Orbit Group Limited (202002942)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202002942

Orbit Group Limited

26 March 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 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 response to the resident’s reports of anti-social behaviour (ASB).
2. The landlord’s complaint handling.

Background and Summary of Events

Background

The resident is a former resident of the landlord, having been a secure tenant from 2011 until July 2020. At the time of this complaint, he resided in a two-bedroom, ground floor flat in a low-rise block.
The landlord’s tenancy agreement confirms that residents must not cause nuisance or anti-social behaviour and gives examples including ‘Noise – such as (but not limited to) loud music and ‘Damage to property – such as breaking fixtures and fittings.’
The landlord’s tenancy agreement also refers to pets, noting that residents require written consent to keep any pets and that pets ‘must at all times be kept under control so that they do not cause a nuisance or annoyance to other persons in the locality’.
The landlord’s Anti-Social Behaviour Policy outlines actions that it does, and does not, consider as ASB. Actions and activities that are not considered to be ASB include ‘general living noise (doors banging, footsteps etc)’, ‘personal disputes’ and ‘pet nuisance’. The policy also sets out how the landlord manages ASB reports, noting it will ‘carry out a risk based assessment and will agree an action plan with each complainant and witness’, as well as managing expectations and outlining the landlord’s intentions as to how it will manage the case.
The landlord has a complaints policy which sets out a two stage complaints process and the timescales for investigating and responding at each stage.

Summary of events

On 20 January 2020, the resident made a report of noise nuisance to the landlord regarding his neighbour. The resident stated that he could hear music from their property at 2am and requested the landlord visit the neighbour and ask them to be more considerate. He also queried whether they had permission to have two dogs at the property.
Landlord records show it logged the report and contacted the resident the following day to discuss the situation. It then contacted the neighbour by letter on 22 January 2020, notifying them that it would be conducting a home visit.
Landlord records show it was contacted by the Police on 28 January 2020 and advised they had attended both the resident’s and neighbour’s properties simultaneously on an unspecified date. There is no indication from the records available to this investigation that the Police considered any crime had been committed.
On 30 January 2020, the landlord visited the neighbour. It suggested possible mediation or a ‘Fair Tenancy Contract’ for them to agree with the resident. The landlord also suggested these options to the resident during a subsequent home visit on 19 February 2020. During that visit, the resident advised the landlord he had made a previous noise complaint to the Local Authority’s Environmental Health department. They had installed noise monitoring equipment (NME), but the investigation found no statutory noise disturbance.
Landlord records show that on 28 February 2020, the landlord contacted the Local Authority and requested a copy of their Environmental Health report into the resident’s noise complaint.
On 2 March 2020, the landlord contacted the resident to discuss the case. The resident advised that he had now cancelled a further request for the installation of NME by the Local Authority as noise levels were currently satisfactory. Records show the resident expressed an interest in proceeding with a Fair Tenancy Contract (or an Acceptable Behaviour Contract). The landlord advised that, as this would be an enforceable contract, it could only add reasonable steps and that the resident’s suggestion that the neighbour agree to never play music at any time was not reasonable. The landlord also advised that the neighbour was no longer willing to engage with mediation. As a result of this, the landlord advised that, if the neighbour did not make any request for specific terms to be added to a Fair Tenancy Contract, it would not proceed and it would close the case.
On 6 March 2020, the Local Authority provided the landlord with the report from its Environmental Health department. It advised the most recent complaint from the resident, in January 2020, was regarding dogs barking and music and television noise. It also noted the resident had made a series of complaints in 2018 and 2019, although the first 3 had not been fully investigated as the resident had not completed noise diaries to enable it to progress the cases. However, regarding an investigation where the Local Authority did install NME at the resident’s property (no date is given, only a reference number) the report noted ‘recordings made were in the main related to everyday living noise’. The report added that the current complaint cited a ‘significant increase in the noise patterns’ he was experiencing. Although noise diaries submitted were inconclusive, the Environmental Health department agreed to reinstall NME in the property, although this request was later withdrawn by the resident. The report concludes that ‘no evidence has been gathered in support of the complaints and therefore none of the complaints have been substantiated’.
On 17 March 2020, the resident reported an incident via the landlord’s website which involved a newly installed spring on a communal gate, although he noted that his contact was not intended as a complaint. The resident advised a new spring had been installed on the gate, apparently by his neighbour, which he had not been consulted over. He advised the gate had closed on his leg, causing him injury and he therefore removed the spring from the gate. The resident advised he delivered a note to his neighbour, advising that he had the spring and could return it to them if requested.
On 20 March 2020, the resident and landlord exchanged emails regarding the gate. While the landlord advised it had not received his report log via its website, it advised it was aware of the issue. The landlord stated it would investigate whether the spring attachment counted as a modification. It clarified that the gate should always be closed and requested that the resident not engage further with the neighbour.
On 30 March 2020, the landlord wrote to the resident and noted it had spoken with the neighbour and advised them should not reinstall any spring mechanism or tamper with the gate further. The landlord also advised it had spoken to the neighbour regarding their dogs and requested they ensure they remained on lead in the communal area. It also advised it would close the resident’s noise complaint as there was insufficient evidence of noise disturbance.
On 2 April 2020, the resident replied to the landlord’s case closure letter. He raised the following points:
1. He would endeavour to close the gate behind him when using it but would not accept responsibility ‘should it not close for any reason’.
2. Despite the landlord having spoken to the neighbour, he had seen their dogs being allowed off lead in the communal area.
3. The inability to evidence any noise issues was down to the fact that the neighbour was aware they were being monitored at that time. He stated that he expected that the noise would become a nuisance again in the future.
4. He queried whether the neighbour had also been asked to stay away from him, as he had been asked to stay away from them.
On 9 April 2020, the landlord responded to the resident. The landlord reiterated its position that it considered the matter closed and would not take further action regarding the reported noise, although it noted the resident believed the problem would start again. The landlord also:
1. Confirmed its request that the resident close the communal gate behind him.
2. Confirmed that the neighbour had been spoken to regarding their dogs.
3. Confirmed that the neighbour had been given the same advice as the resident, namely, to stay away from each other if possible.
On 18 May 2020, the resident made a further complaint to the landlord regarding the behaviour of his neighbours. He reiterated they had installed a fence and repositioned the communal gate and he wished for it to be removed as it had had the effect of creating a ‘dog pen’ in a communal area. The resident requested that the landlord investigate this. He also stated that his neighbours were moving his bins, despite him requesting that they did not and requested the landlord speak to them about this.
The landlord issued a response to the resident by email on 29 May 2020. Although it was not made clear that it is a formal complaint response, the landlord noted that it had investigated his complaint. It advised that it found the gate was within his neighbour’s boundary and that it had been installed to prevent the neighbours’ dogs from accessing the communal area, referring to the previous complaint. The landlord advised it did not object to the gate’s installation. Regarding the resident’s bins, the landlord advised it had found the bins had been positioned in such a way as to restrict other residents’ access to meter cupboards, which caused a health and safety risk. It asked the resident to remove the ‘chains and frame’ around the bins within 7 days.
Following the landlord’s letter, landlord records show a further email sent to the resident the same day, in response to a phone call he made to it. The landlord confirmed it was not asking the resident to move out, just to remove the ‘chains and frame’ from the bin area to allow access to meter cupboards and sheds.
On 10 June 2020, the resident asked that his case be reviewed.
On 24 June 2020, following a conversation with the resident, the contents of which have not been included in the logs received, the landlord issued a formal complaint response. The landlord stated it had reviewed the case as requested and concluded:
1. No noise nuisance had been identified.
2. The neighbour had been given permission to have pets.
3. The resident had been offered services including mediation and had been given Housing Options advice, his neighbours had been spoken to and a referral to a support organisation had been made.
4. No ASB had been identified that required further investigation.
5. The gate would not be removed.
The letter outlined the escalation procedure, and the resident requested a review of the decision the same day. On 30 June 2020, he provided a further response:
1. He queried the landlord’s complaints procedure and the fact that the review had been completed by a manager within the same department.
2. He queried why the landlord had not requested videos he had of the neighbours’ dogs being allowed off lead in the communal area. He stated that this was evidence of bias in favour of the neighbours.
3. He queried why the landlord had initially advised that the communal gate would need to be removed, but later decided it could stay as it had been in situ for several years. Additionally, he queried why, if the gate could stay to maintain the status quo, why was he asked to move his bins, which he stated had been in the same arrangement for 8 years. He stated this was contradictory and further evidence of bias in the neighbours’ favour.
On 5 July 2020, the resident’s tenancy ended. The landlord has confirmed to this Service that this was after the resident gave notice, rather than the landlord taking any tenancy action against him.
On 8 July 2020, the landlord issued its Review response. It confirmed the following:
1. That the complaints policy had been followed correctly and the resident’s case had been reviewed by a manager from the same department as they were aware of the relevant processes and procedures. It had, however, been reviewed by someone not involved in the original handling of the case.
2. The resident’s videos of dogs being off lead had not been requested as the neighbour had been spoken to regarding this and had advised they had agreed to the landlord’s request to keep them on lead.
3. The gate had been checked by the landlord and it was satisfied it should cause no further issues. It apologised for any confusion over whether the gate was due to be removed or not and for comments in its original complaint response which the resident believed were incorrect, although it was not specified which comments were disputed.
4. While the bins had reportedly been in their current position for several years without causing issue, the structure (or frame) constructed to house them now blocked access to the neighbours’ meter cupboards, which they had a legal right to access. The landlord confirmed they had requested this to be removed for this reason and it would not permit any structure which prevented access.
5. The complaint was not upheld, and the landlord advised the resident of his right to escalate the complaint to this Service.
Following the landlord’s final response, the resident and landlord exchanged further emails the same day. The resident expressed dissatisfaction with the review and confirmed that the videos he had of dogs being allowed off lead in the communal area were dated after the landlord had spoken to the neighbour about the matter. The landlord apologised for any confusion regarding this and advised it could review the videos and would refer the matter back to its ASB team to investigate if the resident wished. The resident advised he had ‘other issues’ with the landlord’s findings but did not specify further as he stated the landlord should know what they were. He also advised that he was now homeless.

Assessment and findings

The landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of ASB

It should be clarified that the role of the Ombudsman is not to determine whether ASB occurred. Rather, this Service seeks to determine whether the landlord responded reasonably and in accordance with its policies and procedures to the reports of ASB made by the resident. Not every instance of noise or ASB that is reported to a landlord will be something it has the power to act on. A landlord has two main duties when ASB is reported. The first is to undertake a proportionate investigation to establish the nature and extend of the reported ASB. The second is to weigh in balance the evidence, and the respective parties’ rights to enjoy their home and decide what action it should take. The Ombudsman’s role is to determine if the landlord carried out a proportionate investigation and whether the actions it took were within its powers.
Following the resident’s reports of noise disturbance in January 2020, the landlord logged the issue accordingly and responded promptly, contacting both the resident and his neighbour to discuss the matter. The landlord carried out home visits to both the resident and his neighbour and discussed options to resolve the issue, including mediation and a Fair Tenancy Contract. The landlord also attempted to assist the resident by chasing up a referral to an external support service. Additionally, the landlord sought advice from the Local Authority and obtained information regarding their own noise nuisance investigation following a separate complaint from the resident. Its actions in speaking to both parties, offering potential solutions and advice, and outlining how to progress the case, were proportionate and in line with its policies. As there was no evidence to demonstrate any statutory noise disturbance or other ASB issues, it was reasonable for the landlord to take no further action and close the case.
It is noted that within the information provided by the Local Authority, mention is made of them having carried out other noise disturbance investigations at similar, but unspecified, properties managed by the landlord. The Local Authority advised they had previously raised ‘significant concerns’ in respect of transmission of everyday noise between flats and these other investigations had reached the same conclusion. There is no evidence within the records for this case whether this was acknowledged or if further investigations were made regarding this.
Following the resident’s further report in March 2020, regarding a spring being attached to a communal gate, while the resident initially chased the landlord for a response, it is not clear from screenshots provided by the resident whether the incident report was submitted properly via the landlord’s website. Nonetheless, the landlord contacted the resident promptly within 2 working days having been made aware of the incident by the neighbour. The landlord advised they would investigate the matter further and offered advice to both parties to not engage with the other, which was reasonable. The landlord proceeded to speak with the neighbour again and addressed the issues raised by the resident, which was proportionate. After its investigation and decision that the gate could remain, the resident was informed of the landlord’s decision and that the case was closed. This was reasonable and the landlord also continued dialogue with the resident after the closure of the case.

The landlord’s complaint handling

Following the resident’s complaint, the landlord responded promptly. However, it is not clear whether its initial response was a formal one under its two step complaints policy. After the resident expressed dissatisfaction with the landlord’s initial response, a review was carried out. Following this review, the resident was advised of his escalation rights and a further review was carried out. It appears the landlord’s initial response on 29 May 2020 was an informal one, while the landlord’s formal Stage One response was issued on 24 June 2020, but this should have been made clearer. This had the effect of providing the resident with three responses, when the landlord operates a two-step complaints policy. However, while the formal Stage One response therefore appears to have been issued outside of the landlord’s 20 working day target, as the resident had already been responded to informally on 29 May 2020 and had a review request processed, there was in the Ombudsman’s opinion no obvious detriment to him.
Within its later review, the landlord provided an explanation of its policy regarding which department should have reviewed the case and attempted to address each of the resident’s points. In its final response, the landlord apologised for any confusion regarding video evidence, which was proportionate. Following this, it also offered to pass the footage on to its ASB team for investigation. This was reasonable.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration in its response to the resident’s reports of ASB.
In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration in respect of the landlord’s complaint handling.

Reasons

The landlord took reasonable and proportionate actions in response to the resident’s reports of ASB. These actions included promptly interviewing both the resident and his neighbour, offering potential solutions to resolve the issue such as mediation and Fair Tenancy Contracts, advising each party to avoid contact with the other and liaising with the Local Authority as part of its investigations.
The landlord responded promptly and appropriately to the resident’s complaint. There is confusion over whether its initial response was part of its formal complaint process, and this should have been made clearer. However, and in the Ombudsman’s opinion, there was no detriment caused to the resident because of this and the landlord otherwise investigated the matter reasonably.

Recommendations

It is recommended the landlord should:
1. Carry out its own investigation regarding possible noise transference issues within the resident’s former building, and any others relevant to the concerns that have reportedly been raised previously by the Local Authority.