Leeds City Council (202006116)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202006116

Leeds City Council

4 January 2022


Our approach

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

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

The complaint

  1. The landlord’s handling of antisocial behaviour (ASB) reports (noise nuisance).
  2. The landlord’s response to reports that the neighbour breached Covid-19 restrictions.

Background and summary of events

Background

  1. The resident is a secure tenant of a 2-bedroom flat on the 7th floor of a multistorey block.
  2. The landlord’s ASB policy notes in relation to noise nuisance, following reports it will consider diary sheets, speak to the alleged perpetrator, work with its out of hours team to corroborate reports, work with other external organisations who may need to take the lead as the most appropriate agency to deal with the issue, offer mediation if appropriate. It will issue verbal or written warnings but notes whilst loud music and parties may constitute a nuisance the time between occurrences will be considered. It notes a case will be closed when it has taken all reasonable steps to investigate a complaint and has not been able to substantiate a statutory or other nuisance.
  3. The Ombudsman notes that the resident complained on 18 September 2019 and the landlord responded at stage 1 on 24 September. It noted that other residents had also complained and an ASB case had been opened and it would be providing diary sheets. It explained it had spoken with the neighbour, and other residents had since advised the noise had reduced. It explained it would not evict a resident based on noise nuisance but would look at other tenancy action if necessary, following the outcome of investigations which were ongoing.
  4. The Ombudsman notes that the resident did not escalate the complaint, but the diary sheet note on 1 October there had been shouting from the neighbour’s property in the late hours/ early morning for approximately 30 minutes and on 1 November the same for approximately 20 minutes. There are then no further reports. As the resident did not escalate these issues, the Ombudsman has considered the landlords actions in relation to more recent reports

Summary of events

  1. On 25 February 2020, the resident reported that his neighbour had had friends at the property causing noise nuisance when they left the property by slamming both the neighbour’s and fire door, being drunk and making noise in the communal areas. He noted he was afraid to approach the individuals.
  2. The landlord’s records evident that it discussed the report with the neighbour and a verbal warning was provided, with a referral made to Leeds Anti-Social Behaviour Team (LASBT). In March, it contacted the resident to further investigate the matter but was unable to reach the resident. The resident later sought an update and the landlord requested he discuss the matter with the housing officer. Following discussions with the resident, the landlord sent letters to all residents reminding them of their responsibilities around noise nuisance and providing out of hours contact information. As there was inconclusive evidence on the matter and no further reports had been received the case was closed in June 2020.
  3. On 16 August, the resident reported that the previous day, his neighbour had broken lockdown restrictions by having a large number of guests (up to 40 at one point) at his property from mid-afternoon until late at night. He stated there was loud music which he could hear in his property and guests had also congregated in the communal areas, without masks and when he did not allow an individual to enter the lift (due to single households being allowed in the lift at any one time), the individual became aggressive.
  4. The resident reported the alleged breach to the police and a reference number was provided. The Ombudsman cannot see that any further action was taken by the police.
  5. The evidence on file shows the landlord contacted the neighbour on 18 August to investigate the matter and a referral to LASBT was made and an ASB case opened. As there were no other reports from other residents a verbal warning was given.
  6. On 19 August, the resident sought an update on the action the landlord was taking in relation to the issues reported.
  7. On 20 August, the landlord updated the resident. It explained it had spoken with the neighbour who understood the gathering was unacceptable and advised he would not repeat the situation, including allowing guest being in communal areas and had reminded him of the Covid-19 rules. It noted it had opened an ASB case should any further incidents occur. It explained it was unable to enforce wearing masks as it was a personal choice, but the resident could report any concerns to 101 or the police. It explained it would write to all residents about noise nuisance.
  8. The landlord also advised that keeping a noise nuisance diary to track the time and dates of incidents, alongside calling its out of hours noise nuisance team so the noise could be witnessed by LASBT, would allow it to use the evidence to further substantiate cases. It advised so far there had been insufficient evidence to take further action.
  9. On 26 August, the landlord noted that ASB cases had been opened for the reported incidents and following investigations they were closed due to insufficient evidence. It explained cases would also be closed where a sufficient time had passed between complaints. It explained it had had conversations with the neighbour about the reports and investigations included speaking with witnesses and perpetrators in order to build a case, however in these instances there had been insufficient evidence. It reiterated its advise about diary sheets and reports to its out of hours team.
  10. On 2 September, the resident formally complained seeking clarification on the actions the landlord had taken following his complaints.
  11. On 17 September, the landlord provided its stage 1 response. It noted it had provided details of the action taken in its email dated 26 August. It explained that in relation to the February 2020 incident, it had spoken with the neighbour, sent letters to all residents, and as no further reports had been made by any resident, it was deemed there was not a continuous problem, and the case was closed in June.
  12. It explained that Covid-19 breaches were the responsibility of the police, but it had investigated the matter by speaking with the neighbour who had acknowledged the situation and advised it would not reoccur. It explained it had received no reports from other neighbours so was limited to the action it could take and as there were no further reports in the month, the case would be closed as it was not classified as a pattern of continuous behaviour. It explained the evidence needed to support more formal action, but that mediation may be appropriate. It advised the resident to report any further incidents and it would consider what action could be taken.
  13. On 20 September the resident escalated the complaint noting that on 12 September the neighbour had had another large gathering and he had video footage and would provide this to the landlord. He noted the landlord had not detailed the action it had taken in relation to his complaints.
  14. Internal records show that in October, the landlord noted no further reports had been received from other residents, but it had liaised with the resident in order to consider the video footage supplied by the resident and liaised with the police in order to consider further action. It also provided a written warning to the neighbour. The police advised that any Covid-19 breaches needed to be reported to the police at the time and it had no records of the September incident and as such no further action would be taken.
  15. On 28 October, the landlord provided its stage 2 response. It apologised that the resident had experienced any noise nuisance and referred to the action taken as per its stage 1 response. It reiterated that it had no direct powers to enforce compliance with government guidelines and following liaison with the police and out of hours team it had been advised the second incident had not been reported. It explained both it and the police had viewed the video footage and a decision had been taken that there were insufficient grounds to justify further action. It noted it had however discussed the incident with the neighbour and the police had agreed to update the incident on its database, so consideration could be given to it if further incidents occurred, which would lead to enforcement action. It reiterated that Covid-19 breaches be reported to both the police and its ASB team, and whilst no further action could be taken, it did not consider the neighbour’s behaviour acceptable and would continue supporting the resident should he require.

Assessment and findings

  1. Following the reports of ASB the landlord considered this and in line with its ASB policy, spoke with the resident, interviewed the neighbour providing a verbal warning and liaised with the police.
  2. It is clear that in order for a landlord to take more formal action it needs to have supporting evidence such as corroborated accounts. Following the resident’s reports, no other reports were received from other residents. As such the landlord was limited in the action it could take. It was reasonable however that the landlord provided a letter to all residents reminding them of their responsibilities in relation to noise nuisance and how they could report issues.
  3. Following the resident’s reports in February, no further issues were reported, and it was reasonable that the landlord close the case 4 months later.
  4. In relation to the August incident, the resident’s reports, whilst noting noise nuisance referred specifically to the breach of government guidelines. In any event, the landlord again considered the reports and spoke with the neighbour, providing a further warning. Whilst this was reasonable, the landlord was correct to advise that it was unable to enforce government guideline breaches and for the resident to report matters to the police.
  5. Whilst the resident reported the August incident to the police, no further action was taken. The Ombudsman would expect the landlord to take guidance from the police on the matter and given that it was not taking action, the landlord was limited in what it could do. Additionally, as the resident did not report the subsequent breach to the police at the time, the police advised it would not consider retrospective action.
  6. The Ombudsman is satisfied that the landlord considered the reports made, liaised with the police who were the main lead on the issue and as such was limited in any action it could take. It did however request that the police record the incident in order to refer to it should any further issues occur. This was reasonable and in line with its policy.

Determination (decision)

  1. In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration in the landlord’s handing of the resident’s reports of ASB.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration in the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports that the neighbour breached Covid-19 restrictions.

Reasons

  1. The landlord considered the resident’s report, discussed the matter with the neighbour, provided a warning and as there were no further reports to corroborate the allegation or further incidents, appropriately closed the complaint.
  2. The landlord liaised with the police who were the relevant body to consider Covid-19 breaches and whilst it advised it would not be taking any further action, it verbally warned the neighbour and subsequently provided a written warning.