London Borough of Redbridge (202106556)

Back to Top

 

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202106556

London Borough of Redbridge

28 November 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

  1. The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of:
    1. Noise nuisance.
    2. The conduct of its staff.

Background and summary of events

  1. The resident is a secure tenant of the landlord, a local authority. The tenancy commenced on 1 February 2012.
  2. Between 19 January 2020 to 26 November 2020, the resident had completed a diary log sheet logging a number of incidents that had occurred in regard to noise nuisance and anti-social behaviour (ASB).The reports included allegations of the neighbour playing loud music, banging, shouting and swearing.
  3. Following this, during April 2021, the resident had made a report of noise nuisance about his neighbour. The landlord explained that it referred the resident’s concerns to the relevant department and a visit was made. It also explained that a professional meeting would now be taking place to discuss all the concerns raised. The landlord asked the resident to monitor the situation and to inform it of any changes should there be further incidents.
  4. On 9 May 2021 the resident emailed the housing officer to state that he wanted to raise a complaint. The resident expressed that he did not believe any investigation had been done about his complaints regarding his neighbour. He stated that he had been informed the landlord had visited his neighbour but did not believe this took place as he did not hear them arrive. He had also raised concerns about the conduct of the landlord’s staff. Following this, on 29 May 2021, the resident contacted the landlord stating that he had not had a response about his complaint. Consequently, on 16 June 2021, he emailed a different housing officer to say that he had not had a response to his complaint. The housing officer proceeded to ask for the complaint to be logged on its system. In the resident’s complaint, he expressed that he did not believe the enforcement officer had done any investigation about his complaints made against his neighbour. The resident also explained that he felt the enforcement officer was racist.
  5. On 13 July 2021 the landlord issued its stage one response. It stated that it had reviewed the case and spoken with the enforcement officer. The landlord proceeded to say that all the actions taken were proportionate and correct. In response to the resident’s claims that the enforcement officer was racist, the landlord explained that it had not found any evidence to support these claims. The landlord explained that, if the resident was able to provide further information to support these claims, it would investigate the matter.
  6. Following this, on 15 July 2021, the resident requested the complaint be escalated. The landlord provided the resident with its stage two response on 19 August 2021.
  7. The landlord explained that, as part of its investigation, it had reviewed its internal records, met with the enforcement officer and community protection officer. The landlord explained that if the resident did not want to use the free noise app and would prefer duty officers attend his home to witness any noise or ASB, this service was open to him for operatives to attend late nights and over the weekend. The landlord proceeded to provide the resident with the details of the service, so that he was able to contact the out of hours team.
  8. In response to the resident’s comments about the enforcement officer, the landlord stated it did not find evidence to support his claims that the officer was rude or unprofessional whilst investigating this matter.
  9. As the resident remained unhappy with the landlord’s response, the complaint was brought to this service for our adjudication.
  10. Following this, the resident had made several reports to the landlord regarding noise nuisance and ASB from his neighbour.

Assessment and findings

  1. This service understands the resident expressed that he was unhappy with the enforcement officer’s conduct and believed he was racist. Whilst we acknowledge the severity of the resident’s claims, it is outside the Ombudsman’s remit to establish whether the landlord’s staff member was racist when corresponding with the resident. This is because the Ombudsman considers the actions of the organisation as a whole, and whether there has been maladministration by the landlord as a whole. Within this context, whilst we can consider how a resident has been treated, we cannot make a direct finding of discrimination, as it is not within our role to do so. Allegations of discrimination may be better suited to a court to decide. The Ombudsman has however assessed whether the landlord’s correspondence with the resident was appropriate, fair and reasonable including assessing its response to his concerns about the conduct of its staff.
  2. Within the resident’s complaint, he has raised concerns about the ongoing issues with noise nuisance and ASB regarding his neighbour, he expressed he had been experiencing issues for 8 years. Whilst this service has noted this as context, paragraph 42 (b) of the Housing Ombudsman scheme states that this Service will not investigate complaints which “were not brought to the attention of the member (the landlord) as a formal complaint within a reasonable period”, which would normally be within 6 months of the matters arising. Therefore, we will not be considering past incidents within the scope of the investigation.
  3. The landlord has explained that the resident had raised numerous complaints during June and July 2020, May, July and August 2021, January, February, and April 2022. For the scope of this investigation, as we have only received formal responses for the complaint raised in May 2021, we have only investigated this complaint and the events that occurred around this.
  4. During its submission, the landlord explained that it had an open ASB case for allegations made by the resident, which was ongoing and being monitored. This has been noted as context but does not form the scope of this investigation, because these events occurred after the landlord issued its final response to the complaint and therefore the landlord has not had an opportunity to consider these matters under its complaints procedure.

The resident’s reports of the staff’s conduct.

  1. In the resident’s complaint, he had raised concerns about the conduct of the landlord’s staff member. As explained above this service has not reviewed the individual’s conduct, but we have reviewed what actions the landlord took when these concerns were reported.
  2. In its stage one response dated 13 July 2021, the landlord explained that it had investigated the conduct of its staff and found that all the actions taken were proportionate and correct. It also explained that it had not witnessed anything that would deem the staff member to be racist in the actions it had undertaken. The landlord further requested the resident provide any evidence to the contrary so it could investigate the matter further, however this service has not seen that any additional evidence to support the resident’s claims was provided to the landlord. Following this, in its stage two response the landlord reiterated its stance that it had not found its staff member to be rude or unprofessional at any time whilst investigating the resident’s concerns about his neighbour.
  3. Whilst we acknowledge the resident’s concerns and understand that this would have been upsetting to him, this service has reviewed the available information and has not seen evidence to support the resident’s claims.
  4. This service has found there is limited information available as some of the conversations that took place were verbal. In the absence of this, the landlord acted appropriately by reviewing its internal records and met with the staff member to discuss the concerns raised by the resident. It also was proactive in explaining its reasons to the resident and provided him with an opportunity to provide further information to support his claims. Overall, the Ombudsman is satisfied the landlord’s response and actions in regard to the resident’s claims were fair and reasonable.

The resident’s reports of noise nuisance

  1. In cases concerning ASB or noise nuisance, it is the Ombudsman’s role to assess how the landlord responded to the resident’s reports, to consider whether its response was in accordance with its policies and procedures, and assess whether it was appropriate, proportionate and reasonable in all of the circumstances.  
  2. The landlord’s ASB procedure states that where a report consists of noise and ASB, the landlord will investigate the ASB element, and the community protection team (CPT) will investigate the noise nuisance element of the complaint. When a report is received, the landlord would first assess if it met its criteria. Following this, it would contact the resident to discuss the timescales and incidents further.
  3. In this instance the resident had stated that he wished to raise a formal complaint about the housing officer because he did not believe his reports had been investigated. He had expressed that he had been told the landlord had visited the neighbour following reports, but did not believe this to be true, as he did not hear them enter the hallway. The resident had also expressed that following a phone call regarding a separate complaint, he felt the housing officer had spoken to him like a ‘disobedient child’. The resident expressed further upset that he had not been provided with recording devices for the noise nuisance.
  4. This service has reviewed the information provided by the landlord and the resident. The evidence shows that, following the resident’s reports of noise nuisance, the landlord wrote to the resident on 14 July 2021. It stated that it would be making the neighbour aware of the allegations being made against them and warn them of potential consequences.
  5. This service has seen evidence that the landlord did follow up its actions and sent letters to residents of the estate about the noise nuisance, informing them of timeframes for sociable hours to carry out any building work. It also explained that failure to comply with section 60 of the Control of Pollution Act 1974 could result in further action.
  6. The evidence shows that the landlord also wrote directly to the neighbour on 16 July 2021, to inform them of the allegations. The Ombudsman has seen evidence of the landlord’s attempts to address the issues with the neighbour, including communication with other parties and meetings. For data protection and confidentiality reasons the Ombudsman has not detailed the landlord’s actions in respect of the neighbour in this report, but has carefully considered the information and is satisfied that the landlord has taken appropriate steps to address the matter in line with its ASB policy, it has also proceeded to continue to monitor the situation.
  7. This service understands that the resident was unhappy that he had not yet been provided with a noise monitoring device, despite the length of time he had been complaining about incidents with his neighbour. He had explained that he had been on a waiting list for eight years and wanted to be compensated for this. In the landlord’s submission it stated that during the lockdown period until April 2022 it was not visiting properties to install digital audio tape machines (DAT) and, as of May 2022, it had only recently received a working DAT machine which it aimed to place in the resident’s home.
  8. Whilst this service recognises the resident’s frustration with not receiving a device sooner, it is important to note that it is not obligatory for landlords to place these devices in homes when investigating noise nuisance reports, it is one of the tools which they can use, which understandably may be subject to availability. This service recognises that the resident expressed he has been waiting eight years for this device and understands how upsetting the delays must have been, however as previously explained the scope of this investigation has only considered the events that had occurred around the time of this recent report. This service has seen that despite the landlord not being able to provide the DAT device, it had appropriately suggested the resident use a noise recording app and completed diary sheets in order to track the nuisance being experienced.
  9. The landlord has explained that despite the resident being informed to keep diary sheets of the noise nuisance, he has only done this for the duration of January to November 2020. Whilst we understand that residents may find the process of keeping diary logs tedious, it is a method that allows the landlord to get a full understanding of the issues occurred over a period of time.
  10. Overall, given all the circumstances, the Ombudsman is satisfied that the landlord has acted in accordance with its procedures when dealing with the reports of noise nuisance, its actions have been proportionate and appropriate to the issues being reported.

Determination (decision)

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of the staff’s conduct.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of noise nuisance.

Reasons

  1. The landlord correctly addressed the resident’s reports of its staff’s conduct and investigated these concerns.
  2. The landlord responded to the resident’s reports in accordance to its policies, it proceeded to take action by writing to the neighbour and residents of the block, it also conducted meetings to discuss the complaint in an effort to resolve the matter. Its actions were appropriate and proportionate to the issues raised.

Recommendations

  1. If not already done so, the landlord should provide an update to the resident regarding the DAT machine. The landlord should provide the resident with a timeframe for when they expect to have this installed. This update should be provided to the resident within four weeks of the date of this letter.