Islington Council (202303995)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202303995

Islington Council

31 July 2024

Our approach

The Housing Ombudsman’s approach to investigating and determining complaints is to decide what is fair in all the circumstances of the case. This is set out in the Housing Act 1996 and the Housing Ombudsman Scheme (the Scheme). The Ombudsman considers the evidence and looks to see if there has been any ‘maladministration’, for example whether the landlord has failed to keep to the law, followed proper procedure, followed good practice or behaved in a reasonable and competent manner.

Both the resident and the landlord have submitted information to the Ombudsman and this has been carefully considered. Their accounts of what has happened are summarised below. This report is not an exhaustive description of all the events that have occurred in relation to this case, but an outline of the key issues as a background to the investigation’s findings.

The complaint

The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of:
1. reports of anti-social behaviour (ASB) against the neighbour.
2. letting out a property where the neighbour was known to have reports of noise complaints and ASB against them.
The Ombudsman has also considered the landlord’s complaint handling.

Background

The resident was the secure tenant of the property, a 1 bedroom ground floor flat, since 27 February 2022. The tenancy ended on 12 November 2023.
The landlord was informed from the beginning of the complaint that the resident had vulnerabilities, specifically PTSD, and that these events had an impact on his mental health. The resident has been supported by his Member of Parliament (MP).
On 11 April 2022, the resident raised a complaint with the landlord. He asked why he was not made aware of the disabled child living in the flat above before moving into the property. The child would run up and down making loud noises. He asked why the property had not been made sound proof.
On 16 April 2022, the resident sent a follow up email to the landlord regarding his complaint. He told the landlord that the neighbour said they were in a legal dispute with it at the time his tenancy began. He explained that the neighbour’s solicitor had written to the landlord on 7 January 2022 to say it was already aware of the difficulty with the neighbour. It was also aware of the effect this difficulty had on the previous occupant. The resident claimed the landlord offered his property with the knowledge that living there would cause him mental and physical stress. He felt that not disclosing this information was dishonest, and asked why he was not informed of this. He was told the neighbour shouted out the window to a group of prospective residents viewing the property to warn them of her son’s behaviour. The son would throw things into the garden from their flat window. The resident felt that he could no longer stay in the property.
The landlord acknowledged the resident’s complaint on 19 April 2022 and said a full written response would be sent to him by 4 May 2022.
On 22 April 2022, the resident’s MP contacted the landlord regarding his complaint. They repeated his complaint points.
The landlord issued its stage 1 response to the resident on 4 May 2022. It did not uphold the complaint, and confirmed:
1. the complaint to be about not disclosing the neighbour’s child’s disability before he moved in, and the loud noises that they made.
2. the flat was managed by Partners for Improvement for Islington (PFI) at the time he moved in. It had been managed by the landlord from 4 April 2022.
3. PFI was not sure whether they could disclose information about the disabled child before the resident moved into the flat below them.
4. neither PFI nor the landlord had a contractual responsibility to install soundproofing. There were no funds for soundproofing either.
5. the neighbour told him at the viewing that their son was vulnerable and noisy. It was surprised to see viewings take place because of this.
6. it did not know the behaviour of the residents in the neighbouring property could cause mental stress or physical harm, and the property was advertised prior to any legal dispute.
7. The previous tenant of his flat was given management transfer points because of the noise.
8. the resident was given options about moving to a different property
On the same day, the resident asked the landlord to escalate his complaint. He raised the following points:
1. he viewed the property briefly and left soon after as there were many viewers. He was not present when his neighbour told viewers about her son’s autism.
2. He was only told about the noise issues by the neighbour after he moved in. Had he known at the viewing, he would not have moved in.
3. he was told by the landlord that it was not in its remit to inform potential residents of existing noise complaints.
4. He was not advised by the housing officer what he could do going forward. They said it was not their responsibility and that they are receiving training in their new role. They said they could not help.
5. his mental health suffered after moving into the flat
On 6 May 2022, the landlord acknowledged the resident’s request to escalate his complaint to stage 2. It sent a copy of its stage 1 response to his MP.
The landlord logged an ASB report from the resident on 31 May 2022. This noted a young man running up and down the stairs making loud verbal noises.
The landlord went on to log several ASB reports. On 24 June 2022, it acknowledged a report of noises throughout the night. On 11 July 2022, it acknowledged a report of a neighbour walking up and down the stairs at 11.17pm. On 15 August 2022, it logged a report of the neighbour talking on their phone during unsocial hours and walking up and down the stairs.
The landlord told the resident on 31 August 2022 that 2 of his noise reports were being looked into. It said it could only install more appropriate flooring, but could not do anything about noise from a disabled child. It would still consider noise made during the night and asked him to record sounds on his phone and if he would like a home visit.
The landlord logged and acknowledged a further 2 ASB reports from the resident. The first was on 23 September 2022, where it said it would contact the neighbour. It asked the resident to keep it updated. The second was on 7 November 2022 regarding shouting, talking loudly, and playing TV loudly.
The landlord and resident spoke again on 10 October 2022. He agreed for it to contact the neighbour. A further ASB report was logged and acknowledged on 13 November 2022 concerning noise and clothes being thrown out of their flat window. He was scared to leave his property in case an object hit him.
The resident contacted the landlord on 14 November 2022 to say things had been thrown from the flat above onto his doorstep. He asked for a call back.
The resident’s MP contacted the landlord on 22 November 2022 and asked it to address the ASB. They asked for the resident’s bidding points to be reinstated so he could bid for another 2 bedroom property. His mental health had been affected and they asked it to respond.
On 24 November 2022, the resident asked the landlord to acknowledge his complaint escalation request from 6 months prior. He felt his mental health was not being taken seriously.
On 4 December 2022, the resident asked the landlord what was being done about the neighbour’s ASB. They kept making noise and he was not getting any sleep. He had not received contact from the landlord, nor an in-person visit.
On 6 December 2022, the landlord responded to the resident’s MP. It said that his bidding points could not be reinstated as points were based on his circumstances at the time. It understood he was being supported by his housing officer and confirmed he had declined 2 property offers.
The landlord contacted the resident on 15 December 2022 to say it spoke with his neighbour. It asked him to capture the neighbour’s noise on The Noise App.
On 28 and 29 March 2023, the resident said he was feeling suicidal. He reported that the neighbour’s washing machine was used at 10.30pm on 28 March 2023 and that she forced her way into his property on 29 March 2023, shouting and swearing. He contacted the police and was afraid for his safety. It promised to call him after it spoke to the neighbour. It was considering a Notice of Seeking Possession (NOS).
The resident’s MP emailed the landlord on 31 March 2023 and reiterated his concerns. They added that he rejected the properties because he felt they were not suitable for his nor his father’s needs. His father had Parkinson’s disease and lived in a different property, but would visit him occasionally. He was disappointed that the flat he moved into was a “sensitive let”, and that the landlord offered it knowing that it would cause difficulty. He wanted to move into temporary accommodation while he bid for a suitable alternative property.
On 05 April 2023, the landlord acknowledged the resident’s report of ASB. It said he had been offered 5 alternative properties since August 2022, which he declined. It responded to his MP. It said he should use the council’s noise app and that temporary accommodation could not be offered while he bid for other properties. It said he should raise his concerns about being allocated the flat with the housing options team.
The landlord discussed the ASB report with the resident on 18 and 19 April 2023. When it telephoned the neighbour, they terminated the call. It said it would try contacting them again and then send a warning letter before sending a NOS. It asked him to provide any additional evidence. He responded to say events had affected his health, and the neighbour had their washing machine on at 00:01 am. He said he could no longer approach his neighbour.
The landlord sent its stage 2 complaint response to the resident on 28 April 2023. It:
1. apologised for the delay in responding and said it was upholding his complaint.
2. confirmed the complaint to be about its stage 1 response, and for not being told of potential noise nuisance from the flat above prior to his tenancy.
3. said it failed to properly communicate with him and respond to his concerns.
4. acknowledged that PFI were aware of the noise issues prior to his tenancy.
5. was worried that it was left to a neighbour to tell him about noise issues, and that his property was included as part of the choice-based lettings (CBL) scheme in the first place.
6. acknowledged that the ongoing situation caused a great deal of disruption and distress during what must have been an incredibly difficult period.
7. raised his complaint at a senior level within the Housing Department to ensure the learning from his experience is used to prevent a recurrence and improve its service to residents.
8. offered £2,050 compensation (£250 for the late stage 2 response, £1,000 for distress, £500 for service failure, £300 for time and trouble)
The resident brought his complaint to our service on 2 May 2023. He wanted a higher level of compensation from the landlord.
On 12 May 2023, the resident asked the landlord for an update regarding his ASB reports. He chased it again on 16 June 2023. He explained that his neighbour’s washing machine was running at 00:32 am. The landlord apologised and said a letter had been sent to the neighbour, and that it would draft a NOS letter. He asked it to contact his neighbour and tell them washing machines cannot be used after 11pm. On 21 June 2023, the landlord said it would try calling his neighbour, and would send a letter if unsuccessful.
On 22 August 2023, the resident reported a washing machine running out of hours. On 8 November 2023, he reported his neighbour interfering with his electric meter, which made him feel unsafe. He also said he was moving out as the neighbour had tried to enter his property previously. It called him back the day after and advised him to contact the police. It gave the neighbour a verbal warning and advised them that electric meters are a health and safety issue.
The landlord contacted the resident again on 16 November 2023 to discuss the previous report but he declined to speak with the caller. He ended his tenancy on 12 November 2023 as his neighbour had previously tried to enter his property.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

What the Ombudsman can and cannot consider is called the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction. This is governed by the Housing Ombudsman Scheme (the Scheme). When a complaint is brought to this service, the Ombudsman must consider all the circumstances of the case, as there are sometimes reasons why a complaint will not be investigated.
Paragraph 42(k) of the Scheme note as follows:

(42) The Ombudsman may not consider complaints which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion:

(k) fall properly within the jurisdiction of another Ombudsman, regulator or complaint-handling body

The resident was disappointed that his bidding points for new properties would not be reinstated by the landlord. Bidding points for housing applications is a local authority matter, and is therefore outside the scope of this investigation. Complaints about re-housing applications, including the award of bidding points, fall under the Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman’s (LGSCO’s) jurisdiction. However, we can look at what actions the landlord took after receiving reports of ASB including whether alternative properties were offered.
The resident has reported noise nuisances and ASB to the landlord throughout his tenancy, and was in the property for fewer than 21 months. We understand that he would feel disappointed with the landlord’s complaint outcome.
When investigating a complaint, the Ombudsman applies its Dispute Resolution Principles. These are be fair (treat people fairly and follow fair processes), put things right and learn from outcomes. The Ombudsman must first consider whether there was a failing by the landlord and, did this lead to any adverse effect or detriment to the resident. If yes, we will consider whether the landlord has taken enough action to ‘put things right’ and ‘learn from outcomes’, When failings are identified, our role is to consider whether the redress offered by the landlord has put things right and resolved the resident’s complaint satisfactorily in all the circumstances of the case.
We should clarify that we cannot assess the extent to which a landlord’s failings have contributed to, or exacerbated, a resident’s physical and/or mental health, nor can we directly quantify this. We cannot say whether the landlord’s handling of reports in this case impacted the resident’s mental health. However, we can consider any distress and inconvenience caused by the way it handled reports.

Reports of anti-social behaviour (ASB) against the neighbour

The landlord has a responsibility under the Housing Health and Safety Rating System (HHSRS) introduced by the Housing Act 2004 to assess hazards and risks within its rented properties. Noise is a potential hazard covered by the HHSRS and the landlord is required to consider if a noise problem amounts to a hazard that may require remedy.
The landlord also has obligations under the Care Act 2014 to safeguard vulnerable adults. It should be aware of what factors, including mental health, may cause an adult to be vulnerable. It should also consider what risks of harm or neglect the vulnerable adult faces and what it can do to protect them.
The Equality Act 2010 is also relevant. A landlord should make reasonable adjustments to remove, or reduce as far as possible, disadvantages faced by those with a protected characteristic. Protected characteristics are specified in the Act and include disability. This means the landlord should consider reasonable adjustments for people with mental health conditions that have a substantial, long term, negative impact on their ability to do daily activities.
The landlord’s compensation framework covers neighbour nuisance. It will consider the distress caused, taking into consideration the severity, frequency, vulnerability of the complainant, and the extent of the Council’s failure to act. The compensation bands are:
1. £500 per annum (pro-rata) for minor cases, rising to £2000 per annum (pro-rata) for severe cases.
2. £100 – £300 for time and trouble.
3. £100 – £300 for distress (could be up to £1,000 for severe or prolonged stress).
In October 2022 the Ombudsman published a spotlight report on noise complaints. The events in this case were experienced by the resident from April 2022, but the noise problems had not been resolved. We have referred to our spotlight report when identifying failings after October 2022.
The landlord’s tenancy agreement guide says that it will look to work in partnership with others, such as neighbouring social landlords, the police and council teams to develop action plans and find a solution. It is also signed up to the Respect Charter for Housing, and adheres to standards for handling ASB.
The landlord’s tenancy conditions and ASB policy say that ASB includes damaging and vandalising property, loud music, noise nuisance or making other loud noise, and throwing items from balconies or windows. If ASB is reported, an appointment to carry out an interview will follow if necessary. This is within five working days, or 24 hours in serious cases. ASB cases are reviewed at least once a month and residents updated. The landlord will provide ongoing support for as long as victims feel is necessary and reasonably practical. Any actions taken must stand a fair chance of working. It can use ASB tools like acceptable behaviour contracts, mediation, noise monitoring machines, professional witness, and supporting people before legal options are explored.
The landlord’s tenancy obligations say that all its tenants and residents are expected to display acceptable standards of behaviour at all times. This will be enforced and includes responsibility for their own conduct, their family members, relatives, others residing with them and their visitors.
The landlords ASB policy says that when reports of ASB are received, it will look to undertake the following with the reporter:
1. Conduct an interview with the victim.
2. Ensure the victim is aware of its commitment to dealing with their report.
3. Outline limitations and set expectations for the reporter.
4. Advise the victim of any appropriate or available support services.
5. Agree an action plan for managing their reported case.
6. Provide an individually tailored support pack of relevant information.
7. Undertake a risk assessment of the reporter to determine any vulnerability or risk factors.
8. Identify and arrange interviews with any witnesses to support the case.
9. Agree a suitable time period and process for updating the reporter as to the progress of the case.
10. Confirm confidentiality unless the reporter is agreeable for any disclosure.
11. Identify and implement early actions and interventions such as mediation.
12. Identify the need for additional security measures such as fireproof letterboxes or improved lighting.
It will look to undertake the following with the alleged perpetrator:
1. Arrange interview with the alleged perpetrator.
2. Identify any support or interventions that may be available to the individual or their family such as family intervention projects and refer as appropriate.
3. Undertake a risk assessment to determine any vulnerability or risk factors to the individual.
4. For young people look to provide access to diversionary and support mechanisms such as Positive Futures, Targeted Youth Support and the application of acceptable behaviour contracts.
The landlord did not handle the resident’s reports in line with its ASB policy. The first report was on 11 April 2022. This referred to loud noises from the neighbour’s child, who was also running up and down the stairs. On 16 April 2022, he reported that things would sometimes be thrown out of the neighbour’s window above. After these reports, the landlord should have acted according to its ASB policy by conducting an interview with the victim within 5 days. During this, it should have set expectations and advise him of any appropriate or available support services. Undertaking a risk assessment would have determined his PTSD to be a risk factor, and an individually tailored support pack of relevant information would have been appropriate. Given that these were the earliest reports made by the resident, the landlord could have tried intervening early, such as through meditation. It should have also agreed a suitable time period and process for updating the resident as to the progress of the ASB case.
The landlord did not take these steps. The first ASB report was not logged until 31 May 2022, and several more were logged during June, July and August 2022. It was not until 31 August 2022 that the landlord made a suggestion about installing more appropriate flooring, recording the noises, or a home visit. This was more than 4 months after the first report. The resident had to continually chase the landlord for updates, and was left to endure the living conditions created by his neighbour and her son. The lack of action from the landlord caused great distress to the resident at a time he was already vulnerable, and did not show that it was committed to resolving matters.
After this, there was little progress regarding the resident’s reports. The landlord had started offering alternative properties to the resident from August 2022. This was appropriate given his vulnerabilities and the nature of the noise from the neighbour’s son. However, the landlord promised to contact the neighbour after acknowledging the ASB report on 23 September 2022. There is no evidence that this was done. We would expect contact to have been made as promised and its ASB policy to have been followed. This includes reviewing the reports once a month. Instead, it asked the resident on 10 October 2022 if he wanted it to contact the neighbour. This was an unnecessary delay as the landlord had already set expectations that it would contact the neighbour. This also demonstrates that the resident’s reports were not being reviewed monthly. Had the reports been reviewed, the landlord would have seen what action it had promised previously.
ASB reports were made in November 2022 because of items being thrown out of the window of the neighbour’s flat, but the resident had to chase the landlord for an update in December 2022. He had not received an update nor an in-person visit that the landlord had previously offered. The only update from the landlord for which there is evidence is from 15 December 2022. It said it spoke to the neighbour and asked the resident to capture the neighbour’s noise on the noise app. The landlord had asked for noise recordings from the resident in August 2022, but these were not provided. It could have done more in this instance. As well as asking for noise recordings, it could have also complete an in-person visit. This is because some of the reported behaviours would not have been picked up by noise recordings, such as items being thrown out of windows. This was a new ASB report, and another opportunity for the landlord to follow its ASB policy, but it did not do this. Intervening through mediation would have been too late at this stage, as the relationship between neighbour and tenant had become strained. However, the landlord should have still conducted an interview with the resident within 5 days, and advised of any appropriate or available support services. As it had not completed a risk assessment, this was still necessary, as well as a support pack tailored to him.
The ASB report raised by the resident on 29 March 2023 was regarding harassment. The neighbour forced her way through the door, shouting and swearing at the resident and the police were contacted. Under the landlord’s ASB policy, this would be classed as an emergency and an interview with the resident should have followed within 24 hours. Mediation would not have been appropriate as it was likely that the relationship between resident and neighbour was unsalvageable. There was a clear need for the landlord to complete a risk assessment to determine the harm caused to the resident. He still would have benefitted from a tailored support package as well. However, it did not contact the resident until 18 April 2023. This was to confirm that it had tried to speak to the neighbour over the phone, but that she terminated its call. There is no evidence to show when the call attempt to the neighbour was made, or what the call was regarding. The resident had not been contacted by the landlord for 3 weeks after the harassment was reported. He was left with the uncertainty as to whether harassment could happen again. This emphasises that the landlord should have implemented its ASB policy much sooner. It’s failure to implement its ASB policy subjected the vulnerable resident to considerable distress.
From 12 May 2023 onwards, the landlord repeated its previous steps. It said it would try calling the neighbour and drafting a NOS. The landlord already attempted to telephone the resident, but this was unsuccessful as the resident hung up on it. Repeating these steps does not show that the landlord was learning from outcomes. Its ASB policy sets out the different ways it can approach ASB reports, such as through in person visits to the resident and neighbour. This would have been more appropriate considering that the repeated telephone calls were unsuccessful. There is also no evidence that the previous attempts to draft a NOS actually resulted in sending a NOS to the neighbour.
The landlord said that there were no funds or contractual obligation for soundproofing. However, this does not mean that it could not follow its own ASB policy, or take other precautions to attempt to reduce noise. Had it arranged an in-person visit early on and made an action plan, it could have identified other steps which may have reduced noise in the resident’s flat. This could include floor rugs to absorb a degree of the noise from the washing machine.
It is noted that the resident was not advised by the housing officer what he could do going forward after his initial ASB reports. They said it was not their responsibility and that they were receiving training in their new role. The landlord would have been aware that the housing officer was new to their role and may not have been experienced enough to deal with the resident’s concerns. Even if it was not the housing officer’s responsibility, they still had a duty to forward any issue raised by the resident to the relevant area. If there was anything they were unsure of, further support should have been provided. This is because it was directly affecting the resident, and the lack of action was making things worse for him.
The landlord did not pay due regard to the resident’s health issues nor the Equality Act 2010. His health issues meant that he had a disability under the Act. The landlord’s ASB policy includes undertaking a risk assessment of the reporter to determine any vulnerability or risk factors. This would have highlighted the resident’s health issues and given the landlord an opportunity to tailor its actions to reflect his needs. Given his health issues and the nature of the noise from the neighbour’s son, this could mean offering alternative properties to him sooner. However, these steps were not followed.
The landlord’s lack of action shows that it was not paying due regards to the HHSRS either. It says a landlord is required to consider if a noise problem amounts to a hazard that may require remedy. It was already aware through the resident’s complaint that the noise was a significant hazard, but itstill did not implement its ASB policy correctly.
As a result of the landlord’s failure to follow its ASB policy, it missed an opportunity to prevent the situation becoming worse. The resident was forced to move out as a result. His neighbour had interfered with his electric meter, and had tried to enter his property. He no longer felt safe. The landlord gave the neighbour a verbal warning about health and safety, but this was not sufficient. It was not just the lack of action from the landlord that caused distress to the resident, but it would have been inconvenient and distressing to have to relocate.
The landlord offered £2,050 compensation for its failings. This was not sufficient based on its own compensation policy at the time. We consider this to be a case with severe ASB failings, and a compensation amount of £2,000 per annum is appropriate. For the 21 months the resident was left in this situation, this equates to £3,500. The time and trouble spent by the resident was considerable over this period, and we agree with offering him the maximum £300 for this. This means that for its ASB failings, the landlord should offer the resident £3,800 compensation.

Letting out a property where the neighbour is known to have reports of noise complaints and ASB against them

Our noise spotlight report from October 2022 identified themes regarding property allocation processes amongst landlords. Point 16 of the report emphasises the importance of local authorities sharing certain information about individuals for the purposes of assessing suitability for a property. Given the history of the neighbour, the property should have been classified as a sensitive left, if it was to let at all, and prospective residents vetted for their suitability. The landlord was already aware of the noise from the neighbouring property, and the ASB reports. The spotlight report says that where possible, consideration should be given to previous complaints about noise when considering applications from households.
One of the landlord’s concerns is that it was not sure whether certain information about the neighbour and her son could be shared due to General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) implications. However, our spotlight report explained that not sharing information due to GDPR is a misinterpretation of the principles surrounding data sharing. Sharing information to better inform property allocations is a lawful basis for processing data and is therefore GDPR compliant.
It was confirmed that the previous resident of the ground floor flat left the property because of the noise, and that they had their bidding points reinstated. However, there was no consideration given to prior resident’s experience when allocation the property. It even said it was surprised to see the property available through the CBL scheme again. There was a possibility that the same issues would start all over again for the new resident, indicating that the landlord had not learned from previous experiences. We would therefore consider how the property was allocated to be a failing on the part of the landlord.
The resident wanted to know why certain information about the neighbour and her son was not shared with him directly. Though there may be issues sharing sensitive information about individuals to other individuals, it could have done more when it came to letting the property. Had it considered all the relevant information, it should have concluded that the property would not be appropriate for the resident. The landlord would have also been permitted to repeat what the neighbour yelled about her son at the time the property was viewed. This is because the neighbour put this information into the public domain in front of the landlord and viewers. By disregarding this information, the landlord allowed the resident to move into an environment not suitable for his needs.
The Ombudsman is satisfied that £500 compensation should be awarded for the landlord’s failings in allocating the property to the resident.

Complaint handling

The landlord’s complaints policy says that stage 1 complaints will be acknowledged within 3 working days, and investigated and responded to in 10 working days. If more time is needed, it needs to explain this to the resident and provide a new resolution date. If a resident requests a case to be escalated to stage 2 and it is accepted, the resident’s request will be acknowledged within 3 working days. It will then be resolved and responded to in 20 working days.
The resident raised his original complaint on 11 April 2022 but this was not acknowledged until 19 April 2022, beyond the 3-day acknowledgement period. It issued its stage 1 response on 4 May 2022, which was the date it set on 19 April 2022. It was necessary for the landlord to set a new response timescale as part of its complaint handling policy.
The delays at stage 2 were much longer. Though the landlord acknowledged the resident’s request to escalate within the 3 days, its stage 2 complaint response to the resident was not issued until 28 April 2023. This is almost a year after the resident’s request to escalate, well beyond 20 working days. Though the landlord would occasionally contact the resident regarding his reports of ASB, none of the communications was in relation to the complaint delays. There is no evidence that the landlord agreed new investigation timescales with him either. This shows a lack of monitoring by the complaints team, which is not compliant with our complaint handling principles.
There were also issues with the quality of the landlord’s complaint responses. Section 5.6 of the Complaint Handling Code in force at the time says that landlords must address all points raised in the complaint and provide clear reasons for any decisions, referencing the relevant policy, law and good practice where appropriate. The landlord’s stage 1 complaint response did not address the resident’s ASB reports. It provided incorrect information when it said the property was allocated prior to knowledge of any legal dispute. It said it provided information about moving to a different property, but did not expand on what this information was specifically. It would have been appropriate to include that same advice so the resident could refer to it when needed. The response did not reflect what the resident experienced up to that point and it was wrong for the landlord to reach a non-uphold outcome. This means it did not consider its compensation policy either, which trivialised the resident’s experiences.
The landlord’s stage 2 response went further in acknowledging its failures, but it did not correctly apply its compensation policy. This does not show that it considered the full impact its failings had on the resident. Though the letter acknowledged that it was inappropriate to allocate the property to the resident, it still did not address in detail the ASB failings. Instead, it said that the ongoing situation obviously caused a great deal of disruption and distress during an incredibly difficult period. The landlord should have shown that it considered its failings in implementing its ASB policy. This would convey that it had listened to all of the resident’s concerns. It would also provide assurance when it promises that it will learn from his experience to prevent a recurrence and improve its service.
The landlord had offered £250 to the resident for its late stage 2 response. This is sufficient for the delay, but not for the failing in the quality of the complaint responses at both stages. The Ombudsman is satisfied that a further £250 compensation for complaint handling failures should be paid to the resident.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was:
1. severe maladministration by the landlord in its handling of ASB against the neighbour.
2. maladministration by the landlord in its handling of letting out a property where the neighbour was known to have reports of noise complaints and ASB against them.
3. maladministration by the landlord in its handling of the complaint

Orders and recommendations

Orders

The Ombudsman orders that within 4 weeks of the date of this report, the landlord:
1. provides an apology to the resident, written by a senior member of staff, for the failings identified in this report.
2. pay compensation of £4,800, comprising:
  1. £3,800 for its handling of reports of noise complaints and anti-social behaviour (ASB) against the neighbour.
  2. £500 for its handling of letting out a property where the neighbour is known to have reports of noise complaints and ASB against them.
  3. £500 for its handling of the complaint
This replaces all of the landlord’s previous offers. This sum is to be paid without any deductions except for the £2,050 already mentioned if already paid.