Notting Hill Genesis (NHG) (202011240)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202011240

Notting Hill Genesis

30 June 2023

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:
1. the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports about noise nuisance, anti-social and threatening behaviour from their neighbour.
2. this investigation has also considered the landlord’s record keeping in this complaint.

Background and summary of events

Background

The resident is the leaseholder of a two bedroom ground floor flat. The landlord is the freeholder of the building which is a converted house, and the first floor neighbour is a tenant of the freeholder.
The resident has told this service that she reported noise nuisance from her neighbour to the landlord’s ASB team in 2019. At the time she was issued with diary sheets, but declined any intervention, deciding to speak with her neighbour herself. These events are historical, and noted for context only.

Legal and Policy Context

The landlord has a domestic noise and neighbour disputes policy (DNNDP). This policy is designed to resolve differences between residents that are not appropriate to manage through the Anti-Social Behaviour (ASB) policy. It defines a neighbour dispute as a conflict between neighbours where there has been no breach of tenancy, and domestic noise, noise within a residence caused by every day, daytime household activities. Domestic noise includes a television or speakers, but does exclude incidents were the noise is too loud or amplified which is dealt with as ASB. On the whole under this policy, the landlord encourages residents to try and resolve any dispute themselves or advise tenants what tools are available to help them, e.g. mediation, housing management advice, support provided by the landlord or other agency.
If the resident believes the neighbour dispute has escalated to ASB, an internal review should be arranged to determine whether the case should remain under the DNND policy or should be managed under its ASB policy.
The landlords ASB policy states that it takes a responsive, proportionate and robust approach. On receiving reports of ASB its response is to investigate, assess and monitor any risk. It adopts a multi-agency approach to both preventing and tackling ASB, and supports the police and the local authority when they are able to take action. Early intervention tools include risk assessments, mediation, warning and acceptable behaviour contracts, it will consider legal action where there is sufficient evidence of a tenancy breach, but eviction is only considered in exceptional circumstances or where all other interventions have failed.
The landlord deals with complaints under its ‘complaints and compliments’ policy, which is a two-stage process. At stage one it will acknowledge complaints within two working days, and a case manager from the relevant service area will carry out an investigation and respond within ten working days. At stage two an escalation request should be within 20 working days, and a manager not previously involved in the case will carry out an independent review and respond within 20 working days.

Summary of events

On 10 May 2020, the resident made a formal complaint to the landlord, in summary it said:
1. She had spoken to the neighbour about three overgrown trees in her garden, (there is a garden for each flat and they next to each other with an adjoin fence) the neighbour agreed to attend to it; she asked the landlord to follow up with the neighbour.
2. She reported a silver plated table stolen from the communal hallway.
3. She raised the issue of noise from the neighbour; she had been issued diary sheets via the ASB officer in February 2019, but did not want the landlord to take action at the time. However she was now uncomfortable with having to keep approaching the neighbour to keep their noise down, and asked the landlord to contact them instead.
The complaint was acknowledged by the landlord’s regional manager, and logged as a formal complaint.
On 19 May 2020, the landlord sent out its stage one complaint response, in summary it said:
1. It apologised that the resident had, had to complain about its service.
2. They agreed to discuss a plan with the neighbour about the removal of the trees.
3. With regard to the theft of the table, it noted that was in the hands of the police, but it could confirm it had not been removed by the landlord.
4. With regards to the noise nuisance, it asked the resident for her copies of the diary sheets, and once received it would decide what course of action was necessary to resolve it.
On 22 May 2020 at 2pm, the resident telephoned the landlord and reported that the neighbour was playing very loud music. The landlord recorded that it telephoned the neighbour and asked her to turn it down.
On 26 May 2020 the resident emailed the landlord and made a complaint about her neighbour upstairs. She reported the incident of loud music on the 22 May 2020, stating it was so loud she was unable to conduct a conference call. She advised that she notified the housing officer who had contacted the neighbour and she was awaiting to hear what action was to be taken. She reported that the same day when she went to leave the property, she found the communal door open, and a bike belonging to the neighbour left in the hallway. She buzzed the neighbour to see if she had left the front door open, to which she responded “no” and put the intercom down. The neighbour then came out and asked if the resident had complained about the noise, the resident reports that the neighbour and her daughter then became very challenging, shouting at her about her work hours. The resident felt very threatened and contacted the police who attended the following morning, but could not engage with the neighbour.
Her email also advised that the resident had contacted the council about the noise, who said the landlord needed to follow its own noise procedure before the council would intervene.
On 2 June 2020 the landlord emailed the resident to check in and find out how things were going. The resident responded advising she has made a further two noise complaints to the council, her table had been stolen from the communal hallway, with this and the threats made to her she considered she was the victim of ASB and wanted to know what the landlord intended to do.
On 4 June 2020, the resident emailed to escalate her complaint. She reported an incident where four males were in her garden, carrying out tree surgery for her neighbour, she had received no prior warning from the landlord and they had damaged three fence panels. She had requested they leave her garden whilst smoking, at the same time there was loud banging on her door and “threats” from the neighbour’s daughter, what the threats were about exactly, is unclear from the correspondence . At 9pm the resident said she fled her property and was chased by the resident’s daughter. She rang the police to escort her back to her property as she was too afraid to return on her own. The resident complained that the landlord had not taken any action against the neighbour for ASB, noise nuisance or theft of her table. She requested that the landlord tell the neighbour not to engage with her and if any further works were ordered she expected 24 hours pre-notification. The broken fence panels had now left her vulnerable to trespassers, and she wanted the landlord to visit.
The landlord telephoned the resident, and followed up with an email 5 June 2020, which in summary said:
1. The tree work was arranged privately by the neighbour, it was not the landlord’s operatives in attendance, they were not aware so were unable to give notice. The neighbour had advised she had knocked on the residents door to notify her, but she did not answer. The neighbour had a side gate, so the 24 hours’ notice the resident had requested for the neighbour’s future garden works was not required, she had however been asked to be mindful of the fence and not to trespass.
2. It agreed to repair the fence once all of the tree work had been completed.
3. It explained that the resident’s complaint was initially about noise, and she was signposted to the council’s noise team, as any evidence gained of statutory noise nuisance would support the landlord in taking action. As the resident was reporting that the situation had escalated they would contact the police for more information, and asked the resident to provide her ring doorbell footage. She was advised to contact the police if there was any further escalation in the neighbour’s behaviour towards her.
On 13 Jun 2020, the resident said that she spoke to the landlord about her car being damaged and submitted ring doorbell footage of a conversation between the neighbour and a relative who was holding a large baton.
On 24 June 2020, the resident expressed her disappointment with the complaint response and that the noise and ASB was not going to be followed up. She re-iterated she wanted 24hrs notice for any works being done in next-door’s garden for her safety. She was upset that a housing officer had contacted her that morning, demanding she remove the ring door-bell; she noted when the neighbour complained she was contacted straight away and made to feel she was the problem. However she said she would be happy to consider mediation but she wanted to speak to a manager.
The manager emailed the following day requesting a call with the resident which was agreed for 26 June 2020 at 2pm. He also advised that he had asked the housing officer to contact the neighbour about the noise. No records of the telephone conversation have been provided.
On 1 July 2020, the resident emailed the manager to chase the notes and action plan agreed from the call. In the call he had advised her to contact him directly about any on-going noise incidents, so she reported to him that the noise continued on the Monday and Tuesday and was happening as she wrote. She said she found this distressing and it was affecting her mental health.
On 14 August 2020, the resident emailed, upset that two men were in her garden digging up her decking and going through her things, she had not been notified anyone was coming and was frightened by the trespassers.
On 17 August the landlord emailed the resident, concerned and to call her to let her know if she was ok. There is no record of a response.
On 27 August the landlord emailed the resident referencing an email of 14 July 2021, and how the resident had not responded to the offer of a goodwill gesture of £100.00 and to send bank details. We have not had sight of the email being referred to, so it is not clear exactly what the goodwill gesture was for, but it does not appear to be linked with the ASB. It also advised that the fence order had been raised and that the mediators had been trying to contact the resident without success.
On 20 August the landlord contacted the resident as it had been advised she had refused access and been verbally abusive to the contractors, and asked could she give her version of events.
On 15 October 2020, the resident emailed about a number of issues and reported that the ASB and threatening behaviour had continued and had been caught on the ring doorbell. This made her feel extremely frightened and anxious and asked what the landlord intended to do about it.
On 22 October the landlord emailed the resident with an action plan. In respect of the noise reports it stated
1. The neighbour has been spoken to in regard to the allegations (date not specified) and denied the allegations.
2. The neighbour had also been written to (date not specified and copy not seen)
3. The housing officer was liaising with the police and the council’s ASB team for any evidence and action they might be taking.
4. An officer had carried out three un-announced visits during the day, evening and weekend (dates and details not specified) and no evidence of noise nuisance and unacceptable behaviour.
5. Noise recordings would be helpful if the resident could provide these.
6. As the resident did not feel safe, due to the threats and ASB to attend mediation, it stated all it could do at this stage was monitor by carrying out unannounced visits to the property.
The resident responded on 1 November 2020, and advised the neighbour was still playing loud music and requested the landlord contact her to stop it. The landlord sent an apology the next day and advised the housing officer would contact the neighbour. No follow up notes were provided to show this was actioned.
On 2 December 2020, the resident emailed the landlord with the subject heading “failure to protect – final complaint”. In summary the email said:
1. The neighbour was still causing ASB, playing loud music affecting the resident’s ability to work, and if she complained she was threatened. She acknowledged the landlord had agreed to call the neighbour when it happened, but this had not resolved the issue and it now felt the neighbour was doing it deliberately.
2. She had been caused a lot of distress, especially when the noise nuisance affected her ability to look after her sick mother and she had, had to make other arrangements for her.
3. She had left voicemails that day with two of the landlord’s staff, as soon as the noise started this morning.
4. She intended to call the police as she had previously been advised by the landlord, and felt that she had no alternative now but to consider taking legal advice.
On 10 December the landlord wrote to the resident and advised her that it had spoken to the neighbour on 2 December 2020, about noise, the neighbour was apologetic, had not intended for her radio to cause a nuisance and agreed to be more mindful when using it in the future. It advised officers would visit the property un-announced to monitor the situation, and should excessive noise be heard they would approach the resident.
The letter also said the neighbour had noted that things started off amicably between them, and whilst the landlord acknowledged that the resident had previously stated she would not enter into mediation with the neighbour, the neighbour had indicated that she would be willing to, to re-establish the relationship, so it urged the resident to reconsider. The resident was also advised to keep logging any excessive noise nuisance, and contact the council when it happened so that they could investigate.
On 21 December 2020 the resident wrote in to complain music was blasting through three rooms in the house, and for the landlord to get her to stop and ensure that it did not continue over the Christmas break.
On 5 2021 January the landlord received an email from the resident to complain about the noise again. She advised that she had called the police, and provided six CAD police reference numbers to evidence her reports. She expressed her view that the landlord should be taking enforcement action against the neighbour.
The landlord responded the same day, advising it had contacted the neighbour straight away and the neighbour was very upset that she had been accused again for playing loud music which was not the case. The housing officer had been updated on the current situation, it had contacted the police for more information on the incidents that had occurred over the Christmas period. It advised the resident that noise nuisance is a difficult claim to prove and it encouraged the resident to log all incidents that occurred. It also asked if mediation was something the resident would consider as the neighbour had agreed to this.
The resident responded stating that the neighbour had raised the music even higher after the landlord’s call, she would not consider mediation for her safety. She stated that she would be seeking legal advice if the matter continued and that neighbour should be contacted, as the resident had to cancel her meeting again for that afternoon.
On 6 January 2021, the Community Safety Team (CST) visited the resident, for reported noise nuisance. Information obtained from them by the landlord, stated that when they attended music was playing but they did not have appropriate recording equipment to assess if it was statutory noise nuisance. The police approached the neighbour who did not agree she was doing anything wrong. The CST reported the incident to the council’s noise team and they sent out a warning letter.
On 7 January, following the landlords advice, the resident downloaded the council’s noise app. On 13 January 2021 an officer from the council’s noise nuisance control team visited the property to assess the noise levels, they also assessed the resident’s noise app submissions. The council determined that no statutory noise nuisance was detected, either at the visit or from the recordings, however the resident could continue to submit recording of any further noise nuisance.
On the same day, an operative came to look at the resident’s fence panel, which she thought had loosened in the wind; the operative advised her that he thought the fittings had intentionally been undone. As the only people who have access to the garden were the resident and the neighbour, the resident believed the neighbour sabotaged her fence and wanted the landlord to approach the neighbour about it.
On 24 February 2021, the council’s noise nuisance control team completed a further visit. The council advised both the landlord and the resident that it had found the level of bass in the neighbours music to be intrusive. The council had sent a warning letter to the neighbour, to advise her of this and if it continued they would take enforcement action.
On 12 March the landlord issued its stage 2 response which said in summary that:
1. It was sorry it had been unable to resolve the complaint when it was first raised
2. It provided an overview of the issues which were raised in the stage one complaint, and alluded to the action plan produced as a result. It noted that the majority of the issues from the action plan had now been resolved. But the issue of neighbour noise nuisance continues.
3. It mentioned that the resident’s local Councillor (Cllr) contacted them on her behalf, with concerns about how her ASB had been responded to by the landlord. In a discussion with the Cllr the landlord agreed her concerns should be logged as a complaint. Following discussions with the complaint’s lead officer, they had decided to raise it as a stage two complaint, even though technically it was out of time.
4. It noted the resident had made a number of reports about the neighbour’s noise since May 2020. The reports had been followed up with the neighbour, they had written letters to them, calls had been made to the neighbour when the resident phoned in to report the noise was actively happening. On one occasion the landlord asked the resident to walk around the flat with the loudspeaker on, on the phone, but he could not hear any music.
5. Several unannounced visits to the neighbour had been completed by different officers at different times of the day. The most recent had been on 1 February 2021 and no unreasonable noise had been heard on the visits.
6. On 8 February 2021 an internal meeting had reviewed whether the resident’s case should remain under the landlord’s neighbour disputes and domestic noise policy (NDDNP) or whether it should be managed under the ASB policy. The attendees were the housing officer, the operations manager and an independent review manager from another region. They made the decision it would remain managed under the NDDNP, and the investigator agreed with that decision. However it noted that the resident had raised with the landlord back in June 2020, that the situation had escalated to ASB; a review should have been completed at this point and it had not. The landlord identified this as a service failing.
7. The landlord had provided the resident with diary sheets but it noted, had not advised her about the noise app at the same time.
8. The ring doorbell footage the resident had provided, that, allegedly showed harassment from the neighbour, in its view, did not support the resident’s claim. This footage had been seen by the police and they too could not agree this was evidence of harassment or threatening behaviour.
9. It had liaised with the local council’s noise nuisance control team; a visit and recordings from the app were all assessed as not statutory nuisance. They acknowledged that at a more recent visit 24 February 2021, the noise control officer had determined the base from the neighbour’s music was considered intrusive and she had been sent an enforcement warning letter. It pointed out that this is the first time that the council had indicated that it could take action and it committed to working closely with the council, moving forward.
10. No evidence had been found, for the landlord to take action on anyone, for the theft of the resident’s table, the damage to her car or the alleged intentional damage to the fence.
11. The review did find several service failures which it apologised for and offered £550.00 compensation, in line with its compensation and goodwill gesture policy, these included:
  1. The stage two escalation had been requested, but not actioned in June 2020, for this it offered £250.00.
  2. The failure to complete a review when the resident reported the ASB had escalated in June 2020, and had not been carried out until February 2021, for this it offered £50.00.
  3. Although some of the delay to repairing the fencing was out of its control, it took far longer than it should have to repair, so it offered £100.00
  4. For chasing up letters confirming that she would not be charged for the fence work or rubbish removal, £25.00 for each totalling £50.00
  5. The stage two response was sent outside of the target timescale for responding and it offered £50.00.

Post Complaint Process

The resident has advised this service that the noise nuisance from the upstairs’ neighbour has continued to date. She regularly contacts the landlord to ask the neighbour to turn her music down.
There is evidence that the landlord still responds to the residents requests to approach the neighbour.

Assessment and findings

Noise nuisance is becoming a greater cause for complaint, as life-styles change, built surroundings become denser, and the design and lack of insulation to prevent noise transference is becoming apparent as many social housing homes age. Evidence supports that it is an issue that can have a significant impact on an individual’s well-being and mental health and can be challenging and resource intensive for landlords who are trying to manage it.
It is positive that the landlord has an individual policy for tackling neighbour disputes and domestic noise, separate to its ASB policy. This is good practice and supportsthe recommendations set out in the Ombudsman’s Spotlight on Noise report (October 2022). A policy such as this,shows a commitment to taking residents reports of noise seriouslyeven when they do not meet the threshold for ASB or a statutory noise nuisance.
The report encourages landlords to handle these noisereports sensitively and proportionately.There is evidence that the landlord did both; it was never dismissive ofany of the resident’sissues with the neighbour, and responded in accordance with its policies and procedures, as best it could withthe limitations of working in the pandemic. The landlord was empathetic in its approach, checked in with her on occasions when reports came through other agencies or they had not heard from her. It took an evidence based approach, and whilst at times this was frustrating for the resident, the landlord explained its limitationswhen evidence was insufficient, and encouraged her to continue to report her concerns to them, and later, the importance of utilising the tools to obtain evidence.
The resident’s first formal complaint about the neighbour playing loud music was on 10 May 2020. Up until this point the resident had made the landlord aware of the noise, but had decided against intervention from the landlord, in favour of speaking to the neighbour herself. It was therefore appropriate, that the landlord had taken no action prior to this complaint.
On receipt of the complaint, the landlord acknowledged it within three working days and provided a response within 10 working days on 19 May 2020, meeting the landlord’s specified complaint response times.
The landlord’s response asked her to provide completed diary sheets which had previously been issued, in order that it may determine the course of action needed. This was not unreasonable in itself, however as the resident had attempted to address the noise nuisance herself for quite some time, it could have moved to the next stage set out in its NDDN policy. This included offering advice, highlighting the tools available to record and address noise, contacting the council’s environmental noise team, considering recording equipment / apps or mediation.
When on 22 May 2020, the resident reported that she was unable to take a conference call because the neighbour’s music was so loud,it was reasonable for the landlord to take the complaint at face value, accept the music was too loud, and call the neighbour to discuss the issue. The expectation however would be that the telephone conversation with the neighbour, and her response to the accusationwould be recorded, but no evidence has been provided that it was.
The resident went on to email an escalation request of her complaint on 4 June 2020 because the situation with the neighbour had deteriorated. The landlord telephoned the resident the next day, proposed and agreed a plan of action, which was followed up in writing. This included an agreement for the landlord to replace her fence, damaged by the neighbour’s tree surgeons, to contact the police regarding the intimidation and view the resident’s own CCTV footage to investigate. The landlord’s response times met its policy guidelines for ASB, to contact in one working day, and work with partners on a multi-agency approach. In taking this action the landlord acted promptly and appropriately in responding to the immediate situation.
The landlord would not take formal action, against the neighbour without an appropriate outcome from the police, but it could have investigated the resident’s report of threats and intimidation. In this situation it would have been appropriate to have spoken to both parties to obtain a full version of events, and consider taking informal action if deemed appropriate, such as a behaviour warning. The landlord did offer the resident mediation, which was a reasonable attempt to re-build the relationship and resolve any ongoing dispute, but no evidence has been seen by this service of any follow-up conversations with the neighbour, following this incident.
The resident initially accepted the offer of mediation in June 2020, from the landlord, but before it could be fully organised, she changed her mind, as she did not feel safe and was advised by the police and noise team to avoid contact with the neighbour. The landlord offered it again in December 2020 and in its final stage response in March 2021. It might have been helpful if the landlord spent a bit of time explaining that mediation does not have to involve the two neighbours being in direct communication, the resident might have felt more inclined to participate if she knew the mediator can negotiate on her behalf.
The resident regularly expressed concern that the incidents were not considered to be ASB, and that the landlord had not taken formal action against her neighbour’s tenancy. The landlords NDDN policy required that when there is any indication of a neighbour dispute escalating to ASB, a review meeting should be held to determine whether it should progress to being managed under the landlord’s ASB policy. It is not clear why a policy review was not triggered when the resident reported an escalation to ASB in June 2020, as it should have been. This has since been acknowledged as a service failure, in the landlord’s stage two response in March 2021, for which it has apologised and offered compensation, of £50.00.
In its stage two response, the landlord has also acknowledged that it did not advise the resident about the council’s noise app until December 2020. Early app submissions to the noise team in January 2021 were not deemed to be statutory nuisance, however the submission for February was, which resulted in the neighbour being issued a warning that further enforcement action could be taken. Whilst it is not possible to establish if offering this information earlier would have resulted in other opportunities to collate this type of evidence and take appropriate action, the landlord has accepted this was a service failing, apologised to the resident and offered £50.00 compensation.
The landlord, also failed to escalate the resident’s complaint to stage two, as she had requested, in accordance with its complaint handling policy. The landlord has since acknowledged this as a service failing, it has apologised to the resident and offered compensation of £250.00, which this service considered reasonable redress. This is because although the landlord did not formally review the policy for escalation to ASB, its investigation at the time was in accordance with its ASB policy, it concluded that there was no evidence of ASB, so the policy would have remained under the NDDN policy if it had been reviewed. There has not therefore been any detriment to the resident as a direct result of the review not being undertaken, as the outcome would have resulted in the same policy being followed and the same action taken.
On receipt of reports from the resident of the theft of her table, damage to her car, threats and interference with her fence, it was appropriate for the landlord to implement its information sharing protocol to obtain evidence from the police. The landlord is reliant on sufficient proof to take formal action on any reports of ASB, police evidence would be vital to support it in taking formal action in this instance, as threats of violence, theft and criminal damage would be criminal matters. When the evidence was not forthcoming in its enquiries with the police, the landlord could not reasonably take formal action, and had explained this in its complaint response.
In its complaint response the landlord stated that it had responded appropriately to the residents reports of noise. It claimed to have sent letters, made calls to the neighbour as incidents were happening, and carried out several unannounced visits. There are however, only two emails detailing conversations with the neighbour (December 2020) in the seven months this complaint covers. Only one visit to the property is adequately recorded for 2 February 2021. For other visits and some calls, no records of dates or times have been provided, neither are there any details of how visits were conducted. A lack of real time record keeping for the landlord became apparent throughout this investigation. Actions tended to be identified through action plan updates and complaint responses rather than detailed file notes. In two of its responses the landlord committed to more unannounced visits to monitor the noise but there have been no records provided that support that this was carried out
It is important for the landlord to keep accurate logs and records of incidents and conversations with any parties involved when a residents’ dispute occurs. It hinders service continuity if there is a changeover in staff. What starts as a seemingly small complaint could end up as a more serious ASB case, resulting in formal legal action being taken by the landlord or its ASB partners. This would require extensive supporting evidence that details what incidents and actions have taken place and when. Whilst the Ombudsman has no reason to doubt the landlord’s account of events, saying that visits or telephone calls have taken place without the dates, times and details of what was discussed, does not constitute sufficient evidence to establish that the landlord acted reasonably in the circumstances. Furthermore should formal action be required a lack of appropriate evidence would make it unlikely to secure a successful outcome in court.
In this services view, to adequately assess the impact the noise was having on the resident, the landlord would have had to attend the resident’s property. Had the landlord visited and monitored when the noise was reported, it could have determined for itself whether the level of noise was reasonable or not, and acted accordingly. This could be either managing the resident’s expectation on the constraints of handling noise transference in older non-insulated property or taking the initial action for a breach in tenancy conditions. The Ombudsman recognises the limitations, the pandemic placed on the landlord’s working practices at this time, and accepts that visiting was not always feasible.
However, if the complaints were ongoing, the Ombudsman would deem it appropriate for the landlord to commence visits as soon as was reasonably practicable. If visits were conducted from outside, due to covid restrictions, it probably would have been helpful to inform the resident when they had done this.
If restrictions had not prevented visiting, the landlord could also have requested access to the neighbour’s property and determined what sound equipment she had, or whether there was anything it could do to reduce any noise transference. It might also have considered speaking with the residents either side of the two properties, on their experience with noise emanating from the property to help it investigate the likelihood of this being ASB or not. As it was, the landlord continued to approach the neighbour, for a length of time on the reports from the resident and without having any substantive evidence to rely on.
When the landlord was able to visit the resident on 1 February 2021, it maintained that there was not an unacceptable level of noise, when it attended. This conflicted with the resident’s account, who was of the opinion that the officer agreed with her, that it was unacceptable. In her view this was further supported when it went on to approach the neighbour, but could not gain access. The Ombudsman’s spotlight report advises that it is beneficial for landlords to clearly communicate with residents and manage their expectations of how a noise report would be handled, detailing potential actions to minimise the noise experienced or the limitations it faced in doing so. The landlord has not indicated why, if there was no noise nuisance, that it proceeded to approach the neighbour, and whilst this action in itself does not provide evidence noise nuisance was detected, its actionshad raised the expectation of the resident.
It was not un-reasonable for the landlord to determine at the review on 8 February 2021, that the resident’s case should continue to be managed as a neighbour dispute under the NDDN policy. This was based on the information it had available at the time, which concluded that the police had determined that no crime had been committed and the council’s noise team had made an assessment and not found any evidence of noise nuisance from the noise app submissions or a home visit. There was therefore no evidence to support escalation to the ASB policy.
This subsequently changed, when on 24 February 2021, the council’s noise team made an assessment that the neighbour’s music had been recorded at a level that action could be taken on, and sent a warning letter to the neighbour to advise of this. The landlord appropriately acknowledged this in its stage two complaint response in March 2021. It made a reasonable commitment in line with its ASB policy to continue to work with the council on any action they took. It could however, have also considered taking action of its own, as the landlord can issue a warning for more formal action if evidence has been secured that a breach of tenancy has occurred; the music played by the neighbour had been “amplified” which is the point at which the landlords ASB policy should take effect.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 53 of the Housing Ombudsman’s Scheme there was reasonable redress in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports about noise nuisance, anti-social and threatening behaviour from the neighbour.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman’s Scheme there was service failure in the record keeping of this complaint.

Reasons

Despite the restrictions placed on landlord’s working practices during the pandemic, the landlord acted in accordance with its policies and procedures when responding to the resident’s reports of noise nuisance and ASB. It acknowledged a number of service failings with in its own complaint process apologised and offered reasonable redress for those failings.
The landlord failed to provide adequate records of its contact with the neighbour; notes from interviews and telephone calls were not evident and the recording of dates and times of events, particularly site visits needs to be significantly improved. This was however the only outstanding failure identified, and despite the lack of record keeping, there was no evidence that this had any significant impact on the overall handling of the case.

Orders and recommendations.

Orders

The Ombudsman orders that the landlord should pay compensation to the resident for the sum of £100.00 for failing to keep adequate case notes in its handling of the resident’s noise reports.

Recommendations

The landlord assesses itself against the recommendations set out in the report published by the Ombudsman, in May 2023 Ombudsman’s Spotlight Report on Knowledge and Information Management