One Manchester Limited (202310519)
REPORT
COMPLAINT 202310519
One Manchester Limited
29 August 2024
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 antisocial behaviour (ASB).
- the resident’s complaint.
Background
- The resident has an assured tenancy with the landlord which began on 27 March 1995. The property is a 2-bedroom flat on the eleventh floor of a tower block. The landlord has no recorded vulnerabilities for the resident.
- The resident has made 16 reports about ASB to his landlord since 2011. This has included reports of harassment, noise, youth nuisance and drug use. These have included reports about 2 separate tenants of the property above the resident. The landlord has said there have been 9 reports made by the resident’s neighbours about his conduct, which have included reports of harassment, verbal abuse, noise nuisance and drug use.
- On 10 January 2023, the resident complained to the landlord. He said he had met with the landlord in August 2022 when it had agreed to install noise monitoring equipment in his property to capture evidence of the noise which was affecting him. He said he had sent 5 emails to the landlord for an update on his case but had not heard anything back. He said that he was unhappy with the way the landlord was handling his case and he had no confidence in the case officer.
- The landlord sent its stage 1 response on 7 February 2023 which said:
- the landlord accepted that it had not delivered its service in line with its standards
- it accepted it had agreed to install noise monitoring equipment in August 2022
- it accepted there had been poor communication with the resident during the time he had been waiting for the equipment
- it had contacted the resident to arrange the installation of the noise monitoring equipment
- the same case officer would continue to investigate the reports
- the landlord offered an apology for the identified failings
- as a learning objective, the landlord said it would review all cases waiting for noise monitoring equipment to ensure more regular communication during the waiting time
- On 24 February 2023, the resident informed the landlord that he remained dissatisfied and wished to escalate his complaint to stage 2.
- The landlord acknowledged the escalation on 28 February 2023. It sent the stage 2 response on 10 May 2023 in which it said:
- it apologised for the delay in its stage 2 response
- it offered the resident £100 compensation for the delay in responding to the complaint
- it considered the response given at stage 1 of an apology, was a fair outcome
- In communication with this service, the resident said that the situation has affected him to the point where he is no longer able to work due to his health. He said that he has lost 3 jobs as a result of the noise disturbances keeping him awake at nighttime which then caused him to be late for work. As an outcome he said he wanted the landlord to increase its offer of compensation and to compensate him for loss of earnings.
Assessment and findings
Scope of the investigation
- The resident said that the ASB had impacted upon his mental wellbeing and he is now unable to work. When it is alleged that a landlord’s failure to take action has caused or exacerbated a medical condition or loss of income, this is usually better dealt with as a personal injury claim via the courts. In these cases, the courts often have the benefit of a medicolegal report. This will often set out the cause of the injury and the prognosis. That evidence can be examined and cross-examined during a trial.
- In this case, while the Ombudsman has no reason to disbelieve the resident, it would be difficult for us to arrive at firm conclusions on the cause of the resident’s health conditions, or that he lost prospective jobs as a direct result of the landlord’s actions, based on a review of the documentary evidence available in this case. These matters are likely better suited to consideration by a court as a personal injury claim. For clarity, the Ombudsman has not considered any medical-related illness or loss of income. However, we have considered the distress and inconvenience caused.
- In the interest of fairness, the Ombudsman has limited the scope of this investigation to the issues raised during the resident’s complaint in January 2023, which completed the landlord’s internal complaints procedure on 10 May 2023. This is because the landlord needs to be given a fair opportunity to investigate and respond to any reported dissatisfaction with its actions before the involvement of this service. The Ombudsman has referenced events that pre and post-date this period for contextual reasons.
- The Ombudsman is aware that the resident raised a further complaint in January 2024. This complaint has not exhausted the landlord’s internal complaint process and, therefore, does not form part of this investigation. The resident can address these issues directly with the landlord.
- The resident said that he wanted certain staff members to be held accountable for their handling of the ASB case. It is outside the Ombudsman’s role to consider or comment on how a landlord should deal with identified service failings by the individual members of staff involved, in terms of any disciplinary proceedings or employment matters.
- When investigating a complaint about a landlord, the Ombudsman will consider the response of the landlord as a whole and will only comment on the actions of individuals in so far as they are acting on behalf of the landlord. Therefore, if the actions of an individual member of staff give rise to a failure in service, the Ombudsman’s determination and any associated orders and recommendations would be made against the landlord rather than the individual.
The landlords handling of the resident’s reports of antisocial behaviour (ASB)
- The Ombudsman accepts that this is a complex case where both the resident and his neighbour have made allegations and counter allegations. This service acknowledges that the situation has been distressing to the resident. However, it is important to note it is not the Ombudsman’s role to determine whether ASB occurred or, if it did, who was responsible. Our role is to consider whether the landlord responded to the resident’s reports of ASB and noise nuisance in accordance with its relevant policies and procedures, and whether its actions were fair and reasonable in all the circumstances of the case.
- The Housing Act 1996, as amended by the ASB Crime and Policing Act 2014, defines ASB as:
- conduct that has caused, or is likely to cause, harassment, alarm or distress to any person
- conduct capable of causing nuisance or annoyance to a person in relation to that person’s occupation of residential premises
- conduct capable of causing housing-related nuisance or annoyance to any person
- When dealing with reports of ASB the Ombudsman expects landlords to consider its obligations under the relevant legislation, statutory guidance, consumer standards and best practice. The Ombudsman expects landlords to:
- maintain regular communication with the complainant
- carry out clear action planning where relevant
- maintain good record keeping
- evidence good partnership working
- It is a concern to this service that the landlord has no recorded vulnerabilities for the resident, despite being aware of issues in relation to the resident’s mental health. The landlord should update its systems to reflect the resident’s vulnerabilities in line with its relevant policies and procedures. Failure to correctly record vulnerabilities can result in delays in helping vulnerable residents in accessing additional services they may need.
- In March 2022, the resident complained that the landlord had not contacted him to discuss his reports of noise. He said he had reported more banging and tapping from his neighbour’s property in January 2022 and the landlord had not contacted him to discuss his reports. The resident said he felt the landlord was ignoring him. The landlord agreed to visit the neighbour to check the flooring and discuss the resident’s reports. The landlord visited the neighbour on 24 March 2022.
- On 4 July 2022, the resident’s support worker contacted the landlord to request an update on the ASB case on behalf of the resident. The landlord provided an update on what actions it had taken to date, which included the parties attending a mediation session in July 2021. The landlord said the neighbour had made counter allegations about noise from the resident’s property which had resulted in the resident being served with a noise abatement notice by the council. The landlord explained that if the resident was still being affected by noise, it would need evidence to show the noise was above what would be considered normal household noise. The landlord agreed to attend a joint visit with the support worker to explain this to the resident. This was reasonable and showed good partnership working.
- On 11 August 2022, the landlord attended a joint home visit to the resident with his support worker. The landlord explained to the resident that it had assumed that things had improved because the resident had not made any further reports. It updated the resident that it had visited his neighbour in March 2022 to discuss the resident’s reports. Whilst it was appropriate that the landlord investigated the resident’s reports, it was not appropriate that it only updated the resident 5 months after the visit. The Ombudsman expects landlords to keep in regular communication with residents and provide regular updates. This shows residents that landlords have listened and taken their reports seriously, even if it was not able to take any action.
- The landlord explained that if the resident was still being affected by noise the landlord could install noise monitoring equipment in his property. The landlord further explained that it would need the resident to complete diary sheets for the 2-week period the equipment was installed. The resident agreed to this. This was appropriate as it would ensure that the landlord fully investigated the resident’s reports, as per its policy.
- It is clear that the landlord attempted to speak to the resident on 8 September 2022 without success. It also sent a letter to the resident on the same day asking him to contact it. However, there is no evidence that the landlord tried to contact the resident again until February 2023, after he made his formal complaint. This was 5 months later. This was not appropriate as the landlord did not maintain regular communication with the resident throughout this period.
- On 3 February 2023, the landlord contacted the resident to discuss installing the noise monitoring equipment in his property. The landlord said it was sorry for the delay and explained that the landlord used a waiting list for this equipment which was the reason for the delay. The noise monitoring equipment was installed in the resident’s property on 28 February 2023 and removed on 7 March 2023. This service understands that landlords may have limited resource in relation to noise monitoring equipment and that landlords often use a waiting list for installation. However, landlords must explain to residents that there may be a delay and provide a date for installation. It is thereafter important that the landlord keeps in regular communication with the resident during the waiting time in order to keep updated with the case and to inform the resident of any further delays which may occur.
- On 20 March 2023, the resident emailed the landlord to report he had seen an unknown male in the building which had made him feel anxious. Within his email, he said that he was suffering from anxiety and depression as a result of the issues with his neighbour. The landlord contacted the resident on the same date to discuss the reported incident. The landlord’s policy says that it will offer support to those involved in ASB and encourage them to accept the support offered. The landlord was aware that the resident had a support worker previously. It would have been appropriate for the landlord to have discussed the resident’s support needs with him at this point to establish if the support was still in place or if a new referral was required. There is no evidence that the landlord discussed this with the resident. This was not appropriate as it was not consistent with the landlord’s policy.
- The landlord contacted the resident on 20 April 2023, and said that it had his sound monitoring recordings and would provide the resident with an update once it had listened to them. The resident has informed this service that the landlord told him there was insufficient evidence on the recordings to show that the noise would be classed as noise nuisance or a breach of tenancy. The Ombudsman cannot fault the landlord for this because it reached a decision it was entitled to make under relevant legislation and its policy. However, there is no available evidence of what the recordings contained or the landlord’s communication with the resident. This service would remind the landlord to keep more detailed case notes to evidence the action it has taken.
- The landlord liaised with the environmental health department throughout the case regarding the neighbour’s reports and the resident’s counter–allegations. While this is evidence of good partnership working, it would have been reasonable for the landlord to have signposted the resident to environmental health. This may have resulted in the resident having access to noise monitoring equipment sooner which might have helped the landlord’s investigation. However, the Ombudsman acknowledges that the landlord had asked the resident to record the alleged noise nuisance using a noise app and later agreed to install its own noise monitoring equipment which was reasonable.
- In its complaint responses the landlord apologised for the delay installing the noise monitoring equipment. It also acknowledged that it had not communicated with the resident during the delay. However, there are other failings which the Ombudsman has identified in this report which the landlord has not acknowledged. In addition, the landlord did not acknowledge the distress and inconvenience caused to the resident in relation to its failures which is reflected in the compensation ordered below.
- In consideration of all the evidence, the Ombudsman finds that there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s ASB report in that:
- it delayed in updating the resident following its visit to the neighbour in March 2022
- it failed to keep in regular communication with the resident
- it delayed in installing the noise monitoring equipment
- it failed to discuss the resident’s support needs with him
- It is likely that the landlord’s failures caused the resident some distress and inconvenience. For that reason, an award of compensation is made to recognise the frustration and upset caused.
- Our Remedies Guidance states that an award of up to £600 would be appropriate where there is no permanent impact. There is no evidence the landlord caused any lasting or existing impact. It is alleged it was the neighbour and their noise. There is no evidence that had the landlord taken all the action it could have done, the resident would have been in any different circumstances as noise is part of every day life. For this reason, an award of £400 is appropriate to recognise the distress caused by the landlord’s failures.
The landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint
- The landlord’s complaint policy states it will:
- aim to resolve straightforward complaints, where a quick resolution is available at stage 1, with a formal response letter sent within 2 working days
- for complaints that require further investigation, the landlord will log and acknowledge these within 2 working days with a full written formal stage 1 response provided within 10 working days from receipt of the complaint
- acknowledge and escalate to stage 2 within 5 working days
- provide its stage 2 response within 20 working days from the date of escalation
- keep residents informed of any delays in being able to respond to a complaint and advise when a response can be expected
- The resident raised his complaint on 10 January 2023. The landlord said it acknowledged the complaint on 11 January 2023 and requested an extension on 26 January 2023. Although the landlord said it had acknowledged the complaint and requested an extension within its stage 1 response, the landlord has not provided copies of this evidence. This service would remind the landlord to keep more detailed complaint records to evidence the action it has taken.
- The landlord sent its stage 1 response on 7 February 2023 which was 21 working days after the resident’s initial complaint. Taking into account that the landlord had said it communicated the extension to the resident, although there was a further delay of 1 day, the Ombudsman considers this to be reasonable in the circumstances.
- The resident requested the landlord escalate his complaint to stage 2 on 24 February 2023 which the landlord acknowledged on 28 February 2023.
- The landlord sent its stage 2 response on 10 May 2023 which was 51 working days after the resident’s escalation. The landlord ought to have communicated any delay in providing its response to the resident. There is no evidence that it did so. This was not appropriate.
- The landlord should have conducted a prompt and appropriate investigation and response to the resident’s concerns. The delay in responding to the resident’s complaint at stage 2 would have delayed the resident in progressing the complaint through the landlord’s process. It would have also made him feel frustrated and that he was not being taken seriously and would have prevented him from exhausting the landlord’s internal complaints procedure so that he could bring the matter to the Ombudsman for an independent investigation.
- Overall, there were failings by the landlord in its complaint handling in that it delayed in providing the resident with a stage 2 response.
- The Ombudsman’s Remedies Guidance, which is available online, provides awards of compensation between £50 and £100 when there is evidence of a service failure by the landlord which may not have significantly affected the overall outcome for the resident. The landlord’s offer of £100 is typical of the amount awarded by the Ombudsman for the failings identified. Therefore, it is the Ombudsman’s opinion that the landlord has taken reasonable steps to put things right and accordingly, the landlord has made an offer of redress to the resident which resolves the complaint.
Determination
- In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord in its handling of the resident’s reports of antisocial behaviour.
- In accordance with paragraph 53.b. of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was reasonable redress by the landlord in its handling of the resident’s complaint.
Orders and recommendations
Orders
- The landlord must, within 28 days of the date of this determination:
- pay the resident £400 compensation in addition to that offered via the complaint procedure (£100) (£500 in total) for the distress and inconvenience caused by the failures identified in its handling of the resident’s antisocial behaviour reports
- provide the Ombudsman with evidence of compliance with the above order
Recommendations
- The landlord should update its systems to reflect the resident’s vulnerabilities, subject to the resident agreeing.