Nottingham City Council (202307832)

Background

1. The resident is a tenant of the landlord in a flat. The resident has mental health vulnerabilities. In July 2023, the resident reported noise nuisance from his neighbour living in the property below him. The resident also reported verbal abuse from his neighbour in November 2023.

What the complaint is about

2. The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of:
   1. Reports of antisocial behaviour (ASB).
   2. The associated complaint.

Our decision (determination)

3. There was service failure in the landlord’s handling of:
   1. Reports of antisocial behaviour.
   2. The associated complaint.

We have made orders for the landlord to put things right.

Summary of reasons

4. There was a lack of communication from the landlord about the resident’s initial mediation request and installation of noise recording equipment. There was also a delay in the landlord creating an action plan as agreed.
5. There was a delay in the landlord providing its response at stage 1 of its complaints process.

Where we find service failure, maladministration or severe maladministration we can make orders for the landlord to put things right. We have the discretion to make recommendations in all other cases within our jurisdiction.

Orders

Landlords must comply with our orders in the manner and timescales we specify. The landlord must provide documentary evidence of compliance with our orders by the due date set.

Recommendations

Our recommendations are not binding, and a landlord may decide not to follow them.

Our investigation

The complaint procedure

What we found and why

The circumstances of this complaint are well known by the parties involved, so it is not necessary to detail everything that’s happened or comment on all the information we’ve reviewed. We’ve only included the key information that forms the basis of our decision of whether the landlord is responsible for maladministration.

6. It is outside the role of the Ombudsman to establish whether someone has committed antisocial behaviour, but rather, we will assess the landlord’s handling of the resident’s antisocial behaviour reports. We will consider whether the landlord’s response was fair and reasonable in view of all the circumstances and whether it acted in line with its own internal policies, the law and industry best practice.
7. In July 2023, the resident reported noise nuisance from his neighbour located in the property below him. The landlord responded to the resident’s concerns and asked him to download a noise application on to his mobile phone and record the reported noise nuisance. It also asked the resident to the report noise incidents to its CCTV control room. It said a staff member from the control room could attend as soon as a noise incident had been reported due to the control room being staffed 24 hours a day. This was an effective method to monitor the reported noise nuisance.
8. The landlord also contacted the resident’s neighbour in August 2023 to discuss the alleged noise nuisance and updated the resident after the discussion. This was in line with its antisocial behaviour (ASB) policy which states it will inform an alleged perpetrator about allegations made against them and give them the opportunity to change their behaviour.
9. In August 2023, the resident asked the landlord to consider him for mediation with his neighbour. The landlord confirmed it was processing the request. The resident also believed the landlord had placed him on the waiting list for noise recording equipment. However, the landlord did not provide updates about the mediation request or the expected installation date for the equipment. After the resident escalated his complaint in November 2023, the landlord acknowledged these failings. It then processed the resident’s self-referral for mediation and installed the noise recording equipment later that month. Also, during November 2023, the resident reported verbal abuse from his neighbour alongside the ongoing reports of noise nuisance.
10. The landlord also apologised in its stage 2 complaint response for its error in not processing the resident’s mediation request. It acknowledged it could have considered other tools to help manage the reported ASB and confirmed it would agree a retrospective action plan with the resident and also review the findings from the noise recording equipment. This was reasonable and the creation of an action plan was in line with the landlord’s ASB policy which explains a written action plan will be agreed with the resident reporting the issue and will include timescales and focus on harm reduction.
11. The resident raised concerns that the ASB impacted his mental health. We acknowledge this has been a very difficult time for the resident. However, it would be fairer, more reasonable, and more effective for the resident to make a personal injury claim for any injury caused through the courts or the landlord’s liability insurance. The courts are best placed to deal with this type of dispute as they will have the benefit of independent medical advice to decide on the cause of any injury and how long it will last. We’ve not investigated this further. We can decide if a landlord should pay compensation for distress and inconvenience.
12. The landlord reviewed the recordings from the noise monitoring equipment, but an error occurred that prevented the recordings from saving. The landlord responded by offering to reinstall the equipment. The resident declined, stating that the noise had reduced by late December 2023 and that he would request reinstallation if the problem worsened. At the end of January 2024, the resident asked for the equipment to be reinstalled. After reviewing the recordings, the landlord concluded that the noise did not amount to a statutory nuisance or antisocial behaviour.
13. The landlord contacted the resident’s neighbour about participating in mediation with the resident.  However, the resident’s neighbour did not agree to participate in the mediation. Mediation is optional, and the neighbour was entitled to decline the offer. It was reasonable that the landlord agreed to consider the resident’s request for mediation, as it can be an effective way to resolve neighbour disputes in some cases.
14. There was a delay in the landlord agreeing an action plan with the resident and as a result the resident contacted the landlord for an update on this. The action plan was not created until around March 2024. The landlord also discussed the impact of the reported ASB on the resident’s mental health and provided information about organisations which could provide support, which was reasonable. The landlord continued to review and update the action regularly with the resident and continued to gather evidence around the resident’s continued reports of ASB.
15. We acknowledge that ASB can be very difficult for a resident to live with. However, a landlord can only be expected to take formal action against residents for ASB such as tenancy warnings or acceptable behaviour contracts if there is extensive evidence to support the allegations. We recommend the landlord continues to investigate the resident’s reports of ASB if the issue is still ongoing.
16. Overall, there was a lack of communication from the landlord about the resident’s initial mediation request and installation of the noise recording equipment. There was also a delay in the landlord creating an action plan with the resident as agreed in its stage 2 complaint response. The landlord should pay the resident £100 compensation to recognise these errors. This is in line with the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance (published on our website), which sets our approach to compensation. The remedies guidance suggests awards of £50 to £100, where there is a minor failure by the landlord in the service it provided, and it did not appropriately acknowledge this and/or fully put it right.

17. The landlord’s complaints process has 2 stages. The timeframes in the landlord’s complaints policy are the same as the timescales referenced in the Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code) which sets out our expectations of landlords’ complaints processes. The Code states a stage 1 response must be sent within 10 working days from the complaint being logged, and a stage 2 response within 20 working days.
18. The resident submitted his initial complaint to the landlord on 27 July 2023. Following this, the landlord issued it stage 1 complaint response to the resident on 23 October 2023. It took the landlord approximately 3 months to provide its stage 1 complaint response. The complaint response was late and outside the 10-working day timescale referenced in the Code and the landlord’s complaints policy.
19. On 21 November 2023, the resident escalated his complaint to stage 2 of the landlord’s complaints process. Following this, the landlord provided its stage 2 complaint response to the resident on 19 December 2023. The response was on time and within the 20-working day timescale referenced in the Code and the landlord’s own complaints policy.
20. The landlord failed to acknowledge its delay in providing the resident’s stage 1 complaint response. It would be appropriate for the landlord to pay the resident £100 compensation to recognise the distress and inconvenience caused by its complaint handling error. The compensation awarded is in line with the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance referenced above.

Learning

21. The landlord asking the resident to report noise incidents to its CCTV control room was an effective way to investigate and gather evidence regarding the reported incidents.

Knowledge information management (record keeping)

22. The landlord’s records were detailed enough for us to investigate its overall handling of the complaint.

Communication

23. There was very limited communication from the landlord to the resident when he initially requested mediation with his neighbour and to be considered for noise recording equipment to be installed at his property.