Magna Housing Limited (202210951)
REPORT
COMPLAINT 202210951
Magna Housing Limited
16 October 2024
Our approach
The Housing Ombudsman’s approach to investigating and determining complaints is to decide what is fair in all the circumstances of the case. This is set out in the Housing Act 1996 and the Housing Ombudsman Scheme (the Scheme). The Ombudsman considers the evidence and looks to see if there has been any ‘maladministration’, for example whether the landlord has failed to keep to the law, followed proper procedure, followed good practice or behaved in a reasonable and competent manner.
Both the resident and the landlord have submitted information to the Ombudsman and this has been carefully considered. Their accounts of what has happened are summarised below. This report is not an exhaustive description of all the events that have occurred in relation to this case, but an outline of the key issues as a background to the investigation’s findings.
The complaint
- The complaint is about the landlord’s:
- Response to the resident’s reports of noise nuisance from a neighbour below.
- Complaint handling.
- The Ombudsman has also considered the landlord’s record keeping.
Background
- The resident is an assured tenant of the landlord. She is elderly and lives with her two adult sons. One of her sons is vulnerable, the other has teenage children who stayed with the family at points during the timeline below. The resident’s son liaised with the landlord on her behalf throughout the complaint. For readability, this report refers to him as the resident. The property is a 2 bedroom first floor flat. They have lived at the address since 2008.
- The resident kept a diary of incidents that shows she began to experience issues with noise nuisance from her neighbour from July 2020. She reported the nuisance to the landlord 1 December 2020. Her records show that it was due to call her back the next day. She wrote that she had no response from the landlord, so called them again on 14 and 23 December 2020.
- The resident noted that she received a call from the landlord on 12 January 2021. She says that she was told that an officer would visit both properties and update her. She had no update from this visit, so she wrote to her local Councillor on 21 January 2021 asking for assistance.
- The landlord’s record’s show that it asked the resident to provide evidence of the noise nuisance on 28 January 2021. It directed her to use a mobile phone application called ‘The Noise App’. She sent regular recordings to the landlord between 18 February 2021 and 22 January 2023. The reports related to loud banging, shouting, children crying and foul language. The recordings were mostly submitted late in the evening, between 10.00pm-1.00am.
- The resident wrote that she had no response to calls to the landlord between 18 February and 1 March 2021, despite calling each day.
- The resident’s son called the landlord on 2 March 2021. The call notes shows that he ‘wanted to complain about the lack of communication’ from the landlord. It also notes that the resident’s son was ‘very frustrated by having to keep contacting the landlord to ask for [landlord staff] to contact him. The issue with neighbour from 62 is still on going and hasn’t resolved and it is affecting him and his mother’s life’. The resident’s son has stated that the landlord emailed him to confirm it had raised an action for someone in the complaints department to contact him. The landlord’s records show that the resident’s son called again on 5 March 2021 as he had not been contacted as agreed. He has indicated that no one called him after these interactions.
- On 17 October 2021, the resident’s granddaughter moved into the property with her temporarily so that her son could care for her. She wrote that her granddaughter is vulnerable and suffers with physical disabilities.
- On 3 November 2021, the resident called the landlord and was told that a new officer would contact her within 5 days. She received an update from the landlord on 18 November 2021. It said that it had an action plan to resolve the noise nuisance, would review the recordings she had submitted and interview her other neighbours. The resident noted that the noise nuisance stopped between 17 November 2021 and 22 December 2021.
- The landlord spoke to the neighbour on 4 January 2022 and there was a reduction in new incidents for much of the month. This was confirmed in emails between the resident and the landlord on 11 January 2022. However, the resident reported to the landlord on 26 January 2022 that the problems had returned. She spoke to the landlord on 30 January 2022 and raised concerns about the impact of the neighbour’s behaviour on their own children. It told the resident that it would investigate rehousing the neighbours.
- The resident wrote that the noise nuisance was “unbearable” on 10 March 2022. She reported the incidents to the police and the landlord. Her son took her granddaughter to stay elsewhere between 13-14 March 2022 because of the noise nuisance. During a conversation with the landlord on 22 March 2022, she said that the problems persisted on her return.
- The resident complained to the landlord on 10 April 2022. She said:
- Her family experienced sleepless nights since reporting incidents in December 2020.
- Throughout 2021 she submitted countless recordings and made more complaints about antisocial behaviour (ASB).
- Each time the landlord contacted the neighbour, there was a reduction in noise nuisance. This only lasted for 4-5 days at a time.
- The landlord discussed issuing a “6 month behaviour agreement” in November 2021. However, a new officer took over the case and the resident was told that there were no records on the system. She felt that she had to start over with reporting incidents and the landlord had discounted all her previous complaints.
- She had reported incidents to the landlord, council, social services, school and police.
- Her last contact with the landlord was on 24 March 2022.
- Her son wanted a face to face meeting with the landlord.
- There was no sign of progress and no solution to the problem.
- Her son was concerned for her welfare, his brother who had mental health issues and his teenage daughter.
- The resident was contacted by the police on 19 April 2022. She says that they directed her back to the landlord to report noise nuisance. The police agreed to contact the landlord with her reports also. The landlord emailed the resident to say that it would update her after speaking with internal departments.
- The resident emailed the landlord on 3 May 2022. She said that the noise nuisance had stopped for about 2 days in April 2022, before starting up again. She had started to stamp the floor in response to the noise. She said that no interventions had worked.
- On 7 May 2022, the resident’s son had a verbal confrontation with the neighbour. She wrote that he was sworn at, after trying to confront them about the noise nuisance. She reported this incident to the landlord the same day.
- The landlord visited the neighbour on 1 July 2022. Its records show that it addressed some of the concerns raised by the resident.
- On 11 July 2022, the resident’s granddaughter moved out of the property to live elsewhere. She says that the decision was made because of the noise nuisance from the neighbour.
- The resident emailed the landlord on 2 August 2022. She asked if the landlord had visited the neighbour in June 2022. She said that the noise nuisance had reduced, but then started again shortly afterwards. She also said her granddaughter moved out because of the noise nuisance.
- The resident complained again on 4 August 2022. She said:
- She was unhappy the noise nuisance was ongoing.
- She felt let down by the landlord as its interventions had only impacted the neighbour’s behaviour in the short term.
- The landlord spoke to the neighbour on the same day. Its records show that it discussed the noise nuisance and advice was given regarding managing the noise.
- Between 13 and 20 August 2022, the resident left the property to stay elsewhere. She wrote that when she returned the noise nuisance resumed.
- The resident sought assistance from the Ombudsman on 23 August 2022. She said that she had not received a response to her complaint and the ASB had not been resolved. We wrote to the landlord on 14 September 2022 to ask that it investigate the complaint.
- The resident made a further complaint to the landlord on 31 August 2022. She said:
- She felt the landlord had not resolved the ASB.
- She had been given a false impression that the landlord was going to rehouse the neighbour.
- The landlord wrote to the resident on 22 September 2022 to acknowledge the request for a stage 1 complaint. It said that she would receive a response within 10 working days.
- The landlord issued its stage 1 response on 24 October 2022. This was around 6 months after the resident’s initial complaint. It considered the complaint to be about its handling of the resident’s reports of ASB. It said:
- The resident had written to the landlord on 29 April 2022 about the ASB. This was not recorded as a complaint, but as a contact and passed to the relevant department for investigation.
- It explained that officers had been on leave during some correspondence.
- It had considered the evidence submitted by the resident and determined that legal action would be unsuccessful.
- The neighbour was on its housing register. It was unable to offer alternative accommodation to the neighbour in a very short space of time.
- The neighbour had admitted to some noise nuisance from their children and one of the adults in the household.
- The police had not identified any offences taking place during their visits to the neighbour.
- It considered the noise nuisance to be the result of everyday living noise from children. As a result, it was “difficult” for it to “take any enforcement or legal action”. It was “very difficult to control the noise of the children”.
- It encouraged the resident to report any noise nuisance, outside of “everyday living”. It would continue to work with the neighbours to reduce the noise nuisance.
- The landlord’s internal case notes show that on 2 November 2022 it reviewed the ASB case. It considered the noise nuisance to relate to household noise caused by children and not ASB. It had given advice and guidance to the neighbour to reduce the noise as much as possible. It had provided some assistance with rehousing.
- The resident asked for her complaint to be escalated on 13 November 2022. She said:
- She was unhappy that the landlord had not rehoused her neighbour.
- She disputed the landlord’s determination that the noise nuisance was everyday living noise.
- She felt the landlord had not considered the behaviour of the adults in the property. The neighbours were regularly slurring, ranting, banging and slamming doors between 11.00pm-2.00am. They were also regularly using foul or abusive language.
- The neighbours often stop for 1-2 weeks after the landlord intervenes. She believed this suggests that they could stop the noise nuisance permanently.
- The ASB had been ongoing for around 2 years.
- She and her family had suffered mental and emotional distress. Her granddaughter had to move out. Her grandson had been unable to stay with her because of the ASB.
- The landlord acknowledged the request for stage 2 on 15 November 2022. It said that she would receive a response by 9 December 2022.
- On 22 November 2022, the resident told the landlord that the neighbour had caused constant noise nuisance throughout October and November 2022. She was concerned about one of her neighbour’s children, who she thought was “distressed” and “crying more”. The children were all constantly awake until 1-2am. She was being woken up in shock throughout the night. She had continued submitting recordings throughout.
- The landlord issued its stage 2 response on 9 December 2022. This was around 19 working days after the resident’s request to escalate the complaint. It set out its understanding of the complaint. It responded to each point separately:
- It offered to mediate between the resident and her neighbour. It said that this was an effective way to resolve matters between neighbours. It would be provided by an independent 3rd party and would consider shuttle mediation, which means the residents did not have to meet in person.
- It downloaded the resident’s recordings from the noise app. There were 187 in total dating from 27th October 2021. However, it no longer had an account with the noise app and therefore downloaded these.
- It had reviewed the 39 recordings made from August 2022 to November 2022. There were several gaps in recordings between 9 to 27 August, 27 August to19 September, and 25 September to 4 November 2022. There were no recordings submitted in October 2022.
- The recordings did not evidence noise from children. They did show some moving around in the neighbour’s property. There were a small number of recordings in which it could hear raised voices and the occasional bang. There was also background noise including birds and vehicles outside. It determined that the recordings were the result of normal lifestyle noise, as opposed to deliberate or excessive noise.
- The recordings were not calibrated, which means that they did not record decibel levels. The recordings did not provide enough evidence to establish if there was a statutory noise nuisance. It encouraged the resident to contact Environmental Health to report noise nuisance. It was important that issues were reported to the correct agency who had powers to investigate and address them. It would work with the environmental health team where necessary on this case. It would notify them that the resident may be in touch.
- It had contacted the ASB team at the council to ensure there was joined up working. It would continue where required.
- It was unable to move residents to different properties quickly. It did not provide temporary accommodation. It gave advice on joining the local authority housing register and information about mutual exchange procedures.
- It had spoken to the neighbour about the alleged ASB and ensured that they were offered any help or support they may require. This included advice around minimising sound transference between the properties.
- It spoke to the police regarding the calls to the neighbour. Once it had confirmation why they attended, it would decide whether further intervention or action was required.
- It asked if the resident felt there was any support she needed. It would assist where possible or direct her to the appropriate agency/organisation.
- It said that any action taken by the landlord must be reasonable, proportionate and evidence based. It would complete the actions above. It reminded the resident that she does what it asked to assist the investigation.
- The resident told the landlord she was unhappy with its response on 11 December 2022. She sought advice from her MP who arranged a meeting with her on 13 January 2023.
- The resident emailed the landlord on 14 January 2023. She said that much of the noise nuisance had reduced in November and December 2022. She said that there was still disturbance in the night with children crying and banging. She asked the landlord to speak to a possible witness who experienced the same issues as her.
- The landlord responded to the resident on 20 January 2023. It said that it would meet with her neighbour and update her following the visit.
- On 26 January 2023, the landlord met with the neighbours and discussed the situation. It noted that the neighbour said they were not deliberately causing undue noise or disturbance.
- The landlord updated the resident by email the same day. It said the neighbours agreed that there were problems with the baby not sleeping and then waking the other children. It noted that the resident had submitted further recordings via the Noise App and told her not to. It directed her to its final response where it said it no longer had access to the service. It also asked her not to stamp on the floor in response to any noise from her neighbour. It suggested that she consider mediation with her neighbour.
- The resident’s MP emailed the landlord on her behalf on 27 January 2023. It said the resident was not satisfied the landlord was taking her reports seriously. It wanted the landlord to discuss the case internally and see if there was some resolution available for the resident.
- The landlord’s internal records show that Environmental Health closed the case at the start of December 2022.
- The landlord responded to the MP on 3 February 2023. It said that it had exhausted its internal complaint procedures. It set out details of its visits to the neighbour. It said that mediation had been offered to both parties and believed that this was a reasonable means to resolve the dispute.
- On 5 April 2023, the resident reported a recurrence of the noise nuisance. She said that the noise had become progressively worse and included door slamming, loud banging, thudding, shouting, foul and abusive language, and screaming. The noise regularly occurred until around 1.00am-2.00am. She told the landlord that she had reported the incidents to children’s social services.
- The resident emailed the landlord on 6 July 2023. She said that the noise nuisance was ongoing. Her neighbours were waking her every night between 12.00am-1.00am, slamming doors, thudding and crying/screaming.
- On 23 July 2023 the resident asked the Ombudsman to investigate her complaint. She remained unhappy with the landlord’s response. She was unhappy with the landlord’s offer of mediation. She said she had been reporting ASB to the landlord for around 2 and a half years.
Assessment and findings
Policy and Procedures
- The landlord’s anti-social behaviour policy states that it will:
- Respond to allegations of nuisance (including door slamming and arguing) within 5 working days.
- Agree an action plan with residents at the start of a case to set out the respective responsibilities. Residents should be clear what they can expect from the landlord and what it expects from them.
- Risk assess all opened cases.
- Consider noise monitoring equipment for noise nuisance cases. It destroys all recordings where no evidence of a breach is recorded.
- The landlord’s procedure for dealing with reports of ASB states that it will:
- Discuss with the resident what options if any are available to resolve their concerns. This will involve completing an action plan with them. It will be saved to the case and a copy sent to the resident. The action plan will include:
- Actions to be completed by the landlord and resident.
- Agreed method and frequency of contact.
- The resident’s expectations and what interventions are available.
- Contact the alleged perpetrator where agreed with the resident. This initial contact must detail the allegations being made. If evidence exists that the behaviour is proven, it will tell the perpetrator what they need to do to prevent any further action being taken.
- The landlord must keep in contact with the resident in line with the actions agreed on the action plan. If further complaints of ASB are received while the case is open, a home visit to the perpetrator will be undertaken. The allegations will be discussed and where appropriate an action plan agreed. This will detail what measures the alleged perpetrator can/should take to stop the ASB. A copy of the action plan will be sent to the alleged perpetrator. In cases of low level nuisance, a second warning letter may be more appropriate.
- Where complaints involve alleged noise nuisance, it may be appropriate to use noise monitoring equipment.
- Discuss with the resident what options if any are available to resolve their concerns. This will involve completing an action plan with them. It will be saved to the case and a copy sent to the resident. The action plan will include:
- The landlord has provided two complaints policies:
- Version 10 (applicable from December 2019) shows that it had a 3 stage complaint procedure. The first stage was investigated by the senior manger/head of department. Stage 2 was investigated by a director and stage 3 by the chief executive/a different director to stage 2. This policy does not confirm a timeframe for each stage of the process.
- Version 12 (applicable from July 2021) shows that it had a 2 stage complaint procedure. It would respond to its resident’s complaints at stage 1 within 10 working days and stage 2 within 20 working days.
Response to the resident’s reports of noise nuisance from a neighbour below.
- On receipt of the resident’s report of ASB, it would have been appropriate for the landlord to interview the resident. Its policy sets out that it will complete an action plan and risk assessment during the initial contact. Contrary to the landlord’s ASB policy, there was no evidence it completed a risk assessment or made an action plan. The landlord has told this service that it conducted a risk assessment at the start of its investigation into the resident’s reports of ASB. It also said that it set up an action plan to resolve the ASB. There were no records available to this service that showed any risk assessment or action plan taking place. This hindered the landlord’s ability to resolve the substantive issue of noise nuisance. The landlord should have kept clear records of these assessments and used them to inform its actions to resolve the ASB.
- The landlord did not effectively triage the initial noise reports made by the resident. It allowed her to be left submitting substantial numbers of incident diaries and noise recordings. It did not provide (in any reasonable timeframe) any decision on whether the recordings demonstrated actionable ASB. Instead, it allowed the resident to continuously submit noise diaries and recordings without clear action or response. The landlord’s failure to appropriately manage this case protracted the distress and inconvenience the ASB caused the resident. This additional detriment was itself is a failing.
- There was no evidence that the landlord reviewed the risk later in the timeline. It is good practice within the sector to conduct a risk assessment and review it regularly. The landlord does not evidence any changes to its investigation, or action taken when the resident said her household make up changed over the duration of the investigation. It did not make any adjustments or review its contact plan with the resident when she said that her vulnerable teenage granddaughter moved to the property. There was no review when her granddaughter left given that the resident said it was because of the noise nuisance.
- The resident told the landlord in her complaint on 10 April 2022 that her family experienced sleepless nights since reporting incidents in December 2020. Her son was concerned for her and her other son’s welfare. The landlord did not reflect on the detriment caused to the resident during its response at either stage of its complaint handling. It did not demonstrate that it treated the resident fairly as a result.
- The evidence shows that the landlord called or visited the neighbour to discuss some of the complaints made by the resident. Limited evidence was recorded by the landlord regarding these visits. There was no formal interview conducted or any follow up in the form of warnings, or advisory notices sent by the landlord. It should have retained clear records of its conversations and visits with the neighbour. It is good practice to conduct alleged perpetrator interviews for this purpose. The landlord should be clear with both parties about incidents that were addressed with the alleged perpetrator. Its failure to follow these practices further protracted this complaint and caused additional distress and inconvenience to the resident.
- The landlord did not make effective use of the tools available within the ASB Crime and Policing Act 2014 in resolving the reports of ASB. These tools include action that is at a much lower threshold than instigating civil proceedings to evict the neighbour. It could avoid the lengthy and costly measure of re-housing the neighbour. There are no records regarding any assessment taking place on what action was reasonable or proportionate at the time. There was no evidence of any regular case review taking place. There was one record of the landlord reviewing its investigation on 2 November 2022. The landlord would be expected to review its open cases regularly, to ensure that the reports were being managed effectively. It should be able to make defensible decisions in its handling of ASB. Its failure to do so in this case led to delays in its response to ASB and caused distress and inconvenience to the resident.
- Mediation was only considered around 2 years into the investigation. The landlord missed the opportunity to make this offer much earlier in the timeline when it would have been a more effective tool to resolve the dispute. It made this offer only once the issues had become protracted and the resident’s son had resorted to attempts to confront her neighbour independently.
- The records are unclear if the landlord listened to each of the noise app recordings sent by the resident or whether any of them demonstrated ASB. There is evidence to suggest it listened to 39 of 187 recordings made. The landlord said that it had listened to recordings between August and November 2022 in its final response to the resident on 13 November 2022. It said that there was no evidence of ASB, that the noise nuisance could be attributed to normal household noise. There was no reflection of the resident’s time and trouble to submit these recordings. It was unreasonable for the landlord not to feedback to the resident earlier in the timeline if they did not provide any evidential purpose.
- The lack of clear records regarding the landlord’s assessment of the noise recordings hindered the Ombudsman’s investigation in this case. It has been difficult to measure the detriment caused to the resident. However, many of the logs made between 18 February 2021 and 22 January 2023 were recorded at unreasonable times during the late evening/night. The resident repeatedly told the landlord that the noise had a significant impact on her and her family. She had problems with sleeping and moved her granddaughter out of the property because of the noise. It is reasonable to conclude the situation caused distress and inconvenience to the resident and her family.
- The resident directed the landlord to speak to another third party on 14 January 2023. In its stage 2 response to the resident, it said that it would speak to other witnesses. It would have been reasonable for the landlord to speak to other residents in its investigations to substantiate the resident’s reports. There was no evidence available to the Ombudsman that shows the landlord interviewed any other possible witnesses regarding the reports of ASB. It should ensure that it follows through with promises it makes in its complaint handling.
- The Ombudsman’s role is to consider whether the landlord put things right and resolved the resident’s complaint satisfactorily in the circumstances. We consider whether the landlord’s response was in line with the Ombudsman’s Dispute Resolution Principles: Be Fair, Put Things Right and Learn from Outcomes. We also consider if the landlord considered our own guidance on remedies.
- The Ombudsman finds that there was severe maladministration in the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of noise nuisance. To handle noise reports that do not meet the statutory threshold, the landlord should use a proactive good neighbourhood management strategy. There was no proactive monitoring or management of this case. It did little to reassure the resident that it had taken her reports seriously or acted on them. It did not conduct an effective investigation into the reports made by the resident. It did not follow the practices of good case management. It was not fair as there was no recognition of the time she had taken to submit recordings and evidence. The landlord did not demonstrate that it had learned from the mistakes made in its handling of this case. There was no means to put things right for the resident. It should offer £800 compensation, this is comprised of:
- £400 for the resident’s time and trouble.
- £400 distress and inconvenience.
- The landlord should review its approach to noise nuisance. It should reflect on the recommendations made in the Ombudsman’s Spotlight on noise complaints – Time to be heard.
Complaint handling
- In reaching a decision about the resident’s complaint we consider whether the landlord followed proper procedure, good practice, and acted in a reasonable way. Our duty is to determine complaints by what is, in this Service’s opinion, fair in all circumstances of the case.
- There was confusion in the landlord’s handling of complaints. The landlord failed to respond to the complaint made on 2 March 2021. The landlord has indicated that it treated this matter as an informal complaint, but it did not meet the definition and should have been logged as a formal complaint. Even if it did meet the definition of an informal complaint, the landlord has failed to show that it responded. This was unreasonable and led to the resident taking additional time and trouble submitting further complaints during 2022.
- The landlord’s policy states that an expression of dissatisfaction, however made, about the standard of service, actions, or lack of action by the landlord will be recorded as a complaint. It is important for the landlord to ensure that it maintains its complaint handling commitments, and that it complies with the timeframes set out in its policy. Its response to the complaint at stage 1 was considerably outside those timeframes.
- The resident made her second complaint on 10 April 2022. Although the landlord responded on 19 April 2022 it did not formally acknowledge the complaint at the time. That is, it did not confirm that it had logged the complaint or provide the resident with a timeframe of when they could expect a complaint response. There was a delay of around 6 months to issue a stage 1 response from 10 April 2022. The resident had to complain on 4 and 31 August 2022 and seek the Ombudsman’s intervention before the landlord responded at stage 1 response. Again, the landlord has indicated that it treated this matter as an informal complaint, but the email dated 10 April 2022 did not meet the definition and should have been logged as a formal complaint. The landlord did not comply with its policy or procedures in its complaint handling. It did not treat the resident fairly as a result. There was an unreasonable delay to issue its stage 1 response and the resident took additional time and trouble to have her complaint investigated.
- In the landlord’s stage 1 response refers to the dates it received the complaints which do not correlate to any correspondence seen by the Ombudsman. It did not demonstrate that it had recognised the impact on the resident. It did not fully address the substantive issues. It was issued substantially outside of the 10 working days within the landlord’s procedure. It did not acknowledge the delays in its complaint handling, or the detriment this caused the resident. There was no offer of redress for its complaint handling failures.
- The landlord’s stage 2 response was issued within its published timescales. It demonstrated an attempt to resolve the substantive issue, that is, the noise the resident had reported. However, there was no effort to put things right for the resident. That is, it failed to acknowledge or address the shortfalls in its management of the issue or its complaint handling. There was no offer of redress. It did not use its complaint handling as an effective tool to resolve the dispute.
- Overall, there was severe maladministration in the landlord’s complaint handling. The landlord did not make any offers to put things right, such as an offer of compensation. It did not reflect on the substantial delays in its initial complaint handling. It did not consider the resident’s attempts to complain in March 2021. There was no learning demonstrated in its complaint handling. The resident took additional time and trouble making and then chasing complaints, which was not recognised by the landlord. It should offer compensation of £300 reflective of the distress and inconvenience caused in its complaint handling.
Record keeping.
- The evidence confirms significant problems with the landlord’s record keeping. These problems hindered its ability to investigate the ASB or take reasonable action to resolve the complaint satisfactorily.
- The landlord should have systems in place to maintain accurate records of its investigations. Good record keeping is essential to evidence the action the landlord has taken which then aids in its service delivery, enabling it to respond professionally when something goes wrong. In this case it would have ensured that there were clear reasons for its decision making, that could have been shared with the resident.
- The landlord’s records are unclear when the resident first began to report ASB. There are only records of investigation into the ASB taking place from 3 November 2021.
- The resident’s records show that she was making complaints of ASB from 1 December 2020. She wrote that she made calls to the landlord between December 2020 and January 2021 without response. She provided records that she spoke to the landlord on 12 January 2021 and was told that officers would call her back. She was then told to download the noise app on 28 January 2021. The landlord has not provided any records of this communication to the Ombudsman. It is important for landlord to keep clear and accurate records. It did not in this case and there are nearly 12 months worth of reports with no record provided.
- The Ombudsman finds maladministration in the landlord’s record keeping. In reviewing the evidence, the landlord’s record keeping contributed to its poor management of the ASB. This impacted both its ability to resolve the substantive issue as well as the associated complaint. This caused delays, as well as further annoyance and frustration to the resident, in her pursuit to resolve matters.
Determination
- In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman’s Scheme, there was:
- Severe maladministration in the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of noise nuisance from a neighbour below.
- Severe maladministration in the landlord’s complaint handling.
- Maladministration in the landlord’s record keeping.
Orders
- Within 4 weeks of the date of this report, the landlord must:
- Provide an apology from a member of the senior leadership team for the failings identified in this report. Provide a copy to the Ombudsman.
- Pay the resident £1,100 in compensation. This is comprised of:
- £400 for distress and inconvenience.
- £400 for time and trouble.
- £300 for its complaint handling failures.
- Contact the resident and set out an action plan and risk assessment. This should set out how it will respond to her reports of noise nuisance from her neighbours in the future. Provide a copy of this plan to the resident and Ombudsman.
- Provide a single point of contact to the resident to monitor new reports of ASB.
- Conduct an inspection of both properties to determine if there are any practical measures that can be completed to help reduce noise transference. This should include consideration of soft door-closure mechanisms, door pads, floor repairs, acoustic matting and/or fitting carpets.
- Conduct a review of its handling of this case. Consider whether there are non-legal options (in addition to mediation, such as good neighbour agreements, warning letters and/or acceptable behaviour agreements/contracts) it could use to tackle the noise the residents are experiencing.
- Contact the residents to discuss the option of moving and offer any support it can in helping them to identify a suitable new property.
- Confirm if it is still taking steps to move the neighbours.
- In accordance with paragraph 54(g) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, within 12 weeks of the date of this report, the landlord must:
- Review its staff’s training needs in relation to its approach to noise nuisance. It should reflect on the recommendations made in the Ombudsman’s spotlight report on noise nuisance. Provide a copy of this review to the Ombudsman.
- Conduct a review of its record keeping practices and consider additional training around the way in which its staff records incidents of ASB raised by residents.
- Review its systems used for the management of anti-social behaviour. It should ensure that it is able to keep clear and accurate records of actions it has taken in response to reports of ASB.
- Review its staff’s training needs in relation to their application of its complaints policies and compensation procedure, to seek to prevent a recurrence of its above failures.
- Conduct a case review by a director independent of the service area and findings shared with the governing board. It should consider whether previous actions (such as the approach to complex cases) are sufficient to prevent similar failings in future. A copy of this review to be shared with the Ombudsman.
- Provide evidence of compliance with the above orders to the Ombudsman.