Onward Homes Limited (202311212)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202311212

Onward Homes Limited

30 October 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:
1. Reports of antisocial behaviour (ASB) and noise nuisance.
2. Rehousing request.
3. Associated complaint.

Background

The resident is an assured shorthold tenant of the landlord, and his tenancy began in 2015. The resident lives in the property with his partner and children. The property is a 2-bedroom first floor flat. The landlord has completed a risk assessment for the resident and his family, there are no vulnerabilities recorded.
The reports of ASB and noise disturbance relate to the resident’s neighbours. The neighbours are residents in nearby flats in the same block as the resident.
The resident reports he has been complaining to the landlord about ASB from his neighbours since 2018. The landlord’s records about these issues start in 2019. The resident informed the landlord he contacted the police regarding ASB and noise nuisance on multiple instances over the years. Further, he had had declined the landlord’s offer to take the matter to court or provide a witness statement. Instead, he made reports of ASB and noise nuisance via the Noise App. The landlord informed the resident it had reviewed the submissions and where it could evidence noise nuisance, it had contacted the alleged perpetrators. The resident advised the landlord on multiple occasions the ASB and noise nuisance was negatively impacting his and his children’s health. He looked to increase his banding on the property pool and asked the landlord to rehouse him.
The resident’s concerns remained ongoing, and he raised a complaint to the landlord on 16 June 2023. This was about the noise nuisance from his neighbours. He advised the issue had been ongoing since 2018 and he had made reports of ASB and noise nuisance on the Noise App since 2021. On 22 June 2023, the landlord contacted the resident and discussed his complaint.
On 19 July 2023, this service contacted the landlord regarding the resident’s complaint. Therefore, on 26 July 2023, the landlord issued its stage 1 complaint acknowledgement.
On 10 August 2023, the landlord issued its stage 1 complaint response. It detailed the actions it had taken to investigate the resident’s concerns and actions it had taken against his neighbour. It told him about the options it was considering to address the situation such as legal action against his neighbour. It also told him he did not meet the criteria for an emergency transfer to another property, but it had increased his banding for the property pool. It upheld the resident’s complaint and offered compensation of £100 as a goodwill gesture.
The resident asked to escalate his complaint on 11 August 2023. He said the issue remained ongoing, and it was affecting his children’s sleep. The landlord had not increased his banding on the property pool. He said he was dissatisfied with the outcome and declined the landlord’s compensation offer.
Between August and October 2023, the landlord remained in contact with the resident. It explained its rehousing criteria to him and discussed his noise concerns.
On 4 October 2023, the landlord wrote to the resident and explained the options to him. It told the resident it had enough evidence to apply for a court injunction against the neighbour. The resident had previously declined the landlord applying to the court for the injunction as it could identify him as the complainant. It also told him that there was not enough evidence for an emergency move, and said his options going forward were to consent to it using the information from the Noise App to allow a discussion with his neighbour.
Between 17 October 2023 and 11 January 2024, the parties remained in contact, discussing the resident’s reports, and the landlord’s actions.
On 11 January 2024, the landlord issued its stage 2 complaint acknowledgement letter. The resident’s complaint was escalated to stage 2 following him contacting this service.
On 5 February 2024, the landlord issued its stage 2 complaint response. The landlord:
1. Reiterated the resident’s concerns around the noise nuisance, and the need for an emergency move.
2. Had increased the resident’s banding on the property pool, and since August 2023 he had submitted more noise recordings which it reviewed, but no legal action had taken place.
3. Stated that the resident did not want the landlord to approach his neighbour, and he had declined an offer of mediation.
4. Did not believe there was a failure in its service and had provided advice and assistance in relation to his rehousing request.
5. Had asked for the building to be reviewed to see if could improve the sound insulation. It would then write out to residents with its findings.

Post-complaint

On 9 February 2024, the landlord contacted the resident advising it had identified a person shouting in the block and it would challenge them on their behaviour. The resident requested the landlord not to do this and once again asked to be moved.
On 15 February 2024, as the resident remained dissatisfied with the landlord’s complaint response, he referred his complaint to this service.
Since his referral to this service, the resident has made further reports to the landlord of ASB and noise nuisance including threats of harm and racial abuse.

Assessment and findings

Scope of Investigation

The resident has advised that he and his family need to move due to alleged threats and racial abuse. The resident has been advised it is not within this service’s jurisdiction to determine whether the landlord should rehouse a resident. The Ombudsman can consider how a landlord managed the resident’s concerns. It can also consider whether the landlord has followed a fair process in considering the resident’s concerns relating to their complaint. The Ombudsman however does not have the powers to instruct a landlord to allocate housing as a resolution to a complaint.
This report has not considered the resident’s report of alleged threats and racial abuse. This occurred after the landlord’s complaint process was completed and following his referral to this service. The Ombudsman cannot consider matters which have not exhausted the landlord’s complaint process as per 42.a of the Scheme. The resident may wish to raise these matters as a further complaint with the landlord if he has not done so already. Should the resident remain dissatisfied following the completion of the landlord’s complaint process, he is able to refer it to the Ombudsman for an investigation.

The landlord’s obligations

The landlord’s tenancy agreement states residents are responsible for the behaviour of members of the household and visitors. This includes the home, any shared areas and including locality of the property such as surrounding land.
Further, the tenancy agreement states residents will not behave in a way that causes or is likely to cause nuisance to neighbours and any person who is in or around the locality of the property.
The landlord’s ASB and hate crime policy states ASB covers a range of behaviours from low-level nuisance to serious harassment, which can damage the quality of life and interfere with the ability of customers to use and enjoy their home or community.
The landlord’s lettings and allocation policy states it will consider emergency transfers in exceptional circumstances where it is no longer safe for a customer to live in their home. The landlord states examples of such circumstances where an emergency transfer may be considered is:
1. Exceptional cases of ASB and harassment, including serious or targeted hate crimes and serious racial harassment.
2. In cases of domestic violence.
3. Where there are high–risk safeguarding concerns.
4. In tower blocks where a residents personal circumstances change, and it is no longer safe for them to continue living in the block.
5. Emergency Health and Safety issues (i.e. Fire/flood/serious Damp and Mould cases).
6. Medical conditions include delaying hospital discharge.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of ASB and noise nuisance

The Ombudsman would expect a landlord to work with residents to resolve their ASB or noise nuisance reports. The landlord took reasonable steps to try and resolve the issues faced by the resident. It completed a risk assessment, and an action plan was issued to the resident on 20 December 2022. It detailed the actions it intended to carry out to resolve the resident’s reports of ASB and noise nuisance. It would review the resident’s evidence and contact him to discuss it. It would provide the noise app details to the complainant and make initial contact with the resident’s neighbours to advise it was investigating complaints of noise nuisance and ASB.
To review the resident’s reports, the landlord asked him to submit noise recordings via the noise app. The landlord would review submissions to determine whether ASB and noise nuisance had occurred. It is reasonable for a landlord to request the resident provide submissions of ASB or noise nuisance as part of its investigation and for it to consider any necessary action.
Where the landlord had determined the neighbours were responsible for ASB or noise nuisance, following a review of the resident’s submissions, it contacted the alleged perpetrators. It told the alleged perpetrators it would investigate the ASB and noise nuisance reports. Where the landlord upheld reports of ASB and noise nuisance, it either discussed these with the neighbours and issued formal warnings. The actions taken are what would be expected of a landlord by the Ombudsman. However, the landlord could have considered or investigated whether there was any underlying cause when it reviewed the resident’s reports of ASB or noise nuisance.
The landlord did offer alternatives to try and resolve the resident’s noise and ASB issues. The resident declined the landlord’s offer to challenge the perpetrators in multiple communications between the parties. The resident declined the landlord’s offer of mediation between the resident and alleged perpetrators. Further, the landlord advised it could apply for a court injunction against the alleged perpetrators. However, the resident asked it not to do this as it could risk him being identified. The landlord sought consent from the resident to share information with the police. There is no evidence showing the resident had given consent. It is reasonable for the resident to be concerned about being identified, but it limits the actions a landlord can take.
The landlord’s records show that in October 2022, it did challenge the alleged perpetrator of noise nuisance. This resulted in the resident receiving an apology from the neighbour.
The landlord informed the resident that he could contact the local authority’s environmental health team to install noise monitoring equipment in the property. In a further call, the resident said he had not contacted the local authority. Therefore, the landlord contacted the local authority and discussed with the council regarding installing noise monitoring equipment in the property. After installing and reviewing the data, it was unable to determine ASB or noise nuisance had occurred which would support the resident’s request to be rehoused. The actions of the landlord were reasonable as it investigated other methods in gathering information and evidence of ASB and noise nuisance.
The landlord said in its stage 2 response it would discuss internally whether it could improve insulation in the property. It also said it would write to the residents with its findings.
The resident has reported ASB in and around the locality of the property. This includes reporting on multiple occasions, people sleeping in the communal areas and ringing his doorbell. In a call with the resident on the 8 June 2023, the resident asked whether CCTV could be installed. The landlord has not demonstrated whether it considered installation of CCTV or whether it provided a response to the resident. Additionally, CCTV could have been used where the resident was not able to record instances of ASB or noise nuisance from the alleged perpetrators. This could be due to his work pattern, but he would still report to the landlord.
As the landlord has not demonstrated it responded or considered the resident’s request for CCTV, the Ombudsman finds there was service failure by the landlord in its handling of the resident’s reports of ASB.

Resident’s request to be rehoused.

Prior to the stage 1 and stage 2 complaints, the resident reported ASB and noise nuisance from his neighbours. The resident is of the view the only way to remedy the issue is to rehouse him and his family.
The landlord’s allocations and letting policy sets out when an emergency transfer can be considered. The resident failed to meet the criteria for an emergency transfer. The landlord refused the resident’s rehousing request. In a letter to the resident dated 25 October 2023, the landlord concluded that there were no current risks towards the resident which required him and his family to be moved as a priority. Within the resident’s request for a transfer to a new property, there were no reports of alleged threats of violence or verbal abuse. The Ombudsman therefore finds it was reasonable for the landlord to refuse the resident’s request for an emergency transfer as he did not meet the criteria as per its policy.
The landlord did offer the resident advice or alternative housing options to resolving his rehousing request. The landlord recommended that the resident register for rehousing with the appropriate local authority providers or consider a mutual exchange.
Additionally, the landlord internal communication acknowledged that the lifestyle and behaviour of other residents did not make it an appropriate environment for the resident and his family to live in peacefully. However, it increased his banding on its property pool plus and letting system.
The Ombudsman finds there was no maladministration by the landlord in its handling of the resident’s rehousing request.

Complaint handling

The Ombudsman’s complaint handling code (the Code) expects landlords to acknowledge a stage 1 complaint within 5 working days and then to issue its stage 1 complaint response in 10 working days. Further, the Code expects landlords to acknowledge a stage 2 complaint within 5 working days and issue a stage 2 complaint response within 20 working days.
The resident made a complaint to the landlord on the 16 June 2023. The landlord did not acknowledge the complaint until 26 July 2023. The landlord said it logged the complaint following receipt of this service’s letter dated 19 July 2023.
The landlord has said the resident’s complaint concerned the neighbours and not the landlord. However, as the resident said he was making a formal complaint and advised he had referred the matter to this service, the landlord should have sought clarification. On 16 June 2023, the landlord did contact the resident. However, the landlord has not demonstrated it clarified whether the resident was making a formal complaint. This meant the landlord responded to the resident 39 working days after he made his complaint. This is not within the time limits expected of a landlord per the Code.
The resident emailed the landlord seeking to escalate his complaint on the 11 August 2023. The landlord advised it did not escalate the resident’s complaint until receipt of this service’s emails in January 2024.
However, the landlord’s records show that on 16 October 2023, the resident contacted the landlord seeking to escalate his complaint to stage 2 of the landlord’s complaint process. Further, this service contacted the landlord on 16 October 2023 and requested it provide a response to the resident by the 6 November 2023.
While the landlord did contact the resident on 20 October 2023 and 6 November 2023, it did not issue a stage 2 complaint acknowledgment letter until 11 January 2024. Additionally, the stage 2 complaint response was not issued until 5 February 2024. The landlord took more than 77 working days to issue its stage 2 response to the resident’s complaint escalation dated 16 October 2023. This is not within the time limits expected of a landlord per the Code and this service has not seen evidence to show the landlord notified the resident of the delays.
Had the landlord recorded the resident’s communication on 11 August 2024 or the 16 October 2023 as a stage 2 complaint, it could have prevented the resident remaining in the landlord internal complaint process longer than he needed to be.
The Ombudsman therefore finds there was maladministration by the landlord in its handling of the resident’s associated complaint.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was service failure by the landlord in its handling of the resident’s reports of anti-social behaviour and noise nuisance.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was no maladministration by the landlord in its handling of the resident’s rehousing request.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord in its handling of the resident’s associated complaint.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

Within 4 weeks of the date of this determination, the landlord is ordered to:
1. Pay the resident a total of £200 compensation for the failings identified in this report. This is composed of:
  1. £50 for its handling of the resident’s reports ASB and noise nuisance.
  2. £150 for its handling of the resident’s associated complaints.
The compensation must be paid directly to the resident and the landlord must provide this service with evidence of the above payment within four weeks of the date of this determination.

Recommendations

The Ombudsman recommends that the landlord, if it has not done so already, writes to the resident, with the outcome of its discussion with its asset management team. The landlord should confirm whether it can improve sound insulation in the property.
The Ombudsman recommends that the landlord if it has not already done so, contact the resident regarding the alleged threats and racial abuse he reports. It should also review his request for an emergency transfer.