London Borough of Enfield (202210171)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202210171

London Borough of Enfield

7 March 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:
1. Landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of anti-social behavior and noise disturbance.
2. Landlord’s response to the resident’s request for a management transfer.
The Ombudsman has also considered the landlord’s complaint handling.

Background and summary of events

Background

The resident is a secure tenant of the landlord since 23 January 2012. The landlord is a council.
The property is described as a 2-bedroom house.
The reports of anti-social behaviour and noise disturbance relate to the resident’s neighbour who will be referred to as “Tenant A” within the report. The tenancy agreement for Tenant A has not been provided for this investigation. However, it has been assumed that the tenancy terms will be the same as those that apply to the resident.

Policies

The resident’s tenancy agreement informs the resident that she is responsible for the behaviour of anyone living in or visiting the property. Also, she must not encourage anyone in the property to act in a way that would breach the tenancy conditions. The landlord will consider all the remedies that it has available to address reports of anti-social behaviour, nuisance and noise disturbance, where it has sufficient evidence.
The landlord’s anti-social behaviour policy defines such behaviour as:
1. Conduct that has caused or is likely to cause, harassment, alarm or distress to any person.
2. Conduct capable of causing nuisance or annoyance to a person in relation to that person’s occupation of residential premises.
3. Conduct capable of causing housing-related nuisance or annoyance to any person.
The anti-social behaviour policy classes acts of anti-social behaviour into 3 priorities:
1. Priority one includes reports of hate related incident or crimes and serious and persistent noise nuisance. These cases will be dealt with by the council’s community safety unit.
2. Priority two and three include reports of lower-level anti-social behaviour and tenancy breaches. These cases are investigated by the neighbourhood team. This includes reports of verbal abuse, threatening behaviour, statutory noise nuisance and neighbour disputes.
The landlord’s anti-social behaviour policy also states that it uses a range of tools to resolve reports such as warning letters, acceptable behaviour contracts and good neighbour agreements. Also, a resident can request a community trigger and this will be progressed once the case meets the threshold.
The council’s allocation policy sets out the circumstances in which a resident can apply for transfer to another property.

Summary of events

The resident made a report of noise disturbance on 25 September 2021 from Tenant A. The resident described noise disturbance such as screaming and shouting plus rubbish being thrown into the garden. The landlord’s internal records show that it spoke to the resident on the phone about the incident.
On 15 April 2022, the resident complained that the landlord had failed to resolve her reports of bullying and noise pollution though she had supplied diary sheets, a crime reference number, video footage and experienced loud music. She stated that her preferred outcome was for the landlord to undertake a community trigger and/or provide noise monitoring equipment in her property. The landlord acknowledged the complaint on 15 April 2022, informing the resident that it would answer the complaint within 20 working days.
The resident reported anti-social behaviour on 8 May 2022, namely that Tenant A was throwing incense and cigarettes into her garden. Also, the loud music had stopped around 3 weeks ago. The landlord noted that it had also received a report about the anti-social behaviour from a councillor on behalf of the resident.
The same day, the landlord called Tenant A who disputed the reports of anti-social behaviour. Tenant A made counter allegations that the resident had made a racial slur at her children, made comments about her faith and she had a crime reference number. Also, she alleged that the resident had sent people to her property to intimidate her.
The resident emailed the landlord on 11 May 2022 complaining that she had experienced harassment and bullying from Tenant A for the previous 2 years. The resident advised that despite reports to the police and environmental health about the anti-social behaviour, action had not been taken. The landlord had failed to visit her property and was dismissive of her concerns. Also, the landlord had not safeguarded her and allowed the violation of her human rights which was not allowed under Article 8 of the Human Rights Act. The resident also said that the experience had affected her emotional wellbeing and she requested that the landlord explain the checks it had undertaken before Tenant A’s mutual exchange was approved.
On 12 May 2022, the landlord visited the resident’s property. It recorded that pictures were taken. However, the pictures were not supplied for this investigation. It recorded that there was no evidence of cigarettes, incense or rubbish in the resident’s garden and the boundary between the two properties was marked by a clothes line. The resident was informed that she was responsible for the installation of the fence. In response, the resident advised that she could not afford to install the fence, she felt vulnerable and she enquired whether the landlord would install CCTV. The resident was advised to complete diary sheets and the details for the noise app would be sent as well as information regarding her housing options.
There were two reports of children playing in the garden made by the resident on 13 May 2022 and 17 May 2022.
The landlord wrote to the resident on 17 May 2022 regarding the reports of anti-social behaviour. It confirmed that an anti-social behaviour case was opened and that a visit to her property was carried out on 12 May 2022. At this visit, pictures were taken of the garden and the resident confirmed that she was aware she was responsible for the fence that separated the two gardens. With regard to the request for CCTV, the resident was informed that the landlord did not install cameras for neighbour disputes but she could make a request to install a ring doorbell. The landlord stated that the ring doorbell would not cover the back of the property and that Tenant A had disputed the allegations made by the resident and had made counter allegations which it was investigating.
The landlord concluded its letter by advising that it intended to carry out a full investigation of the issues reported by the resident and Tenant A. It listed the available tools it had available such as warnings and enforcement to resolve the reported anti-social behaviour and noise disturbance.
The landlord’s records from 24 May 2022 show that it had:
1. Interviewed 3 residents and recorded those it had been unable to make contact with.
2. Contacted the police.
3. Visited Tenant A, who during the interview:

i. Made counter allegations of verbal abuse and threats from the resident which included a racial slur against her son that had been reported to the police.

ii. Alleged that the resident had been verbally abusive to Tenant A’s mother.

iii. Advised that the resident had contacted the police alleging that she had tried to commit arson though Tenant A was not at the property at the time.

Received an enquiry from a councillor which stated that the resident was experiencing noise disturbance from 11pm and this was affecting her children.
Responded to the councillor advising that it had agreed a verbal action plan with the resident. The resident did not qualify for a management transfer as this was approved in particular circumstances. It needed to investigate the counter allegations it had received and it may consider reoffering mediation.

The resident contacted the landlord on 30 May 2022, regarding the allegations of racial abuse made against her. She advised that Tenant A had made the allegations of a racial slur as a “get out clause” and wanted details about the report.
The landlord’s records shows feedback it received from the noise team. The date is not shown on the landlord’s records. This stated that music played around midnight would be classified as a statutory nuisance. However, from its review of the recordings, it could not confirm that a statutory nuisance had occurred. The noise officer advised that the sound insulation to the building was poor as spoken words from Tenant A’s property could be heard on the recording. The landlord was advised it could issue a community protection notice if formal tenancy action was required.
On 28 June 2022, the police provided information to the landlord regarding the previous occupant of Tenant A’s property. It also stated that it had not evidenced that the resident had been subject to harassment or intimidation for the past 2 years. It agreed to carry out a joint visit with the landlord.
The landlord carried out a case review on 5 July 2022. It reviewed the actions it had undertaken regarding the anti-social behaviour. It concluded that:
1. It did not believe mediation was appropriate.
2. The resident was to install fencing to reinstate the boundary between the two properties.
3. The resident should not engage with Tenant A.
4. It would monitor the situation for 8 weeks.
The landlord wrote to the resident on 8 July 2022. A summary of its findings were:
1. It had not found any evidence of bullying, intimidation or harassment towards her from Tenant A. In fact, it pointed to Tenant A being the victim. Also, it had no evidence that Tenant A was responsible of inciting the arguments with her.
2. The more recent noise recordings had been sent to the noise team for review. It confirmed that the reports of anti-social behaviour and noise disturbance did not meet the threshold to be given a priority for rehousing.
3. The resident had agreed at a meeting held on 5 July 2022 that she did not have evidence to support her allegations that she had been bullied, intimidated or harassed over the past 2 years.
4. It provided information regarding alternative rehousing options such as home swapper and home finder.
5. If the situation did not improve, the next stage would be the service of a community protection warning. However, it intended to monitor the situation.
6. It stated that there should be no contact between the resident and Tenant A.
7. It had arranged for the fence to be made safe. It was considering repairing the fence on the basis that the resident participated in mediation and that the cost of the repair would be repaid by the resident on a weekly/monthly basis.
8. It recognised the resident was reluctant to participate in mediation and senior leaders had been informed of this.
9. It appreciated resident’s patience, co-operation and willingness to achieve a resolution.
The resident requested a review of the anti-social behaviour case on 1 August 2022 as there were discrepancies within the report.
In early August 2022, there were further reports that the resident had refused to return a football belonging to the children of Tenant A as well as reports of music being played around 1am.
The resident informed the landlord on 1 September 2022 that the community police had attended and requested that she sign a document that she would not interact with Tenant A. On inspection of the form, it was a community protection notice andshe requested that the landlord tell her why she had received the warning.
In response, the landlord informed the resident on 9 September 2022 that the community protection notice was served by the police and not the landlord. It signposted the resident to contact the police to find out the reason why this was issued. The landlord asked the resident whether she was prepared to get the fence repaired.
The resident repeated on 17 September 2022 that she wanted a reason for the service of the community protection notice and that she did not have the money to replace the fence. The resident requested footage that Tenant A had of her making excessive noise. She also said that social services had advised that Tenant A had made a report about her which had caused her distress and harm.
On 20 September 2022, Tenant A contacted the landlord advising that due to the behaviour of the resident, she was unable to celebrate religious holidays and this was impacting her children. Tenant A requested that the landlord consider formal action against the resident.
The landlord responded to the resident on 22 September 2022. It advised that:
1. The Safer Neighbourhood Team would have given reasons for the service of the community protection notice.
2. It had investigated claims and counter claims it had received between 2020 to May 2022 and had not found evidence of bullying, intimidation and harassment.
3. The resident had agreed not to speak to Tenant A and to return any balls from Tenant A’s children that went into her garden.
4. The resident had agreed that repairing the fence would assist with the relationship with Tenant A.
5. It could not supply her with recordings supplied by third parties anonymously.
6. Tenant A had denied contacting social services. The police could request the involvement of social service.
7. Since the meeting, it had received another complaint that the resident had not returned the ball belonging to the child of Tenant A. The police had attended.
8. The Noise Team had advised that the noise disturbance was not enforceable.
9. It had offered mediation, which Tenant A had agreed to and the resident had declined.
10. It had offered a rechargeable repair which the resident had said that she could not afford. It noted that the resident had said this without knowing the cost of the repair or the repayment plan.
The landlord wrote to the resident on 11 October 2022 regarding messages she had provided via WhatsApp on 5 October 2022. It advised that the messages had been sent to the Noise Team on 6 October 2022. The landlord shared the advice received from the Noise Team on 11 October 2022. This advised that it was not possible to determine whether the noise was enforceable. Therefore, if the noise disturbance happened again, the resident should contact the Noise Team, requesting that it attend to witness the noise. It stated that since its request of 22 September 2022 asking the resident to consider mediation and the recharge for the cost of the repair of the fence, it had not received a response. It said that the anti-social behaviour case would be closed.
In response, the resident requested on 19 October 2022 that the complaint be escalated. The resident gave additional reasons for the complaint to be escalated on 27 October 2022. These were:
1. The landlord did not action her request for an appeal of the anti-social behaviour.
2. The case review of the anti-social behaviour was not accurate as the resident was not supplied with the recordings that Tenant A had made.
3. She disputed that she did not have evidence of anti-social behaviour by Tenant A.
4. She disputed that she did not return the football to the children of Tenant A.
5. She wanted to know why the landlord did not tell her why it had requested that the police issue the community protection warning.
6. She wanted to know if Tenant A was also given a community protection warning.
7. She advised that she had agreed to mediation and had informed the landlord of this but maintained that she could not afford for the fencing to be repaired.
The resident made a report of noise disturbance on 5 November 2022. She advised that music was being played at an excessive level. In response, the landlord contacted the Noise Team for an update on 15 November 2022.
The resident contacted this Service on 30 November 2022, advising that the landlord had not responded to her complaint.
On the same day, the landlord acknowledged the complaint. It apologised for its delayed complaint response and explained that there was a lack of resources in its complaints team. It stated that it was aware that the resident remained dissatisfied that she could not appeal against the review of the anti-social behaviour that took place on 5 July 2022. It advised that the resident believed that there were inaccuracies and false claims made and wanted these reviewed. Finally, the landlord stated that it would respond within 20 working days.
On 10 December 2022, the resident provided footage of noise disturbance to the landlord taken on 9 December 2022. The resident asked why the excessive noise and shouting occurring at 00:56 was not considered a breach of the community protection warning.
The landlord’s internal records of 19 December 2022 noted that:
1. Evidence did not support possession action to be taken against the resident or Tenant A and neither did it meet the threshold for significant civil action.
2. The current allegations started in April 2022.
3. The possible outcomes were:

i. Recharge the fencing works on the understanding that the resident consents to mediation.

ii. Recharge the fencing works and charge the costs to a separate account for future recovery.

iii. Until the debt is repaid, the resident could not be considered for a transfer.

Pest control had advised that the resident was allowing fruit to rot on her lawn which was encouraging rats into the garden.

The resident chased the complaint response on 21 December 2022. In response, the landlord informed the resident on 28 December 2022 that it would respond within 20 working days from its acknowledgement of the complaint. This meant the complaint response was due on 30 December 2022.
On 17 January 2023, the resident contacted the Noise Team to advise that she could not afford to pay for the fence repair and that mediation was futile. She requested that a noise monitor be installed as they had advised that the noise she had recorded was not of a suitable quality.
The landlord provided its final stage complaint response on 3 February 2023. It confirmed that it had received the resident’s request to escalate her complaint on 27 October 2022. The main findings were:
1. Tenant A had disputed the resident’s reports of intimidation and harassment. It had received counter allegations and that the outcome may lead to warnings and enforcement.
2. It acknowledged that the resident had requested CCTV. It did not normally do this and it had told the resident to keep diary sheets.
3. Noise disturbance should be reported to the Noise Team for monitoring.
4. It acknowledged that the resident had requested a community trigger. Before it did this, it had reviewed the reports of anti-social behaviour.
5. It had received reports from 8 May 2022, completed an vulnerability assessment and an action plan was verbally agreed on 12 May 2022.
6. At the home visit on 12 May 2022, pictures were taken of the garden and the materials used to create a division between the property and Tenant A. It had spoken with Tenant A who had disputed the claims of intimidation and harassment. It had also interviewed several third parties in May 2022.
7. It was aware of a disagreement about the broken fence and confirmed that it did not repair fencing that separated gardens. It confirmed that the garden fence was the resident’s responsibility.
8. It had agreed to repair the dividing fence on the basis that the resident agreed to mediation with Tenant A and that the cost of the repair be recharged.
9. It had received counter allegations regarding racial abuse against Tenant A’s children.
10. The councillor had informed the landlord that she expressed an interest in a move to another property. It explained that she did not qualify for a management transfer.
11. It had reviewed the first response to her complaint and the resident had continued to submit records of noise disturbance.
12. The police had issued a community protection warning in September 2022 after it had advised the resident and Tenant A not to have contact with each other.
13. It decided that it was no longer appropriate for the resident and Tenant A to have mediation and advised that its offer to repair the fence remained on a rechargeable basis.
14. Once it had completed its investigation into the counter allegations it had received from Tenant A, it would decide whether a community trigger should take place.

Events after the complaint process ended.

The landlord issued a community protection warning to the resident on 6 February 2023 for the failure to repair and maintain the boundary fence. It advised that this was a health and safety concern and cited that this was a breach of section 60 of the tenancy agreement.
On 24 April 2023, the landlord sent an anti-social behaviour case closure letter to the resident. This set out the action it had taken with regard to Tenant A, contact with the police and the issue of the community protection warning. It advised that the noise disturbance was assessed as domestic noise and not enforceable. It had reached agreement regarding the fence and its repairs team would be in contact to make an appointment.
The landlord contacted the resident on 2 May 2023 to advise that the repairs to the fence would take place on 8 May 2023 and requested her availability.

Assessment and findings

Landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of anti-social behavior and noise disturbance.

When considering complaints about anti-social behaviour, the Ombudsman’s role is to assess whether the landlord has acted reasonably. It has to also assess whether the landlord met its obligations towards the resident reporting the problem and the neighbour causing the problem.
The landlord received a report of anti-social behaviour in September 2021 from the resident. From what can be seen, it spoke to the resident about this and did not take any further action. The landlord’s records show that there was a gap of about 8 months before it received a further report in May 2022 which is the subject of this complaint. It was appropriate for the landlord to open an anti-social behaviour case on receiving the resident’s reports of anti-social behaviour in May 2022. The landlord considered the impact on the resident by carrying out a vulnerability risk assessment which it assessed as high.
One of the main aspects of the anti-social behaviour complaint concerned a football belonging to the children of Tenant A going into her garden. The landlord’s anti-social behaviour policy states that complaints about children are not considered anti-social behaviour unless damage has been caused. The resident also complained about rubbish being thrown into the garden such as incense. It is not disputed that the landlord visited the resident’s address in May 2022 and took pictures. As these pictures were not provided for this investigation, the Ombudsman cannot comment as to what was seen at this visit. Nevertheless, the landlord concluded that it could not evidence that the resident’s garden contained rubbish that belonged to Tenant A. The landlord therefore fairly determined that it could not substantiate the resident’s report of anti-social behaviour.
The landlord acted appropriately and there is nothing to suggest that it did not take the resident’s concerns seriously. While the football belonging to the children of Tenant A going into the resident’s garden could be deemed by her to be annoying and disruptive, the landlord’s decision was correct that this did not amount to a breach of tenancy. It was reasonable for the landlord to decide that the lack of the dividing fence was contributing to the cause of the anti-social behaviour reported by the resident.
The landlord acted appropriately following the resident’s report of anti-social behaviour. After it visited the resident, it also visited Tenant A and interviewed witnesses within 11 days of receiving the report in May 2022. In its complaint response, the landlord accepted that it had agreed a verbal action plan with the resident – this was a shortcoming as the plan should have been written down. However, the resident appeared aware of the steps to be taken to resolve her reports of anti-social behaviour and noise disturbance.
The landlord acted reasonably when it informed the resident that she was responsible for restoring the dividing fence between the properties. At the time of the visit, the boundary between the properties was split by a washing line. The landlord’s advice was in accordance with the tenancy agreement which states that residents are responsible for installing dividing fences. This was a reasonable resolution to the anti-social behaviour problems reported.
The resident maintained that she could not afford the cost of the replacement fencing. The landlord reasonably considered the resident’s financial circumstances and her assertion that she could not afford the cost of the fence. The landlord’s decision that it would install the fence and recharge the cost to the resident was reasonable. This meant that an affordable repayment plan could be made taking into account the resident’s ability to pay. Also, the landlord’s communication did not indicate that the amount had to be paid within a calendar year and it appeared willing to agree an affordable repayment period.
Mediation is a tool available to landlords to stop escalations of anti-social behaviour and to resolve boundary disputes. The landlord offered mediation but stated that this was refused by the resident. The resident disputed this and said that she was willing to participate in mediation with Tenant A. However, the landlord determined, after looking at the reports that it had received from the resident and Tenant A, that mediation would not be suitable due to the fractured relationship between the parties and the police had informed the parties not to speak with each other. Also, while mediation could diffuse ongoing situations such as this, the installation of the fencing was a more realistic outcome to be pursued to resolve the children’s football ending up in the resident’s garden.
It is noted that the landlord received a counter allegation in May 2022 from Tenant A that the resident had made a racial slur regarding one of her children, and of harassment.
The police served a community protection notice on the resident on 1 September 2022. The resident requested the reason for the service of the notice. The landlord advised the resident that she should contact the police if she wanted further information. While the police had to inform the landlord that it intended to serve the notice on the resident(s), if the resident wished to appeal the grounds on which the notice had been served, she would have to contact the police to do so. Therefore, it was reasonable for the landlord to signpost the resident to contact the police to get information on the reasons for the service of the community protection notice.
Ultimately, the evidence shows that the reports of anti-social behaviour did not warrant any formal action against Tenant A. It is acknowledged that while the resident was concerned about the activity by Tenant A’s children, the landlord was satisfied that this did not amount to anti-social behaviour.
The resident informed the landlord in May 2022 that the reports of noise disturbance had stopped. There was a gap of around 3 months before another report was received in August 2022 of music being played. It was reasonable for the landlord to seek advice from the Noise Team about the action it should take to resolve the noise reports that it had received.
Based on evidence seen by this Service, the landlord took reasonable steps to investigate the resident’s report of noise disturbance. It sought advice from its Noise Team which informed it on 2 occasions that it reviewed the recordings received that decided that the noise did not constitute a statutory nuisance. Its advice that the resident should contact the Noise Team at the time the noise was occurring was reasonable. This would enable the Noise Team to provide certainty regarding the volume of the noise being played and the enforcement action that could be taken.
The Noise Team provided advice to the landlord regarding the sound insulation to the property. There is no evidence that the acted on the advice it obtained regarding the possibility of poor sound insulation to the property contributing to the volume of sound reported by the resident. There is no evidence that it acted to assess whether there was any remedial action it could take to improve the sound insulation. The landlord closed the anti-social behaviour case even though it had not investigated the information received from the Noise Team that the noise transference may be contributing to the noise reported from the resident. This was a failing on the part of the landlord.
The resident requested a review of the anti-social behaviour and for the community trigger to be carried out. The landlord appropriately carried out a review of the anti-social behaviour in July 2022.
However, the resident made a further request for another review in August 2022 as she remained dissatisfied with the outcome. The landlord in its final complaint response in February 2023 agreed to conduct a community trigger once it had investigated the allegations made by Tenant A. This was not appropriate as by February 2023, at least 6 months had passed since the resident’s request and numerous reports had been made. Although the landlord was not responsible for the community trigger process (as this is part of the council’s role as a local authority), it should have recognised the delay in following up on this aspect of the resident’s request and liaised with the team responsible rather than deciding that counter allegations needed investigation first.

Landlord’s response to the resident’s request for a management transfer.

The allocation policy sets out that transfers request on an exceptional or on an emergency basis will be considered and agreed by a senior leader in housing services. It will also investigate the evidence for the need to move urgently and will make an offer of a similar type of property if agreed.
Looking at the available information, the resident’s request to move urgently did not meet the criteria laid down for a management transfer. Therefore it was appropriate for the landlord in its complaint response to confirm that she did not qualify to move to alternative accommodation on those grounds.
The landlord provided information to the resident of other means of obtaining housing via the housing moves schemes which was reasonable. This gave the resident information on the different ways she could find alternative housing if she wanted to move from the property.
The resident requested information about the housing application for Tenant A. The General Data Protection Regulations 2018 prevent the landlord disclosing information about its residents to a third party without the individual’s consent. Therefore, it was reasonable that the landlord did not disclose any information to the resident about Tenant A’s tenancy or application for the tenancy.

Complaint handling.

The resident’s online complaint was received by its corporate team in April 2022. The complaint was not forwarded to the housing team until a month later in May 2022. It is acknowledged that the landlord contacted the resident to advise that it had received the complaint but the wait between the online form being received and it forwarded to the housing complaints team resulted in a delay to the resident.
The resident was informed that she would receive a complaint response within 20 working days. This was not appropriate as this did not meet the timescale outlined in this Service’s Complaint Handling Code.
The landlord provided its first complaint response on 17 May 2022 but this response did not meet the requirements set out in the Complaint Handling Code. It is not obvious that this was the landlord’s first response to the complaint. The correspondence set out the actions it was taking and proposed to take to remedy the anti-social behaviour and noise disturbance. However, it did not inform the resident how she could escalate the complaint if she remained dissatisfied.
The resident escalated her complaint on 27 October 2022 and had to chase the landlord for its final complaint response. This included making contact with this Service.
The landlord’s complaint procedure says that it will respond to complaints escalated to its final stage within 20 working days. This is in line with the time standards in this Service’s Complaint Handling Code. However, it did not do so in this case as it responded to the resident’s complaint on 3 February 2023, which meant that it took 68 working days to respond to the resident’s escalated concerns. This was not reasonable as it represented an unacceptable delay in the resident obtaining the landlord’s final position on the complaint.
The resident complained that her human rights had been breached with regard to Article 8 of the Human Rights Act. The resident explained that she believed that respect for her private and family life had been breached. While the landlord in its complaint response did not address this specifically, its response to the resident’s reports of anti-social behaviour and noise disturbance was generally proportionate. It outlined that it had assessed the resident’s vulnerability, visited her property, interviewed Tenant A and gathered information from other witnesses. It also collaborated with the police and the Noise Team which were necessary actions.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of anti-social behavior and noise disturbance.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration in the landlord’s response to the resident’s request for a management transfer.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s complaint handling.

Reasons

Overall, the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of anti-social behaviour and noise disturbance was in line with its anti-social behaviour policy. However, there is evidence that it did not take sufficient action to investigate whether the reports of noise disturbance resulted from noise transference and to establish if there were any steps it could have taken to minimise the impact on the resident. The landlord also contributed to a delay in progressing the resident’s request for a community trigger.
The landlord appropriately determined that the resident did not meet the threshold to be considered for a management transfer. It provided information about the options available to find alternative accommodation.
The landlord did not meet the obligations set out in its published complaint procedure or this Service’s Complaint Handling Code. This caused the resident to experience delays in obtaining the landlord’s complaint responses.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

Within four weeks of the date of this report, the landlord is to write to the resident to apologise for the service failures outlined in this report.
Within four weeks of the date of this report, the landlord is to pay the resident £500 compensation broken down as follows:
1. £300 for its failure to carry out an assessment of the insulation in the property and to help progress the community trigger;
2. £200 for its complaint handling failures.
Within six weeks of the date of this report, the landlord is to carry out an inspection of the property to assess whether it has adequate wall insulation to reduce noise transference. It should write to the resident, providing a copy to this Service, outlining the actions it will take, if any, to improve the sound insulation.
If it has not already done so, within six weeks of the date of this report, the landlord is to consider liaising with colleagues at the council to progress the community trigger review requested by the resident. It should advise the resident and this Service with the outcome and explain any decision made about progressing the community trigger.
Within six weeks of the date of this report, the landlord is to review its complaint handling arrangements between its corporate and housing teams to ensure that any delays in forwarding complaints are minimised and to achieve compliance with the Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code.
The landlord should reply to this Service within the timescales set out above to provide evidence of compliance with these orders.

Recommendations

If it has not already done so, the landlord is to carry out a self-assessment against the recommendations made in this Service’s spotlight report on noise: Time to be heard (October 2022).