Norwich City Council (202317762)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202317762

Norwich City Council

10 January 2025

Our approach

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

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

The complaint

The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of anti-social behaviour (ASB).
The landlord’s complaint handling is also considered.

Background

The resident had a secure tenancy that started on 21 December 2021. The property was a 2-bedroom, ground floor flat, which the resident moved to via a mutual exchange. The resident lived at the property with her adult son. The landlord is a local authority. The landlord’s records show the resident has a long-term illness, mobility difficulties and mental health issues. Both the resident and her son are vulnerable. The resident has since surrendered the tenancy.
The ASB reports concern the resident’s neighbour (‘the neighbour’) who occupied the property above. The resident made a noise report about the neighbour to the landlord on 28 January 2023. Following the report, the landlord opened anASB case, which was closed on 10 February 2023.
The resident submitted a further noise report on 19 March 2023 and the landlord opened a new ASB case.
The landlord issued a warning letter to the neighbour on 5 April 2023.
On 13 June 2023 the resident told the landlord she strongly objected to its proposal to close the ASB case. The landlord responded on 15 June 2023 and said it would ‘keep the case open for now’.
The resident raised a complaint to the landlord on 11 July 2023. The resident said the landlord had reassured her when she signed the tenancy that issues between the neighbour and the previous tenant were due to a clash of personalities. However, the resident said the neighbour had a history of ASB and that she was now experiencing the same issues as the previous tenant. The resident said the landlord had incorrectly placed a ‘red flag’ on her tenancy and not responded to her queries about this. The resident said her son had attempted to take his own life because of their situation. The resident asked to be rehoused as a matter of priority.
The landlord provided a stage 1 complaint response on 18 July 2023. The landlord said it had not deliberately misled the resident into signing a tenancy with a neighbour with a history of ASB. The landlord acknowledged the resident’s frustration with the perceived lack of progress with the ASB case. It said it was unable to share the full details of the actions it had taken. The landlord rejected the resident’s claim that it had said it would issue her with a community protection warning (CPW). It said it was satisfied the warning flag applied to the resident’s records was done so correctly. The landlord advised the resident to apply to the housing register if she wished to move and reiterated its previous offers of mediation and referrals to support services.
The resident asked for her complaint to be escalated to stage 2 on 18 July 2023.
The landlord acknowledged receipt of the resident’s escalation request on 25 July 2023.
The landlord provided a stage 2 complaint response on 8 August 2023. The landlord said the ASB case involving the previous tenant had been closed independently of the team managing the mutual exchange. The landlord said it understood why the resident might be reluctant to accept mediation. It said mediation was offered when it felt talking about the situation could be beneficial. It said mediation could be facilitated in several ways and could be face-to-face, ‘shuttle’ mediation, or individual sessions. The landlord apologised that this had not been explained previously and said it was not its intention to imply the resident needed to ‘toughen up’.
The resident referred her complaint to this Service on 29 May 2024.

Assessment and findings

Scope of assessment

The resident has complained about the landlord’s handling of her request to be rehoused. The landlord is a local authority and operates a choice-based lettings system. Complaints about decisions made by the local authority regarding housing priority and allocation comes under the jurisdiction of the Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman (LGSCO). The landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaints about re-housing is therefore outside the scope of this investigation. The provision of information on rehousing options as part of its handling of the resident’s reports of ASB is, however, considered as part of this investigation.

Handling of reports of ASB

The resident submitted an online noise report to the landlord on 28 January 2023. The report log stated the resident was not willing to engage in mediation and did not have access to a smart phone. The report summary sheet contained a risk assessment score.
The landlord spoke with the resident 3 days later, on 31 January 2023. The landlord’s note of the conversation states the resident told it the neighbour played loud music constantly. The landlord wrote to the resident on the same day setting out the conversation and reiterating that the resident should download a noise assessment recording application(the noise app) and submit recordings of the noise.
Section 5 of the tenancy agreement prohibits loud music and other unreasonable noise. Noise nuisance is defined by the landlord’s ASB policy. It is distinguished from residential noise, which the landlord’s website states it does not consider to constitute ASB.
The ASB policy states that when the landlord receives an ASB report it will conduct a risk assessment and contact the complainant within 5 days, unless the situation requires swifter action. The policy states that the complainant will be provided with regular updates with the steps the landlord is taking to deal with the complaint. It also states the landlord will explain what support it, or other agencies can offer, such as mediation or tenancy support. The policy states that all reports are assessed, logged and referred to other agencies as appropriate and that the landlord will undertake a risk assessment at first point of contact.
The evidence shows the landlord acted appropriately in contacting the resident within the 5-day response time specified in its ASB policy. Its note of the conversation with the resident shows it spoke about next steps. It is, however, unclear why the landlord suggested the resident download the noise app, when the initial report said she did not have a smartphone. It is reasonable to expect the landlord to have established if the resident could use the noise app and to have documented why, despite the information in the initial report, it had recommended she download the noise app.
The landlord’s records show the resident asked subsequently if she could provide a written noise diary, as her disability prevented her from using the noise app. The records show the landlord agreed the request and arranged to visit the resident on 30 January 2023. The landlord has not provided any records of the visit, and it is unclear if the visit went ahead on that date.
It is crucial that clear, accurate and complete records are maintained to ensure the effective management of ASB cases. It is reasonable to expect the landlord to be able to demonstrate that it kept complete and accurate records for each ASB case and for its case file to set out whether the visit went ahead and the results.
The landlord’s case notes show it spoke with the resident on 10 February 2023, and she told it the noise situation had been quiet for some time. The landlord wrote to the resident following the conversation and confirmed it would close the ASB case.
The landlord’s ASB policy states that it will notify a complainant when it plans to close a case and explain why. The policy provides a list of reasons why the landlord would close a complaint. One of the reasons for closure is because the case had been resolved. The landlord acted reasonably in contacting the resident, establishing that the issue was not ongoing,and then writing to the resident to confirm the case closure.
The resident submitted a noise report about the neighbour on 19 March 2023. Also, on 19 March 2023 the resident and the neighbour submitted separate reports about an altercation between the neighbour and the resident’s son. The evidence shows the police attended the resident’s property following the incident. On the same date the resident submitted a further report to the landlord in which said she was scared of the neighbour, and that her son suffered from anxiety and depression as a result of the neighbour’s behaviour.
The landlord then opened a case file and contacted the resident on 20 March 2023. This was in accordance with the response timeline set out in the its ASB policy. The landlord’s records show that as a result of its conversation with the resident and a subsequent email, in which the resident outlined the impact of the neighbour’s behaviour, the landlord decided the case required further investigation.
On 21 March 2023 the resident submitted an ASB report stating the neighbour had threatened her son. The landlord liaised with the police, who confirmed that it had received a report from the neighbour and from the resident about the other’s behaviour. The landlord then emailed the resident to set out the next steps it would take in the case.
Between 22 March 2023 and 30 March 2023 the resident continued to submit noise reports. During this period the resident contacted the landlordand said she had been informed the police intended to issue a community protection warning (CPW) to the neighbour. The landlord sought clarification from the police and was told a CPW was not under consideration at that time. The evidence also shows that the landlord explained to the neighbour that the noise she was making was intrusive and she needed to reduce the volume.
The landlord’s ASB policy sets out the steps it can take to tackle ASB. These are differentiated into preventive and early intervention measures, and legal action. The policy states that the landlord aims to use prevention and early intervention to stop ASB escalating. The landlord acted reasonably and in line with the options available to it to manage the situation when it liaised with the police and informed the neighbour about her behaviour.
The resident and her son attended a meeting with the landlord on 30 March 2023. The resident told the landlord they had experienced noise from the neighbour since moving into the property, however, the issues had worsened recently. The resident’s son said the neighbour’s behaviour made him worried about going out. The resident said she left the property infrequently due to her disability and wanted to be able to enjoy her home. The landlord provided the resident with ‘support needs’ forms’, which it said it would collect on 3 April 2023. During the meeting the landlord advised the resident to report any suspected drug use by the neighbour to the police.
On 31 March 2023 the resident reported the neighbour to the police for what she described as ‘intimidating behaviour’. The resident then contacted the landlord and said she was scared for her safety and feared issues would escalate. The resident said she had video footage from 5 incidents, however, the file size was too big to send by email. The resident also supplied further noise diaries.
The landlord’s records show it completed a needs assessment for the resident and her son on 2 April 2023. On 3 April 2023 the landlord visited the neighbour. Its visit notes state the neighbour believed she was the victim, accepted her behaviour could be erratic, but said she had new medication. The notes state the landlord reminded the neighbour to be considerate of her neighbours and suggested she wear headphones when listening to music. The landlord then visited the resident to provide an update.
The landlord’s notes state the resident did not agree that the neighbour should be given time and support to amend her behaviour. The notes state the landlord advised the resident that the neighbour did not like being recorded when in public, however, the resident said she would continue to record the neighbour. The landlord asked if the resident felt she had sufficient support and the resident told the landlord that she was ok, but her son had self-harmed. The resident said her son was receiving counselling but agreed the landlord could make a referral to a multi-agency service that supported vulnerable residents.
On 4 April 2024 the landlord sent the neighbour a tenancy warning letter.
The landlord contacted the resident on 4 April 2024 after it received an email from the resident’s son, in which he expressed suicidal thoughts. The landlord said it was concerned for the resident and her son’s welfare and asked permission to speak with their GP. The resident responded and said she did not believe it necessary for the landlord to speak to the GP. The resident called the landlord the same day to report that the neighbour was singing loudly and was using threatening language. The landlord responded on 5 April 2024 and said it would follow up with the neighbour.
The landlord called the neighbour on 6 April 2023 but did not manage to speak with her.
The multi-agency support service confirmed to the landlord on 18 April 2023 that it would contact the resident.
On 21 April 2023 the police confirmed that the resident and neighbour’s initial reports had been closed. Also, on 21 April 2023 the resident told the landlord the neighbour continued to play loud music and ‘stomp about’ throughout the day. The landlord told the resident that it would visit the following week.
The landlord called the resident on 24 April 2023. The call notes state the resident spoke about the impact of the neighbour’s behaviour, the resident’s anxiety and the effect of the noise on the resident and her son. The resident said she believed her only option was to move. The landlord’s notes state it explained to the resident her options for moving home. The landlord said that in noise nuisance cases, it issued a warning letter and then allowed some time for behaviour change while it contacted the relevant services. It said that if the noise continued it would assess and issue a final warning letter. If the noise still continued it would install noise recording equipment and then potentially issue a noise abatement notice. The landlord asked the resident if she would agree to a visit from the mental health advice team (MHAT). The resident agreed and the landlord submitted the referral on 26 April 2023.
The landlord issued a final warning letter to the neighbour on 27 April 2023.
The evidence shows the MHAT visited the resident on 15 May 2023.
On 19 May 2023 the landlord called the resident but did not speak with her and left a voicemail.
On 21 May 2023 the resident made 3 reports about the neighbour to the police. The reports concerned the neighbour’s welfare and her use of threatening language. The resident then contacted the landlord and asked it to get in touch with her about threats she had received. The landlord contacted the resident on 22 May 2023. The landlord said it would speak with the police and contact the resident on 23 May 2023. The landlord called the resident on 23 May 2023 and on 26 May 2023, and said it had yet to receive an update from the police.
The resident contacted the landlord on 29 May 2023 to ask if it had viewed the latest videos she had provided.
On 31 May 2023 the landlord contacted the MHAT following receipt of an email from the resident asking if further help was available for her son. The landlord confirmed it had contacted the MHAT and would call her once it got in touch. The landlord advised the resident that if she required help urgently to contact the GP or emergency services. The landlord confirmed it had watched the video footage and that this had been added to the case file.
On 5 June 2023 the resident reported that the neighbour was walking past her front door and using the communal area in a manner she found intimidating. She also confirmed that her son had now made a statement to the police about an incident that occurred in March 2023. The landlord responded on 7 June 2023 and explained that because the neighbour accessed the communal area via the path front of the resident’s property, she was not doing anything that was prohibited. The landlord said it would make a note to raise the issue when it next met with the neighbour. The landlord confirmed it had received a response from the MHAT but noted that the resident’s son had visited the GP. The landlord confirmed it would visit the resident on 10 June 2023.
The landlord has not provided a record of the meeting with the resident on 10 June 2023, however, the evidence indicates a meeting took place. Following the meeting, on 13 June 2023 the resident contacted the landlord to express frustration at its intention to close the ASB case. The landlord responded on 15 June 2023 and said it noted the resident’s concerns and the case would be ‘kept open for now’.
The landlord acted reasonably in considering and acting on the resident’s concerns. However, if the landlord had concluded that the case should be closed, it is reasonable to expect it to have documented this assessment. The landlord has not provided any records of such an assessment, which is unreasonable.
On 20 June 2023 the resident reported that the neighbour had laughed and shouted at her son. The resident said that her physical and mental health were deteriorating and that her son was suicidal. The landlord responded the same day and asked if it could call the resident that afternoon. It said if there was an immediate risk to life the emergency services should be called.
The multi-agency support service spoke with the resident on 22 June 2023 and wrote to the resident thereafter to provide information on befriending services and activities.
The resident contacted the landlord on 26 June 2023 and said she understood there to be sufficient evidence for it to issue a CPW. The resident said the neighbour’s behaviour was intimidating, she smoked cannabis and was banging doors and shouting until 1am. The resident submitted further noise diaries to the landlord. On 27 June 2023 the resident told the landlord she had reported concerns for the neighbour’s welfare to the police the previous evening and the neighbour had responded by screaming obscenities at her.
On 30 June 2023 the landlord provided an email update to the resident following a meeting about her case. It said it recognised that the current situation was causing the resident and her son significant stress. It said it wanted to discuss with the resident whether she would join the housing register to find a home that better suited her needs. The landlord said the resident might want to discuss this with the wellbeing team. The landlord said it had considered issuing a CPW, but the reports from the neighbour and the resident meant that both parties would be issued with a CPW, and it wanted to avoid doing anything that could affect their tenancy.
The landlord said it had made a referral for the neighbour to specialist support services and would work on conditions surrounding the tenancy. It explained that to take any enforcement action it had to demonstrate that all efforts to change behaviour had been made prior to action. The landlord said the resident might want to discuss a housing application when the multi-agency support service next got in touch and provided a link to the home options scheme application process. It also provided information on mediation services. The resident responded the same day and expressed her disappointment at the outcome of the meeting.
The landlord spoke with the resident on 30 June 2023. Following the call, the landlord made a ‘safeguarding issues report’ in which it raised concerns about the content of the call and the language used by the resident.
The landlord spoke with the resident on 2 July 2023 and said it had not heard back from the MHAT and that it had written to the neighbour and would monitor her behaviour after she received the letter. On the same date the resident submitted a request for an ASB case review.
In a series of emails sent on 5 July 2023 the resident asked about options for moving home. The email expressed frustration at what she saw as the landlord’s inaction over the behaviour of the neighbour and said that in future she only wanted to communicate by email. The landlord advised the resident to speak with its housing options team, explained that if the resident had a letter outlining her physical and mental health needs this could assist with rehousing. The resident asked about moving to temporary accommodation due to the impact of the neighbour’s behaviour. There is no evidence that the resident received written information from the landlord on her options for moving house or the application process.
On 6 July 2023 the landlord’s ASB team contacted the housing allocations department and provided a supporting email from the police to enquire on the resident’s behalf about temporary accommodation.
The resident raised a stage 1 complaint to the landlord on 11 July 2023. The resident provided further diary sheets and asked if she had reached the threshold to be rehoused. The resident said the landlord had failed in its duty of care to her and her son. The resident said that prior to signing the tenancy the landlord had said that the problems between the previous tenant and the neighbour were due to a clash of personalities. The resident said the landlord had misled her into taking a tenancy with a neighbour who had a history of aggression and bullying behaviour. The resident said she felt suicidal, her son continued to self-harm, and she believed there was a risk he would take his own life. The resident said they needed to be rehoused as a priority and not put onto a waiting list.
On 11 July 2023 the resident contacted the multi-agency wellbeing service to ask for help with completing a housing application. There is no evidence the resident received a response to her request for assistance.
The resident contacted the landlord on 12 July 2023 to report noise and the smell of cannabis coming from the neighbour’s property. The resident asked if the landlord had contacted the police to support the case for being rehoused. The landlord responded the same day and confirmed the police had been contacted and this information had been passed to the relevant team. In a separate email sent to the resident on the same date, the landlord confirmed that her request for an ASB case review had been accepted.
The landlord concluded on 13 July 2023 that while there was a level of risk if the resident remained in the property, it did not believe there was a risk of serious harm and therefore the resident did not meet the legal definition of being homeless. As a result, it would not be able to process a homeless relief application for her.
On 15 July 2023 the resident told the landlord that she wanted to submit a housing application, but the wellbeing team had not responded to her request for help. The resident said that she was struggling, and she was worried that she might not be able to keep her son safe.
The landlord provided a stage 1 complaint response on 18 July 2023. It acknowledged that prior to signing the tenancy the resident had asked if there was history of ASB at the property. The landlord said it had told the resident it was unable to disclose any information due to data protection and that she should ask the outgoing tenant. The landlord said that when the resident signed the tenancy the previous case involving the neighbour had been closed for about 3 months. It said the officers that spoke with the resident believed the previous cases were due to disputes between neighbours.
The landlord went on to say that it understood the resident was frustrated by the perceived lack of progress with her ASB case. It said it understood the impact of the situation on the resident’s physical and mental health. The landlord said it was unable to share all the details of the actions it had taken. However, the landlord said it aimed to resolve ASB, and its purpose was not to evict residents. It said any enforcement action was considered carefully, and it worked with partner agencies to support residents with disclosed or suspected vulnerabilities.
The landlord said it remained committed to working with the resident and the neighbour to resolve the situation. It reiterated its offer of mediation and referral to support services. The landlord said mediation could also include ‘resilience support’. The landlord said to move from the property the resident should apply to the housing register. The landlord said it could then ask for the resident and son’s medical needs to be taken into consideration. The landlord said it would not be able to consider a move without an application.
The landlord acted reasonably in explaining the limitations on what it could disclose to the resident when she signed the tenancy. It was, however, reasonable to expect the landlord to set out the actions it had taken in relation to the evidence submitted by the resident in the current case. It was also reasonable to expect the landlord to set out the support services that might be available to the resident. The landlord missed an opportunity to support the resident by not including this information in its complaint response.
On 18 July 2023 the resident asked for her complaint to be reviewed at stage 2. She rejected the landlord’s explanation of its handling of her enquiries about ASB prior to signing the tenancy. The resident said her interpretation of an email from the landlord on 30 June 2024 was that it was considering issuing her with a CPW. The resident questioned how the landlord could expect her to enter mediation with an individual who had fabricated stories and threatened her son. The resident said the offer of ‘resilience support’ was a further example of the landlord failing to address ASB and ‘gaslighting’ her. The resident said the landlord had promised to assist her with her housing application but had not replied when she emailed on 11 July 2023 to ask for help.
On 20 July 2023 the resident submitted a notice of her intention to surrender the tenancy. The resident said that she had no choice but to leave due to the neighbour’s behaviour and its affect on her son. The resident said she had received no support from the landlord or the multi-agency support service to apply for other properties.
The landlord then made an urgent referral for specialist support to help the resident understand the implications of surrendering the tenancy and to discuss any other available options. The landlord contacted the resident to request a meeting, to which the resident agreed.
The landlord met with the resident on 21 July 2023. At the meeting the resident told the landlord she had found alternative accommodation in the private rental sector. The meeting notes state the resident said her son had tried to take his own life and she attributed this to the situation with the neighbour. The notes state the landlord had a call scheduled with the resident’s son that afternoon for the purpose of discussing possible referrals. A separate landlord internal meeting was scheduled to consider any further action it could take.
On 25 July 2023 following a further request from the resident the landlord confirmed it would action her request to quit her tenancy. The landlord reiterated to the resident that by putting in the notice she may be make herself intentionally homeless and advised her to join the housing register.
The landlord provided a stage 2 complaint response on 8 August 2023. The landlord said the previous ASB case prior to the resident’s tenancy was closed independently of the team managing the mutual exchange. The landlord said it understood why the resident might be reluctant to accept mediation. It said mediation was offered when it felt talking about the situation could be beneficial. It said mediation could be facilitated in several ways which could be face-to-face, ‘shuttle’ mediation, or individual sessions. The landlord apologised that this had not been explained previously and said it was not its intention to imply the resident needed to ‘toughen up’.
In summary, the landlord acted reasonably in opening ASB cases in response to the resident’s reports and conducting risk assessments. The landlord maintained regular contact with the resident and adhered to the response timelines set out in its ASB policy.
The resident and her son had multiple vulnerabilities, and the landlord acted reasonably in offering referrals to relevant support services. The landlord acted reasonably in stating in its complaint responses that there was limited information that could be provided about other residents when a tenancy was signed. However, as it acknowledged, the resident and her son were experiencing significant detriment from there living situation and it was unreasonable of the landlord to simply restate its offer of mediation.
The resident had said she felt she had no option to leave the property and subsequently asked for assistance completing a housing application. The evidence does not demonstrate that the resident was provided with clear information on her housing options, the application process, or the landlord’s decision on temporary housing. While it was the resident’s decision to surrender her tenancy, she did not receive a response to her request for assistance with her housing application.
Given the resident’s clear and increasing distress, this was unreasonable, as there were options available for the landlord to have improved its response. As a result of these failings there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of ASB. The landlord is therefore ordered to apologise to the resident and to pay £350 compensation. This is calculated in accordance with the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance.

Complaint handling

On 11 July 2023 the resident complained to the landlord about its handling of ASB by the neighbour and the lack of information about the neighbour’s record of ASB, prior to her signing the tenancy.
It is unclear from the evidence provided, if the landlord provided an acknowledgement of receipt of the complaint. The landlord provided a stage 1 complaint response on 18 July 2023.
The landlord’s complaints policy states that it will acknowledge receipt of a complaint within 5 working days and that it aims to provide a response within 10 working days of the complaint being logged. The landlord has not demonstrated it acted in accordance with its policy in not providing evidence that it acknowledged receipt of the resident’s complaint. The landlord provided a stage 1 response in 6 working days, which was within the timeline set out in its complaints policy.
On 18 July 2023 the resident asked for her complaint to be reviewed at stage 2. The landlord acknowledged receipt of the escalation request on 25 July 2023 and provided a stage 2 response on 8 August 2023.
The landlord’s complaints policy states that at stage 2 it will acknowledge receipt of an escalation request within 5 working days and respond within 20 working days of receiving the request. The landlord provided a complaint acknowledgement in 5 working days and a stage 2 complaint response in 16 working days. The landlord acted reasonably in responding within the timelines set out in its complaints policy.
In summary, the landlord facilitated the resident’s complaint in a manner that provided responses within the timeframe as set out in it complaints policy. As a result of these findings there was no maladministration in the landlord’s complaint handling.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord in its response to the resident’s reports of ASB.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration by the landlord in its complaint handling.

Orders and recommendations

Within 4 weeks of the date of this report, the landlord must:
1. Apologise to the resident, in writing for the failings identified in this report.
2. Pay the resident £350 compensation for the time, trouble, distress and inconvenience caused as a result of the landlord’s failings in its response to the resident’s reports of ASB.
The landlord should provide evidence of compliance with these orders to this Service within the specified dates above.