Leicester City Council (202214224)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202214224

Leicester City Council

28 August 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:
1. Response to reports of antisocial behaviour (ASB) and noise nuisance by the residents’ neighbour.
2. Handling of reports about the condition of the residents’ garden.
3. Handling of the residents’ reports of a rodent infestation.
4. Response to concerns about the conduct of a member of its staff.
5. Response to the residents’ reports of a power cut and associated repairs.
6. Handling of the complaint.
7. Record keeping.

Background

The residents are joint tenants of the property which is a 3-bed semi-detached house with a private garden. They have lived in the property since 2007. The landlord is a local authority.
The residents have stated that they have mobility issues and English is not their first language. They have been represented in their complaints to the landlord and their escalation to this Service by their adult daughter who also lives at the property. She will be referred to in this report at the ‘representative’.
On 24 July 2021 the representative emailed the landlord. She entitled the email ‘complaint’ and said:
1. She wanted a complaint raised about her neighbours.
2. The neighbours had 2 children aged around 10 years. On a daily basis they heard noise from banging doors and windows and “aggressive” jumping and running up the stairs.
3. She had reported the noise and had been told she would be contacted by the officer who dealt with ASB in the area.
4. It had taken the officer 6 weeks to call her back and they “failed to acknowledge any harm” was being caused by the ASB.
Following further emails regarding the ASB from the representative in February 2022 internal landlord communications show that it decided that the issue should be raised as a formal complaint. It requested information from the departments concerned.
The landlord raised a stage 1 complaint on 4 May 2022 (Complaint 1). It provided its stage 1 response to Complaint 1 on 30 May 2022. It said:
1. The residents had authorised the representative to discuss the tenancy on their behalf.
2. On 20 May 2022 the landlord visited the property and met with the residents and the representative. As the residents both spoke limited English the landlord arranged for an interpreter.
3. They should report the noise to the Noise and Pollution Control (NPC) team who could install noise monitoring equipment.
4. If the monitoring equipment demonstrated noise of a high level, the NPC team would take any required action. Until then there was no evidence to take the matter further from a neighbourhood management perspective.
5. The residents had mentioned an issue with rats in the garden. It would report the repairs and contact pest control but in future they would be expected to do this themselves.
6. It would not tolerate abuse of bad behaviour towards its staff and that the language the representative was using in relation to the neighbours was “not acceptable”.
The representative raised a further stage 1 complaint on 16 September 2022 (Complaint 2). This Service has not been provided with a copy of the initial complaint. The landlord provided its stage 1 response to Complaint 2 on 3 October 2022. It said:
1. It had investigated the complaint regarding a member of staff and “housing management issues”.
2. Part of the role of the housing officer (HO) was to ensure that tenants abide by the terms of their tenancy agreement.
3. Garden maintenance was the residents’ responsibility.
4. On receipt of a complaint about the condition of the residents’ garden, the HO investigated by inspecting the garden.
5. The HO had spoken with one of the residents who had said he would like assistance with clearing the garden from the landlord. Unfortunately it did not provide this service. They would therefore have to arrange for a private contractor to carry out the work if they were unable to do it themselves.
6. The HO had followed its policy by issuing a warning letter for breach of tenancy.
The representative responded to the landlord on the same day and said she wanted to escalate the complaint because:
1. The HO had “lied” and had not provided accurate information.
2. She suspected the HO was related to the neighbour or that her behaviour was an “act of racism”.
3. The HO had agreed in May 2022 in front of other members of the landlord’s staff that she would send someone out to clear the garden.
4. The HO should be “fired” for “deceiving” the residents and the landlord.
5. She had referred her complaint regarding the ASB to this Service.
The landlord provided its stage 2 response to Complaint 2 on 17 October 2022. It said:
1. Reports regarding the conduct of its staff were taken seriously and would be investigated. If the reports were found to be true it would deal with this in line with its HR procedures.
2. The HO had tried to find a service that could assist the residents clear the garden with a view to re-charging for this service. It did not however provide such a service.
3. The HO had followed its process in issuing a warning letter.
4. They had been advised to report any noise nuisance to the NPC team.
5. It found no failure in the service provided and the reports regarding the conduct of the HO would be investigated.
The landlord raised a stage 1 complaint (Complaint 3) on behalf of the representative on 3 February 2023. It is unclear what prompted this, and this Service has not seen a copy of the complaint.
On 13 February 2023 the landlord provided its stage 1 response to Complaint 3. It said:
1. It had investigated the concerns raised about ASB, pest control, and the way a call to its contact centre was handled.
2. The ASB complaint had been addressed and had exhausted its complaint process. If the residents remained unhappy, they could contact this Service.
3. Its pest control team had been involved since October 2022 and had made regular visits to the property to lay traps. Nothing had been caught but it continued to visit to place traps in different locations.
4. In January 2023 the pest control team asked for drain tests to be completed to ascertain if there were ingress points for rodents. This was completed on 18 January 2023 and results usually took 4 to 6 weeks. It would inform her of the results.
5. It had listened to her call to the call centre. The officer she had spoken to was relatively new and was trained in repair issues which was the line she had called. He was not trained in pest control or housing management which were the issues she had raised. The officer had tried to help but should have sought advice from a team leader. It apologised for the confusion caused.
On 27 June 2023 the landlord visited the residents, the representative was present and “speaking on behalf of [her] parents”. The notes from the visit stated:
1. The male tenant had left the country. The female tenant and representative remained in the property.
2. The garden was overgrown and the property had issues with rats.
3. The residents had reported ASB from the neighbours, this had last occurred early that year.
4. The representative said she would not clear the garden as there was a rat and the previous HO had advised they would have it cleared.
5. The HO:
  1. Advised that the garden needed to be cleared and this was an obligation of the tenancy.
  2. Provided signposting for financial support.
  3. Warned the representative regarding her tone in communications.
The representative emailed the landlord on 3 August 2023 and said the landlord were “liars” and “scammers” and she wanted a further complaint to be logged (Complaint 4).
This Service accepted the representative’s case as duly made in April 2024. The representative said she remained dissatisfied with the landlord’s handling of all the issues raised in her complaints.

Assessment and findings

Jurisdiction

What the Ombudsman can and cannot consider is called the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction. This is governed by 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.
After carefully considering all the evidence, in accordance with paragraphs 42.a of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the following complaint is outside of the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction:
1. The landlord’s response to the residents’ reports of a power cut and associated repairs.
Paragraph 42.a of the Scheme states that the Ombudsman may not consider complaints which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion are made prior to having exhausted a member’s complaints procedure, unless there is evidence of a complaint-handling failure and the Ombudsman is satisfied that the member has not taken action within a reasonable timescale.
We have not seen evidence that the representative has formally complained to the landlord about its handling of the power cut and the associated repairs. This issue has therefore not been considered within this report as the landlord has not been given the opportunity to consider the complaint. Should the residents remain concerned about this matter, they may wish to raise a new complaint with the landlord accordingly. In the event that the complaint exhausts the landlord’s complaints procedure and the residents remain unhappy, they may refer the matter to this Service as a new complaint.

Scope of the investigation

It is acknowledged that the representative states the residents have been regularly reporting noise nuisance from the neighbours since 2020. However, the matter was not subject to the landlord’s internal complaints procedure until May 2022.
The Ombudsman encourages residents to raise complaints with their landlords at the time the events happened. This is because with the passage of time, evidence may be unavailable and personnel involved may have left an organisation, which makes it difficult for a thorough investigation to be carried out and for informed decisions to be made. Taking this into account and the availability and reliability of evidence, this assessment has focussed on the period from July 2021 onwards. This is where records indicate the beginning of events leading up to the residents’ complaint. Reference to events that occurred prior to that date is made in this report to provide context.
Some of the actions in this case were taken by the NPC team which is part of the environmental health department which the landlord as a local authority operates. This Service will only consider complaints which concern matters in respect of local authorities which relate to their provision or management of social housing. This means we will consider the actions of the housing management team but not the actions of the environmental health department whose actions fall under the jurisdiction of the Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman (LGSCO).
It is accepted that the residents’ dissatisfaction regarding the landlord’s handling of the rat infestation was not considered at stage 2 of its complaint process. However, we consider that the landlord should reasonably have escalated the issue to stage 2 of its process when the representative continued to express her dissatisfaction with its handling of the issue in October 2023. As the landlord did not do so, we consider there to have been a complaint handling failure. In accordance with paragraph 42.a of the Scheme, we have therefore considered the landlord’s handling of the reports of rats as part of this investigation.

Relevant legislation, policies and procedures

The tenancy agreement states that the residents will keep the garden “clean and tidy” and maintain any trees, hedges, lawns, and borders.
The landlord’s ASB policy states that following a report of ASB it will:
1. Interview the complainant, witnesses and alleged perpetrators.
2. Agree an action plan.
3. Keep the complainant “regularly updated”.
4. Carry out monitoring by a team leader on a monthly basis.
The landlord has advised that since the events considered in this investigation it has set up a new community safety team to respond to ASB and a review of its ASB policy is underway.
The landlord’s website outlines its approach to pest control and states it will treat rat issues for free within 48 hours “where possible” when the rats are inside the property and within 15 working days where the rats are outside.
The landlord operates a 2-stage complaints process. It states it will respond to stage 1 complaints within 10 working days and stage 2 complaints within 20 working days.

Response to reports of ASB and noise nuisance by the residents’ neighbour.

It is not the role of the Ombudsman to reach a conclusion as to whether the ASB took place as reported. Rather, our role is to review the evidence that is available and to assess whether the landlord’s response was in accordance with any relevant policies and procedures, and fair in all of the circumstances.
In July 2021 the representative emailed the landlord and said that she had reported ASB from the neighbours and it had taken an officer 6 weeks to call her back. The representative’s comments are not disputed. However, we have not been provided with evidence of either the representative’s ASB report or notes relating to the call made by the landlord. As such, it is not possible for us to establish what happened at the time and whether the landlord’s handling of the interaction was appropriate. However, it would be reasonable to expect the landlord to have kept a clear and accurate record of any reports that it had received. The absence of a contemporaneous record is indicative of poor record keeping.
The ASB case file shows that following the representative’s July 2021 reports the landlord logged an ASB case and provided her with diary sheets which it collected in September 2021. The diary sheets describe incidents during the hours of approximately 8am and 8pm of noise from: banging, running, shouting and screaming, arguing, slamming doors and windows, and balls being kicked outside. The records show that the landlord interviewed the residents and their neighbours who made counter-allegations. The ASB case was closed on 21 September 2021.
We have not seen evidence that the landlord adhered to its own ASB policy and procedure in this case. It has not provided an action plan or demonstrated that it regularly updated the residents or carried out monthly case reviews. That it did not adhere to its policy was inappropriate.
We have also seen no evidence that the landlord carried out a risk assessment with the residents or their representative. While not referred to within the landlord’s policy or procedure, risk assessments are considered a fundamental element in responding to ASB and it is good practice for landlords to ensure that they are being carried out. Risk assessments allow landlords to understand the risks posed to an ASB victim and ensure that appropriate support measures are in place, where necessary. It is therefore of concern that no formal assessment has been seen to have taken place.
In early February 2022 the landlord emailed the representative. It appears the communication was sent in response to an email from the representative however we have not been provided with this. The landlord said it had been in “regular dialogue” with her in relation to the ASB. It said it had explained that it was unable to take further action as the issue was noise-related and that it had “not encountered any concerns with the noise” itself during its visits. The landlord stated it had advised that the NPC team was best placed to investigate the reported issues and had access to equipment to measure the noise levels.
The landlord has not provided contemporaneous evidence of the “regular dialogue” it had with the representative. It is unclear whether it has not kept a record or has done so but failed to provide it for the purposes of this investigation. Regardless, this is a record keeping failing and we have not had sight of the interactions between both parties as a result.
This Service does not consider that the landlord would itself need to witness noise nuisance when visiting the property to take further action. It was reasonable that the landlord signposted the resident to the NPC team who had access to noise monitoring equipment which may assist in evidencing any noise nuisance. This should not however have been the only action the landlord took.
The representative replied to the landlord on 3 February 2022 and said:
1. The NPC team had said it would not attend the property as the issue related to noise from children. It would therefore not provide noise monitoring equipment.
2. The NPC team had told her that no ASB case had been logged. She asked for a reference number for the ASB case.
This Service has not seen contemporaneous records of this conversation. We would have reasonably expected the landlord to keep a record of all contacts with the resident. It is presumed that the NPC team meant that it did not have a record of an ASB case within that team as we have been provided evidence of ASB cases being raised locally by the HO. This should however have been clearly explained to the representative. We have not seen any evidence that the landlord responded and provided the representative with her ASB case reference number. This was unreasonable.
The representative emailed the landlord on 9 February 2022 and 10 February 2022 as she had not received a response. The landlord missed this opportunity to build a more positive relationship with the representative by responding in a timely way.
The NPC team responded to the landlord’s request for information on 22 February 2022 and stated:
1. In November 2021 the HO referred the representative’s case to the NPC team. The case was logged and it contacted her by email and left a voicemail on 8 November 2021, she did not return its call.
2. On 17 December 2021 the representative called the NPC team and spoke to an officer. She was sent details of the monitoring service and was asked to call when the noise was occurring. There were no details of any other contact from the representative.
3. The NPC team did not respond to reports of noise from children where the noise was during the day when it was reasonable to expect that children would play in their home. However as the noise reported appeared to be “excessive” the representative had been put on a waiting list for noise monitoring equipment and would be contacted when she was at the top of the list.
On 23 May 2022 the landlord logged a new ASB case regarding noise nuisance. It is not clear whether this was in relation to new reports made by the residents or representative or in response to the stage 1 complaint. We would reasonably expect the landlord to keep sufficient records to enable itself, the resident (and ultimately the Ombudsman) of why acted in the way it did. That it has not done so here is a failing.
On 20 July 2022 the landlord visited the property to discuss the ASB case. Notes from the visit stated it:
1. Explained that it was unable to act against the neighbour unless the NPC team confirmed there was nuisance.
2. Advised them to contact the NPC team to discuss the noise monitoring equipment.
3. Asked the representative to “stop being rude” and speaking for the resident or it would end the meeting.
Following the visit to the resident the landlord received an update from the NPC team. It said the representative told it that the noise affected the kitchen, hallway and bedroom and it was explained that the equipment could not be installed in these areas. As previously explained this report will not consider the actions of the NPC. If the representative is unhappy with the actions of this team she may be able to escalate her concerns to the LGSCO.
The landlord closed the ASB case on 3 August 2022. It wrote to the residents and explained the case was being closed as the neighbours had purchased their property and were no longer tenants of the landlord, and because the NPC team was unable to install noise monitoring equipment in the areas affected.
This Service does not consider that it was reasonable that the landlord closed the case on the basis that noise monitoring equipment could not be installed. It had not pursued any other options to investigate the noise nuisance reported by the residents. It could reasonably have considered the use of other recording devices such as mobile phones (and widely used applications such as the NoiseApp), or professional witness services. That it did not was a failing.
It is noted that the neighbours purchased their property from the landlord and therefore became private owners. While the change in occupancy status would have limited the options available to the landlord, it could and should have continued to provide the residents with support.
It is considered poor practice for landlords to rely solely on environmental health teams in noise nuisance cases. The burden of proof in statutory nuisance cases (like those considered by environmental health teams) is higher than the burden of proof for civil action such as a breach of tenancy or injunction. We would instead reasonably expect the landlord to carry out its own investigations while working with partners like the environmental health team to compliment the investigation and resolve the issues more quickly and efficiently. This was not the approach taken in this case and this is disappointing.
In June 2023 the landlord stated (within a letter relating to the condition of the garden) that the residents had been offered noise monitoring equipment in August 2022 but this was refused by the representative. This Service considers that this was a misinterpretation of the facts. The NPC team had in fact stated that it was unable to install the equipment in the locations where the noise was audible. This caused the representative to feel that she was to feel that the lack of progress in the case was being attributed to her, and this likely further eroded the already damaged relationship between her and the landlord.
In August 2023 the representative reported that the family’s car had been criminally damaged. The landlord said it would liaise with the police regarding this. As the matter related to a criminal matter it was reasonable that the landlord liaised with the police.
Overall the landlord:
1. Failed to follow its own policy and best practice. It did not carry out a risk assessment, complete an action plan, regularly update the resident or review the case monthly.
2. Relied wholly on the investigations of the NPC team which was subject to higher burden of proof and more limitations than the landlord.
3. Failed to carry out its own reasonable investigations through other methods such as mobile phone noise recording applications or professional witnesses.

There was therefore maladministration in the landlord’s response to the residents’ report of ASB and noise nuisance from their neighbour.

Handling of reports about the condition of the residents’ garden.

Internal landlord communications in early July 2022 stated that it had received a complaint about the condition of the residents’ garden. The communications state that the residents were issued a warning letter giving them 4 weeks to resolve the matter. We have not been provided with a copy of this letter and so are unable to assess whether its contents were reasonable. It is unclear whether the landlord has a copy of the letter and has failed to provide it to this Service or if it has misplaced the letter. Either way this is a failing in the landlord’s record keeping and our assessment of the landlord’s initial handling of this matter has been limited as a result.
On 26 July 2022 the landlord visited the property and took photographs of the garden. The photographs show the garden to be overgrown with vegetation pushing over the fence between their garden and the neighbour’s.
The tenancy agreement obliges the residents to keep the garden “clean and tidy” and maintain any vegetation. It was therefore reasonable that the landlord sought to enforce the terms of the tenancy.
The representative emailed the HO on 27 July 2022 following receipt of the letter in relation the condition of the garden being a breach of the tenancy. She said that she had been of the understanding that the HO was going to see if they could locate a free service to assist in clearing the garden.
It is clear from the contents of emails between the parties that communications had taken place between the HO and the residents or representative in relation to the garden. We have not however been provided with contemporaneous records relating to these conversations. We would expect the landlord to keep adequate written records of any visits and telephone or in-person conversations. That it did not was a further example of poor record keeping.
The HO replied to the representative and said:
1. She had initially offered to see if a voluntary service was able to assist as the representative had said there were rats in the garden. As the representative later said that there were no rats, they would need to clear the garden themselves.
2. She was not “taking sides” and was doing her job in responding to the neighbour’s complaint.
3. All future discussions would need to be with the residents.
The resident replied on 27 July 2022 and said that the HO had promised to help in having the garden cleared. She was concerned that the HO had now changed her mind.
It is clear from the email conversations that the HO and representative were at odds in their recollection of the conversations that had taken place. This demonstrates why it was so important for the landlord to keep an accurate written account of its actions.
As the situation was escalating, we consider that the HO’s decision to cease email conversation with the representative was reasonable. We consider however that at this point the landlord should reasonably have considered invoking any policy around customer behaviour that would enable it to manage the situation more effectively. This is further explored in the complaint handling assessment.
The landlord’s records show that following the emails with the representative it telephoned the male resident and discussed the garden. He said that he had hurt his knee and was unable to clear the garden himself. The HO suggested that one of the other adults residing in the property could clear the garden or assist with the cost of having this done. The HO also said she could look at having the garden cleared but that this would be recharged to the resident, he agreed he would accept this.
We do not consider that the landlord’s suggestion that the other adults in the property assist in clearing the garden was unreasonable. There was no evidence to indicate that there were any vulnerabilities or other factors that would prevent this and the suggestion was therefore reasonable advice.
The HO informed the representative that she would now only communicate with the residents. She said she had spoken to the male resident and in her opinion, he was “more than capable” of dealing with the issue. She reiterated that she could not assist with obtaining a refund from another department and said the representative should not email her again as she would only discuss tenancy matters with the residents.
The records show that the HO contacted a local handy person’s service to see if they could help clear the garden. It responded and advised it could not. This was reasonable and demonstrated that the landlord was attempting to provide additional support to the residents. We have not however seen evidence that the landlord advised the residents that it was unable to secure assistance until 2 months later in a further tenancy warning letter. The reason for the delay is unclear. However, this was unreasonable.
While it was not obliged to do so it is unclear to this Service why the landlord did not seek quotes from external contractors for clearing the garden and for this charge to be added to the residents’ rent account. Such arrangements are commonplace and the resident had already stated that he would be willing to accept this course of action. This was a missed opportunity to assist the residents and resolve the issue without further warnings or legal action.
The landlord has provided this Service with 3 tenancy warning letters addressed to the residents regarding the condition of the garden. All letters are dated 8 September 2022 and the wording of each differs slightly. It is not clear which of the letters were sent to the residents. This is a further failing in the landlord’s record keeping as it has not maintained an accurate audit trail. The letters state:
1. It had inspected the garden on 1 September 2022.
2. The condition of the garden was a breach of the terms of the tenancy.
3. It did not have any contractors that could help clear the garden.
4. This was a final warning, they had 14 days to resolve the issue.
5. Failure to comply would result in the matter being referred to the legal team.
The landlord closed the case regarding the condition of the residents’ garden on 1 November 2022 as “no further complaints [had] been received”.
On 19 April 2023 the landlord received a further complaint about the condition of the garden which was reportedly very overgrown and causing damage to a boundary fence.
The landlord issued another warning letter to the residents on 30 May 2023. It said:
1. The way the representative was communicating with it was “not acceptable”.
2. The residents were responsible for their daughter’s behaviour. It therefore asked that they check any correspondence to ensure they were happy with it before it was submitted.
3. If the issue continued it would take legal advice and may take the decision to only deal with the residents with the assistance of an interpreter.
4. The representative had again asked the landlord to arrange for the garden to be cleared. This was the residents’ responsibility and the landlord could not assist “in any way”.
5. The condition of the garden was a breach of tenancy and needed to be resolved within 28 days. Failure to resolve the issue would result in legal action.
6. The representative had sent photographs of rats in the garden. She had been given the details of the pest control team but it had asked the team to contact her.
On 30 June 2023 the landlord issued a further warning letter to the residents. It said that if the garden was not cleared the residents may be recharged for this to be done. This appears to be in contradiction with previous communications in which it stated it did not have a contractor who could do the work at the residents’ cost. The landlord’s communication was not clear as a result and it was mismanaging the residents’ expectations and causing delays in resolving the issue.
The landlord sent a further warning letter on 10 July 2023 giving the residents until 6 August 2023 to clear the garden. Internal landlord emails demonstrate that it inspected the residents’ garden on 7 August 2023 and it remained overgrown.
The landlord sent warning letters to the residents on 5 occasions in relation to the garden. Two of the letters were described as a “final warning”, with the landlord advising that it would be taking legal action. These letters were then followed by further warning letters. This Service considers that the landlord’s inconsistent approach to addressing the garden condition caused the residents expectations to be mismanaged.
Issuing a “final warning” and then reverting to a “regular” warning alludes to an absence of adequate procedures and policies – or that the landlord was failing to follow one. The landlord should ensure that it has a clear policy in place. Not only would this ensure that staff are escalating matters appropriately, but also that it can ensure that it is managing any garden maintenance issues fairly and proportionately.
Overall, the landlord’s approach to addressing the condition of the residents’ garden was inconsistent and this caused the expectations of the residents to be mismanaged. It missed opportunities to support the residents by arranging for the garden to be cleared and then charging the cost of this back to them despite them agreeing to this. Therefore there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the overgrown garden.

Handling of the residents’ reports of a rodent infestation.

The first time we have seen evidence that the resident raised concerns regarding a rat infestation with the landlord was in May 2022. At that time the landlord contacted its pest control team on the residents’ behalf but advised that in future they would be expected to contact the pest control team themselves. This response was reasonable.
On 2 February 2023 the representative emailed the landlord and said she had reported a rat infestation in the loft of the property. She said that pest control had attended and left a trap and had then visited weekly after this. She was dissatisfied with the treatment provided by the pest control team as it “did nothing other than leave traps”.
The following day the representative emailed the landlord again and said she had arranged for a private pest control contractor to attend. She said that as the rat was seen going down the toilet the contractor had placed a trap in the bathroom and told the family not to use this room. She said that the landlord had offered to provide temporary hotel accommodation but that she wanted to be moved permanently.
We have seen no contemporaneous notes relating to any conversations between the landlord and representative in relation to her reports of rats in the property. It is unclear whether this is because there were no conversations or because officers failed to keep accurate records.
Within its February 2023 stage 1 response to Complaint 3. The landlord said its pest control team had made regular visits to the property to lay traps and continued to visit to place traps in different locations. It also said that it had carried out a drains test in January 2023 to identify any ingress points for the rats. The landlord said it expected to receive the results of the test within 6 weeks and would inform her of the results.
It is noted that the landlord has not provided this Service with any evidence to corroborate the action it states it took in relation to the rat infestation. The residents have not disputed the landlord’s comments, and while we do not have cause to doubt the landlord’s account, we are unable to corroborate it and this is a further record keeping issue.
We have seen no evidence of the results of the drain tests or whether these results were communicated to the residents and any required follow-up action taken. This was unreasonable.
The representative made a further report of rats in the property on 21 March 2023.
The HO contacted the pest control team on 29 June 2023 and asked for an update regarding its involvement with the property. The HO also asked for an inspection to be carried out to identify and block any access points the rats may have been using. Pest control responded and said it had attended on 19 June 2023 but no one was home so they left a card. It had not received a response.
It is not clear whether the landlord carried out any visits between March 2023 and June 2023 due to a lack of information provided to this Service. That the landlord has not been able to demonstrate that any visits took place is a failing.
Overall, we have not been provided with evidence which demonstrates that the landlord responded reasonably to the residents’ reports of a rat infestation. The evidence does not demonstrate that it was proactive in its approach and that it monitored the situation appropriately. There was therefore maladministration in relation to this issue of complaint.

Response to concerns about the conduct of a member of its staff.

It is not the role of the Ombudsman to reach a conclusion regarding the conduct of a member of landlord staff. Rather, our role is to consider whether the landlord’s response to the residents’ report was appropriate, fair, and reasonable in all the circumstances of the case.
The representative raised her concerns regarding the conduct of the HO in September 2022. This was following a warning letter sent by the HO in relation to the condition of the garden.
The landlord responded reasonably at this time by outlining the role and responsibilities of the HO and that her sending of the warning letter was in line with its policies and procedures. We have not been provided with a copy of these procedures to verify this.
The resident then reported that she believed that the HO had lied about agreements that had been made between the parties. She expressed her concern that the HO had done so because she was related to the neighbour or because her behaviour was an “act of racism”.
The representative has stated in communication with the landlord that the HO should be “fired” due to her conduct. While the representative’s strength of feeling about the matter is acknowledged, it is not for the Ombudsman to make any orders or recommendations in relation to personnel matters. Rather, we have assessed how the landlord investigated the reports it received and whether its actions were proportionate in the circumstances.
In this case while the landlord told the representative that it would carry out an investigation into her concerns, we have been provided with no evidence that it did so. While it would not be appropriate for the landlord to provide the resident with details that may relate to an individual’s employment, we would expect it to provide her (and this Service) with a reasonable and proportionate level of detail about its investigations. For example it would be reasonable to disclose whether it had spoken to the staff member involved, interviewed witnesses, and considered written records. It did not do so and this was a failing.
It is acknowledged that the representative’s reports regarding the HO’s conduct were frequent and serious. The Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code) states that landlords should recognise the impact that being complained about can have on future service delivery. It also states that they should ensure that staff are supported. That we have not seen evidence that the staff member in this case was supported is unreasonable.
Overall, we have seen no evidence that the landlord carried out any investigations into the representative’s reports regarding staff conduct. This was a significant failing. We have therefore found maladministration by the landlord and made a series of orders aimed at putting things right.

Handling of the associated complaint.

On 24 July 2021 the representative sent the landlord an email entitled “complaint”. She outlined her dissatisfaction was with delays in the landlord’s response to their reports of ASB. The landlord did not raise a stage 1 complaint at this time. It is unclear why the landlord did not do so given that the resident had clearly expressed dissatisfaction with the level of service that had been provided. Internal landlord communications show that in February 2022 it decided that the matter should be handled as a formal complaint. However, the records show that a complaint was not raised until almost 3 months later in May 2022. The reason for the delay between February and May is unclear. However, it is noted that the formal complaint was raised almost 9 months after the representative’s explicit request for a complaint to be logged. This was a significant failing that delayed the progression of the complaint considerably.
Once the complaint was raised, it took the landlord 18 working days to provide its stage 1 complaint response to Complaint 1. This is outside the timeframe outlined in the landlord’s own policy and the Code.
The response to Complaint 1 did not address the representative’s concerns regarding delays in the handling of the ASB case. This was a failing and a missed opportunity to try to address some of the concerns that the resident had raised.
Within the response the landlord warned the representative regarding her behaviour towards its staff and the language which she was using towards the neighbours.
The representative responded to the landlord on the same day that the stage 1 response to Complaint 1 was sent. She said that the language she had used to describe the neighbours was “a true accurate reflection” of them and that their actions were causing the residents panic and impacting her ability to work from home and relax afterwards. She said they were awaiting installation of the noise monitoring equipment.
The landlord replied to the representative on 8 June 2022 and:
1. Reiterated that the language she had used to refer to the neighbours was not acceptable.
2. Said that further incidences may result in legal action being taken against the residents’ tenancy.
3. Stated it was considering whether it would continue communicating with the representative as it was “unclear as to whether [the residents were] fully aware of the emails [she sent] and the content within them” and that they should be aware of how this could affect their tenancy.
4. Said it had advised her how to report any noise nuisance and she should contact the NPC team for an update on the noise monitoring equipment.
The representative replied on the same day. She said that the landlord was being “rude” and was blaming the residents and taking their neighbour’s side. She said that the residents had asked her to manage their complaints and she had their authority and that refusing to speak with her was an attempt to cause them further inconvenience.
The landlord responded on 9 June 2022 and said it apologised if the representative had felt the tone of its officer was rude or harsh. It said it sincerely apologised and would address any issues through training with the individual concerned. This was a reasonable response to the concerns raised by the representative.
It is not for the Ombudsman to determine whether the landlord’s actions in issuing a warning was appropriate. However, its decision to include this warning within the complaint response was inappropriate. Its concerns regarding the representative’s behaviour should reasonably have been dealt with outside of the complaint process through an unreasonable behaviour procedure or similar. As it included the matter in its response the focus of the representative’s complaint was disrupted by the subsequent dialogue around issues that did not pertain to the residents’ complaints. This undermined the landlord’s principal commitment to resolving the complaint and may have caused avoidable harm to its relationship with the representative.
The representative raised Complaint 2 on 16 September 2022. Again we have not been provided with a copy of the complaint so cannot determine whether the landlord fully addressed all the representative’s concerns.
The landlord provided its stage 1 response to Complaint 2 within 10 working days. This was in line with the timeframe outlined in its own policy and the Code.
Following the stage 1 response the representative responded and said she wanted to escalate the complaint because:
1. The HO had lied throughout the complaint and had not provided accurate information.
2. She suspected the HO was related to the neighbour or that her behaviour was an “official act of racism against [her] household.
3. The HO had agreed twice in May 2022 (once in person and once on the telephone) in front of other members of the landlord’s staff that she would send someone out to clear the garden.
4. The HO should be fired for “deceiving” the residents and the landlord.
5. She had referred her complaint regarding the ASB to this Service.
Internal landlord emails following the representative’s email requesting escalation of Complaint 2 discussed whether her communications should be dealt with as “vexatious” due to the language and allegations towards the HO. It was agreed that the reports regarding the conduct of the staff member needed to be investigated and, if proven would be handled through its HR procedures. It would issue a stage 2 complaint response and then address any vexatious behaviour in line with its policy and procedure.
This Service considers that, had the landlord done as it stated, this would have been reasonable. The landlord has not provided a copy of its vexatious behaviour policy nor is it available on its website. We have not however seen that the landlord took any action in relation to the representative’s behaviour.
The landlord provided its stage 2 response to Complaint 2 within the timeframes outlined in its policy and by the Code. It addressed the representative’s concerns regarding the conduct of its HO and committed to carrying out an investigation.
The representative replied to the landlord on 27 October 2022 and stated she remained dissatisfied with its response. She repeated her concerns about the HO and stated that she should be kept updated about the investigation into the HO’s conduct. As previously mentioned, while we would not expect the landlord to provide details that may relate to an individual’s employment, we would expect it to provide a reasonable and proportionate level of detail about its investigations. That it did not was a failing.
The representative emailed the landlord on 3 August 2023 and said:
1. Her tone was a result of “a 3-year buildup of pain and misery” caused by the landlord.
2. If the landlord’s staff could not do their “jobs properly” they should “free up the space for people who [were] actually able and willing to take their roles seriously”.
3. They had been asking for help since 2020 as they were concerned for their safety due to the household next door who were “dangerous and…diagnosed as mentally ill”.
4. Despite reporting the issues for years they had been told by the NPC team there was no active ASB case and therefore they had to waste time on a waiting list for noise monitoring equipment.
5. She had not refused the noise monitoring equipment. The NPC team said the equipment could not be installed in the areas where the noise was audible and had to be installed in a living room. The living room was not on the adjoining wall to the property next door.
6. Landlord staff were “liars” and “scammers”.
7. She wanted a further complaint logging (Complaint 4).
There is no evidence that the landlord considered implementing its vexatious or unreasonable behaviour policy and procedure at this time. It is unclear why the landlord did not do so given the previous warning and explanation that was provided.
The landlord had provided the representative with a warning regarding her use of language. While the reasons for her dissatisfaction are understood, the warning had not been heeded. However, the landlord subsequently failed to take action as it had advised it would. The reasons for this are unclear and we have made a recommendation aimed at ensuring that lessons are learnt from the landlord’s handling of this matter.
The landlord did not raise a formal complaint following the representative’s email of 3 August 2023. Nor did it respond to subsequent emails from the representative chasing a response.
The representative emailed the landlord on 3 October 2023 and said she had received no response form the complaints team. She said:
1. She wanted it to reimburse her for the £116.99 she had paid for rat traps, pest repellent, and a visit by a private pest control company.
2. She also wanted it to reimburse her for a £189.54 phone bill incurred when she was having to contact it while abroad.
She sent a further email the following day asking for a response to her complaint. Internal landlord emails show that it had not raised a formal complaint but do not explain why.
The Code states that the landlord must accept a complaint unless there is a valid reason not to do so. If it declines to accept a complaint it should explain why it has done so. This was therefore a further complaint handling failure.
It is noted that the landlord has not provided this Service with copies of the representative’s original complaints. This has caused difficulties in assessing whether the landlord has fully considered all aspects of each complaint. It is not clear whether the landlord has failed to keep a record of the original complaints or whether it has them but has failed to provide a copy to this Service. Nevertheless, this is a record keeping failing.
Overall the landlord:
1. Delayed buy 9 months in raising a complaint and subsequently delayed in issuing a stage 1 response.
2. Unreasonably addressed the representative’s behaviour within its complaint responses. This should have been done independently of the complaint process to avoid undermining its commitment to addressing the complaint.
3. Failed to log Complaint 4, provide an explanation of why it had not done so, or respond to the representative’s requests for a response.

Therefore there was maladministration in its handling of the complaint.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was:
1. Maladministration in the landlord’s response to ASB and noise nuisance by the residents’ neighbour.
2. Maladministration in the landlord’s handling of reports about the condition of the residents’ garden.
3. Maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the residents’ reports of a rodent infestation.
4. Maladministration in the landlord’s response to concerns about the conduct of a member of its staff.
5. Maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the complaint.
6. Maladministration in the landlord’s record keeping.
In accordance with paragraph 42.a of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme the following complaint is not within the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction:
1. The landlord’s response to the residents’ reports of a power cut and associated repairs.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

Within 4 weeks of the date of this report the landlord to pay the residents compensation of £1,500 comprising:
1. £200 for time and trouble, distress and inconvenience in relation to its handling of the residents’ reports of ASB and noise nuisance.
2. £300 for time and trouble, distress and inconvenience in relation to its handling of the overgrown garden.
3. £300 for time and trouble, distress and inconvenience in relation to its handling of the residents’ reports of a rodent infestation.
4. £200 for time and trouble in relation to its handling of concerns about the conduct of a member of its staff.
5. £500 for time and trouble, distress and inconvenience in relation to its handling of the complaint.

The compensation should be paid directly to the residents rather than to the representative or to the rent account.

Within 6 weeks of the date of this report, if it cannot demonstrate that it already has one, the landlord to consider implementing guidance and procedures for staff about managing garden maintenance issues.
In accordance with paragraph 54.g of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme the landlord to carry out a review of the failings identified by this report. The review should be conducted by a team independent of the service area responsible for the failings identified by this investigation. It should consider:
1. Whether any changes made to its ASB policy and procedures following the creation of its new community safety team would prevent the failings from reoccurring in the future.
2. Its approach to referring noise nuisance cases to its NPC team.
3. Implementing an action plan with the residents to ensure the garden is maintained in accordance with the terms of the tenancy.
4. Whether sufficient investigations were carried out into the conduct of its staff and whether appropriate updates were given to the residents.

A copy of the review should be provided to this Service within 8 weeks of the date of this report.

Recommendations

The landlord to review its procedures and staff training in relation to managing unacceptable behaviour. It should ensure its staff are properly supported and do not feel unfairly subjected to unreasonable behaviours when carrying out their role. It should also ensure that such behaviours are addressed with the resident/representative swiftly, and that the resident/representative has the right to be informed of and appeal any decision or action taken.