London Borough of Barnet (202109585)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202109585

London Borough of Barnet

30 June 2023

Our approach

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

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

The complaint

The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of:
1. The resident’s reports of noise nuisance and anti-social behaviour (ASB) against her neighbour and the neighbour’s counter allegations made against her.
2. The resident’s request for permanent rehousing.
3. Complaint handling.

Background

The resident is an assured tenant and the tenancy began in October 2011. The resident occupies the property with her adult daughter. This is a two bedroom fat located on the first floor. There are only two flats located within this building, the neighbour is a leaseholder of the flat located on the ground floor. Both of the flats are owned by the same landlord.
During January 2015, the neighbour living in the ground floor flat had reported noise nuisance to the landlord. There were further reports of noise nuisance and ASB made by the neighbour against the resident and her daughter from 2016 to March 2019. These allegations included noise nuisance, intimidation, verbal abuse and threats to harm. Counter allegations of noise nuisance and ASB were also made by the resident during this period. These reports all concern the same neighbour living in the flat located on the ground floor.
In response to the noise nuisance reported by both parties, the landlord had inspected the resident’s property in 2015. It had found that major investigatory works were required to the resident’s property. The resident was offered a temporary decant in 2018 so the issues with her floorboards could be investigated and repaired. The resident had declined the offer of temporary accommodation in 2018 because the property being offered to her was not in a good condition.
The resident had raised a complaint in March 2021 due to the landlord’s poor communication and delays in resolving the noise nuisance and ASB. In April 2021, the landlord had agreed to review the resident’s request for permanent rehousing and to complete its planned works at the property to reduce the noise transference between the flats.
There were further incidents of noise nuisance and ASB reported by both parties. from April 2021 to September 2021. The landlord had arranged a structural survey at the resident’s property which had confirmed no major works were required to reduce the noise transference between both flats.
The resident raised a new complaint in September 2021 because the landlord had failed to complete its planned repairs or resolve the issues of noise nuisance and ASB. She was unable to decorate her property for several years because of the planned works and had spent several years chasing the landlord about these works. This complaint was escalated to the Ombudsman in March 2022.

Summary of events

The landlord has provided contact notes and ASB logs from January 2015 onwards. The ASB logs are limited and unclear. Contact notes from January 2015 show both parties had reported noise nuisance to the landlord. The resident had reported she could hear everything between the properties such as general conversations, movements, toilet flushing, doors being opened and closed. During these reports, the resident had said she had trouble sleeping because of the noise nuisance.
The contact history shows, the landlord had arranged for its housing officer, a local victim support officer and a community protection officer to inspect the resident’s property. These notes are limited and it is unclear when the inspection took place but the information provided indicates it would have been late 2015 or early 2016. The internal notes about the inspection show that:
1. A large part of the noise was attributed to the defective floorboards and works were required to repair the floorboards. This would minimise the noise transfer between the two flats.
2. In order to complete its investigatory works, a temporary decant for the resident would be required.
During October 2016, there had been further reports of noise nuisance and ASB reported by the neighbour. These reports were mostly against the resident’s daughter. From the information seen, counter allegations were also made against the neighbour. The information provided is unclear but these reports refer to intentional noise and disputes around the use of the communal path.
On 17 March 2017, the resident had reported a further incident of ASB. The resident had reported that her neighbour had been racially verbally abusive towards her daughter. The notes show the ASB handler had tried to contact the resident on the same day to discuss the incident reported.
From the information seen, the neighbour was interviewed in March 2017 by the ASB handler but they had denied the allegation. Due to no independent evidence, no further action was taken by the landlord.
During May 2017, further reports of noise nuisance and ASB were reported by the neighbour. Although, the notes provided are limited, on 10 May 2017 the resident and her daughter had attended a Police and Criminal Evidence Act (PACE) meeting held with the community protection officer and the ASB officer. During the PACE meeting it was said:
1. The community protection officer had witnessed noise nuisance and ASB from the resident’s daughter.
2. The community protection officer said he had witnessed that:
  1. The resident’s daughter and her partner had both arrived at the property.
  2. There was loud music being played by the resident’s household.
  3. The loud music was left playing whilst the resident’s daughter had gone out for some hours.
  4. There was deliberate stamping heard which went from one end of the property to the other end of the property.
3. This behaviour had caused distress to the neighbour preventing them from enjoying the quiet surroundings of their own home.
4. The ASB reported by the resident regarding her neighbours racial comments was investigated. The neighbour had been interviewed but denied the allegation so no further action was taken.
5. The landlord would continue to log and investigate any further reports of noise nuisance and ASB.
6. The resident had requested a permanent transfer. The landlord had discussed her options of a mutual exchange and it provided her with details on how to apply. The resident also said had medical needs to support her transfer.
The resident and her daughter during the PACE meeting were issued with a community protection notice (CPN). The notes say the PACE notice was served on the resident as the tenant of the property being responsible for the behaviour of her occupants.
On 19 May 2017, the ASB handler had emailed the resident a copy of its medical assessment form so its allocations team could review her rehousing needs. From the information seen, on 26 July 2017, the resident had visited the landlord’s office to hand in her completed medical assessment form.
On 8 August 2017 a further incident of ASB was reported by the neighbour against the resident’s daughter. The contact notes show, the ASB officer had tried to contact the resident on the same day to discuss this incident but there was no answer. The officer had tried to contact the resident again on 23 August 2017 but there was no answer.
Contact notes from 18 September 2017 show, the resident had emailed the landlord. The email said:
1. She had handed in her medical assessment form over eight weeks ago but the landlord had failed to respond to her.
2. She continued to have problems with her neighbour, a week ago five men were stood outside in her neighbour’s garden, near the resident’s window until 1am. The men were shouting and smoking drugs.
3. Her neighbour and their partner had continued to bang their doors late at night. The resident felt intimidated and scared because her neighbours partner had previously threated her.
On 18 October 2017, the landlord had issued a warning letter to the resident. The letter said:
1. The ASB officer had tried to contact the resident to discuss an incident of ASB reported by her neighbour on 8 August 2017.
2. As the ASB officer was unable to speak to the resident and she had not returned his calls so a warning letter was issued.
3. The resident was advised that the behaviour of her daughter ‘throwing a water bottle at her neighbour’ was not acceptable. As the tenancy holder of the property she was responsible for conduct of all household members and her visitors.
On 18 October 2017, the landlord’s letting team had met with the resident to discuss her housing needs. During this meeting it was said:
1. The resident’s medical assessment had been reviewed and she could be rehoused to a one bedroom flat.
2. The resident said she would rather explore her options for a mutual exchange instead of being rehoused to a one bedroom flat.
Notes from July 2018 show, the resident was offered a temporary decant so the major works required at the property could be completed. The resident had refused this offer because the property being offered to her was not in a good condition. The housing officer had said that the works could not be completed unless the resident was temporarily decanted.
On 19 December 2018 a further meeting was held with the resident and her daughter to discuss the complaints made against the household. During this meeting, the resident had said no matter how much they had tried to minimise the noise, due to the defective floorboards, her neighbour would always find something to complain about
The information provided indicates that from December 2018 to January 2021 there were some minor reports of ASB and noise nuisance made by both parties. The Ombudsman is unable to confirm if any action was taken by the landlord during this period.
On 22 January 2021, the landlord arranged a specialist structural survey of the resident’s property. A report dated 29 January 2021 said:
1. There were some cracks found near the internal door frames.
2. The floorboards had creaked when the resident walked.
3. The doors had come off their hinges which needed to be eased and adjusted for easy access.
In March 2021, the resident raised a complaint to the landlord. A copy of the complaint has not been provided to the Ombudsman but the contacts notes from March 2021 show, the main points raised were:
1. The landlord had failed to completes its planned works to repair or replace the resident’s floorboards.
2. The noise nuisance had continued because of the floorboards that needed repairing.
3. The landlord had failed to resolve the noise nuisance issue which had caused matters to escalate further between both parties.
The resident contacted the Ombudsman in March 2021 requesting for her complaint to be escalated. This service contacted the landlord in March 2021 on the resident’s behalf requesting an update.
On 23 April 2021, the landlord issued its stage one response and said:
1. It had investigated all the issues raised.
2. Its history had shown that although the ASB handler had taken some action, it had failed to fully resolve the issues reported.
3. There were gaps in its timeline which showed that its had not kept on top of all the reports made by the resident and its communication with the resident had been poor at times.
4. It was unable to take action against the neighbour because there wasn’t any independent evidence. However, due to evidence, actions were taken against her daughter’s behaviour towards the neighbour.
5. It was clear that the relationship between neighbour had reached a point where mediation would not work.
6. Its staff changes over the past few years had also contributed to the issues not being managed effectively.
7. The floorboards were still an issue which needed to be repaired. It acknowledged that these works should have been done sooner.
8. It explained that even if the floorboards had been repaired, some of the reports of ASB against the neighbour would not have been avoided.
9. It upheld the resident’s complaint and recommended that its rehousing team explore its options to permanently rehouse her.
10. It apologised for its poor communication and said regular updates would be provided regarding her rehousing application.
11. It provided the resident with details to escalate her complaint to stage two , if required.
The resident did not escalate her stage one complaint response.
Contact notes from April 2021 to September 2021 show the resident had chased the landlord on several occasions for an update on the planned works required at the property.
On 2 September 2021, the landlord responded to the resident by letter and said
1. After its joint site visit and its structural survey completed at the property, it had no plans to alter the property or implement any sound proofing at the property.
2. At present, aside from some small further investigations which were unlikely to change the situation, it was not held by any legislation to install soundproofing at the property.
3. It was aware that this this work had previously been recommended but it could not justify carrying out the work which would be incredibly destructive in nature, both a significant cost in time and resource and there was no evidence that this would fully resolve the situation.
4. It was reviewing its decision internally and was waiting for its head of service to return from their annual leave so the issue could be discussed further.
5. Once a decision had been finalised, it would contact the resident again during September 2021.
On 6 September 2021, the resident raised a new stage one complaint again by letter. The main points raised were:
1. She was very confused by the landlord’s letter dated 2 September 2021.
2. She had raised reports of noise nuisance several years ago during 2015. The same issue was also raised by her neighbour. The landlord had investigated these concerns and it had found that works were required to her floorboards.
3. The resident was confused why the landlord after so many years had sent her a letter that it would not be soundproofing her property when she hadn’t even requested this in the first instance.
4. The letter was unclear and it did not say if any works would be completed at the property.
5. The surveyors that had previously inspected her property had found that the structure of the property was not an issue. The issue was with the floorboards that needed lifting and repairing or replacing.
6. Why had it taken the landlord so many years to investigate these issues and still it was unclear if any works would be completed.
7. She had wasted so many years of her life chasing the landlord to repair her floorboards in order to minimise the noise transference between her and her neighbour’s property. The noise nuisance had caused matters to escalate further with her neighbour.
8. All the previous surveyors had found that the floorboards and joists needed fixing and replacing.
9. She was extremely unhappy with the landlord’s handling of the issues raised and with its staff incompetency.
10. Her reports of noise nuisance and ASB were mishandled and the communication from her ASB officer was poor.
11. She didn’t decorate her flat because of these planned works.
12. This was all very distressing and confusing for her.
The information seen indicates the landlord’s senior complaints advisor had investigated the resident’s complaint. On 23 September 2021, the landlord issued its stage one complaint response and said.
1. It had reviewed the resident’s complaint and her continued issues with noise transference from the property below.
2. It apologised that its letter dated 2 September 2021 was not as detailed and definitive as it should have been.
3. It confirmed that the resident’s case had significant history and various complains were made by her neighbour regarding the noise nuisance.
4. It confirmed that a few years ago, a temporary decant was offered to the resident, in order to investigate the issues outlined with the flooring. It confirmed that this was not the right option because there had been no evidence of any sinking joists, nor was there any definitive information that a defect with the flooring had existed.
5. The housing manager who made the decision no longer worked with the landlord but it could be seen from its historical reports that the proposed work was exploratory in nature. There had been no real schedule of works or an accompanying report that dictated what works were required.
6. It apologised for the poor service it had provided to the resident.
7. It acknowledged the distress this had caused the resident of having to put her through a stressful process of trying to find a temporary decant.
8. It understand that the process of trying to find an alternative property was stressful and it had caused additional distress to the resident.
9. It confirmed that its decanting process was not followed properly. Decanting should be a last resort but instead its previous manager had tried to find a way to placate the tension between the resident and her neighbour, rather than offering a final solution.
10. It reassured the resident, it had learned from this and it had significantly more scrutiny of the decant process in place, with all requests being signed off by its Head of Service with a more rigorous justification procedure followed that required technical evidence.
11. It apologised that the resident had to go through this stressful process.
12. Its recent reports confirmed there was not an existing defect with the resident’s flooring.
13. It had discussed its findings with its team, some minor structural repairs to the property and some re-fixing of the floorboards was required to help reduce any noise transference. The schedule and completion of these works would be discussed with the resident in due course.
14. It accepted that there had been a historic failing and its previous commitments as a result of this have not been in line with its policies and evidently, without a clear plan of action.
15. It provided the resident with details to escalate her complaint to stage two if required.
No repair records have been provided to the Ombudsman to confirm if any repairs recommended in its survey have been completed. The resident has said to the Ombudsman that no works have been undertaken at the property.
Contact notes show a meeting was held on 10 November 2021 with the resident to discuss her complaint. During this meeting, the resident requested for her complaint to be escalated to stage two of the landlord’s complaints process. The main points raised by the resident were:
1. She was unhappy with the noise nuisance and ASB from her neighbour.
2. She wanted to be permanently rehoused into a similar two bedroom property.
3. She was unhappy about the distress and inconvenience caused to her for several years about the planned works required at the property which had not been assessed properly.
On 30 November 2021, the landlord issued its stage two response and said:
1. It had investigated all the issues raised.
2. There had been complaints of noise nuisance and ASB from the resident and her neighbour but on each occasion it had no evidence to pursue any action.
3. It had made contact with the police but even the police did not have any evidence to support an action against the neighbour. It explained if any further evidence was provided by the resident, it would reconsider its decision.
4. The resident was unlikely to meets its rehousing criteria. She could consider mutual exchange and details to apply were available on its website.
5. It apologised for the historical and unnecessary stress caused over a number of years about its investigatory works required at the property.
6. It reconfirmed its stage one findings that no works were required to soundproof her property. It confirmed it would look into repairing any lose floor boards without the residing having to temporarily move out.
7. The stage two complaint was not upheld but it offered £800 to the resident for the distress and inconvenience caused by its historical errors regarding the planned works.
8. This was its final response and provided the resident with details of the Ombudsman to escalate her complaint if required.
The contact notes provided from November 2021 to March 2022, show some further incidents being reported to the landlord. These reports were mostly about the use of the communal path. The landlord had responded to the resident to advise that the communal path should be clear of any obstructions at all times and the resident could not keep her bins on this path.
The resident escalated her complaint to the Ombudsman in March 2022. The main points raised were:
1. The landlord had wasted her time for several years about the planned works required at the property.
2. The landlord had failed to complete any works to reduce the noise transference between both properties.
3. She wanted to be rehoused permanently because it was not possible to improve her relationship with her neighbour.
4. The compensation offered was not enough taking into consideration the distress and inconvenience her for so many years.
The resident has confirmed to the Ombudsman that there has not been any harmful high risk ASB incidents but the minor issues of ASB do still continue between both parties. She said the landlord is unable to take action for these minor incidents but it is difficult to live there and she would prefer to be rehoused permanently.

Assessment and findings

The resident’s reports of noise nuisance and anti-social behaviour (ASB) against her neighbour and the neighbour’s counter allegations made against her.

The landlord has a responsibility to respond to reports of ASB made by its tenants. Section 218 of the Housing Act 1996 (as introduced by S.12 of the Anti-Social Behaviour Act 2003), requires housing associations to prepare a policy and procedure on ASB.
The Neighbourhood and Community Standard is one of the four consumer standards set by the Regulator of Social Housing. As part of this standard, the landlord is required to ‘work in partnership with other agencies to prevent and tackle ASB in the local area.’ The standard requires landlords to publish an ASB policy and goes on to encourage landlords to take a pro-active, preventative approach to ASB when possible.
The resident had reported noise nuisance during January 2015. She had reported that she could hear her neighbour’s general conversations, movements, toilet flushing, doors being opened and closed. She had trouble sleeping which was no doubt distressing for her.
These issues had escalated and further incidents of ASB were reported against the resident’s daughter. There were counter allegations made by the resident as well during the same time. The ASB log provided shows limited data and long gaps in its time line. Evidently, the landlord’s record keeping was poor throughout its handling of the resident’s reports of noise and ASB. Because of its poor record keeping, its communication with the resident was also poor.
The landlord’s response to the ASB is guided by its ASB policy which has been provided to this service. Under the terms of its 2011 ASB policy, the landlord says that in response to reports of ASB it will:
1. Assess the ASB when it is reported and assess whether it is low or high risk.
2. Provide advice and support and follow safeguarding procedures.
3. Refer and signpost parties to appropriate agencies.
4. Agree an action plan with the reporting party and keep this regularly updated.
5. Use whatever powers and remedies are appropriate to reduce the ASB. The list of tools available includes mediation, acceptable behaviour contracts and tenancy breach warning letters as well as legal measures such as injunctions, evictions and community protection notices.
6. It will concentrate on the person reporting ASB when dealing with ASB reports to ensure support is provided.
7. It will keep the resident’s informed about any action being taken and the next steps it will take if the ASB is not resolved,
In response to the resident’s reports of ASB, there is evidence the landlord took the following actions:
1. Interviewed and gathered information on various incidents from both the resident and her neighbour. In March 2017, the landlord had contacted the resident on the same day of her reporting verbal racial abuse against her neighbour. It was reasonable for the landlord to intervene and interview her neighbour without any delay. This shows the landlord had taken into consideration the seriousness of the incident and it took action immediately.
2. It worked jointly with the community protection officer to resolve the ASB. There was a further PACE meeting held in May 2017 where the reports of ASB and its evidence against the resident’s daughter was disclosed and discussed with her.
3. In its PACE meeting, other rehousing options were discussed with the resident such as mutual exchange.
4. It had met with the resident in person to discuss the ASB allegations.
5. It had offered mediation to the resident as an option to resolve the ASB between both parties.
From the information seen, evidently the landlord had intervened where some of the more serious incidents of ASB were reported. However, its communication with the resident during its handling of the ASB was poor.. The resident had to chase the landlord on several occasions for an update. There was no action plan or regular updates being provided to the resident to explain any of its actions.
Most of the incidents reported were in relation to noise nuisance. The landlord’s inspection had initially found that works were required to reduce the noise transference between the properties. The resident was offered a temporary decant in 2018 which she had refused. However, the landlord kept advising her that she had to move for the works to be completed. This was distressing and caused further inconvenience to the resident.
The resident had said the property was initially inspected by several surveyors. The information provided by the landlord does not support this but there is evidence that the property was inspected by its housing officer. The landlord should have arranged a specialist inspection before a decision to decant the resident was made. The landlord had itself accepted that the its actions were not appropriate or in accordance with its ASB or decanting policy. This had caused a lot of confusion and distress to the resident.
The resident has said she was unable to decorate her flat for several because of these planned works. She spent years chasing the landlord about these works but nothing was being finalised. This had caused her additional distress and inconvenience.
The landlord failed to manage the noise nuisance concerns properly and could have done more to resolve it. Although some action was taken by the landlord to resolve the more serious ASB, it had failed to fully resolve the issues of noise nuisance which were continuing between both parties. The landlord had accepted that its officer had tried ‘to find a way to placate the tension between the resident and her neighbour, rather than offering a final solution’. This was not appropriate of in accordance with its ASB policy. The resident had to raise a complaint on more than one occasion because of the landlord’s poor communication with her. This was no doubt distressing and time consuming for her.
A specialist survey was later completed in January 2021 that identified no major works were required at the property. At this point, the landlord was aware that its previous commitments to the resident about these works was not right. It should have shared this survey with the resident without delay and explained that no major works were required The landlord failed to share this information with the resident.
The resident was unaware of the survey and its findings. She raised a complaint in March 2021 about the landlord’s delays in completing these major works. The resident also complained about her creaking floorboards. The landlord in its response in April 2021 had said the planned works would be completed. During its complaint investigations, it failed to pick up and share the findings of the survey with the resident. Instead it continued to advise her that these works would be completed. The landlord’s internal staff communication between departments was poor which had an impact on its handling of the resident’s reports of noise and ASB. This was unreasonable and caused further inconvenience to the resident.
It took seven months for the landlord to review the survey. A letter was finally sent to the resident in September 2021. This letter confirmed no major works were required and the landlord would not be soundproofing the resident’s property. The resident had to raise a new complaint in September 2021 after she had received this letter. This was evidently very disappointing for her because she had spent years chasing the landlord for these works to be completed hoping that it would reduce the noise transference between the properties. Furthermore, she was confused because the letter was unclear and it not confirm if any works were needed to repair her creaking floorboards. The landlord again, failed to communicate clearly with the resident and it failed address the issues she had reported about her creaking floorboards.
When there are failings by a landlord, as is the case here, the Ombudsman will consider whether the redress offered by the landlord (apology, compensation and details of process change) put things right and resolved the resident’s complaint satisfactorily in the circumstances. In considering this the Ombudsman takes into account whether the landlord’s offer of redress was in line with the Ombudsman’s Dispute Resolution Principles; be fair, put things right and learn from outcomes. In this case:
1. It had acknowledged that its assessment of the planned works required at the property was not the right option and apologised for its failure to properly assess the works that were required.
2. It acknowledged that its officer had failed to resolve the ASB and its communication with the resident was poor. It also apologised for these failures.
3. It acknowledged and apologised for the distress and convenience caused to the resident because of its initial assessment which was not support by any technical advice.
4. It confirmed that its actions were not accordance with its ASB and decanting policy and apologised for these failures.
5. It confirmed that lessons were learned and that it had significantly more scrutiny of the decant process in place, in order to avoid such failures.
6. It offered £800 compensation to the resident for distress and convenience causes as a result for its incorrect works assessment.
Overall, if the structural survey of the property had been completed sooner when the resident’s property was initially inspected in 2015, the distress and inconvenience caused to the resident of having to chase the landlord for these works may have been avoided. This had caused a lot of confusion to both the resident and its staff internally. The landlord instead of resolving the noise nuisance was more focused on decanting the resident from her home. If the landlord had focused more on the noise reports, it may have been able to offer mediation early in the process which may have helped to resolve some of these issues sooner. These incident’s had later escalated to more serious ASB incidents and mediation was no longer suitable.
Any minor structural works and works required to the resident’s floorboards and doors should have also been assessed and completed sooner. The creaking floorboards could have been assessed sooner and repaired. These may have also helped to reduce the noise transference between the properties. There is no evidence provided if any works to repair the creaking floorboards have been done by the landlord to date. The resident has said to the Ombudsman that no works have been completed at her property. Therefore there was severe maladministration by the landlord in its handling of the resident’s reports of noise and ASB.
The compensation offered of £800 was reasonable redress for the distress and inconvenience caused as result of its planned works assessment. However, it failed to offer any compensation for its poor handling of the resident’s reports of noise and ASB. Furthermore, the minor structural works and works required to the resident’s floorboards and doors recommended in its survey dated January 2021 are still outstanding. The Ombudsman will order increased compensation to put things right for the resident based on the information seen.
In deciding an appropriate level of redress in this complaint, this Service has considered the resident’s average level of rent for the period from January 2015 until June 2023, which was around £110.12 per week or £440.48 per month. The minor structural repairs, repairs required to the loose floorboards and doors are still outstanding. These repairs should have been assessed and completed during 2015 when the landlord was receiving the noise complaints. During its own inspection in 2015, the housing officer had found that the floorboards needed repairing. Even though, it had later found that no major works were required, there were still works required to repair the floorboards and these works have been outstanding from January 2015. The resident had to live with increased noise transference of creaking floorboards for several years and she was unable to decorate her flat for several years because of these outstanding repairs. It is reasonable to conclude the resident’s enjoyment of property was severely reduced.
Given the affected areas and the impact on the family a 5% of the rent, or £2114.30 is considered appropriate in recognition of its failures in handling the reports of noise and ASB. The rent figures and the identified delay period are indicative and used as a guideline only and are not intend to amount to an exact refund.

The resident’s request for permanent rehousing.

The resident had initially requested to be rehoused during the PACE meeting in May 2017. The landlord’s allocations and transfer policy says, a resident may require a transfer where the household size has enlarged or reduced or where there has been a change in the health needs of their household. A managerial transfer may also be considered in more serious cases of ASB where there was a serious risk of harm to the resident. The resident had not met the transfer criteria. The landlord had discussed options such as mutual exchange and details on how to apply were provided to the resident. This was appropriate and in accordance with its transfer policy which says where a transfer is requested and not needed, other options such as mutual exchange would be considered.
During the PACE meeting, the resident had also mentioned her medical needs for a transfer. The landlord had provided her with details on how to apply for a medical assessment. The landlord after its meeting had emailed a copy of its medical assessment forms to the resident without any delays. This was reasonable and shows the landlord was well engaged with the resident.
The resident had returned her medical assessment forms on 26 July 2021. By 18 October 2021, the landlord had assessed her application. She was advised that she could be eligible for one bedroom flat based on her medical needs. Even though the resident had to chase the landlord for an update in September 2021, its response overall was within 12 weeks was reasonable.
It is understood by the Ombudsman that the resident did not wish to downsize to a one bedroom flat because of her daughter but her daughter was an adult so the assessment may have taken this into consideration.
However, the landlord during its complaint response in April 2021 had said it would explore options to permanently rehouse the resident. It then failed to communicate with her about this. This was unreasonable and not in accordance with its own policy. The complaints officer had agreed they would make contact with its rehousing team and update the resident. No evidence had been provided that the complaint’s officer had followed this up with its lettings and allocation team.
The landlord’s communication from April 2021 was poor when handling the resident’s request for permanent rehousing. Therefore, there was a service failure from the landlord in its handling of the resident’s reports of permanent rehousing. The landlord has failed to acknowledge these failures or offer any redress to the resident. The Ombudsman will order compensation to put things right for the resident based on the information seen.

Complaint handling

The resident raised her stage one complaint on 6 September 2021. The landlord responded on 23 September 2021, which was two working days outside its own complaint policy. Although its response was slightly overdue, this was a minor failure. It would be reasonable to conclude that considering the historic nature of the complaint, its overall response time was reasonably delayed. The complaint response itself was very detailed and all the historic issues had been investigated properly.
The resident had escalated her complaint to stage two on 10 November 2021. The landlord issued its stage two final complaint response on 30 November 2021, which was in 12 working days and well within its complaints policy. Therefore there was no maladministration by the landlord in its complaint handling.
However, it is noted by the Ombudsman that a previous complaint raised in March 2021 concerning the same issues was not investigated properly. The landlord in its response in April 2021 had failed to pick up that a survey had already been done at the property in January 2021. It also failed to complete its agreed actions of making contact with its allocation team to discuss the resident’s rehousing options. If these issues had been investigated properly in April 2021, it may have avoided further complaints. Therefore, there was maladministration in the landlord’s complaint handling.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman scheme, there was severe maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of noise nuisance and anti-social behaviour (ASB) against her neighbour and the neighbour’s counter allegations made against her.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman scheme, there was service failure in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s request for permanent rehousing.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s complaint handling.

Reasons

The landlord had failed to resolve the continuous reports of noise nuisance from January 2015. It should have arranged a survey of the property sooner in 2015 before offering a decant to the resident, and completed any minor works to reduce the noise transference between both properties. The works recommended in its survey dated January 2021 are still outstanding to date, these works are recommended to reduce some noise transference and should have been completed without any delays.
Furthermore, the landlord’s communication with the resident throughout its handling of the noise nuisance and ASB has been poor. Its internal staff management and record keeping was poor. Its initial assessment recommending major works was done without any technical advice. This led to internal communication breakdown and confusion which had an impact on its handling of these issues. It failed to offer medication sooner which may have helped to resolve the initial minor reports of noise nuisance. It was wrongly focused on decanting the resident which had resulted in a lot of time being wasted.
The landlord actions when considering the resident’s request for permanent rehousing were appropriate and in accordance with its policy. However, its complaint’s investigation in April 2021 had agreed to reconsider the resident’s request for permanent rehousing. It then failed to follow this up with its allocations team and no further updates were provided to the resident. This was unreasonable which had caused further distress and inconvenience to the resident.
The landlord’s complaint handling at stage one was very thorough and its response had covered all the historic issues that were not settled. Its complaint handling time had improved during stage two and a final complaint response was issued in accordance with its complaint policy. However, it had failed to investigate a previous complaint in April 2021. If the complaint had been investigated properly, this may have avoided further complaints. This caused further distress and inconvenience to the resident of having to raise a further complaint in September 2021 about the same issues.

Orders

The landlord is ordered within four weeks of the date of this report to pay the resident £3214.30 direct compensation made up as follows:
1. £2114.30 rent reimbursement for any loss of enjoyment caused by the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of noise nuisance and anti-social behaviour (ASB) against her neighbour and the neighbour’s counter allegations made against her.
2. £800 previously offered, if not already paid to the resident.
3. £50 for the distress and inconvenience caused to the resident for its delayed transfer application response.
4. £250 for the distress and inconvenience caused to the resident for its complaint handling failures.
The landlord is ordered within four weeks of the date of this report to complete the outstanding works required at the property.
The landlord is ordered within four weeks of this report to provide an update to the resident’s in relation her request for permanent rehousing, as it had agreed to do so in April 2021.
The landlord is required within four weeks of the date of this report to review this complaint and provide a report on:
1. How its intends to improve its record keeping failures and its internal staff communication to ensure all reports of noise nuisance are logged and investigated without any delays, in order to avoid such failures in the future.
2. How it intends to improve staff training so its ASB obligations are recognised at the outset when dealing with noise nuisance and ASB, to ensure such failures are avoided in the future.
3. How is intends to improve staff training to improve its communication with residents to ensure it is engaged and resolutions focused, to ensure such failures are avoided in the future.
4. How it intends to improve its complaint handling to ensure complaint are investigated properly and any actions agreed during its complaint response are followed through, to ensure such failures are avoided in the future.
The landlord to issue the resident a written apology within four weeks of the date of this report for the failures identified above.