Karbon Homes Limited (202206544)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202206544

Karbon Homes Limited

21 August 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 handling of reports of noise nuisance and antisocial behaviour (ASB) by his neighbour.
The Ombudsman has also considered the landlord’s complaint handling.

Background

The resident holds an assured (shorthold) tenancy with the landlord. The property is a ground-floor flat in a block. His neighbour lives directly above him.
In February 2022 the resident reported to the landlord that his neighbour was playing loud music, getting drunk and singing late into the night. He also raised concerns about the neighbour’s behaviour towards other residents in the block. The landlord subsequently opened an ASB case and sent a tenancy warning letter to the neighbour.
Throughout March 2022 the resident submitted noise recordings to the landlord of loud music, shouting and signing. The landlord carried out a home visit to his neighbour where they agreed to sign an acceptable behaviour agreement (ABA). The resident continued to submit noise recordings to the landlord between April and June 2022.
On 23 June 2022 the resident raised a formal complaint with the landlord. He said that he disagreed with the officer’s assessment of the noise recordings and stated that the noise issues were louder and more frequent.
Throughout July 2022 the resident submitted further noise recordings to the landlord relating to TV noise, loud music, and verbal abuse from his neighbour. The landlord arranged another home visit and issued the neighbour with a further tenancy warning letter. The landlord also offered to install noise equipment in the resident’s property.
On 5 August 2022 the landlord responded to the resident’s complaint at stage 1 of its complaints process. In summary, the response said:
1. It had not actioned the resident’s original complaint in a timely manner. It apologised for the delay and offered £100 compensation.
2. There was an open ASB case, and the landlord was in regular contact with the resident and his neighbour.
3. After reviewing his recordings, some of the evidence had warranted further investigation which led to delays in providing an update and it apologised for this.
4. It did not deem some of the recordings to constitute ASB and officers explained the reasons behind these instances, and it was unable to act without direct evidence.
5. It had worked closely with the Police where necessary.
6. Where there was corroborated evidence, it had challenged his neighbour and taken reasonable and proportionate action.
7. There were technical issues with the resident’s most recent noise recordings submissions where he did not receive an acknowledgement message. It apologised for this but stated that the recordings had been actioned correctly and in a timely manner.
The resident asked the landlord to escalate his complaint the same day. He disagreed with the ‘whole’ handling of the case and was unhappy with the delayed response to his complaint. He said that his neighbour had signed an agreement to be quiet which he had not kept to and felt that they had been given enough warnings. He questioned why his video evidence submitted was deemed insufficient. The resident also said he was unhappy with the amount of compensation offered and as a resolution to his complaint, he said he wanted a rent rebate of £2,000 or to be moved.
On 19 August 2022 the landlord issued its final response. It repeated its position from its stage 1 response. In addition, it said:
1. That it was arranging to install noise equipment in the resident’s property as the next part of its investigation.
2. That it would not support a managed move, but it would provide a supporting letter to help the resident with a move to another landlord.
3. It did not consider his request for compensation to be appropriate.
4. It accepted that had been a distressing time for the resident and would continue to act upon any evidence received.
In the resident’s complaint to the Ombudsman, he said the issues with his neighbour had worsened. He said that the landlord did not act on the noise recordings and questioned why the landlord could not hear the recordings properly. He was unhappy with the amount of compensation offered and that the landlord would not consider moving him. The resident has recently informed this service that the noise issues are still ongoing.

Assessment and findings

The landlord’s handling of reports of noise nuisance and antisocial behaviour (ASB) by a neighbour

When investigating a complaint, the Ombudsman applies its Dispute Resolution Principles. These are high level good practice guidance developed from the Ombudsman’s experience of resolving disputes, for use by everyone involved in the complaints process. There are only three principles driving effective dispute resolution:

a. Be fair – treat people fairly and follow fair processes;

b. Put things right, and;

c. Learn from outcomes.

The Ombudsman must first consider whether a failing on the part of the landlord occurred, and if so, whether this led to any adverse effect or detriment to the resident. If it is found that a failing did lead to an adverse effect, the investigation will then consider whether the landlord has taken enough action to ‘put things right’ and ‘learn from outcomes’.
When assessing complaints about the landlord’s handling of reports of noise nuisance and ASB the Ombudsman’s role is to assess whether the landlord has adequately investigated the reported issues and taken appropriate and proportionate action in line with its policies and procedures.
The landlord has a responsibility to respond to reports of ASB made by its residents within a reasonable timescale. The landlord’s ASB policy states that it will carry out an assessment of all ASB reports at the earliest opportunity. This will include an assessment of the individual needs of the victim and the risk of harm using a risk assessment. Following the resident’s report of noise nuisance in February 2022, the landlord acted fairly and reasonably by opening an ASB case, reviewing the submitted noise recordings and carrying out a risk assessment on the resident within a reasonable timescale.
The landlord also wrote to the resident with an action plan letter, which included details of how to report and record incidents of noise nuisance, along with diary sheets and information on its ‘iwitness’ (independent witness) scheme. Further, the landlord took proportionate steps to try and address the noise nuisance by issuing his neighbour with a tenancy warning letter at the beginning of March 2022, having reviewed the noise recordings. The landlord acted fairly in this regard and in line with its ASB policy which states that it will implement action which is appropriate and proportionate against those who commit ASB and nuisance.
Following further reports of noise nuisance from the resident, the landlord took appropriate action by arranging a home visit to his neighbour to discuss the allegations. At the home visit, the neighbour agreed to sign an ABA. Two of the conditions stated that they would not cause excessive noise or act in a way that would cause harassment alarm or distress to other residents. The Ombudsman considers this was a reasonable and proportionate response to the resident’s concerns and showed that the landlord was trying to resolve the issues using the tools available to it. Furthermore, it continued to act in line with its policy which states that it will take action against perpetrators of ASB which is both reasonable and proportionate and includes ABA’s as a possible non-legal option.
The resident continued to submit noise recordings to the landlord. Its records showed that the recordings were reviewed within a reasonable timescale. The landlord’s records also highlighted it considered that a lot of the recordings did not constitute unreasonable or excessive noise or were inconclusive. The Ombudsman acknowledges that the resident disputes the landlord’s assessment of these recordings, however, the landlord’s records indicated that the recordings were reviewed by other staff members who came to the same conclusion. Given the resident’s concerns, the landlord acted fairly by requesting other staff members to review the noise recordings.
During this period, the resident also reported to the landlord that he believed the neighbour had damaged his vehicle and had turnedeveryone’s electrics off. Although the landlord was unable to substantiate these allegations, it responded to the report promptly and arranged a home visit to the neighbour to discuss the allegations. This was a reasonable response.
Following the submission of further noise recordings from the resident in July 2022 the landlord assessed the noise nuisance to be ‘borderline’ and informed the resident that it would not be at a level where it would be able to take any action against his neighbour and asked the resident if he would be agreeable to installing noise monitoring equipment in his property. The resident agreed to this and was put on a waiting list. Given that the noise issues remained, and the landlord deemed the evidence to be inconclusive, this was a reasonable approach to take.
The landlord also informed the resident that it was in dialogue with the Police and that they had arranged to visit his neighbour also. Although there was no evidence of any Police action following their visit, the landlord acted reasonably by taking a multi-agency approach. This was also in line with its ASB policy which states that it will work in partnership with key stakeholders such as the Police when investigating ASB.
Towards the end of July 2022, the resident provided video footage of the neighbour shouting abuse at him. The landlord responded promptly and confirmed that it could hear what was being said and that it would take appropriate action based on the footage. The same day the landlord wrote to the neighbour with a tenancy warning which stated that the behaviour was a clear breach of tenancy. The landlord acted promptly and took proportionate action based on the resident’s report.
The resident continued to submit further noise recordings during July and August 2022. The landlord assessed these within a reasonable timescale and found that on a few occasions, the recordings had identified excessive noise. The landlord communicated its findings with the resident within a reasonable timescale and advised him that appropriate action would be taken. The landlord subsequently wrote to the neighbour with a further tenancy warning letter and a breach warning of his ABA. Given the evidence available to the landlord, this was an appropriate action to take.
The landlord’s final response stated that it would continue to act upon any evidence received. The Ombudsman has seen evidence that following reports from the resident from November 2022 onwards, the landlord installed noise equipment in his property and subsequently issued the neighbour with a notice of seeking possession for several breaches of tenancy. The landlord has continued to assess the evidence received from the resident and taken appropriate enforcement action in line with its ASB policy. This includes possession proceedings as an available option to it. Given the circumstances and the continued use of non-legal remedies, it was reasonable for the landlord to consider legal action by issuing a notice.
In response to the resident’s request to move the landlord informed him that it would not support a managed move to another property and that it had provided a supporting letter to the local authority explaining the situation. The landlord acted in line with ASB policy in this regard, which states that it will not move victims, witnesses or perpetrators involved in an active ASB case to resolve disputes and will offer support for re-housing through the relevant local authority. The landlord’s response explained its position clearly and provided supporting evidence to help facilitate a move.
The Ombudsman does not underestimate the distress this situation would have caused to the resident, and it is clear that the ASB has had a significant impact on him. However, based on the evidence available to this service, the landlord has appropriately sought to manage the reported ASB using the tools available to it. The Ombudsman also acknowledges that landlords would have to show to a court that it has taken all reasonable steps to try and resolve the situation before pursuing legal action. Overall, the landlord took reasonable actions in response to the resident’s reports of ASB, which were proportionate and timely in the circumstances. It should also be noted as good practice that the landlord consistently re-assessed the risk to the resident. This was evidenced by regular risk assessments.
However, the Ombudsman has identified some shortcomings in relation to the landlord’s handling of the resident reports. It was notable, throughout the complaint, that the landlord was reluctant to inform the resident of what action it was taking against his neighbour. At one point it stated that it could not ‘divulge what that action would be’. This was unhelpful and would have undermined trust in the landlord and tenant relationship. The landlord should have informed the resident of the actions it was taking. This would have reassured him that it was taking his concerns seriously and helped manage his expectations.
Further, it was unclear why the landlord did not canvass other residents in the block. The resident mentioned that the behaviour from the neighbour had previously upset other residents and that one of the reported incidents was witnessed by two neighbours. It would have been reasonable to conclude that given the reports of excessively loud noise, other residents may have witnessed the alleged behaviour. The Ombudsman considers this was a missed opportunity for the landlord to corroborate his reports at the earliest stage. Instead, the landlord put the onus on the resident to apply for its independent witness scheme. While this was a shortcoming that showed a lack of lateral thinking from the landlord, the Ombudsman cannot be certain that if it had taken this action, it would have changed the overall outcome for the resident.
While in the Ombudsman’s opinion, these shortcomings do not amount to service failure or maladministration on the part of the landlord, this service has identified actions the landlord can take to improve how it responds to the resident’s reports of noise nuisance and ASB. These actions are set out as recommendations below.

The landlord’s complaint handling

The Ombudsman has also considered the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint. In doing so, this service notes that it took the landlord over one month to respond to the resident at stage 1. This was not in line with the landlord’s complaints policy which indicated that at stage 1, the landlord will respond within 5 working days. The subsequent delay led to the resident contacting the Ombudsman for assistance in obtaining a response. This was an avoidable delay that would have caused distress and inconvenience to the resident.
While the landlord’s approach was contrary to its usual procedure, it did provide an explanation for the delay and apologised. Additionally, it made an offer of compensation (£100) in recognition. The Ombudsman’s remedies guidance suggests that compensation between £50 – £100 should be considered where there is a failure which caused distress and inconvenience to the resident. The landlord therefore made an offer which was in accordance with this service’s guidance and in the Ombudsman’s opinion, proportionately reflected the level of detriment. The landlord’s offer of redress was satisfactory in putting matters right.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration in the landlord’s handling of reports of noise nuisance and antisocial behaviour (ASB) by his neighbour.
In accordance with paragraph 53(b) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the landlord offered redress to the resident prior to investigation which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, resolves the landlord’s handling of the complaint satisfactorily.

Recommendations

It is recommended that the landlord considers canvassing witnesses following any further reports of persistent noise nuisance or ASB.
It is recommended that the landlord keep the resident updated on any actions it is taking to try and resolve the resident’s reports.
It is recommended that the landlord read the Ombudsman’s spotlight report on noise complaints and assess itself against it.
It is recommended that the landlord review its complaint handling procedures to ensure they are in line with the Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code and identify any training needs.