Leeds City Council (202014700)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202014700

Leeds City Council

31 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

This complaint is about the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports and concerns about noise-related anti-social behaviour (‘ASB’) by a neighbour.

Background and summary of events

The resident is a leaseholder of a flat within a block managed by the landlord.

Policies, procedures, and agreements

ASB Policy:

The sets out the landlord’s general approach to dealing with ASB. It states that it aims to tackle ASB ‘at the earliest opportunity through a tiered approach of prevention, enforcement and support’. It states it will progress casework ‘quickly and efficiently’ and it recognises the importance of managing expectations from the outset through a timely, sensitive and professional response.
It states that the ASB case officer will be advised by a senior manager or supervisor as to whether reported problems might be resolved using interventions and/or warnings or whether enforcement action may be necessary. It recognises that some types of neighbour disputes may be better handled by its housing team (rather than the ASB team) through tenancy management actions.

ASB Procedures:

This sets out in more detail the landlord’s practical plan for how it deals with ASB that cannot be reasonably resolved through tenancy management, or mediation. This includes (but is not limited to) ASB such as harassment, threats of violence and/or intimidation, verbal abuse, and persistent domestic noise nuisance.
It sets out the general timeframes for actions and the steps it takes when investigating ASB reports and gathering evidence, including the use of Noise Monitoring Equipment.
It states that day to day living noise such as shouting, loud voices, banging doors, footsteps, and children playing, is unlikely to be considered statutory nuisance.
Where the evidence does not support the instigation of formal action, it will encourage the parties to consider mediation to help resolve their noise issues.

Summary of events

The resident has said that a new neighbour (‘Tenant A’) moved into the flat below her in summer 2018. The resident has given some brief details about the initial problems she had with Tenant A in terms of her behaviour which started to get worse around October 2018. The resident has said that she tried to manage this herself by trying to engage with Tenant A and without involving the landlord.
According to the resident she did not involve the landlord formally until April 2019. The landlord’s records show that on 28 April 2019 there was a report of loud music, shouting and screaming from Tenant A’s flat.
The landlord opened an ASB case at this time and it wrote to Tenant A on 3 May 2019 about the ASB report. It arranged to interview Tenant A on 14 May. Tenant A did not attend this interview and the landlord wrote to her again on 15 May 2019 and arranged another interview for 30 May 2019.
The landlord interviewed Tenant A on 30 May 2019. The notes show that Tenant A denied the allegations of noise and made counter allegations against the resident about her behaviour, e.g. banging on the floor and swearing at her. Tenant A said she was willing to try mediation and she wanted noise monitoring equipment to be installed as she believed the allegations were false. Tenant A accepted that her young child may be noisy at times but said that was to be expected. The case officer was satisfied that no further action was needed and Tenant A was reminded of the need to be mindful about noise.
The landlord updated the resident on 4 June 2019 and explained that as Tenant A had denied the allegations, and there was no independent evidence to corroborate the noise disturbance, it could not take any further action at this time.
Following further reports of noise disturbances the case officer requested that noise monitoring equipment (‘NME’) be installed at the resident’s flat. The request was made on 28 June 2019. The records show that this request was declined by the ASB team as there was not enough evidence obtained by the case officer to justify NME at this stage and other actions needed to be done first.
The internal correspondence shows that the case officer had not collated sufficient diary notes, and further steps should be done first, such as trying to witness the noise (if reported during the daytime); doing a door knock exercise to see if other neighbours have witnessed anything; and liaising with the Police.
On 8 July 2019 the landlord wrote to other flats in the block asking if anyone else had witnessed noise disturbances or other ASB. The records show that it had also requested information from the Police about any call-outs. The case was reviewed on 12 July 2019 and NME was authorised. The NME was installed on 15 July 2019 and was removed on 24 July 2019.
The NME analysis report dated 31 July 2019 showed that there was an issue of noise transference between the properties, and that because the resident’s flat was often in silence, any little noise being made in neighbouring properties was more likely to be heard. The music that could be heard was noted as not being ‘overly excessive’ but could be described as a disturbance if it occurred late at night. It also noted that the creaking of a door from the neighbour’s property could be heard in the resident’s flat, and if noises such as this could be heard clearly then it was likely that other noise such as music, talking, doors being closed will be heard too. The report concluded that tenants would have to accept they would have to live with some level of noise transference. The report also suggested that the landlord could consider other measures to try and limit the impact of the noise transference, such as carpets, curtains, and door closers on cupboards.
The report did pick up on one incident where Tenant A and her partner were having a loud argument late at night, which it said would warrant further investigation. On 8 August 2019 the landlord wrote to Tenant A to set up another interview about the NME findings and the late night arguing. An interview was arranged for 21 August 2019. The landlord also updated the resident.
Tenant A failed to attend the interview so the landlord wrote to her on 22 August 2019 and set up another interview for 11 September 2019. It said that failure to attend this interview may result in the tenancy being at risk.
There are no records to confirm if Tenant A attended the interview on 11 September 2019. The available records around this time refer to Tenant A having possibly abandoned her flat. The landlord eventually spoke to Tenant A on 14 October 2019 and it was confirmed that she had split with her partner and she was now back at the flat. Tenant A made counter-allegations against the resident for banging on the floor and she said this was affecting her mental health. She maintained that she was not being loud or noisy and she did not understand why the resident was continuously complaining about her. She did however agree that she needed external support to try and maintain her tenancy. She agreed to be more mindful and considerate of her neighbours.
The landlord updated the resident on 15 October 2019 and asked her to continue to provide diary sheets and it said it would be liaising with the other neighbours to see if there was further corroborating evidence of disturbances in order to try and build a case against Tenant A.
On 22 October 2019 the resident reported a domestic disturbance involving Tenant A which was attended by the Police. She said she had recorded the incident on her phone. The landlord wrote to Tenant A and arranged an interview for 5 November 2019.
The notes of the interview with Tenant A on 5 November 2019 showed that she vehemently denied the allegations of noise disturbances and she became ‘extremely agitated’ and threatened to ‘do something about upstairs’. She said that she felt the resident was targeting her and she alleged that the resident was taking photos of her and her child. The landlord again reminded Tenant A of the need to be considerate of her neighbours.
The landlord updated the resident the next day and explained that it needed more independent evidence in order to take any further action. It was agreed that NME would be requested again and it would follow up with the other neighbours.
The landlord’s records show that it received diary sheets from another neighbour reporting noise from Tenant A’s flat and it also carried out another letter drop to the other neighbours. It also contacted the Police again for more information.
The landlord visited Tenant A on 26 November 2019 to interview her, but she was not at home.
On 1 December 2019 the landlord’s records noted that another tenant had reported loud music coming from Tenant A’s flat and that he saw the resident banging on her door crying and pleading with her to keep the music down. This neighbour had to then intervene and calm the resident down as he said she had become ‘hysterical’.
Following an email from the resident and her Councillor the next day, the landlord’s internal emails show it was concerned about the resident’s welfare and her mental health given some of her comments about self-harm. The notes show that the landlord contacted the Police for advice and for a ‘welfare check’ to be done on her. Based upon the Police advice, the landlord rang for an ambulance to attend. A safeguarding referral was also made to Social Services to provide support to the resident.
The landlord updated the resident on 3 December 2019 and acknowledged that the present situation was clearly adversely affecting her life. It said that it needed to get the out of hours noise team to witness the disturbances and it stressed that the resident would need to call the out of hours team as soon as any disturbance occurs and also the Police if, for example, there is shouting and arguing. It said it was liaising with the Police to see if there was anything they could add to the ASB case. It also said that it would try the NME again, but there was a slight delay with installing the NME.
The landlord spoke to the NME team and the previous findings were discussed and it was agreed that there was not enough to warrant formal action as it was mostly general living noise and transference issues. It was however agreed that NME could be installed again.
The landlord records show that it liaised with other external agencies to offer the resident additional support. It also spoke to Tenant A about the 1 December incident and she said that she was not at home that day. The landlord also spoke to the neighbour who had helped the resident and he said he was prepared to give a witness statement about the incident, but he would not attend court.
On 3 December 2019 along with the NME request, the landlord also requested that the case be transferred to the specialist ASB team for further investigation.
The landlord also updated the resident’s Councillor and explained that it needed the resident to get the out of hours noise team involved, and she had so far been reluctant to do so. It said it needed independent evidence of the noise in order to progress her case against Tenant A. It explained the actions it had taken so far, and that without independent evidence, such as that provided by the out of hours team, it could not take formal action. It said it would continue to work with all the tenants and the Police to try and build a case.
The landlord arranged to interview Tenant A again on 11 December 2019, but she failed to attend the interview. On 16 December 2019 the landlord then issued Tenant A with a formal ‘First tenancy warning’ letter.
The NME was installed again on 20 December 2019 and was removed on 3 January 2020. On 8 January 2020 the ASB team confirmed that the recordings had been downloaded and would be reviewed soon.
On 13 January 2020 the landlord’s records show further reports of shouting, arguing and raised voices from Tenant A’s flat.
The ASB team provided its analysis of the noise recordings on 13 January 2020. It said that the recordings didn’t show any statutory nuisance and it was not enough to warrant an abatement notice. It suggested that the matter should be dealt with via tenancy management rather than enforcement.
The landlord updated the resident and her Councillor of the NME findings. It also explained that the Police had confirmed that they had attended to domestic incidents the resident had reported, and they had noted that there had been no signs of an offence, the domestic was denied, and there were no signs of a fight or distress. Given the lack of independent evidence, it said it would continue to try and work with Tenant A to resolve the issues. It arranged to interview Tenant A again on 22 January 2020 and it also suggested that the resident should consider mediation again. The resident was unwilling to enter mediation due to her concerns about Tenant A’s partner’s aggressive nature.
The notes of the interview with Tenant A on 22 January 2020 show that she denied the allegations of noise disturbance and reiterated that she felt the resident was targeting her unreasonably.
After the interview the landlord suggested that it could carry out a noise transference test and that it would need to speak to the resident about the counter-allegations made by Tenant A about the resident harassing her. After further correspondence with the resident, it was agreed that a noise transference test would be done on 7 February 2020 at both flats.
The findings of the transference test showed that general noise, such as the TV and music could be heard at both flats even when played at a reasonable level. It was agreed by both parties what constituted a reasonable volume and that both parties had to be mindful of noise and work together to address any issues.
The resident logged a formal complaint with the landlord on 7 February 2020. She explained the background to the present situation and felt that the landlord, in particular the case officers, had not been supportive and/or empathetic towards her situation. She failed to see why the landlord could not take action against Tenant A given the amount of evidence that had been provided. She said that she felt that one of the case officers was ‘very rude, patronising and a bully’ and was trying to force her to accept mediation. She was also unhappy that an ambulance had been called to her flat and they had nearly broken into her flat as she was not opening the door. She felt that the landlord was being overzealous.
The landlord acknowledged the complaint on 10 February 2020. Correspondence at this time showed that the resident was prepared to consider mediation as long as Tenant A was in a different room.
The sound transference test results were confirmed on 25 February 2020 and it was concluded that ‘the majority of noise heard would be deemed ‘general household noise’.
The landlord’s correspondence with the Police at this time confirmed that there was no independent evidence to support further action being taken. The resident was informed of this on 3 March 2020 and the landlord explained that the out of hours team had been unable to witness any noise disturbances.
A further request was made by the case officer on 5 March 2020 for the case to be transferred to the ASB team for further investigation.
The landlord issued its Stage 1 complaint response on 6 March 2020:
1. It apologised for the delay in the complaint response (partly due to leave).
2. It said it had reviewed the handling of the ASB case from May 2019 and the outcome ‘was mixed’. The case was started correctly, but from June onwards ‘I feel the case could have been dealt with much quicker than it has’.
3. It noted that it had left it too long before serving the first warning letter in December 2019 and this should have been done sooner. It acknowledged that there had been three case officers involved with this case which had caused issues with consistency. It said it could have brought in external agencies at an earlier stage to help manage the situation better, and some of its actions had delayed the case.
4. However, there had been positives, in that it installed NME on two occasions, completed two letter drops/door knocking exercises to gather further intelligence and offered mediation both at the start of the case and recently.
5. It was satisfied that the latest case officer had handled the case appropriately and efficiently and had arranged for external support to both the resident and Tenant A.
6. It explained its position with regards to the NME results and it reiterated that it did not show any statutory nuisance and that some level of general living noise between neighbouring properties was unavoidable.
7. It partly upheld the complaint on the basis that the early handling of the case could have been better.
8. With regards to the safeguarding call to the ambulance service, it explained that this was done with the best intentions and was as part of the duty of care it owed to all its tenants.
On 30 March 2020 the resident reported that Tenant A’s partner was banging on her door complaining about the level of music from the resident’s flat. She said she called the Police as she felt threatened.
On 3 April 2020 the resident requested that her complaint be escalated. She said that the landlord had not taken into consideration the impact on her mental health and that it had dismissed all the evidence provided to date and was trying to force her into mediation, which she felt was an unsatisfactory resolution. She also said that the loud noise from Tenant A’s flat had contributed towards her hearing loss.
On 9 April 2020 the resident reported that Tenant A’s partner had poured a bucket of water over her as she was entering the communal area. She said she had reported it to the Police.
On 11 April 2020 the landlord’s records show that another neighbour had reported that Tenant A had been verbally abusive to the resident.
On 21 April 2020 the landlord confirmed that the ASB team would now take over the handling of her case.
On 4 May 2020 the landlord issued Tenant A with another ‘First tenancy warning’ letter.
The landlord issued its Stage 2 final complaint response on 13 May 2020:
1. It confirmed that the review was done by an independent manager not linked to the team that dealt with the ASB case and it apologised for the delay in its response, which it said was due to COVID 19 issues.
2. It confirmed that the ASB team had taken over the case.
3. It reconfirmed the Stage 1 findings that the early part of the ASB case could have been handled better and it said that staff had since been given appropriate guidance on actions that can be taken to avoid a repetition of this in the future, where supporting evidence was limited.
4. It apologised if the resident felt that its officers were perceived to be uncaring or lacked understanding of how matters were negatively impacting upon her health and wellbeing. It also maintained that the safeguarding check was done with the best of intentions.
5. As for the present position, it had interviewed Tenant A and her partner about the recent incidents and it had also secured a witness statement to support the case and a further tenancy warning was then issued to Tenant A. It said that given the time that had elapsed since the last warning letter, this was an appropriate step to take.
6. The landlord had reminded the resident of the need to involve the out of hours service to witness any noise disruption, and it had also arranged for additional patrols to be carried out.
7. It said that due to the current COVID 19 restrictions it was limited in what further action it could take at this time, but the case was being monitored and it encouraged the resident to continue to report issues to the landlord and to the out of hours team.
8. It concluded that the complaint remained partially ‘upheld’ as a result of the service failings identified in its Stage 1 response and it apologised for this.
The Ombudsman understands that following further reports of Tenant A banging on the resident’s door, she was issued with a ‘Second tenancy warning’ letter on 1 June 2020.
On 11 June 2020 the landlord spoke to the resident and explained why, despite the second tenancy warning letter being issued, it was not proportionate to seek an injunction at this stage. It said that the resident could seek her own legal injunction if she wished, which the resident said she was considering.
The Ombudsman understands that sometime in September 2020 Tenant A moved out of her flat. The landlord confirmed in November 2020 that as the ASB had ceased (as Tenant A was no longer at the flat) there was nothing more for the landlord to do. It had started its property abandonment process and said it could look at re-opening the case if Tenant A ever returned.
The correspondence between the landlord and the resident in early February 2021 refers to Tenant A’s flat having been abandoned and boarded up. The resident was however still anxious that Tenant A may return and was unhappy that the landlord could not confirm the exact position with regards to Tenant A’s tenancy and whether or not she would be returning to the property.
The resident referred her complaint to this Service on 24 February 2021.

Assessment and findings

This report will focus on the landlord’s handling of the ASB reports from April 2019 up until the Stage 2 final complaint response on 13 May 2020.
It is clear from the resident’s submissions that she has been distressed by the ongoing dispute with her neighbour and she was clearly angry and frustrated about the landlord’s handling of the matter and what she felt was its lack of empathy and compassion. The resident’s feelings are acknowledged, and the Ombudsman accepts that dealing with such situations on an everyday basis would no doubt have been stressful for the resident.
However, it must be made clear that the purpose of this report is not to investigate the actual ASB itself, or Tenant A’s actions, or to assess the credibility of the reports made by the resident. The Ombudsman’s role is to consider the landlord’s response to the reports it received, and to the formal complaint, and consider whether its response was reasonable in all the circumstances of the case, and in accordance with its policies and its obligations to the resident.
With regards to the resident’s comments about the impact of the ASB on her hearing and her mental health, this has been duly noted. However, it is beyond the remit of the Ombudsman to reasonably determine a causal link between the landlord’s actions (or lack of) and the deterioration of the resident’s health. The Ombudsman has therefore made no comments in relation to this, and should the resident wish to pursue this matter, she would need to obtain her own legal and medical advice in this regard.
The resident has reported similar allegations continuously over a period of some 12 months and has provided a significant amount of noise recordings. Whilst the resident’s dissatisfaction with the landlord is duly noted, the report will not be addressing each and every specific issue or incident. Rather, the Ombudsman has carefully considered all the available evidence and the report will take a view on the landlord’s overall handling of the matter.
Looking now at the key issue, the main area of complaint is with regards to the reports of noise nuisance and disruptive and/or aggressive behaviour made by the resident against her neighbour (‘Tenant A’) who lives in the flat below her and her partner. The reports have been around issues such as loud music, shouting, and arguing between Tenant A and her partner; scraping and banging noises; domestic disturbances both inside and outside the flat and a child crying. There were also reports of threats and verbal abuse and incidents involving Tenant A’s partner banging on the resident’s door.
It is clear from the records that this issue has been ongoing for a long time and the evidence shows there have been numerous reports made by the resident, sometimes on an almost daily basis. The resident’s reports must be viewed in the context of a history of allegations and counter-allegations of ASB between the resident and Tenant A. It is clear from the evidence that the relationship between the parties had become very strained. The landlord is required to ensure that it is fair to both parties and that it takes all allegations of ASB seriously, while bearing in mind the history of the case and both parties’ support needs.
Taking an overall look at the landlord’s handling of the ASB reports, it has evidenced that it responded reasonably and proportionately to the majority of the reports and whilst the amount of reports made by the resident were considerable, the subject matter of the reports was the same in terms of the noise disturbances.
The landlord responded appropriately by advising the resident to collate diary sheets and noise recordings, to make use of the out of hours noise team and to report domestic disputes to the Police, which were all reasonable responses.
It also installed Noise Monitoring Equipment (‘NME’) on two separate occasions and also carried out a noise transference test in both properties. The results of the NME and the transference test were reviewed by the specialist ASB team and it was concluded that there was insufficient evidence to pursue any formal legal action as the noise did not qualify as a ‘statutory nuisance’. The ASB team, on both occasions, took the view that the noise experienced was, on the whole, regarded as general living noise. The landlord explained clearly to the resident why this would not amount to a breach of the tenancy.
Where there were incidents that were deemed to be a general nuisance (such as the loud arguing in the night) the landlord took steps to address this with Tenant A to try and understand her situation, and it took into account her support needs. The landlord also liaised with the Police and Social Services as appropriate and ensured that both the resident and Tenant A were offered suitable support. With regards to the Police involvement, this also did not provide sufficient evidence for the landlord to pursue legal action.
The landlord spoke to Tenant A on several occasions about the disturbances and repeatedly reminded her of the need to be mindful of the noise levels and that this could potentially be treated as a breach of the tenancy. The landlord also took appropriate and proportionate action following further reports by issuing two formal tenancy warning letters. The resident has consistently asked the landlord to take legal action against Tenant A, and the landlord has responded appropriately by thoroughly reviewing the evidence and explaining its position to the resident. The landlord also suggested the use of mediation, which was reasonable in these circumstances.
The landlord also acted appropriately by setting and managing the resident’s expectations about how it deals with neighbour disputes of this kind and that legal enforcement options although possible, were unlikely, and would very much depend upon the independent evidence that was available. Despite the landlord’s efforts to obtain independent corroboration of many of the incidents, it ultimately took the view that the evidence it had collated would not warrant any formal legal action against Tenant A.
The landlord’s decision not to take formal legal action against Tenant A is also supported by the fact that case reviews were carried out by managers and the ASB team, who all concluded the same.
The resident’s dissatisfaction is noted however, the landlord is not being unreasonable when it says that it cannot pursue formal action against Tenant A unless it has sufficient evidence to do so. In its investigation of the various reports, and in its discussions with the resident herself, it has been acknowledged that there is a lack of independent evidence, and that in such situations it is often difficult for the landlord to take any action. This is even more so when there are counter-allegations made against the resident which it also needs to take into account. As such, overall the landlord has acted appropriately in its handling of this matter.
However, having said all that, it cannot be overlooked that the landlord itself has recognised and accepted that there were also some shortcomings in its initial handling of the case. It has acted appropriately by acknowledging these failures and apologising for them in its complaint responses.
The general gist of these failures relates to its lack of urgency and clarity of action during the early stages of the case. Having considered the landlord’s comments and looking at the available evidence there were indeed some shortcomings in the landlord’s approach, not only at the early stages of the case, but also at other points in its decision-making.
For instance, whilst the landlord did usually respond in a timely manner, there were numerous incidents where Tenant A was interviewed and spoken to about the resident’s reports and allegations, which she denied and the landlord accepted this outcome at times without further questioning. There were instances where, for example, there was video evidence and/or evidence of the Police having attended to confirm that a disturbance had occurred, but the issue was not pushed further after Tenant A denied the reports. Whilst the landlord may have felt that it did not have sufficient evidence to pursue the questioning further, the resident could rightly feel frustrated that the landlord has simply ‘gone through the motions’ of investigating her report and Tenant A can evade any censure by simply denying the allegations. The Ombudsman considers that perhaps the landlord could have done a bit more in these instances to reassure her.
Similarly, whilst the landlord has issued two separate tenancy warning letters, it should have considered this action sooner. It is noted that the first warning letter was not issued until 16 December 2019, which was some seven months after the ASB case was opened. Whilst the need for robust independent evidence cannot be understated, given the number and frequency of the reports, it ought to have considered whether warnings could have been issued earlier on in the case.
There is also the issue of the transfer of the case to the specialist ASB team, which was not formally done until April 2020, some 12 months after the case was opened. It is acknowledged that not all cases are suitable for the ASB team, but again, given the nature and frequency of the reports, and the impact this was clearly having on the resident’s wellbeing, the landlord ought to have given more consideration to whether or not the tenancy management approach was the right way to progress this case.
It is also noted that the report of the NME findings put forward some suggestions as to other measures the landlord could take to try and limit the noise transference issues between the two properties. There is no evidence to show that the landlord took on board these suggestions and considered implementing any of these mitigation measures.
The landlord has rightly apologised for some of its failures within its complaint responses and has said that it has provided feedback to its staff. However, the landlord did not consider if compensation was warranted for these failures.
In assessing the issue of compensation, the Ombudsman takes account of a range of factors including any distress and inconvenience caused by the failure, the amount of time and effort expended on pursuing the matter with the landlord, and the level of detriment caused by the landlord’s actions/inactions. It also considers whether any redress is proportionate to the severity of the failure by the landlord and the impact on the resident.
Looking at the facts of this case, the Ombudsman has taken into account the overall handling of the case, and the impact of the failures, and the landlord’s explanations and apologies, and it considers that an apology on its own is insufficient redress, and compensation is warranted in this instance.
With regards to the resident’s comments regarding the landlord staff being rude and bullying her, the landlord has explained in its complaint responses that it has spoken with the staff involved and it is satisfied that their conduct was reasonable. It nevertheless apologised for any unintentional distress. The Ombudsman is not privy to what the staff may have said to the resident in person but looking at the internal case notes and the correspondence there is nothing to suggest that the landlord staff were being dismissive either of the evidence or the resident’s testimony, or that the nature or tone of their written communication was unduly harsh or unsympathetic. On the contrary, the evidence shows that it sought appropriate referrals and interventions and ensured that the resident was given appropriate support via external agencies. The resident may well feel differently, but the Ombudsman is satisfied that the landlord has, overall, tried to assist her as best it could given the limitations of the available evidence.
On a final note, the resident has also said that she was unhappy with the landlord when it instigated a ‘welfare check’ on her following one of her emails. The resident felt this was unnecessary and she was worried that the ambulance service may have forcibly broken into her home when they couldn’t reach her. Having considered this further, the Ombudsman considers that the landlord’s actions were not inappropriate given the circumstances and it had reasonable concerns about the immediate welfare of the resident, and as such, it was not unreasonable for it to take a precautionary approach and notify the Police and ambulance service of its concerns.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was maladministration by the landlord in its response to the resident’s reports and concerns about noise-related anti-social behaviour (‘ASB’) by a neighbour.

Reasons

The landlord’s overall handling has been reasonable, but it has acknowledged that there had been some failings during the case. It has apologised for this and accepted responsibility. However, it did not consider whether compensation was warranted for the failures. Having considered the available evidence, the Ombudsman is of the view that compensation is warranted and an apology, though welcome, is not sufficient redress in this case in accordance with our Remedies Guidance.

Orders

The landlord should, within four weeks of the date of this report:
1. pay the resident £250 compensation in recognition of any distress and inconvenience caused by the maladministration identified in its handling of the resident’s ASB reports.
Evidence of the payment of compensation to be provided to this Service within four weeks.