Islington Council (202234314)
REPORT
COMPLAINT 202234314
Islington Council
11 October 2024
Our approach
The Housing Ombudsman’s approach to investigating and determining complaints is to decide what is fair in all the circumstances of the case. This is set out in the Housing Act 1996 and the Housing Ombudsman Scheme (the Scheme). The Ombudsman considers the evidence and looks to see if there has been any ‘maladministration’, for example, whether the landlord has failed to keep to the law, followed proper procedure, followed good practice, or behaved in a reasonable and competent manner.
Both the resident and the landlord have submitted information to the Ombudsman, and this has been carefully considered. Their accounts of what has happened are summarised below. This report is not an exhaustive description of all the events that have occurred in relation to this case, but an outline of the key issues as a background to the investigation’s findings.
The complaint
- The complaint is about the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of:
- Harassment by his neighbour.
- Noise nuisance.
- This report will also consider the landlord’s complaint handling.
Background and summary of events
- At the time of the complaint, the resident had been a secure tenant in a ground floor bedsit from July 2020. The landlord is a local authority. It moved the resident into the property after he had reported having experienced homophobic abuse at his previous address. The resident has a protected characteristic under the Equality Act 2010. Records also show he was receiving treatment for mental health and a chronic medical condition. He was also receiving support from external support services, including an advocate.
- On 16 August 2020, the resident contacted the landlord to report that someone had thrown a newspaper through his kitchen window, which had damaged one of his cups. On 4 September 2020, he reported that his neighbour repeatedly shouted homophobic abuse at him from his property and had left an offensive note in his post box. He sent a copy of the note to the landlord on 8 October 2020.
- The landlord contacted the resident on 15 October 2020. He told it that the situation had improved. He said that his neighbour was no longer banging on the wall or shouting. He added that he had reported the neighbour’s behaviour to the police. However, he withdrew his report as he did not want any further action to be taken.
- On 4 November 2020, the resident reported that his neighbour had “banged aggressively” on the wall between their properties and shouted abuse at him. The landlord contacted the resident on 11 November 2020 to discuss the incident and advised that it would be taking enforcement action against his neighbour. There are no records to show it took any further action after this.
- The resident reported further antisocial behaviour (ASB) in December 2020 and 3 January 2021. A community safety officer from the local authority contacted him on 4 January 2021 and advised him to report the incidents to the police. The resident confirmed he had done so and was waiting for it to respond.
- The resident contacted the landlord again on 11 January 2021 and told it that from the day he had moved in, his neighbour had started to harass and verbally abuse him. He said that he had left an “anonymous message” in his post box with “malicious” comments about his homosexuality, referring to him as a “paedophile”. The landlord responded on 12 January 2021 to say it had received information from the police about the reports he had made. It stated that, as its investigations were ongoing, it was “very limited in the type of action” it was able to take. It added that it was unable to offer him a move at that stage but would send his neighbour a warning letter if he wanted it to.
- At the resident’s request, a community trigger meeting took place on 21 January 2021. The panel agreed to refer the case to a community multi-agency risk assessment conference (CMARAC). On 4 February 2021, the resident applied to the landlord for a management transfer. On 10 February 2021 the CMARAC took place and the panel noted that the resident presented as “very vulnerable” and deemed him to be “not safe” in his property. It recommended that the landlord processed the management transfer request by the end of that week.
- On 14 May 2021, the landlord sent the neighbour a notice of seeking possession (NOSP).It listed the reports the resident had made regarding his behaviour and stated that this constituted a breach of his tenancy agreement.
- On 25 May 2021, the landlord carried out a risk assessment of the resident, which reiterated the view of the CMARAC that he was “not safe”. The proposed action was for him “to be moved to alternative housing” as soon as possible.
- On 1 June 2021 the neighbour was convicted by the court of harassing the resident and given a restraining order.
- On 22 September 2021, the resident contacted the landlord to chase up his management transfer request. He continued to make regular reports of his neighbour “banging on the wall” and “shouting obscene language, which included homophobic comments”. The landlord contacted him on 2 November 2021 and noted that there had been “a period of relative quiet following the court case” but that over September and October 2021, his neighbour had started to “shout abuse and bang” again. It told him that this appeared to be a breach of his restraining order and that it would interview his neighbour. It also asked him to download its Noise App so he could record and evidence the noise nuisance he was experiencing.
- The landlord wrote to the resident on 3 December 2021 to inform him that it had spoken to his neighbour on 16 November 2021. It said that he had made “counter-allegations” of noise nuisance. It added that it had “told him not to bang or shout homophobic comments” and that it had been in contact with the police, who had visited his neighbour on 15 November 2021. On 9 February 2022, after listening to the resident’s Noise App recordings, the landlord wrote to him. It stated that there was “insufficient noise for any further action to be taken”. It added that there were “bangs as mentioned” but “no shouting or other ASB” that proved “nuisance enough” to take tenancy action.
- Between 13 March 2022 and 15 October 2022, the resident made no further reports of noise nuisance. However, on 15 October he reported that there was the ongoing sound of a “very loud appliance” coming from his neighbour’s property. Between 1 and 12 December 2022, he made further regular reports of noise nuisance, which included his neighbour leaving his TV on “intentionally”, playing loud music, banging on the wall, shouting and “making loud noise, especially during the night”.
- On 13 December 2022, the resident raised a stage 1 complaint. He provided a month by month account of the ASB and “bullying behaviour” he had experienced from his neighbour from August 2020 to December 2022. He stated that this had had a negative impact on his health and that the landlord needed to “act” and “make sure” his neighbour stopped “bullying” him. The landlord acknowledged his complaint on the same day. It sent him holding responses on 4 and 6 January 2023 advising him it needed more time to investigate. It said it would issue its responses by 6 and 12 January 2023 respectively.
- On 17 January 2023, the landlord sent the resident its stage 1 response. This stated that:
- Although the resident’s case was with its intensive tenancy sustainment (ITS) team, the evidence of homophobic abuse did not meet the threshold for ITS (high level) support.
- In November 2022 it referred his case to its targeted tenancy team (lower level ASB support) and advised him to report any further ASB to them.
- Since November 2022, the resident reported 2 further incidents where he had said he was “still fearful and facing harassment”. Given this, his case had been referred back to the ITS team who would be investigating what steps it was able to take.
- There had been a recent community trigger meeting on 12 January 2023 regarding the resident’s ongoing reports of harassment. The police advised that his reports did not constitute a breach of the restraining order.
- Following the further evidence he had provided, it would be completing a high risk management transfer application on his behalf, which would be submitted for assessment.
- It acknowledged that it should have recognised the severity of the harassment sooner, and this would have allowed the ITS team to intervene at an earlier stage.
- It partially upheld his complaint. This was because it had provided him with an ASB officer and her contact details. However, it could have been more proactive in evidencing the harassment from his neighbour.
- It wanted to offer £50 compensation in recognition of the delay in issuing its stage 1 response.
- On 18 January 2023, the resident responded to the landlord and asked it to escalate his complaint. He stated that:
- He disagreed that it did not have enough proof of homophobic abuse in 2020 and 2021. He added that this was the same proof that helped take his neighbour to court and convict him.
- The proof he had provided included:
- 3 anonymous malicious notes containing homophobic insults;
- Threats of physical assault by his neighbour in December 2020;
- An attempted break-in by his neighbour in January 2021;
- “The constant random banging” by his neighbour done “purposely to cause intimidation”.
- Its response had focused exclusively on the recent events and avoided the incidents that had happened in the past.
- The landlord had failed to:
- Protect him from abuse from his neighbour;
- Handle his case in a timely manner;
- Provide him with an emergency transfer following the recommendation of the CMARAC in 2021.
- He did not consider £50 to be sufficient compensation to recognise the impact of the ASB on his health and employment, and the landlord’s failure to safeguard him.
- The landlord replied to the resident on 25 January 2023 to say it had “registered” his escalation request. It stated that it would send him “a formal acknowledgement letter” advising him that it had begun its investigation. It wrote to him again on 31 January 2023 to inform him that it had agreed he should apply for a high risk move (HRM). This meant the landlord would award him HRM points to bid for a property of his choice. It asked him to provide all supporting information to assist him in his HRM application. On 9 February 2023 the resident met with landlord to complete his HRM management transfer application.
- The landlord formally acknowledged the resident’s escalation request on 23 February 2023 and told him it would send him a full response within 20 working days. On 20 March 2023, the landlord issued its stage 2 response. It provided a brief summary of the case and stated that:
- It took its Dignity for All policy seriously and acknowledged that his neighbour’s behaviour was unacceptable.
- He was correct to have reported the malicious notes to the police.
- With reports of ASB or noise nuisance, “the reporter” was expected to produce enough evidence for the “appropriate action to be taken against the perpetrator”.
- It had spoken to him on 5 October 2020 to discuss the reports of harassment from his neighbour. The resident had informed it that the banging on the wall and shouting had stopped and that he had reported the incident to the police but withdrew the matter. It had advised him to contact it if the ASB started again.
- It had issued a warning letter to his neighbour on 3 December 2021 about his behaviour. Prior to this, it had issued him a NSP on 14 May 2021 and, in June 2021, he was convicted of harassment and issued with a restraining order.
- It acknowledged a shortfall in its service and that it should have progressed a possession application for his neighbour for continuously breaching his tenancy conditions.
- It did not accept homophobic abuse against anyone. As a result of his complaint, it had learnt lessons and would pay particular attention to ASB involving homophobic abuse.
- After issuing his neighbour with the NOSP on 14 May 2021, both he and his neighbour were interviewed in November 2021, where his neighbour had made counter allegations.
- On 26 May 2021, it referred his case to the ITS team to open a case for further investigation. However, this was not opened until 14 August 2021. It acknowledged and apologised for its delay in opening the case.
- It was sorry there was no option on the online ASB form to report intimidation. It would include this as part of its project to review its online processes.
- It had considered a HRM management transfer as part of the recommendation made by the CMARAC for him to start bidding for another property.
- It wanted to offer him £600 compensation, which it broke down as follows:
- £350 in recognition of its delay in progressing with the NSP issued to his neighbour, and the distress, inconvenience, time and trouble caused.
- £150 in recognition of the delay reopening his case for further investigation.
- £100 for the delay in issuing its stage 1 and stage 2 responses.
- The resident wrote to the landlord on 28 March 2023. He attached an emotional statement and stated that:
- He had paid £600 to install a fence between his and his neighbour’s outside space in order to protect himself. This would not have been necessary had the management transfer been progressed sooner.
- He had made ASB reports in various ways, including by telephone. The landlord only considered his written reports, which explained why it believed he had not been reporting ASB consistently.
- Its failure to progress his application for a management transfer in 2021, as recommended by the CMARAC, had affected him mentally, physically and financially.
- The compensation it had offered did not adequately recognise the impact of the ASB on him.
- He was “inclined” to approach the Ombudsman as he did not want anyone else to go through what he had been through, “feeling unheard, alone and unsafe”.
- The landlord responded on 4 April 2023 and stated that:
- It was sorry to hear of his experiences with his neighbour and that its poor handling of his ASB reports had had a negative impact on his mental health.
- It extended its “unreserved apologies for the mishandling and delays in progressing” his ASB case.
- It wanted to make him an increased offer of £3,650 compensation, which it broke down as follows:
- £1,100 to reimburse him for the cost of installing a fence.
- £2,000 for the delay in progressing his management transfer.
- £500 for the distress and inconvenience caused.
- £50 for the delay in responding to his stage 2 response.
- On 6 April 2023, it wrote to him again to inform him that he had been awarded the highest number of points for a management transfer. The resident contacted the Ombudsman on 24 July 2023 to say that he did not feel the compensation the landlord had offered him was sufficient redress for what he had been through.
- The records show that the resident moved to another property on 10 January 2024.
Assessment and findings
Legal and policy framework
- The Equality Act 2010 defines harassment as unwanted behaviour that is offensive, where that behaviour is because someone has a protected characteristic. Unwanted behaviour could include spoken or written abuse that has the purpose or effect of creating a degrading, humiliating, hostile, intimidating or offensive environment.
- The tenancy agreements held between the landlord and its residents states that they must not must not:
- Do anything which causes or is likely to cause a nuisance or disturbance to anyone in the local area;
- Harass anyone in the local area because of their race, nationality, sexuality, sex, religion or belief, disability, age or anything else;
- Harass or threaten to harass, or use or threaten to use violence, towards anyone in the local area.
- The tenancy agreement states that ASB includes racist or homophobic behaviour, gestures and languages and loud music or making other loud noise.
- The landlord operates a 3 tier triage model for responding to ASB reports. Its intensive tenancy sustainment team provides holistic, housing-related support to its most vulnerable residents. Its targeted tenant team offers a non-emergency service that focuses on lower level ASB. This identifies and addresses issues before they escalate. Its universal tenant service is a ‘front door’ service that establishes where residents need additional help.
- The landlord’s allocation scheme states that management transfer points may be agreed by the landlord where it is necessary to move a tenant on management grounds. It will award a high level of housing points under its welfare category. Residents who fall under this category are those whose welfare needs are such that remaining in their current property would place them at substantial risk. An example of this is where it is necessary to move a resident because of harassment.
- Its ASB policy outlines some of the tools the landlord has available to address ASB. These include:
- Visits to witness the ASB;
- Warning letters, notices and fines;
- Mental health support or signposting to support services;
- Utilising legal powers such as court orders, tenancy interventions or evictions;
- Holding multi-agency meetings with partners to focus on solutions to areas of concern;
- Working with the police to prosecute the person responsible.
- The landlord’s complaints policy outlines a 2 stage formal complaints process. It acknowledges complaints within 3 calendar days and responds to stage 1 complaints within 10 working days. If there is a reason for not meeting the deadline, it must send a holding response briefly explaining the delay with an expected due date. It refers to stage 2 of its process as its Chief Executive stage. It states that it will ensure residents receive a “full investigation and response within 20 working days of receiving the complaint”.
- The landlord’s compensation policy offers redress where the landlord has unjustifiably delayed taking action in neighbour nuisance cases. It takes into consideration the severity and frequency of the ASB and vulnerability of the resident. The compensation ranges from £500 per year for minor cases to £2,000 per year for severe cases. The policy also offers between £100 and £300 for time and trouble, and between £100 and £1,000 for distress, depending on the severity of the case.
Scope of investigation
- The resident has stated that the ASB he has experienced has had a detrimental effect on his mental and physical health. While the Ombudsman extends every sympathy to him for the impact the situation has had on his health, the Service is unable to draw conclusions on the causation of, or liability for, impacts on health and wellbeing. Matters of personal injury or damage to health, their investigation and compensation, are not part of the complaints process. They are more appropriately addressed by way of the courts or the landlord’s liability insurer (if it has one) as a personal injury claim. While we cannot consider injury to health, we have considered whether the resident was caused distress or inconvenience as a result of any failings by the landlord.
Harassment
- It is acknowledged that the ASB the resident has reported over a lengthy period of time has had a profound impact on him. However, when considering complaints relating to ASB, it is not the role of the Service to investigate the incidents themselves. Instead, the Ombudsman’s role is to consider whether the landlord has taken reasonable and appropriate steps to respond to the resident’s reports. This report will focus on whether the landlord acted in line with its policies and procedures, and if it took proportionate action and followed good practice.
- The ASB, Crime and Policing Act 2014 (the Act) states that, when they receive a complaint about ASB, it is good practice for agencies to assess the risk of harm to the victim, and any potential vulnerabilities. This should be the starting point of a case management approach to dealing with ASB complaints. The evidence shows that the resident reported ASB on 16 August 2020 and 4 September 2020. On the second occasion, he had made a report of homophobic abuse from his neighbour.
- The landlord contacted the resident on 15 October 2020, by which time he had already reported his neighbour’s actions to the police, which was appropriate. It is unclear however why it took the landlord over a month to respond to the resident’s report of homophobic abuse. Given the reason why the resident had previously moved, and that homophobic behaviour is specified as a tenancy breach, it is unclear why the landlord did not consider undertaking a risk assessment at this point. However, that it did not was a missed opportunity to ensure that the resident was adequately supported.
- It is noted that, in its stage 1 response, the landlord said that, prior to November 2022, the evidence of homophobic abuse did not meet the threshold for high level ASB support. Given the neighbour had been convicted of harassment and handed a restraining order on 1 June 2021, it is unclear why this did not constitute sufficient evidence. It is noted that the landlord acknowledged in its stage 2 response its failure to pay sufficient attention to ASB involving homophobic abuse. Furthermore, it stated that it would learn lessons to address this in future. The Ombudsman will make an order that the landlord updates it on any reviews and subsequent measures it has taken to deal more effectively with reports of homophobic abuse from its residents.
- When the landlord contacted the resident on 15 October 2020, he told it that the noise nuisance had stopped and he did not want it to take any action. However, from November 2020 onwards, the resident made further reports of noise and homophobic abuse from his neighbour. It was only following a community trigger meeting on 21 January 2021 and subsequent CMARAC meeting on 10 February 2021 that the landlord carried out a risk assessment.
- The records show that it completed the risk assessment on 25 May 2021, around 9 months after the resident had reported homophobic abuse by his neighbour. The resident should not have had to request a community trigger before the landlord considered the case serious enough to conduct a risk assessment. It is also noted that there was a further delay of 4 months following the CMARAC meeting before the landlord completed the assessment. The cumulative delays and the landlord’s lack of urgency in responding to the resident’s reports was a significant failing.
- The landlord’s decision to offer the resident a move following a long history of harassment and ASB reports was reasonable, and taken in consultation with partner agencies. However, it took it around 2 years to progress the resident’s management transfer application following the advice from the CMARAC. The CMARAC noted that the resident presented as “very vulnerable”. The outcome of meeting was that the resident was “not safe” and agreed on 10 February 2021 that the landlord should process his management transfer request by the end of that week.
- There is no evidence it took any further action until 14 May 2021. This was when it issued the neighbour with a NOSP. Although it acted appropriately in issuing an NOSP, it did not carry out the risk assessment until 25 May 2021. The outcome of the assessment was that the resident should be moved to alternative housing as soon as possible. There is no evidence the landlord took any further steps to process the application until after the resident escalated his complaint on 18 January 2023. It is not clear whether this was because it had issued the neighbour with a NOSP or whether he was subsequently convicted of harassment. The landlord may have thought that these measures meant the move was no longer urgent. If this was the case, the landlord should have explained this to the resident and made reference to it as part of an action plan. The it has not provided any explanation for its lack of action in progressing the management transfer following the risk assessment was a failing.
- On 6 April 2023, it awarded the resident sufficient points to bid on properties. That it took the landlord over 2 years to complete the resident’s transfer request after being made aware he was not safe in his property was a significant failing. Furthermore, the landlord failed to properly consider the resident’s vulnerabilities or demonstrate any urgency in safeguarding a vulnerable resident.
- The records show the resident was able to bid on properties from 6 April 2023 but did not move until January 2024. Given there would have been a limited supply of suitable housing, it cannot be criticised for delays in facilitating an earlier move. Furthermore, there is no evidence to suggest that any further delays were avoidable. In the Ombudsman’s opinion, the time it took for the resident to move once he was awarded sufficient points to bid for properties was reasonable in the circumstances.
- It is not disputed that the landlord failed to take appropriate action to progress an application for possession after it had issued the NOSP warning letter. It was appropriate that the landlord sought advice from police about whether ongoing reports of ASB by the neighbour constituted a breach of the restraining order. That the police did not deem this a breach and took no further action was beyond the landlord’s control.
- It was also appropriate that the landlord spoke to the neighbour on 16 November 2021 about the ongoing ASB. However, it was within the landlord’s ability to consider whether the ASB constituted a tenancy breach and act accordingly. It is unclear why the landlord did not pursue the possession application after the neighbour was shown to have ignored its initial warning. This demonstrates that the landlord had failed to take all reasonable steps to address the ongoing ASB.
- Furthermore, it is not disputed that it took the landlord’s ITS team over 2 months to open a case for the resident following a referral. Internal correspondence from 26 May 2021 shows the referral to the ITS team, including a list of actions. One of those actions included progression of the management transfer request and to “consider housing options”. This was a missed opportunity for the landlord to progress the management transfer request at an earlier stage.
- The records show that the landlord’s failure to progress a possession application, its delay in acting on a referral and its delay in progressing the management transfer application was due to a number of factors. The evidence shows that the landlord had failed to take a holistic approach to the case and only focused on the reports the resident was making at the time. When deciding what actions to take, it did not adequately consider the historical incidents of harassment for which the neighbour was previously convicted. Therefore, when the resident was reporting noise nuisance, the landlord was treating this as lower level ASB. This failed to take into account the earlier reports of homophobic abuse.
- It is evident that, throughout the period covered by this investigation, several different officers had been assigned to deal with the case. This meant there was a relatively high turnover of staff functioning as the resident’s single point of contact (SPOC). That staff had left the organisation or transferred to other departments was beyond the landlord’s control. However, in order to mitigate any impacts from this, the landlord should have ensured it had effective handover procedures in place.
- The evidence shows there was a consistent lack of proper staff handovers in this case. Internal records show that, due to a lack of adequate record keeping, the officers taking over the case did not have proper access to historical information. There was also a lack of effective internal communication between different teams. For example, an internal record from 1 June 2021 from an officer who had taken over the case notes a lack of information on the case. They state that they are “not sure” what the previous officer “wants me to do”.
- It is apparent that, when they took on the case, staff were unable to properly familiarise themselves with what had previously happened. This meant those new to the case would have missed crucial information, such as recommendations to move the resident “as soon as possible” and that he was “not safe” in his property. The evidence shows there were a number of missed opportunities for the landlord to take reasonable steps to safeguard the resident.
- The inadequate handovers would have contributed significantly to the excessive delay in progressing the resident’s management transfer application. That the landlord did not have effective processes in place to ensure cases were properly handed over to staff was a failing. This meant that, when new staff took over, they were only responding to the reports that were made at the time, without considering previous reports or recommendations. The landlord’s failure to manage the case with adequate consistency meant the resident was left at potential risk for longer than was necessary. This would have caused him significant and avoidable distress.
- The landlord has not provided a copy of an action plan and there is no evidence it had sought to agree one with the resident. A comprehensive and meaningful action plan is an opportunity to agree a preferred method of contact, and arrange convenient dates and times when the landlord would update residents. It is also a chance for the landlord to manage residents’ expectations in terms of what it is able to do and to set realistic objectives. A plan can set a formal contact arrangement and, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, helps form a better relationship between resident and landlord. Action plans can also be reviewed regularly, to ensure actions are taken in a timely manner, and new ones are set, as necessity arises.
- The lack of a proper and effective action plan meant the landlord was unable to monitor whether proposed actions had been taken or to ensure new staff completed those actions. The lack of any cohesive and ongoing plan would have contributed to the delays and the landlord’s failure to properly manage the resident’s case.
- The landlord acknowledged in its stage 2 response that there were failings in how it responded to the resident’s reports of harassment and apologised for these. It also offered £600 compensation, which it revised to £3,659 following the end of the complaints process. The new total included £2,000 for its failure in progressing the ASB case and £500 for distress and inconvenience caused. It is acknowledged that the resident remains unhappy with the compensation that was offered by the landlord. However, taking our guidance on remedies into account, we are satisfied that this was a proportionate offer in the circumstances.
- The landlord made its revised offer after it had acknowledged further failings, which it had not covered in its stage 2 response. While it was appropriate for it to reconsider its position, the Ombudsman cannot regard the offer as reasonable redress. This is because the offer was made after the resident had exhausted the landlord’s complaints procedure, and the failings should reasonably have been identified during the course of the complaints process. Furthermore, the landlord made proportionate efforts to put things right only when the resident spent further time pursuing his complaint, and after he had stated he would approach the Service. Therefore, while we do not consider that further compensation is warranted, we have made a finding of maladministration. We have also ordered the landlord to share what actions were taken as part of the lessons learnt following the resident’s complaint.
Noise nuisance
- It is relevant to acknowledge that cases involving reports of noise nuisance and counter-reports can be among the most difficult for a landlord to manage. This is because the reports are made over an extended period of time, and sometimes with limited or no corroborating evidence. This is not the fault of any party, but it is important our assessment of the landlord’s actions recognises this fact.
- The resident continued to report noise nuisance from his neighbour following the restraining order on 1 June 2021. There was a period between March and December 2022 when the evidence shows the resident stopped reporting noise. The reasons for this is unclear. However, when he started reporting noise nuisance again in December 2022, it was therefore reasonable for the landlord to ask the resident to complete an incident diary. This allowed it to assess the time, type, location, and effect of the noise was having on him.
- The evidence shows the landlord had asked the resident to complete a diary for a period of a week, which was reasonable and proportionate. This allowed it to establish the nature and frequency of the noise the resident was experiencing, and to determine the most suitable course of action it should take as a result. However, given the resident was making regular reports of noise nuisance from April 2021, it is unclear why the landlord had not asked him to complete a diary at an earlier stage.
- The evidence shows that the landlord had asked the resident on 2 November 2021 to download its Noise App. This was appropriate as it helped the landlord gather evidence of any potential statutory noise nuisance. Following receipt of the resident’s recordings, the landlord deemed the noise insufficient to take enforcement action. However, the resident raised concerns about the Noise App’s inability to capture some of the noise as he had to keep pressing a button to activate it. There are no records to show the landlord had addressed those concerns.
- It is evident the landlord relied solely on the Noise App as the means of gathering evidence. There is nothing to indicate it had considered installing noise recording equipmentor speaking to other tenants in the building who may have witnessed the noise. Furthermore, it could have liaised with or signposted the resident to Environmental Health, or visited other tenantsto establish whether they had witnessed any noise nuisance.
- One of the tools mentioned in the ASB policy is making visits to witness the ASB. There is no evidence to show the landlord had considered visiting the property to help corroborate the resident’s reports of noise nuisance. On 28 February 2022 he reported that his neighbour had left his TV on all night, which resulted in him not being able to sleep. Initially the landlord had suggested that the resident contact its out of hours team and ask it to “attend and witness the noise”. However it later advised him that, due to COVID-19, the team could not enter his property to establish if there was statutory noise nuisance. It stated that it would instead be able to listen from outside his flat.
- It is acknowledged that landlords have a duty of care towards its staff. However, there were no national COVID-19 restrictions in place at that time. Therefore, the basis for the landlord’s comments is unclear. The landlord informed the resident that its out of hours team had “rules and procedures” it had to comply with, which was why it was unable to enter his property. However, it has not provided the Service with any information relating to its rules and procedures relating to COVID-19 precautions during 2022. The landlord could have considered using a professional witness, who might not have been subject to the same rules as its own staff. This would have meant the landlord would have been able to broaden the scope of its evidence gathering rather than just relying on the Noise App recordings.
- That that landlord did not reasonably explore how it could safely attempt to witness the noise the resident was reporting from inside his property was a failing. This meant it was unable to demonstrate that it had made reasonable attempts to gather evidence of potential statutory noise. Furthermore, as its ASB policy states that making visits to witness ASB was one of the tools at its disposal, its inadequate efforts in using this measure was a departure from its policy.
- It is noted that the resident had generally reported noise transference from the property concerned. He reported being disturbed by the sound of the neighbour’s TV, music, an electric fan and other appliances. The records show his neighbour had also made reports of noise nuisance from the resident’s property.
- It would not be appropriate for the landlord to treat noise transference issues in the same manner as potential statutory noise nuisance. This is because the sound, although the cause of nuisance, will not normally cross the threshold for statutory noise nuisance in terms of volume. Instead, in cases like this, the landlord should reasonably consider what, if anything, can be done to reduce the noise transference.
- The Ombudsman’s Spotlight Report on Noise Complaints, published in October 2022 recommends that to handle noise reports that do not meet the statutory threshold, landlords should adopt a proactive good neighbourhood management strategy. This should be distinct to the ASB policy, with clear options for maintaining good neighbourhood relationships. It states that, this requires some landlords to recognise that noise transference is often the key issue, and address the implications of this.
- There is internal correspondence from 1 June 2021 that questions why the landlord had not yet offered mediation or considered sound proofing. It is appreciated that mediation may not have been appropriate in the circumstances. However, it is unclear why the landlord did not explore sound proofing, either prior to or after it had mentioned it on this date.
- The Ombudsman accepts that landlords are not responsible for soundproofing homes above the standards applicable at the time of building. However, our Spotlight Report recommends that 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.
- There is no evidence the landlord had sufficiently considered how any noise transference could be minimised. It could reasonably have inspected the resident’s and the neighbour’s properties and explored any possible causes of noise transference, such as lack of appropriate wall insulation or air vents. It could have discussed with both the resident and neighbour whether there were any improvements they could make that were more cost effective and less disruptive than installing soundproofing. It could have also provided advice and support with regard to any soundproofing options.
- The outcome may have concluded that no effective options were available or possible. However, there is no evidence the landlord reasonably considered how noise transference had contributed to the resident’s reports of ASB. This was a failing and amounts to maladministration. In order to put things right, the Ombudsman will order some redress in recognition of the landlord’s failure to properly consider noise transference. It is noted that the resident moved out on 10 January 2024. Nevertheless, there is risk that the issue of noise transference could continue unless properly addressed.
Complaint
- It was inappropriate that the resident had to spend further time and trouble pursuing his complaint before the landlord properly acknowledged and offered compensation for its failings. This demonstrates that the landlord’s initial investigation was inadequate. For example, it failed during the complaints process to properly consider its delay in progressing the resident’s management transfer application. It was only until it reviewed its compensation offer that it acknowledged this failing, and offered compensation in recognition of it. That the landlord had to review its response following completion of the complaints process before offering compensation it felt was fair and reasonable was a failing in its complaint handling.
- The landlord took 23 working days to respond to the resident’s stage 1 complaint. Its complaints policy states that, if there is a reason for not meeting the deadline, the landlord must send a holding response briefly explaining the delay with an expected due date. The landlord sent 2 holding responses providing revised due dates of 6 and 12 January 2023. There is no evidence it had sent the resident a further holding response but it did not issue its stage 1 response until 17 January 2023. That it did not inform the resident there would be a further delay was a departure from its policy.
- Its policy states that it acknowledges complaints within 3 calendar days. The landlord did not acknowledge the resident’s escalation request until 8 days after his request. Furthermore, it did not send him its formal acknowledgement until 22 days after this. It took the landlord a toral of 44 working days to issue its stage 2 response, which represents a notable delay on its timescale.
- The Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code) states that any delays to the 20 working days timescale for responding to stage 2 complaints should not exceed a further 10 days without good reason. If an extension beyond 10 working days is required, this should be agreed by both parties. There is no indication that, while investigating the stage 2 complaint, the landlord sent any holding replies. It did not contact the resident to explain the reason for the delay or to agree any new timescales. That it failed to acknowledge the escalation request in a timely manner or communicate appropriately while handling the complaint was a departure from its policy and the Code. This amounts to maladministration.
- The landlord’s attempts at addressing its poor complaint handling are noted. In its stage 2 response, it acknowledged and apologised for its delay in responding to both complaints and offered £100 compensation (£50 for each). However, when it sent its final compensation offer on 4 April 2023, it omitted to include the £50 it had previously offered for the delayed stage 1 response. Furthermore, it had failed to recognise the delay in acknowledging the resident’s escalation request or issuing any holding replies while investigating its stage 2 complaint. The delays and lack of communication would have caused additional unnecessary frustration and distress to the resident who was already experiencing the impacts from the harassment he was reporting. The landlord’s poor complaint handling amounts to maladministration and the Ombudsman will order further redress to put things right.
- In October 2023, the Ombudsman published a special report on the landlord, which included the outcome of our investigation on how it dealt with complaints and reports about noise. The report made some recommendations on how it should deal with some of the failings it identified. This report has therefore not made any orders around how the landlord responds to noise reports or complaint handling. However, the Ombudsman will continue to monitor how the landlord is following the recommendations from its report
Determination (decision)
- In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of harassment by his neighbour.
- In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of noise nuisance.
- In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s complaint handling.
Reasons
- The landlord failed to take reasonable steps to ensure the resident was adequately supported. It also failed to properly consider his vulnerabilities after he experienced harassment and homophobic abuse. It excessively delayed in progressing his application for rehousing, which put him at avoidable risk for an unreasonable length of time. While the landlord offered a proportionate amount of compensation, the offer was communicated after the complaints process was exhausted. The landlord should reasonably have taken steps to offer the resident proportionate redress within its stage 2 response.
- The landlord took inadequate steps to gather evidence of statutory noise nuisance and failed to consider noise transference as an issue, or to explore how this could be minimised.
- The landlord’s complaint handling was poor. It departed from its complaints policy by failing to send holding replies and delayed acknowledging the resident’s escalation request. While some failings were acknowledged, it failed to take steps to put things right.
Orders
- Within 4 weeks of the date of this determination, the landlord should:
- Apologise to the resident, in line with the Service’s Remedies Guidance.
- Pay the resident the revised compensation amount of £4,100, which is calculated as follows:
- £1,100 it had offered to reimburse him for the costs of installing a fence.
- £2,000 it had offered in recognition of delays progressing the ASB case.
- £500 it had offered for distress and inconvenience.
- £200 in recognition of the distress and inconvenience caused as a result of its failure to ensure that it had adequately supported the resident with regard to noise transference.
- £100 in recognition of its insufficient attempts at gathering evidence of statutory noise nuisance.
- £200 for its poor complaint handling.
This replaces the offer of £3,650 the landlord made the resident in its letter dated 4 April 2023.
- In its stage 2 response, the landlord stated that it had learnt lessons and would ensure it took the necessary action against homophobic abuse, and to ensure victims receive the support they need. This was appropriate, however, the outcome of this review is unclear. As such, the landlord is ordered to report back to the Ombudsman, within 8 weeks of the date of this report, on any reviews it has carried out and steps it has taken to embed this learning, and any changes it has made as a result.