Metropolitan Housing Trust Limited (202004074)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202004074

Metropolitan Housing Trust Limited

10 March 2021

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:
   1. response to the resident’s reports about anti-social behaviour (ASB) noise nuisance caused by her neighbour; and
   2. complaints handling.

Background and summary of events

Background

2. The resident has been an assured tenant at the property of the landlord since 25 July 2005. The landlord is a registered provider of social housing. The property is a two-bedroom second floor flat and has another property located above it.
3. The landlord operates a two stage complaints policy. The policy notes it will acknowledge a resident’s initial complaint within two working days, and keep the resident updated every two weeks during its investigation. It will seek to provide its stage one response within 28 calendar days. The policy also notes the landlord can award discretionary compensation for unreasonable delays to its service standards.
4. The landlord also operates an ASB policy. The policy notes that the landlord will seek to “tackle the causes of ASB,” and “work in partnership with other specialist agencies where appropriate.”

Summary of events

5. It is not disputed that the resident reported ASB noise caused by her neighbour to the landlord on 11 December 2019. This service has not been provided with a copy of this initial report. The landlord has provided this service with its notes from this period. On 2 January 2020, the landlord’s notes mention that following receipt of this report, it sent letters to all residents in the building reminding them of their responsibilities regarding noise. Having sent this letter, it closed its investigation. This service has not been provided with a copy of this letter. The landlord’s notes also mention that following the resident’s ongoing reports, it would reopen the investigation. It is not evident that this was communicated to the resident.
6. Following her initial report on 11 December 2019, it is not evident whether the resident made a formal complaint, however, the landlord provided a stage one response on 4 February 2020. It apologised for the delay in providing its response and acknowledged that the resident was concerned it had closed its previous investigation. It confirmed it had previously issued letters to the resident’s neighbours, and that its housing officer “will carry out a further investigation to make this sort of behaviour stop.” It did not clarify what further steps may be taken.
7. The resident replied on 8 February 2020 and advised that she was not satisfied with the stage one response and that she did not believe the landlord’s housing officer was taking any steps to resolve the situation. The landlord subsequently advised it would escalate the resident’s complaint to stage two of its complaints procedure.
8. On 26 February 2020, the landlord confirmed it had received the resident’s further reports of ASB dated 18 February 2020. This service has not been provided with a copy of these reports. The landlord subsequently provided the resident with an information pack on tackling ASB, as well as noise diary sheets for her to make records of the ASB to be used as evidence. It also arranged to visit the resident in person to discuss the issue further.
9. The following is informed from the landlord’s notes provided to this service:
   1. on 4 March 2020, the resident advised the landlord that she had made recordings of noise. It is not evident that the landlord subsequently requested these recordings;
   2. on 13 March 2020, the landlord visited the resident’s neighbour who advised that the resident “often bang the ceiling in the daytime when his family moves around,” and that he had subsequently laid rugs to soften any noise;
   3. on 17 March 2020, the landlord carried out inspections of both the resident’s property, and her neighbour’s property to determine the suitability of the flooring. It noted that the neighbour’s property had laminate flooring, and that the resident’s property was “overcrowded.” It further noted that the resident was in the process of applying for a more suitable property;
   4. on 2 April 2020, the resident made a further report of noise nuisance. The landlord subsequently contacted the neighbour, who advised that he was doing “everything possible to be considerate in ensuring he and his family is not causing a nuisance.” The neighbour subsequently made a counter complaint regarding the resident causing noise; and
   5. on 8 April 2020, the landlord contacted the resident to discuss her complaint, and advised that the neighbour had made a counter complaint. The resident subsequently agreed to attempt mediation.
10. On 14 April 2020, the landlord apologised for the delay to its stage two complaint, and advised its investigation was ongoing. The resident subsequently advised that the noise nuisance was continuing. On 5 May 2020, the landlord contacted the resident and provided further information about the mediation process, and requested she completed and returned a ‘mediation commitment agreement’.
11. The landlord provided its stage two response on 6 May 2020. It acknowledged that as part of its stage one investigation, it had failed to initially acknowledge the resident’s complaint, or keep her updated throughout its investigation. It apologised for the “distress and inconvenience caused,” and offered £50 compensation for its “poor complaints handling.” It noted the steps that were being taken to address the noise nuisance and confirmed that mediation would be commencing. It also noted that a “noise machine has also been provided to you so that we can track the extent of the problem.”
12. This service has been provided with the correspondence surrounding the mediation and further steps taken following the landlord’s stage two response. Mediation began on 14 May 2020 by telephone. The landlord regularly contacted the mediator throughout the mediation period to request updates as to the progress. On 20 May 2020, the mediator advised the landlord that the neighbour had denied causing any deliberate noise but had accused the resident of banging on her ceiling. The resident had subsequently admitted to banging on the ceiling, but only in response to the neighbour’s noise.
13. On the same date, an internal email of the landlord noted that it had provided the resident with a link to its noise app to allow her to make any noise recordings. Throughout this period, the landlord also provided updates to the resident’s social worker and local MP regarding the steps that were being taken.
14. On 26 May 2020, the resident contacted the mediator and expressed her concern that the mediator had sided with her neighbour. She subsequently requested that a different mediator took over. The mediator subsequently reported to the landlord on 27 May 2020 that mediation had broken down. On 2 July 2020 the mediator reported to the landlord that the neighbour had ceased playing music during his children’s bedtime, and subsequently, the banging on the ceiling had decreased. The mediator further reported that the resident was no longer engaging in the mediation. The mediator also enquired as to whether the landlord had received any noise app recordings from the resident. The landlord responded that “most of the recordings are very faint the intensity reading is 5/10.” It is not evident that this was communicated to the resident.
15. On 8 July 2020, the mediator advised the landlord that they were unable to arrange an alternative mediator in line with their policy. On 9 July 2020, the landlord enquired with the resident whether she wished to continue mediation. The resident subsequently reiterated her request for a new mediator. On 10 July 2020, the landlord enquired with the mediator if a new mediator could be appointed in this instance, however, the mediator responded that their service would be “declining to continue the case.”
16. On 16 July 2020, an internal email of the landlord noted that it had contacted the local authority’s ‘noise nuisance team’, but that they were currently unable to assist as they considered the issue to be a “low priority” matter and that they did not currently have capacity. The landlord also noted it would look at alternative flooring in the neighbour’s property as well as assisting to relocate the resident due to the overcrowding in her property.
17. On 1 September 2020, the landlord arranged for its surveyor to assess the properties and provide a report. On 2 September 2020, the landlord contacted the neighbour and requested they install carpets in place of the laminate flooring. The surveyor provided its report on 4 September 2020 and noted it had attempted to take noise readings in the resident’s property, but the noise from within the property had affected the readings. The surveyor also noted that the property was overcrowded. On 1 October 2020, an internal email of the landlord noted that its updated transfer system had not gone live yet, but that the resident should nevertheless submit an application. It is not evident if this was communicated to the resident.

Assessment and findings

ASB

18. ASB case management is a crucial aspect of a landlord’s service delivery. Effective use of a robust ASB procedure enables the landlord to identify appropriate steps to resolve potential areas of conflict, improve landlord/tenant relationships and improve the experience of tenants residing in their homes. Retaining accurate records also provides transparency to the decision-making process and an audit trail after the event.
19. Cases where there is a history of ASB over an extended period, such as this, are often the most challenging for a landlord to manage. In practice, the options available to a landlord to resolve a case may not extend to the resident’s preferred outcome and it therefore becomes difficult to manage a resident’s expectations. In such instances, closely following the ASB procedure ensures that the landlord can progress the case to a resolution, even if that resolution is not the outcome requested by the resident.
20. Following the resident’s initial reports, it was appropriate that the landlord took action by sending letters to residents reminding them of their responsibilities around ASB noise (the complaints handling issues around this action are discussed further below). Following the resident’s continued reports of ongoing noise, it was also appropriate that the landlord reopened its investigation.
21. The landlord’s stage one response appropriately clarified that it had sent a letter to residents and also appropriately confirmed that its housing officer would be continuing to investigate further. The Ombudsman considers it best practice to use a formal response to fully set out what steps a landlord may consider, which it did not do in this instance. This would have left the resident unsure how her issue may be resolved.
22. Following the resident’s concerns about the progress of the landlord’s housing officer, the landlord appropriately agreed to escalate the resident’s complaint. It also appropriately provided her with an information pack and noise diary sheets to help it gather evidence, which is in line with what the Ombudsman considers to be best practice in tackling ASB noise.
23. Given that the landlord’s ASB policy notes it will seek to tackle the cause of the ASB, it was appropriate that it subsequently met with the neighbour to gain their perspective and assess the appropriateness of their flooring. The landlord’s ASB policy also notes that it can work in partnership with other specialist agencies, and so following the neighbour’s counter complaint against the resident, it was appropriate that the landlord communicated this to her and suggested an external mediator. This is also in line with what the Ombudsman considers best practice in tackling ASB noise, especially where parties are making complaints against one another.
24. Given that the landlord had initially escalated the resident’s complaint to stage two in February 2020, it was appropriate that it updated her in April 2020 that the investigation was ongoing. It was also appropriate that it provided her with further information about the mediation process prior to mediation commencing.
25. The landlord’s stage two response appropriately set out the steps it had taken and confirmed the ongoing actions that would continue to be taken, including mediation, which the Ombudsman considers to be in line with best practice.
26. The Ombudsman’s investigation is concerned with the actions of the landlord up to the end of its internal complaints procedure, which concluded with its stage two response, however, the Ombudsman notes that the landlord continued to take action beyond this stage. Given that it is not evident any formal complaints have been made regarding the ongoing actions, or that the landlord has been given an opportunity to advise its position, no determination will be made regarding the ongoing actions. Should the resident wish to raise a complaint with the landlord about the ongoing actions, following the completion of the landlord’s internal complaints procedure, she will be able to escalate the complaint to this service.
27. The Ombudsman notes, however, that following its stage two response, the landlord made appropriate ongoing enquiries with the mediator as to the progress of the mediation. Following the resident’s concerns about the mediator, the landlord appropriately enquired with the mediator if another mediator could take over. Additionally, following the departure of the mediator, the landlord took appropriate steps to raise the issue with the local authority’s ‘noise nuisance team’, which was in line with its ASB policy, and what the Ombudsman considers to be best practice.
28. It was also appropriate that the landlord arranged for a surveyor to assess the properties, and subsequently requested that the neighbour install carpets to decrease any noise through the floor. While it was appropriate that it also recommended the use of the noise app, it is not evident that it communicated to the resident the results of its assessment of her recordings, which would have left her unclear about what further evidence she should gather. Additionally, it was appropriate that the landlord is willing to assist with a transfer given the surveyor’s reports of overcrowding, however, it is not evident that it has communicated to the resident that she should commence with an application, which would have delayed her ability to seek a transfer.

Complaints handling

29. The landlord’s complaints policy notes that it will acknowledge a complaint within two working days following receipt of a complaint. It is not disputed that the resident reported ASB noise caused by her neighbour to the landlord on 11 December 2019, and it is not evident that the landlord subsequently contacted the resident to acknowledge this report. In the Ombudsman’s opinion, however, there is a difference between a formal complaint, and a report of ASB noise, and it is not evident that the resident had made a complaint at this time. It is nevertheless best practice for a landlord to respond to any reports of ASB within a reasonable time, which it is not evident the landlord did in this instance. This would have left the resident unsure how the issue she had reported would be resolved, causing her distress and inconvenience.
30. While it was appropriate for the landlord to have sent letters to residents regarding ASB noise, it is not evident that the landlord communicated that it had done this to the resident, nor is it evident that it informed her that it would subsequently close its investigation. As above, this would have left her unsure whether the issue she had reported had been resolved, or what steps had been taken, causing her distress and inconvenience.
31. The landlord’s complaints policy notes that it will keep residents updated every two weeks on any investigation into a complaint and provide a response within 28 working days. It is evident that the landlord considered that following the resident’s report on 11 December 2019, it should have kept to these timeframes, and so it was appropriate that in its stage one response, the landlord acknowledged its delay in providing the response and apologised accordingly. It was also appropriate that the landlord offered a further apology in its stage two response.
32. Th Ombudsman considers that a landlord must respond to a resident’s complaint within a reasonable timeframe so as to not unreasonably delay the resolution of the complaint or cause distress and inconvenience. Given that the landlord accepted it had failed to keep the resident informed following her initial report and that its stage one response had been delayed, it was appropriate that it offered an amount of compensation following its service failure. In the Ombudsman’s opinion, the amount of £50 which the landlord offered was reasonable in the circumstances to resolve this element of the complaint.

Determination (decision)

33. In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was no maladministration by the landlord in respect of the complaints regarding the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports concerning anti-social behaviour (ASB) noise nuisance caused by her neighbour.
34. In accordance with paragraph 55(b) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, and in the Ombudsman’s opinion, there was reasonable redress offered by the landlord for its service failure in respect of the complaint regarding its complaints handling.

Reasons

ASB

35. The landlord took appropriate steps to address the ASB noise, in line with its ASB policy, by initially sending letters to residents reminding them of their obligations in order to tackle the cause. Following the resident’s further reports, the landlord took further appropriate steps by liaising with the parties and arranging mediation which it appropriately communicated to the resident in its stage two response.
36. Following its stage two response, it appropriately followed up with the mediation, made further attempts to involve external parties, and made appropriate recommendations to the neighbour to tackle the cause of the ASB.

Complaints handling

37. While it is not evident that the landlord acknowledged the resident’s initial reports of ASB and additionally did not keep the resident informed as to the steps it had taken following the report, the landlord appropriately apologised in its stage one and two responses and made an offer of compensation that, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, reasonably resolved the complaint.

Recommendations

38. The landlord to write to the resident within four weeks of the date of this determination and include the following (if it has not already done so):
    1. reiterate its offer of £50 compensation for its service failure regarding its complaints handling;
    2. update the resident on its request that her neighbour install carpeting;
    3. advise the resident on its position following its review of her noise app recording submissions;
    4. request that the resident provide an update as to whether the ASB noise is ongoing, and advise any further actions it can take; and
    5. provide advice to the resident regarding her options to apply for a property transfer.