Livv Housing Group (202002814)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202002814

Livv Housing Group

26 August 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

The resident’s complaint is about the landlord’s handling of her reports of Anti Social Behaviour (“ASB”) by a neighbour.

Background and summary of events

The property is a one bedroom flat. The resident has vulnerabilities.
On 12 March 2020, the landlord wrote to the resident confirming that it had interviewed her and she had told it of noise and behaviour from her neighbour that was upsetting her. It stated that it would contact her fortnightly and make enquiries and she would continue with the noise app and diaries and contact the police if she was threatened.
On 28 July 2020, the resident made a formal complaint to the landlord in writing regarding her upstairs neighbours. The resident complained that her case had not been acknowledged sooner.
On 5 August 2020, the landlord wrote to the resident after having been unable to contact the resident by telephone. The landlord acknowledged that noise complaints can be frustrating as the time taken to obtain evidence can be lengthy. It noted that to be able to take legal action it needed to demonstrate that the noise was unreasonable and unacceptable to a level a court would accept. It suggested that the resident contact Environmental Health who can gather evidence to support a statutory notice.
The resident responded that she had been in contact with Environmental Health, but little change had happened. She noted that she had provided evidence since the previous year from the noise app and diary records. She noted that it was not just a noise complaint but also a complaint of tenancy fraud as there was an unauthorised resident in the flat. The resident stated that she had been told many different things by many people and nothing had been investigated properly. She noted that it was having a significant impact on her mental health.
In its stage one complaint response to the resident the landlord stated that the noise complaint was still open and being monitored via incident diaries and the landlord had advised the resident to contact Environmental Health to install monitoring equipment. It noted that noise cases could be very complex and the threshold for legal action is extremely high and would require significant evidence and to meet the threshold of a statutory nuisance. It stated that it was not a breach of the tenancy agreement for the neighbour to have someone to stay and this was not tenancy fraud. It noted that the resident had logged a case with Environmental Health for disrepair but not for noise investigation. It noted that she was on the highest priority band for the property pool for her circumstances and she could bid each week.
On 19 January 2021, the landlord closed the resident’s complaint. The resident states that she was not advised of this and there was a severe lack of communication.
On 4 February 2021, the resident made a further complaint. She requested that the case, which had been closed, be reopened and reassigned to another member of the team. The landlord responded that it had not refused to change the officer on the matter. It had advised that there was not sufficient evidence to pursue an ASB case. It stated that it had reviewed the video footage submitted by the resident, but it did not constitute harassment or intimidation. It had asked the neighbour to stop the behaviour. It stated that there was a technical error with the noise app saying that it had not been reviewed, and it had been. The review had found that the noise was not excessive. It noted that Environmental Health and the police had also advised that there was insufficient evidence to proceed further.
On 28 April 2021, the landlord provided a stage two complaint response to the resident. The landlord stated that the case would be reassigned to a new officer who would collate all the information provided by the resident and review how best to progress. The new officer would liaise with the police. The case would be escalated where possible to the appropriate level given the evidence available.
On 12 May 2021, the resident and the landlord had a meeting at the police station where it was agreed that the evidence submitted by the resident did not constitute harassment or intimidation. On 13 May 2021, the landlord sent the resident a letter following the meeting. It noted that three different officers had investigated the complaint and found that there was not sufficient evidence to prove a statutory nuisance. It set out the requirements for this and noted that general lifestyle noise was not a statutory nuisance. It also stated that it had inspected the neighbours’ home and found that there was no sub-letting. It stated that the resident’s complaint was closed. It advised the resident that if she experienced significant noise nuisance in the future, she could report this to the local council and new and significant incidents of ASB should be reported to the landlord and the police.
On 11 June 2021, the landlord sent the resident a letter noting that, since the letter of 12 May 2021, the resident had sent in a further sixteen noise app recordings. The landlord representative stated that they had listened to all the recordings and found that the noise was not sufficient to provide statutory nuisance.
On 25 June 2021, the landlord sent the resident a letter. It noted that three different officers had investigated the complaint and confirmed that the noise evidence is not sufficient to provide a statutory nuisance. It also noted that it had undertaken a full inspection at the neighbour’s house and found that there was no sub-letting. It stated that the case would be closed and only reopened if there was significant evidence of statutory noise.
On 1 July 2021, the resident provided the landlord with CCTV evidence.
On 2 July 2021, the landlord confirmed that it had advised the resident on several occasions that her complaints had been closed and a stage two response provided. It told her that a new complaint would only be opened if the resident provided evidence of actual ASB or a crime. It confirmed that none of the activities the resident had reported were ASB or a crime. It also told the resident that she should not be recording her neighbours as they enter or leave the communal areas.
On 30 July 2021, the resident noted to this service that the landlord was doing their utmost to find her new accommodation.
In response to further communications from the resident, the landlord advised the resident on 3 November 2021 that, as a stage two response had been issued, if she wished to pursue the matter further, she should bring it to this service.

Assessment and findings

ASB case management is a crucial aspect of a landlord’s service delivery. Effective use of an ASB procedure enables the landlord to identify appropriate steps to resolve potential areas of conflict, improve landlord/tenant relationships and improve the experience of tenants residing in their homes. ASB cases are also often the most challenging for a landlord as, in practice, options available to a landlord or chosen by a landlord to resolve a case may not include a resident’s preferred outcome, and it can become difficult to manage expectations.
This Service understands the resident’s situation and recognises that the concerns she has reported have affected and caused distress to her. In cases relating to ASB, it is not the Ombudsman’s role to determine whether ASB occurred or who is responsible. It is also not within the Ombudsman’s authority or expertise to decide on matters such as tenancy breach in the same way as the courts, nor does it decide on what correct courses of action were based on hindsight and later events. However, the Ombudsman can assess how a landlord has dealt with reports it has received in the timeframe of a complaint, and assess whether the landlord has followed proper procedure, followed good practice, and behaved reasonably, taking account of all the circumstances of the case.
The crux of the resident’s complaint is that the landlord has failed to take sufficient action regarding her complaint about noise from her neighbours. Her complaint includes that the landlord did not take appropriate steps to address the neighbour sub-letting the property or having unauthorised people living in the property, that it was unreasonable regarding her use of CCTV and that it did not take adequate steps to facilitate her move to another property.
The landlord’s position has been that the evidence does not demonstrate that the noise meets the threshold required for it to be considered a statutory noise nuisance and it is therefore not able to take any legal steps regarding it.
The Ombudsman is sympathetic to the distress that the resident has experienced. However, the evidence indicates that the landlord has taken a number of steps in response to the resident’s complaints. It has:
1. Undertaken significant investigations, including reviewing evidence of the noise submitted by the resident, home visits to experience the noise directly and interviewing the neighbour on a number of occasions.
2. Liaised with other relevant agencies, including the police and Environmental Health.
3. Clearly explained to the resident on a number of occasions what evidence is needed to meet the threshold for a statutory noise nuisance that is required before it can take action.
4. Provided the resident with information and relevant tools to collect such evidence, including a noise app and diary sheets.
5. Referred the resident to Mental Health and Wellbeing Case Workers, who have provided support to the resident, including offering home visits.
6. Contacted the resident on several occasions to follow up the matter by telephone, letter and an email.
7. Provided support to the resident regarding her priority level for property transfers. The resident herself in a communication to this service noted that the landlord was making a significant effort to assist her to move.
8. Explained to the resident that it investigated her complaint of sub-letting and determined that the neighbour was not in breach of their tenancy agreement. The neighbour has the right to have visitors including people staying over. This is a reasonable position for the landlord to take on the basis of the evidence provided.
9. Explained to the resident that its concerns about her use of CCTV were that she was recording communal areas. The Ombudsman considers it is reasonable for the landlord to advise the resident that she should not be recording communal areas, which other residents are entitled to access, on CCTV.
The Ombudsman is satisfied that the landlord has taken all reasonable steps that could be expected of it in the circumstances. It therefore cannot reasonably be found that there has been a service failing by the landlord.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with section 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there has been no maladministration by the landlord with respect to the resident’s complaint is about the landlord’s handling of her complaints of Anti Social Behaviour (“ASB”) by a neighbour.

Reasons

The Ombudsman is sympathetic to the distress that the resident has experienced. However, the evidence indicates that the landlord has taken a number of steps in response to the resident’s complaints. The Ombudsman is satisfied that the landlord has taken all reasonable steps that could be expected of it in the circumstances and that is actions and responses have been proportionate to the issues reported.