Notting Hill Genesis (202001714)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202001714

Notting Hill Genesis

31 March 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

The complaint is about the landlord’s response to the resident’s report of Anti-Social Behaviour (ASB) from Neighbour A
The landlord’s response to the resident’s report of noise related ASB from Neighbour B
The landlord’s response to the related complaint.

Background

The resident is an assured tenant and the tenancy agreement indicates the tenancy began on 4 March 1996. The property is described as a two-bedroom flat on the first floor in a block.
The resident advised she has long standing medical conditions.
The tenancy agreement requires the landlord ‘ not to interfere with or disturb the tenant’s quiet occupation of the premises’.
The landlord’s ASB policy defines ASB as ‘conduct that has caused, or is likely to cause harassment, alarm or distress to any person…. in relation to the person’s occupation of residential premises’. On receipt of a report of ASB, the landlord’s preliminary response is to investigate, monitor any risk and advise its residents to report crime to the police. It will develop an action plan and signpost the resident to agencies who may be able to offer support. The landlord will send a copy of the action plan to the resident.
The policy sets out the tools that are available: mediation, warnings, acceptable behaviour and parenting contracts and that it will consider legal action where there is clear evidence of a tenancy breach. In addition, it will support vulnerable residents to enable them to sustain their tenancies and cases of ASB should be closed within 3 months with the resident informed in writing.
The landlord’s ASB Covid 19 procedure provides updated guidance recognising that particular circumstances apply during the Covid 19 pandemic. It provides the action to take for non-adherence to social distancing guidelines following the initial risk assessment.
The landlord’s ASB Risk Assessment Form is used for vulnerable adults when the resident believes that the abuse is targeted at them and a case review will take place before legal action. It recognised that the measures introduced for the Covid-19 pandemic had restricted the use of evictions and that residents may be reluctant to act as a witness due to a fear of reprisals. In those circumstances, it recommended the use of hearsay, anonymised evidence, local officer witness statement and community harm statements.
The landlord’s Hate Incidents and Hate Crime Policy recognises that such incidents can leave victims feeling isolated and encourages the resident to report incidents to the police. It recognises that if the perpetuator has support needs, it will take this into account , it will advise the victim of its rehousing options if they cannot remain at home and will ‘ have regard for a victim’s wishes it they insist that no action is taken’ and there are no safeguarding concerns.
The landlord operates a two stage complaints procedure with complaint responses sent within ten working days at the first stage of the procedure and within twenty working days at the final stage of the complaint’s procedure.
The landlord has a compensation and goodwill gesture policy which aims to provide a consistent approach to the award of compensation payments and sets out the circumstances in which compensation payments will be made. It outlines that discretionary award of up to £250 can be made in recognition of inconvenience and distress when it has failed to follow its published policies, or it has not met its service standards.

Summary of events

There has been a considerable amount of communication between the resident and the landlord regarding her reports of ASB. The residents’ disappointment with the landlords’ approach to resolving the complaints has been noted and all available evidence has been carefully considered. This report will not be addressing each specific issue or incident, rather it will reflect the key points and events which have been summarised. The report will provide a view on the landlords’ overall handling of the issues.
The resident has complained about her neighbours in the past, including between September and October 2019. At the time the landlord issued warning letters to the parties and discussed mediation. This investigation will consider events in more detail from February 2020 when the resident contacted the landlord on 20 February 2020 advising that she was making a complaint about Neighbour B. She complained that:
1. the landlord’s response to her complaint about ASB from Neighbour B was to threaten to send her a formal warning letter; that the counter allegations had no merit
2. the level of disturbance including playing football after 10pm, the loud noise levels from Neighbour B’s family at night was occurring more frequently
3. her health had been impacted and her sleep had been affected on two occasions that week by the noise levels
4. the landlord needed to confirm whether it considered that the reported noise level was acceptable
5. as a consequence of the reported disturbance, she could not enjoy the use of her home, that the Council had referred her back to the landlord to obtain a resolution.
The landlord responded to the complaint on 24 February 2020 providing guidance from the Government website on managing neighbour disputes. In summary it concluded that:
1. it had set out its position in the warning letter –that if it received further ASB complaints, it would consider issuing a formal warning letter and apologised if the resident found the letter threatening
2. Neighbour B had advised that she felt she was the recipient of false noise reports and that she could not make a reasonable level of noise in her own home
3. it had not received any witness reports about the noise level from Neighbour B
4. it considered the relationship between the resident and Neighbour B had broken down. The offer of mediation had been refused by Neighbour B as she was unhappy with past communication with the resident
5. the resident could contact the police or take her own legal action if she felt harassed as it did not have sufficient evidence to take its own legal action.
On the same day (24 February 2020), the resident responded that she found the complaint response to be ‘totally unacceptable ‘as she felt the landlord was calling her a ‘liar’. She advised of the difficulties in obtaining a witness to the noise levels as they occurred late at night, that the Council had said it would not intervene and that she believed that the landlord was condoning the neighbour’s actions as it had not found a resolution to her concerns. She asked for the complaint to be escalated to the next stage of the complaint procedure.
In response, the landlord clarified on the same day (24 February 2020) that it had not called the resident a ‘liar’ in the complaint response and explained that it had not received witness statements to confirm the noise levels. It agreed to speak with Neighbour B about the noise reports, reiterated that it did not have sufficient information to take legal action and confirmed that her complaint would be progressed.
An incident is recorded regarding neighbour A on 3 March 2020, which the police attended and recorded that a public order offence had been committed. It notified the landlord on 6 March 2020 that as the resident did not want to press charges, its case had been closed and it was willing to attend a multi-agency meeting.
The resident emailed the landlord on 7 March 2020 following contact from the hate crime team. She advised that it wanted her to press charges regarding the incident involving Neighbour A but she had reservations as she was concerned about repercussions to her and her family.
On 10 March 2020, the landlord recorded receiving a medical letter supporting the need for the resident to move as she had been ‘targeted, verbally and physically threatened’.
The landlord had a meeting with the resident and her son on 11 March 2020 regarding the incident on 3 March 2020. There are no records of the landlord’s meeting with the resident.
The day after the meeting with the resident and her son, 12 March 2020 the landlord requested for the police to contact the resident and provide advice on the available options. The police responded on the same day ( 12 March 2020) that it was unlikely that conditions would be imposed on Neighbour A and it would arrange for the resident to be contacted.
On 13 March 2020, the landlord confirmed to the resident that it understood that she did not want to take any further action regarding Neighbour A, however, it would visit Neighbour A to discuss her behaviour in light of the reported incident and signposted the resident to contact the police if she felt threatened.
The landlord emailed the resident on the 23 March 2020 requesting an update about the current situation with Neighbour A. It advised that it had spoken to the police about Neighbour A and suggested that the resident send a letter to her explaining how her behaviour had affected her. The resident responded the same day ( 23 March 2020) that she did not agree with the suggestion.
The resident made new noise reports on 25 March 2020 and 28 March 2020. She described that she could hear Neighbour B’s daughter ‘shrieking, talking loudly’ and shouting which resulted in her sleep being disturbed.
The resident provided an update to the landlord regarding Neighbour A on 3 April 2020. She reported that further incidents had not occurred and in response the landlord advised that it had requested extra support for Neighbour A from social services.

The landlord informed the resident that it had a received a counter noise allegation from Neighbour B that the resident was speaking loudly in the common parts. The resident disputed that the allegation had any merit and that the landlord was not taking strong enough action as its approach was to speak with Neighbour B about her behaviour. The landlord explained the neutrality of its role, requested that the resident be conscious of sound levels and advised that Neighbour B had agreed to speak with her daughter about the noise levels. It advised that high volumes of noise after 11pm was unacceptable.

The resident made a new noise report on 6 April 2020 that it was 1.42 am, the daughter of Neighbour B was talking and laughing loudly and that she was being constantly disturbed. The landlord advised that it would contact Neighbour B and it had not received any video evidence regarding the noise complained about. The resident reiterated that she wanted her complaint escalated.
On 9 April 2020, the resident made a complaint that the family of Neighbour B had not practiced social distancing in the communal gardens. The landlord responded on the same day (9 April 2020) signposting the resident to the police advising that it did not have enforcement powers, however it would speak with Neighbour B.
On the same day, (9 April 2020) the resident contacted the council and made a statutory nuisance complaint regarding the noise from Neighbour B.
There was further communication between the landlord and resident in April and May 2020 with the resident requesting an update on her complaint and advising that she had instructed a solicitor. With regard to Neighbour A, the landlord confirmed that it had not received any further reports of abuse and the resident made further complaints about loud music by Neighbour B.
The residents’ solicitor contacted the landlord on 1 June 2020 and requested a managed move citing harassment from the resident’s neighbours. The landlord responded on the same day (1 June 2020) advising of the different transfer options available from its own stock, the council or by obtaining a mutual exchange.
The landlord and resident communicated on 1 and 2 June 2020 regarding the reports of ASB and the resident made further complaints about the daughter of Neighbour B. The landlord explained that the pandemic restricted its ability to speak with Neighbour A, however it was considering sending a formal warning letter and outlined the rehousing options available. The resident expressed that she wanted to be kept updated of any actions that it took. The landlord also provided an update on a visit it had conducted at Neighbour B’s home where it had observed a rug on the floor, advised that she had agreed to speak with her daughter about the reported noise nuisance and reaffirmed that it could not take action without evidence.
The following day, 3 June 2020 the resident emailed the council to make a noise complaint against Neighbour A, advised that she needed protection as she felt unsafe in her home and wanted to proceed with charges against Neighbour A. The same day (3 June 2020) the resident’s solicitor contacted the landlord restating the contents of the resident’s email: that the resident had experienced threats the previous night, she felt unsupported and as an outcome wanted a transfer outside of the landlord’s properties.
The landlord responded the same day to the solicitor’s email (3 June 2020) providing an overview of the situation regarding Neighbour A and Neighbour B. It advised that it had explained the available options available to the resident, that the resident was aware that the multi-agency panel regarding Neighbour A had not taken place and that it did not have sufficient evidence to witness the noise allegations made by Neighbour B.
The landlord’s correspondence to the police on 3 June 2020 concludes that the resident had received ‘racist and abusive treatment’ from Neighbour A but it had no evidence to substantiate the complaints made regarding Neighbour B. The following day, 4 June 2020 the resident received a police crime reference number for the incident that occurred the previous day (3 June 2020).
The resident communicated with the Council between the 5 June 2020 and 9 June 2020 regarding its attendance to witness the noise from Neighbour B at her home. The Council concluded that the alleged noise nuisance was ‘borne from domestic activity’, the type of noise was difficult and impossible to prove in court, that Neighbour B can create normal amounts of noise and provided advice on the legal remedies available.
The solicitor contacted the landlord on 6 July 2020 advising that the resident had found a mutual exchange partner. On 21 July 2020 it advised the landlord of a new noise complaint of shouting and singing from neighbour A and that the police had advised it to notify the landlord.
The landlord informed the police on 21 July 2020 that Neighbour A had been shouting in the garden and that it had received complaints from 2 private individuals about her behaviour.
The council contacted the resident on 23 July 2020 advising it did not have sufficient officers available to witness noise nuisance.
The resident made a new noise complaint on 26 July 2020, regarding the daughter of Neighbour B: that the noise was ongoing on a daily basis and that her daughter had started playing football indoors.
On 30 July 2020, the resident emailed the landlord to request the minutes from the meeting held in March 2020 expressing that progress had not been made to resolve the reported ASB and noise complaints. In addition, she believed that the landlord focus was on assisting her to move rather than keeping her updated about the actions they were taking with regards to Neighbour A or addressing the noise nuisance from Neighbour B.
The resident made a new noise complaint about the behaviour of Neighbour A on 31 July 2020; that the noise was occurring daily – loud music was playing, shouting, aggressive and abusive behaviour.
The resident chased the complaint response on 2 August 2020. In response, the landlord confirmed on 3 August 2020 that it had no concerns regarding the exchange taking place and it offered an incentive payment of £1000.00 plus the costs of moving to assist the resident with the move. The resident expressed her disappointment with the financial offer on the same day (3 August 2020) as she had been ‘forced’ to move and she wanted the landlord to consider paying for the costs of redecoration.
The mental health worker for Neighbour A emailed the landlord on 5 August 2020 advising that the proper protocol was for meetings to be arranged to discuss the concerns regarding Neighbour A rather than to send emails.
The landlord and resident communicated during August 2020 regarding the actions it was taking regarding the reports of ASB and noise nuisance. In summary, the landlord confirmed that the Covid 19 pandemic had limited the action it could take regarding Neighbour A, that as well as working with agencies to provide support it was considering alternatives to court action. In addition, the landlord confirmed that it would not use her evidence, that it would carry out a joint visit with the police to issue a ASB notice with conditions regarding her behaviour.

In response, the resident chased the responses to her complaint. She made a new complaint about abusive language and loud music from Neighbour A which she attributed to the landlord making contact with the resident without notifying her in advance as it had agreed to do. In addition, the resident questioned the unavailability of the minutes from the meeting she attended in March 2020 and requested that the landlord update her before action was taken as she did not want any reprisals or to be targeted by Neighbour A.

The landlord emailed the resident on 10 September 2020 requesting her availability to discuss the stage 2 complaint. The resident advised that her preference was to communicate by email and clarified on 15 September 2020, that her main concerns were the lack of minutes following the meeting with the landlord and that information sharing should occur following multi-agency meetings.
The landlord contacted the resident on 29 September 2020 to obtain an update regarding the noise complaints about Neighbour B. The resident responded that same day (29 September 2020) that she had did not have any issues to report.
The landlord considered the residents comments and agreed that going forward after meetings, a summary of the discussions and action points would be shared but the information could be limited due to confidentiality.
The resident made 7 ASB reports regarding Neighbour A in October 2020 with at least two containing racial slurs.
The resident and the landlord contained to correspond in November 2020 regarding Neighbour A. The resident agreed to the landlord sharing her information with the Mental Health Team, requested an update on the action it was taking. The landlord explained that it needed to know what action the resident wanted to take, it could not force Neighbour A to move and that the resident should contact the police if she felt threatened.
This Service contacted the landlord asking the landlord for its final response to the complaint on 16 November 2020.
The landlord carried out its ASB Risk Assessment regrading Neighbour A on 21 January 2021. It acknowledged that the resident had been affected as: the frequency of incidents was increasing, the comments received were of a racist nature and assessed the situation as a medium risk. The assessment also considered the health circumstances of Neighbour A and noted that it was restricted in the actions it could take by the resident’s decision not to press charges, as they did not have her permission to use her evidence.
The landlord received a new noise report on 3 February 2021 about the noise levels in Neighbour B home following a bereavement in the family. The landlord responded on 12 February 2021, suggesting that the resident consider writing to Neighbour B explaining how the noise levels were affecting her and signposted her to the council to get the noise witnessed.
The landlord issued its final stage response on 26 March 2021 apologising for the delay. The response considered the two separate incidents of ASB and noise complaints and in summary acknowledged that:-
1. the incidences of ASB regarding Neighbour A had increased in August 2020 and that the police had agreed to increase their patrols
2. it appreciated that the resident had been impacted by the behaviour of Neighbour A; it had provided support to the resident including the option of pursuing a mutual exchange, though it recognised that it was not taking place
3. it accepted that the resident did not want to press charges or allow it to use her evidence regarding Neighbour A; that it was in discussion with its legal adviser to agree a way forward and it was working with its partners to support Neighbour A
4. in recognition of the stress and inconvenience experienced, it offered a good will gesture of £100
5. it had responded to the allegations and counter allegations about noise nuisance from the resident and Neighbour B by issuing a formal warning in 2019 and had advised that it would consider the issue of a Notice Seeking Possession if further reports of ASB were received
6. mediation had been offered, was still available as a resolution, though it recognised that Neighbour B had declined to participate
7. it required evidence that the noise levels constituted a statutory nuisance before it could take act and suggested that she continued to report noise nuisance to the council
8. the resident should not send messages to Neighbour B as this could cause conflict.
It concluded that it did not identify any service failures in the handling of the ASB or noise related ASB complaints. It offered £250 compensation for its complaint handling failures and in addition, it offered a good will gesture of £100 for the stress and inconvenience experienced by the resident. It advised that it had learnt from the complaint and was offering refresher training to its staff and had updated its complaint guidance to prevent a reoccurrence of the situation.
The resident remained dissatisfied with the landlords’ response and emailed the landlord on 29 March 2021 expressing her concerns about the accuracy of the information it contained, that she had not been supported by the council or the police and that the noise allegations made about her, had not been substantiated. In addition, that it was the landlord who had advised her to contact Neighbour B and she had not done so.
In addition, she informed the landlord that the noise was still continuing from Neighbour B.
After the complaint process had been exhausted, the resident made further reports of noise from Neighbour B. Any further concerns about the landlords handling of the reports after 26 March 2021 will need to be subject to a new complaint.
The resident escalated her complaint to this Service on 21 April 2021 advising that as an outcome she wanted the ASB to stop and for the landlord to ensure that Neighbour A received the correct mental health support. She advised that that the noise complaints from Neighbour B had restarted and disputed that the landlord had sent her a warning letter in 2019. In addition, the compensation offered did not reflect the abuse she had experienced or recognise the impact on her own mental health.

Assessment and findings

The Ombudsman’s role is not to establish whether the reported ASB occurred or to assess the credibility of the reports made by the resident but to establish whether the landlords’ response to the resident’s reports were in line with its legal and policy obligations, and whether its actions were fair in all the circumstances of the case.
It is appreciated that the resident has been upset and distressed by the ongoing disputes with her neighbours and has been frustrated by the landlords’ handling of the reported ASB. The resident’s feelings are understood and is not disputed that dealing with such situations is stressful.
The resident and her neighbours have a responsibility to behave reasonably under the terms of their respective tenancy agreements. The landlord has a responsibility to its residents to enable them to maintain and sustain their tenancies as well as taking appropriate action in response to any reports of alleged ASB or noise complaints that it received and its ASB policy provides the framework under which it manages its ASB cases.

Neighbour A

From the available information, it is clear that this has been a challenging case for the landlord to manage due to the vulnerability of Neighbour A.
The landlord ASB policy advises that it will communicate with the resident following an incident of ASB and agree an action plan. Looking at all the incidents reported regarding Neighbour A, there is evidence of the landlord’s prompt communication with the resident when it received reports to establish what had occurred. However, it has failed to evidence that it drew up action plans with clear timescales or evidence how its monitored progress against those plans in accordance with its ASB policy. The plans would have set out how frequently the resident could expect to receive updates about the actions the landlord was taking, which would have minimised some of the uncertainty the resident experienced and set out how it intended to resolve the concerns she had raised.
A key part of this complaint is about what occurred at the meeting between the landlord and the resident and her son in March 2020. The resident asserts that temporary housing was discussed as an option for her to consider if the landlord commenced proceedings against Neighbour A. This is disputed by the landlord as it recollects that the meeting discussed the possibility of a transfer through its transfer list and the option of the resident approaching the council to obtain emergency housing. The resident has requested a copy of the minutes of the meeting. However, the landlord has confirmed that it does not have these. This is a service failing as its ASB policy advises that this should be provided to the resident within five days of the meeting. In addition, this failure to keep a written record of the discussion has resulted in the landlord being unable to evidence what was discussed and agreed and would have enabled the landlord to clear up any misunderstandings that occurred during the conversation.
When an incident is reported to the police, the landlord is reliant upon the police to investigate the incident as an alleged crime first and once it receives the outcome of the investigation it can act. Once the landlord was informed that the police were taking no further action, it acted in accordance with its hate incidents and hate crime policy and had regard to the information provided by the resident that she did not wish to press charges and did not want it to use her evidence. In addition, the landlord liaised with the police and in order to support the resident, it requested that the police make contact with the resident and explain the options that were available to her.
The landlord assessed that the resident had experienced racial slurs from Neighbour A, however considering the severity of the report, it did not conduct its ASB risk assessment until January 2021 –10 months after the resident first made it aware that she felt targeted by Neighbour A. The ASB risk assessment should be completed on the identification of three factors: feeling targeted, frequency, hate crime, vulnerability and impact. The delay was unreasonable as the resident was raising these concerns and this was a missed opportunity to review the reported issues, agree a resolution and communicate effectively with the resident.
A review of the correspondence shows that the landlord advised that the resident was aware that the multi-agency meeting did not take place due to the national restrictions and that the social work team were critical of the communication method favoured by the landlord. It suggested that instead of sharing information by email, it organise a multi-agency panel. This Service requested confirmation of the dates that these meetings or multi agency panels took place. This was not provided by the landlord for this investigation. It is accepted that the Covid 19 pandemic caused landlords to change their business operating procedures and this is evidenced by the landlord updating its ASB procedures. In addition, there is sufficient evidence provided in its email communication with the resident that whilst the initial multi-agency meeting did not take place, that other multi agency meetings did take place to discuss support for Neighbour A.
From the available information, the landlord’s response to the reported incidents was to offer support to Neighbour A in line with its ASB procedures. It considered that legal action would be taken as the last resort. The resident was in agreement with this approach as she wanted the landlord to provide support for Neighbour A. However, its ASB procedures allows for the use of anonymised evidence and this was not considered until October 2020 – six months after the first reported event. This was an unacceptable delay especially as it was aware of the distress that the ongoing situation was causing the resident and it had also received complaints from other individuals.
In its correspondence with the resident, the landlord advised that it was seeking advice from its legal adviser regarding the approach to take regarding Neighbour A. However, it has not provided evidence that it conducted case reviews in accordance with its ASB procedure. This would have enabled it to assess the quality of the evidence that was available and to decide the most suitable approach to undertake to reduce the reports of ASB that it was receiving. However, its rationale on taking legal action were reasonable as it considered the vulnerability of Neighbour A, the reported complaints and the acceleration in the issues being reported
The landlord’s offer to assist the resident with a move was appropriate and proportionate given the distress the incidents were causing the resident. It was resolution focused as it went beyond its obligations with the offer of an incentive payment and additional payments towards the moving costs as it recognised that a solution was not imminent.
In summary, the landlord failed to keep proper records in accordance with its ASB policy and of the meeting held with the resident in March 2020.

Neighbour B

The role of the Ombudsman is not to determine whether the noise level the resident is experiencing is excessive but to assess whether the landlord has followed its procedures, acted reasonably, considering of all the circumstances of the case.
It is noted that it is the responsibility of the council to investigate noise which could constitute a statutory nuisance and to determine whether the level of noise that the resident reported meets this definition.
It is accepted the resident made numerous reports about noise disturbance and given the nature of the reports, it was appropriate to treat them as ASB related nuisance in line with its ASB policy.
The landlord in its complaint response reaffirmed that the formal warning letter issued in October 2019 advised both the resident and Neighbour A that if further reports were received it would consider serving a Notice Seeking Possession. However, in light of the ASB reports from the resident about the noise levels from Neighbour B and that Neighbour B has not denied the reports, it has failed to explain why it decided that this course of action was not appropriate.
For this investigation, the landlord did not provide its case management information, as evidence of how it managed the noise related ASB reports. The resident made complaints about Neighbour B’s daughter between February 2020 to July 2020. Following the complaints of noise related ASB, the landlord spoke to Neighbour B and investigated the reported concerns by visiting the property to understand the situation. At the visit she observed that Neighbour B had a rug as a floor covering. The landlord’s guidance recommends that to reduce noise transference, residents can be asked to put down carpets on wooden floors or increase underlay to mitigate the noise level. The landlord’s decision to limit its’ investigation to the existing floor covering was not reasonable as there is no evidence that it considered recommending alternative options to Neighbour B to reduce the sound transference considering the frequency of the noise allegations it was receiving regarding her daughter.
The landlord updated its ASB guidance following the pandemic recognising that more people were at home which could increase complaints about noise and included its approach to handling complaints about non–adherence to the social distancing guidelines. The resident reported in April 2020 that Neighbour B and her family were in the communal gardens and not confirming to the guidelines. The landlord acted appropriately by signposting the resident to the police who had enforcement powers and agreed to speak to Neighbour B, in accordance with its ASB policy.
Looking at the key issues which was reports of noise disturbance by the daughter of Neighbour B after 10pm at night. The issues primarily relate to the daughter playing football in the bedroom, talking loudly, shrieking and the playing of loud music. The guidance outlines the range of tools available to the landlord. In accordance with this, it contacted Neighbour B to discuss the reports who advised that she would speak with her daughter and in its communication with the resident, it repeatedly advised that Neighbour B had refused to undertake mediation so it could not pursue this as a possible remedy. However, its explanation to the resident could have been clearer in confirming the dates that it had reoffered mediation to Neighbour B which would indicated that Neighbour B had an opportunity to reconsider her earlier position and had not changed her mind. In addition, the resident had requested for stronger action to be taken, the landlord could have managed the resident’s expectations by providing the reasons why it did not consider a referral to its tenancy team for enforcement action as a possible solution given it considered that the relationship between the two neighbours had broken down.
The landlord approach to the counter allegation made by Neighbour B regarding the resident speaking in the corridor was resolution focused and proportionate. It discussed the concern with the resident and decided that no further action was required.
The landlord appropriately advised the resident to collate noise recording evidence and signposted the resident to the council following her complaints about noise related ASB. The resident followed the advice and made complaints about statutory nuisance to the council who determined that the noise could not be considered a statutory nuisance and that it would not take any action. The landlord was entitled to rely on the professional advice received from the council therefore, its approach in reviewing the written noise reports and informing the resident that it was limited in the actions it could take was reasonable.
From what can be seen, there were no reports of noise nuisance between September 2020 until the resident made a complaint about noise in February 2021, therefore it was reasonable for the landlord to take no further action during that period.
Following the noise report in February 2021, the landlord considered the personal circumstances of Neighbour B that she had experienced a bereavement, and this had increased the number of visitors to her property, whilst also acknowledging the impact on the resident. However, there was a short coming in its actions when the landlord advised the resident to write to Neighbour B to explain how the situation impacted her and in the complaint response, when it contradicted itself by informing the resident that she should not make written contact with Neighbour B.
In summary, the landlord failed to keep proper records regarding the case management of the noise related ASB and has not demonstrated that it has explored all the options available to manage the reported noise complaints.

Complaint handling

The resident complained to the landlord on 20 February 2020 about Neighbour B and she received a response four days later on 24 February in line with its complaint procedure. However, the complaint response did not inform the resident how she could escalate her complaint to the final stage of the complaint procedure. The landlord has apologised for this and offered compensation of £150.00.
On 24 February 2020, the resident escalated her complaint and the landlord failed to respond until March 2021 – over 12 months later, despite the resident chasing the landlord for its response in April 2020, August 2020 and having to contact this Service in November 2020. This was an unreasonable length of time to take to respond to the resident’s service complaint and meant the resident had to spend an unnecessary amount of time and effort chasing the landlord for a response. This was an unacceptable delay. The landlord recognised this, apologised and offered an award of compensation of £100.00 for the delay.
The landlord acknowledged the impact on the resident from the behaviour of Neighbour A and made a gesture of good will for stress and inconvenience of £100.00. However, the conclusion of the complaint response does not refer to this award, in its final compensation calculation. Therefore, a recommendation has been made regarding this.
The final complaint response did not acknowledge that there were service failures in its handling of the ASB report but did outline how it had learnt from the complaint and had organised training for its staff on dealing with complaints and the ASB process. In addition, it outlined that it had considered the resident’s suggestions about keeping a record of meetings that it holds with its residents and going forward notes would be kept, with actions noted. This is line with good record keeping as it reduces ambiguity and ensures that there is an accurate account of decisions that have been taken.
In summary, the landlord failed to respond to the residents complaint within its published timescale and the complaint review did not identify the failures in its handling of the complaints about anti-social behaviour from Neighbour A and Neighbour B.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure by the landlord in its response to the residents’ report of ASB from Neighbour A
In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure by the landlord in its response to the resident’s report of noise related ASB from Neighbour B
In accordance with paragraph 55 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord in its handling of the related complaints.

Reasons

The landlord investigated and communicated with the resident following her reports of ASB but failed to keep adequate records regarding the reports of ASB it received in accordance with its published policy. In addition, it approved a request for a move and offered an incentive payment.
The landlord explained that it had insufficient evidence to take action regarding the noise complaint, failed to keep adequate records regarding the reports of noise related ASB in accordance with its published policy and fell short of exploring all the option available under its ASB policy.
The landlord’s delay at the final stage of its complaints procedure meant that the resident waited for over 12 months before it issued its complaint response.

Orders

The landlord should apologise to the resident for the service failures identified in this report
The landlord should pay compensation of £250 in recognition of the distress and inconvenience that she experienced as a result of the identified service failures.
The landlord to provide evidence of compliance with these orders within four weeks of the date of this report.

Recommendation

The landlord should ensure compliance with its anti-social behaviour policy and hate incidents and hate crime policy to ensure it produces ASB action plans and shares these with its residents
If it has not already done so, pay the resident the good will gesture of £100 for the stress and inconvenience, identified in its final complaint response.
The landlord to provide evidence of compliance with these orders within six weeks of the date of this report.