Onward Homes Limited (202001989)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202001989

Onward Homes Limited

21 December 2021


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

  1. The complaint is about:
    1. The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of ASB (antisocial behaviour) and noise disturbance from January 2020 until June 2021.
    2. The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of ASB (antisocial behaviour) and noise disturbance from June 2021 onwards.
    3. The landlord’s issuing of a warning to the resident.
    4. The landlord’s handling of the resident’s health concerns.
    5. The landlord’s handling of the resident’s concerns about her neighbour’s tenancy.

Jurisdiction

  1. What we can and cannot consider is called the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction. This is governed by the Housing Ombudsman Scheme. When a complaint is brought to the Ombudsman, we must consider all the circumstances of the case as there are sometimes reasons why a complaint will not be investigated.

ASB and noise nuisance from June 2021 onwards

  1. In accordance with paragraph 39 (a) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the Ombudsman will not investigate complaints which “are made prior to having exhausted a member’s complaints procedure”.
  2. The resident, in her correspondence with the Ombudsman, has explained that the ASB has been ongoing since the completion of the landlord’s investigation in June 2021. In line with paragraph 39(a), these issues will not be considered in this investigation. The resident should raise her concerns with the landlord first, and then, once the landlord has fully investigated them, she can bring them to this Service if necessary.
  3. The role of the Ombudsman is to assess how a landlord has handled a formal complaint about its service. This mean we can only assess issues and incidents which have already been considered through the landlord’s complaint process.

Concerns with neighbour’s tenancy

  1. In accordance with paragraph 36 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme “the person complaining, or on whose behalf a complaint is made must have been, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, adversely affected by those actions or omissions in respect of their application for, or occupation of, property”.
  2. In the resident’s complaint to this Service, she explained that she did not believe her neighbour was paying the correct council tax. Despite the resident’s concerns, this is an aspect that we will not consider in the investigation as it does not affect the resident’s occupation of the property. Furthermore council tax is an issue for the local council, whereas the landlord is a housing association.

Background and summary of events

  1. The resident is an assured tenant of the landlord. Her reports of ASB concern her next door neighbour.
  2. The landlord explained to this Service that the resident reported that her neighbour had stolen her bin at some point in January 2020 (it did not provide specific dates). It had advised her to report the issue to the police. Following this (it is unclear when), the resident reported that her neighbour was slamming doors. The landlord explained it needed evidence of any noise nuisance. It said it had spoken to the neighbour and they had denied the allegations.
  3. The landlord’s records show on 18 May 2020 the resident reported that her neighbour had slammed her doors a few days earlier. The landlord suggested she use a noise recording app. It called the resident on 21 May 2020. The resident advised she could not download the app as she did not have a smart phone. The landlord said it could not install noise monitoring equipment due to the COVID-19 pandemic. It recommended she consider mediation. The resident said mediation did not previously work. On 29 May 2020 the resident advised that she had a new phone and asked for guidance on how to download the app. The landlord explained, and sent her a leaflet with further guidance. The resident also said she was awoken the night before by her neighbour singing, shouting and slamming the door.
  4. The landlord’s records show the resident called it on 15 June 2020. She said the last disturbance was on 11 June 2020 and consisted of her neighbour slamming doors late at night. She said she had received the leaflet but was still unable to use the app. The landlord suggested she seek help from a family member, or friend. The landlord talked her through how to use the app, and directed her to an online tutorial. The resident asked for further assistance with the app the next day. The landlord advised it could not visit, and sent her the leaflet again.
  5. Following contact from the resident, this Service emailed the landlord on 16 June 2020. The Ombudsman explained that the resident had raised concerns with the landlord’s handling of her reports of ASB since January 2020. The Ombudsman explained the resident felt the landlord had treated her in an unsympathetic manner, had not thoroughly investigated her reports, and had not supported her with the use of the app. We asked it to issue a stage one complaint response.
  6. The landlord called the resident on 18 June 2020. Its records show she said she was unable to use the app and wanted the landlord to visit and help her. The landlord reiterated that it could not visit due to the pandemic, and because she was shielding. It suggested she contact the local authority to install noise monitoring equipment, as it had been advised that the local authority had recently installed equipment in another property. 
  7. The landlord issued its stage one complaint response on 24 June 2020. It said it had contacted the resident several times over the previous few months. It said the resident had advised she was shielding, and this is why it was unable to visit and install the app. It said it had sent her guidance on how to use it twice. It said she could ask a family member or friend to assist if appropriate. It said mediation could greatly assist her with the issues she was experiencing. It said it could not find evidence of having treated her in an unsympathetic manner. It said it had offered her support, advice and instruction on how best to resolve her concerns. It said it needed to gather evidence of ASB, and its actions (offering mediation, and the noise app) were how it had attempted to gather this information. It said in order for it to take enforcement action, it needed the resident to work alongside it and gather evidence.
  8. On 23 November 2020 the resident reported that the neighbour had slammed their doors the night before. She said the noise was persistent and “down to the drugs they [took]”. She asked the landlord to advise her how to use the app. Two of the landlord’s officers visited the neighbour on 3 December 2020 to discuss her concerns.
  9. On 3 December 2020 the landlord wrote to the resident. It said its officers had advised that her behaviour was unacceptable when they visited her that day. It said she had started to shout and scream, and blocked the operative’s exit from the property. It said her tenancy agreement set out that she was required to not act in an aggressive, abusive, intimidating, threatening, or violent manner towards its employees. It said if there was a repeat of this incident it could potentially consider a formal warning, contact ban, or legal enforcement.
  10. On 24 February 2021 the resident asked the landlord whether it had reviewed the noise recordings she had sent. The landlord advised that some of the recordings were too long (eight and nine hours long). It asked her to review them and note the exact time of the disturbances. It explained that from her recordings it could not hear excessive noises or doors being slammed.
  11. Following contact from the resident, this Service wrote to the landlord on 26 March 2021. We said the resident had complained about its handling of her reports of ASB. We said the resident had advised she did not receive a response to her complaint in June 2020. We asked it to respond to her complaint. This Service asked the landlord on 22 April 2021 to provide the resident a complaint response.
  12. The landlord sent the resident a letter on 12 May 2021. It said it was providing an update to its stage one complaint response. It said on 7 January 2021 the resident reported noise issues. It said it advised her how to use the app, and encouraged her to work with its mediation service to gather evidence. It said in February the resident called, and it advised what steps needed to be taken to resolve the issue. It said it had previously advised her that her recordings were not clearly of ASB, but more in a way of everyday noise, and in some instances, it did not hear anything at all. It asked her to provide a description of the noises she recorded, along with specific times. It said its offer of mediation was still open, and its mediation team would come up with a mutually acceptable agreement between herself and her neighbour. It offered her tenancy support which consisted of offering a referral to speak to a member of its staff who could offer advice and sign posing. It advised her to contact the local authority to install noise recording equipment, as it could determine whether there was a statutory noise nuisance.
  13. Following contact from the resident, this Service wrote to the landlord on 14 May 2021. We asked it to escalate her complaint. We said she remained dissatisfied with how it had handled her reports of ASB. We said she felt the landlord had not considered her illness. We said she disputed that there had been an issue regarding her behaviour with its employees. We explained she wanted the landlord to evict her neighbour.
  14. The landlord issued its stage two complaint response on 14 June 2021. It apologised for its delayed response. It said it had investigated the resident’s allegations. It said it provided an evidence-based service, and it had not found, or been provided with sufficient evidence of ASB to warrant it taking formal action. It said in terms of taking into account the resident’s illness, it had offered her additional support on three occasions. It asked her to reconsider its offer of tenancy support.. It said it could not consider pursuing an eviction as there was no evidence of the alleged ASB. It explained it had warned her about her behaviour following reports from two members of staff. It also thanked her that there had not been any further unreasonable behaviour.

Assessment and findings

ASB and noise disturbance from January 2020 until June 2021.

  1. The landlord’s ASB policy sets out that it handles each ASB case depending on the specific circumstances of the complaint. It will investigate all reports of ASB, and take appropriate action before it escalates. It will encourage and support residents by trying to resolve their problems through mediation. It specifies that it does not consider general family lifestyle noise to be ASB.
  2. The evidence provided shows the landlord attempted on multiple occasions to explain to the resident how to use, and install the noise app. It provided guidance leaflets, directed her to explanatory videos, and suggested she seek help from a family member or friend. It also explained that it could not visit due to COVID-19 pandemic restrictions. These were reasonable responses from the landlord as it would not be expected to visit at this time, especially if the resident was shielding due to the potential risks. Instead, it offered reasonable, and pragmatic advice on how she could obtain evidence of the disturbances. Whilst it would have been frustrating for the resident being unable to use the app, there were limited steps the landlord could take to help her given the circumstances. Nonetheless, it also suggested she contact the local authority who could install noise monitoring equipment, and determine whether there was a statutory noise nuisance. This was another reasonable attempt from the landlord to offer support and advice on how the resident could evidence her reports.
  3. The resident provided recordings before or during April 2021. The landlord advised that it had not identified ASB on these. It said the noises heard were not excessive, and were more on general living noises. In line with the landlord’s ASB policy, it does not consider lifestyle noises to be ASB. It was therefore reasonable for it not to take further action in light of her recordings. It also invited the resident o describe any specific noises and the time they occurred on the recordings to ensure it had not missed any such incident.
  4. The resident said in her escalation that she wanted the landlord to evict her neighbour. The landlord explained that it needed sufficient evidence of the reported behaviour before it could consider enforcement action. This was a reasonable response as eviction is a legal process and landlords require a court order before they can carry it out. The landlord would be required to demonstrate that it had exhausted all other options for resolving ASB before considering eviction. In this case, as the landlord had not been presented with evidence of ASB, its explanation of why it would not consider eviction was reasonable.
  5. Landlord’s are expected to provide a fair service. A fair service needs to be based on appropriate evidence. In an ASB case involving two residents the landlord has an obligation to both residents. It would not be fair for the landlord to pursue formal action against one resident based only on the reports from another. This is why landlords needed to identify corroborating independent evidence from other neighbours, other authorities, or sound recording equipment. There was no such evidence for the landlord to use during the period for this case. Therefore it was reasonable for the landlord to repeatedly explain how it needed evidence, and the informal options (such as mediation) that were available in the meantime.

The landlord’s issuing of a warning.

  1. The landlord’s officers visited the resident on 3 December 2020 to discuss her ASB case. That same day, the landlord sent the resident a letter advising her behaviour had been unacceptable. It explained what the behaviour consisted of. The landlord has a duty to protect its staff, and it was entitled to rely on their account of events. It also has an obligation to inform its residents of any reports it receives about them.
  2. It is important to note that no actual action was taken against the resident. The landlord would need to secure appropriate supporting evidence (just as in the ASB case) if it did pursue formal action against the resident. However it is reasonable, and expected, of the landlord to warn residents if it receives any reports about inappropriate behaviour.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s health concerns.

  1. The resident said she did not believe the landlord had considered her health concerns in its dealings with her. The landlord responded and said it had taken her illness into account by offering her additional support. It encouraged her to reconsider its offer of tenancy support (which it offered on 12 May 2021). This was a reasonable attempt by the landlord to reassure her that it had considered her circumstances and that further support was available.
  2. Although the resident remained dissatisfied, no evidence has been provided for this investigation to show what additional actions the resident felt the landlord needed to take to show it had taken the resident’s illness into account. This might include information from medical practitioners, or an explanation as to why the requirements the landlord had set out (for example the need for independent evidence of the reported ASB) were inappropriate in light of the resident’s health concerns.

Determination (decision)

  1. In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration in respect of the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of ASB and noise nuisance from January 2020 to June 2021.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration in respect of the landlord’s issuing of a warning to the resident.
  3. In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration in respect of the landlord’s handling of the resident’s health concerns.