of the noise app as an investigatory tool. The landlord should also consider how its procedure can encompasses a harm centred approach.
2. Decision to investigate the noise complaints as complaints about ASB. The Housing Ombudsman’s Spotlight Noise Complaints Report highlights that this approach can be unfair on both the complainant and the alleged perpetrator and suggests an alternative way forward. Further information can be found here: Spotlight on: Noise Complaints -October 2022 (housing-ombudsman.org.uk)