Peabody Trust (201900088)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 201900088

Peabody Trust

19 June 2023

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:
1. The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of noise disturbance from the ball cage.
2. The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of noise from a neighbour.
3. The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of anti-social behaviour from a neighbour.
4. The landlord’s complaint handling.

Background and summary of events

The resident is an assured tenant of the landlord, the property is a ground floor flat within a block that is owned and managed by the landlord. The landlord has not reported any vulnerabilities for the resident.
It is accepted that the resident lives close to a ball cage and the landlord’s internal communication says he lives “a stone throw away…about 30 second walk.”
The tenancy agreement says the tenant’s responsibility includes “not to do or permit anything which causes a nuisance or annoyance to his/her neighbours or to others on the estate, whether by himself/herself or members of his/her household, including lodgers or visitors”
The landlord’s Antisocial Behaviour policy (ASB) defines ASB as:
1. conduct that has caused or is likely to cause harassment, alarm or distress to any person
2. Conduct capable of causing nuisance or annoyance to a person in relation to that person’s occupation of residential premises; or
3. Conduct capable of causing housing- related nuisance or annoyance to any person.
The ASB policy says:
1. The landlord takes a victim-centred and robust approach to tackling ASB.
2. The type of behaviour it would consider antisocial includes verbal abuse, harassment, intimidation or threatening behaviour.
3. Low level disagreements between neighbours where the is no breach of tenancy, will generally not be considered ASB. However it may offer mediation and other support to assist residents in resolving issues amongst themselves.
4. It will respond to high risk ASB within one working day and lower risk within five working days.
5. It will not usually take action where a complaint concerns behaviour that results from different lifestyles.
6. It will only investigate noise nuisance where the noise is frequently excessive in volume and duration or at unreasonable hours.
The Ombudsman’s ‘Spotlight on noise: time to be heard” published in 2022 recommends that:
1. Landlord’s should have a proactive good neighbourhood management policy distinct to its ASB policy with clear options for maintaining good neighbourhood relationship. With options to include mediation, information sharing and community building events.
2. Residents must be clearly told if their noise report is being handled within the good neighbourhood management policy or is considered to be ASB.
The landlord’s estate management policy details the landlord’s obligations for communal areas and grounds maintenance. It says the landlord works in partnership with relevant agencies to ensure it provides effective estate management service and says this includes when it investigates noise nuisance.
The landlord has a two stage complaints process. Its complaints procedure says:
1. A stage one complaint will be acknowledged within five working days and a stage one response will be issued within 10 working days. It says if it does not meet this timeframe, it will agree a further 10 working days timeframe with the resident explaining why further time is needed.
2. A stage two complaint will be acknowledged within five working days of receiving the request to escalate and a response will be provided within 20 working days from the escalation date. If a full response cannot be provided within 20 working days, it must explain why to the resident and provide a new date for completing the review. However this extended timeframe should not exceed a further 10 working days without good reason.
The landlord’s compensation policy explains that compensation payments would be made if it fails to carry out a service within its published guidelines. It says this could include poor complaint handling and the compensation policy sets out a maximum payment amount of £100 for poor complaint handling with £26-£75 for moderate failings that result in inconvenience for a resident.

Summary of events

On 29 March 2019 the resident told this Service that he was finding it difficult to progress his complaint. He raised concerns about noise nuisance from a ball cage and said he had been complaining about it for several years. This Service had not been provided with evidence to show the complaints had been ongoing for several years.
On 21 May 2019 this Service told the landlord that the resident reported difficulty in progressing his complaint and asked the landlord to contact the resident within 14 working days to his email from March 2019.
The landlord acknowledged the complaint on 22 May 2019 and said it would respond by 28 May 2019.
On 4 June 2019 the resident told the landlord the ball cage remained unlocked at night. He said he had tried to escalate the issue but had not heard from it.
On 10 June 2019 the landlord told the resident what to do to report noise nuisance and said it was unable to discuss concerns he raised about another neighbour’s tenancy.
On 10 June 2019 the landlord said it was satisfied that its contractor had been attending to lock the ball cage and said it had raised a work order for damage to the ball cage to be repaired. However, it said until the repair work had been completed it would secure the ball cage door using a metal chain and lock.
The evidence shows the next contact was on 26 May 2020 were the resident told this Service that he was no further forward with his complaint. He said adults were using the ball and he asked for support to resolve the issue.
On 18 June 2020 this Service told the landlord of the resident’s contact and said he had raised reports of non-residents using the ball cage and of the difficulties he experienced in escalating his complaint. The landlord was asked to write to the resident within 15 days.
The landlord’s internal email from 6 July 2020 said it had placed two padlocks on the ball cage. However, a further internal email from 20 July said the ball cage was open and in use following the ease of Covid-10 restrictions and other neighbourhoods reopening ball cages.
On 23 July 2020 the landlord told the resident that:
1. It had locked the ball cage despite objections from some residents.
2. It worked with the police and council to tackle the issues and asked the police to increase patrols in the area.
3. It said it spoke to other residents who said the older youths no longer used the ball cage since other courts in the area had been opened.
4. It reassured the resident that it was doing all it takes to address the issue but said it was receiving conflicting information. It said it would welcome suggestions from the resident to help it resolve the issue and told him to contact it should he wish to discuss.
The resident responded the same day and said security staff on the estate could help to alleviate the problems and said he hoped to see some improvements following what the landlord had said.
On 28 July 2020 this Service asked the landlord to respond to the resident’s complaint about non-residents using the ball cage within two weeks.
In August 2020 the resident contacted this Service a number of times to raise further concerns about the ball cage and how he felt the landlord had let him down. He said the ball cage was left unlocked, used after 10pm at times and his attempts to complain were unsuccessful.
On 27 August 2020 this Service contacted the landlord again asking it to respond to the resident’s complaint within five working days. The landlord responded the same day and said it was at the beginning of its complaints process and that its neighbourhood team had asked the resident to contact them.
On 8 September 2020 this Service told the landlord that the resident contacted it on 20 August 2020 to say the issue remained unresolved. This Service asked the landlord to provide the resident with a written update within seven days.
The landlord’s internal email from 1 October 2020 says it spoke to the resident and told him it was in the process of appointing a contractor to attend to lock and unlock the ball cage. It said as it had spoken to the resident and it did not send a letter.
On 8 October 2020 the landlord provided the resident with a written update on the ball cage and said it was securing it but considering the cost complications of this. It told the resident to keep reporting future noise issues. The resident responded repeating previous concerns about the ball cage. This included concerns about when it was locked, it being used by those that did not live on the estate and said he hoped the landlord could resolve the issue.
On 15 November 2020 the resident contacted this Service again to say despite his contact the landlord had not provided any news about the ball cage.
This Service contacted the landlord on 19 December 2020 to say it had not received a response following its email from 8 October 2020. The landlord responded on 21 December 2020 to say it had emailed the resident on 8 September 2020 and that it heard nothing further about the ball cage, although other noise nuisances had been reported to it. It is accepted that the contact referred to here was 8 October 2020 and not 8 September 2020.
On 11 February 2021 the resident told this Service that he heard nothing from the landlord about the persistent issue with the ball cage. He said the ball cage was being used during lockdown and that the landlord did not lock it. He said he was having no success in his attempts to raise the issue with the landlord.
This Service wrote to the resident on 19 March 2021 and told him that he would need to exhaust the landlord’s complaints process in the first instance. On the same day this Service told the landlord about the resident’s contact from 11 February 2021 and asked it to continue to work with him to resolve the issues.
On 20 March 2021 the resident told this Service that his attempts to escalate his complaint had been unsuccessful and asked this Service to assist.
On 22 March 2021 the resident raised reports about noise from his neighbour’s property, he said there was a baby crying at the property and said there was overcrowding at the neighbour’s property. He said his attempts to contact the resident were unsuccessful and he received a hostile response.
On 22 March 2021 the landlord told this Service that it had logged the resident’s complaint and would respond by 7 April 2021.
On 25 March 2021 the landlord emailed the resident and said it would investigate noise that was within unreasonable hours and which was unacceptable level of noise. It said the noise of a baby crying was considered a living noise and would not investigate it.
On 30 March 2021 the resident told the landlord that he had been disturbed by a child crying on several occasions. He raised concerns about overcrowding at the neighbour’s property.
On 1 April 2021 the landlord’s contractor confirmed that it was locking and unlocking the ball cage.
On 6 April 2021 the landlord issued it stage one response. It said:
1. Its contractor would unlock and lock the ball cage on a daily basis to ensure it was not being used during antisocial hours. It told the resident to contact it if he continued to experience issues with it.
2. In response to the resident’s concerns about a gap in the ball cage, it said it would look into this and decide whether the gap could be blocked.
3. It concluded that it had acted appropriately in how it addressed the issues and did not uphold the resident’s complaint.
On 12 April 2021 the landlord told the resident that it would not consider the baby crying as an ASB issue. It said that residents could have guests stay with them without its consent. It asked the resident to approach the neighbour to resolve the issue.
On 19 April 2021 the resident told the landlord that he had been losing sleep due to a baby crying all night and said that his attempts to talk to his neighbour about this was unsuccessful and that he was ignored.
On 25 April 2021 the resident told the landlord that he had been threatened with physical violence from the neighbour. He said he had reported it to the police and had sent various emails to the landlord about this. He asked for the estate manager to meet with him. The landlord acknowledged this email on 27 April 2021.
On 26 April 2021 the landlord wrote to the resident and asked him to contact it following a report it had received about him from his neighbour.
On 29 April 2021 the resident told the landlord that he had received a letter from the estate manager about harassment of a neighbour but was unhappy that it had not addressed his concerns.
On 15 May 2021 the resident told this Service that despite the landlord telling him that a contractor had been appointed to lock the ball cage, it was still being used after 10pm. This contact was acknowledged on 2 June 2021 and the resident sent a further email to say that he had heard nothing from the landlord and how he had reported an ASB issue with his neighbour but heard nothing on that either.
On 11 June 2021 the resident made further reports of a baby crying at his neighbour’s property. He said he was verbally abused by the neighbour and was speaking to the police about this.
On 15 June 2021 the landlord emailed the resident and said:
1. It had spoken to the neighbour and that at times the daughter along with her family including a baby visited them.
2. It said family visits were permitted as long as they were not causing or contributing to any nuisances.
3. It said the neighbour was allowed visits and that it was satisfied with who resides at the property.
4. It said it was unable to direct the neighbour to prevent the baby from crying.
5. The neighbour had made counter allegations about the resident harassing them. The landlord told the resident to report any further issues to it and keep it updated with the conversation with the police.
On 16 June 2021 the resident reported abuse from the neighbour and said he had been called a racist. He said he reported the issue to the police.
This Service wrote to the landlord again on 16 June 2021 asking it to respond to the resident’s complaint within five working days. Here the landlord was told that the resident had said it had not responded to his concerns.
On 1 July 2021 the resident told this Service that he had still not heard anything from the landlord. He said:
1. He was dissatisfied with the ball cage issue that he had been told it could be locked between 9pm and 10pm. He said this was too late and he had told the landlord he wanted this issue escalated but it had decided not to do this.
2. He lodged a complaint about a new neighbour moving above him and said they often had another family stay over with a baby. He said the baby kept him awake at night and that he had been threatened with violence by the tenant several times.
On 5 July 2021 the resident repeated his previous concerns about overcrowding at the neighbour’s property and said he had been threatened and intimidated by the neighbour. The landlord’s notes show it responded on 8 July 2021.
On 20 July 2021 the landlord opened an ASB case for the resident and recorded the ongoing issues about alleged verbal abuse and threats
On 21 July 2021 the resident emailed the landlord and raised the same overcrowding concerns and repeated the reports of noise disturbance from a baby crying. He told it that he had contacted the police following threats.
On 13 August 2021 the resident told this Service that he had escalated his complaint but heard nothing from the landlord. He said the ball cage issue was unresolved and was still being used regularly after 10pm. He also said he heard nothing from the landlord about the threatening behaviour of his neighbour which he had reported to the police.
On 18 August 2021 the resident contacted this Service again saying he had not received a response from the landlord and that he escalated his complaint in July 2021.
On 19 August 2021 this Service told the landlord about the resident’s request to escalate his complaint. The landlord was asked to provide its stage two response within 20 working days. The landlord acknowledged the resident’s escalation request on 26 August 2021 and said it would respond by 17 September 2021.
On 1 September 2021 the resident told the landlord that he was keen to get a resolution on the matter. He said the landlord did not respond to his complaints about the neighbour and he told it of the impact the situation was having on him.
On 10 September 2021 the resident contacted the landlord again and repeated the same concerns about overcrowding at his neighbours property. He asked the landlord what steps it had taken and told it about reports of abuse and harassment from relatives of the neighbour and said he had reported this to the police.
The landlord opened an ASB case on 14 September 2021. The following day it told the resident that it had initiated an occupancy check for the neighbour’s property. It said the outcome of the check would determine its next course of action and it asked the resident not to approach the neighbour telling him to contact it if he had any further concerns.
The resident replied to the email on the same day asking if he had been accused of anything. He explained what happened with his neighbour’s relative and said he had contacted his MP about the matter. He told the landlord that he felt he was not getting anywhere with the landlord.
Also on 15 September 2021 the landlord told the resident of allegations of ASB it had received against him. It told the resident that he had been asked to not approach the neighbour and asked for his response to the allegations made about him.
On 16 September 2021 the resident contacted this Service and said:
1. The landlord sent him an outrageous email.
2. The neighbour threatened to attack him and directed verbal abuse at him.
3. He had been kept awake by a baby crying at night staying at the neighbour’s property.
4. When he tried to discuss the problem, the neighbour tried to physically attack him.
5. He said he had reported the issue to the police and whilst he asked to see a manager at the landlord it did not do this.
On 20 September 2021 the resident’s MP told the landlord about his concerns relating to the neighbour’s property being overcrowded, the noise nuisance and that the resident had been verbally abused. The landlord acknowledged the MP’s contact and said it would provide a response by 6 October 2021.
On 24 September 2021 the landlord issued its stage two response and said:
1. Its contractor was engaged to lock and unlock the ball cage on a daily basis. However it said it would review the resident’s concern that the cage was being used at 10pm and said it had fixed a gap in the ball cage to prevent it being used after it was locked.
2. In response to concerns about noise from his neighbour’s property it said the neighbour had his family over to visit and explained that this was allowed. It acknowledged the reports of noise from a baby crying and told the neighbour that it could not restrict such visits. It also acknowledged events when the neighbour and resident confronted one another.
3. As reassurance it said it would conduct an occupancy check to ensure there were no breaches.
4. The landlord concluded that it had acted appropriately and found no evidence for a need to take enforcement action against the neighbour. It apologised for any difficulties the resident faced in escalating his complaint to stage two of its process and the delay in responding to the complaint. It offered £50 compensation in recognition of the complaint handling failing.
5. It asked the resident to keep a diary if he believed the noise was ongoing and excessive.
The landlord’s internal email from 27 September 2021 says that the only gap in the ball cage was above the goal area and the rest of the cage was fenced. It said its contractor closed and opened the gate every day and it received no reports that this had not been done.
On 27 September 2021 the landlord wrote to the resident and said:
1. It had carried out an occupancy check at the neighbour’s property and was satisfied that the number of people permitted were residing there.
2. Every resident was permitted to have visitors without its expressed permission as long as they did not cause or engage in acts deemed to be antisocial behaviour in nature.
3. The crying of a baby is not deemed to be ASB in nature and it was unable to take or consider action in such circumstances.
4. It requested the resident to not engage or have further contact or communicate with the neighbour. It recommended he contact it if there were further issues.
5. It also said that if it received any further reports of harassment or intimidation about him from the neighbour it would serve a warning letter that could impact his tenancy.
On 27 September 2021 the resident emailed the landlord and said:
1. He was deeply disappointed with its response and he had not complained about children using the ball cage but adults.
2. He said the landlord had accepted what the neighbour said about him despite what he had reported.
3. He said the landlord seemed content that there was no evidence and no charges were made. He told the landlord how it would have preferred if he had been beaten. He expressed his unhappiness with the situation and how he had been treated.
4. He said he kept records of disturbances and the number of people regularly staying at the neighbour’s property.
5. He had asked to speak to a manager but this had been ignored.
6. He said the landlord was mistaken to consider his complaint to be about a baby crying and visitors at the property.
7. In relation to the ball cage he said the lock up time of between 9-10pm was too late.
On 30 September 2021 the resident contacted the landlord to express his unhappiness with its letter about allegations made about him. The landlord acknowledged his email the same day and said it had acted in line with its process and explained its duty. It asked the relevant member of its staff to contact the resident.

Assessment and findings

Following the landlord’s stage two response the resident continued to report concerns about a baby crying, overcrowding at the neighbour’s property and the contractor no longer locking the ball cage. He reported further incidents which included a stone being kicked at his door and claims about the neighbour behaving in a threatening way towards him.
It is acknowledged that this has been a difficult time for the resident especially when considering the nature of his experiences and that he says the situation with his neighbour remains the same. However, it is important to explain that it is the Ombudsman’s role to investigate complaints brought to it that have exhausted the landlord’s internal complaints process. As such this investigation report concerns the matters which were the subject of the landlord’s final response dated 24 September 2021. Any further reports of ASB or noise disturbances after this date will not form part of this report unless they were about the same concerns.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of noise disturbance from the ball cage

The landlord’s estate management policy confirms its obligations for the management of communal areas and ground maintenance. It is not disputed that the ball cage is on the communal area and that the landlord is responsible for the management of it.
Following reports of disturbances from the ball cage and it allegedly not being used in line with covid-19 restrictions in place at that time the landlord spoke to the resident and on 3 July it put in place a temporary closure of the ball cage. However towards the end of July 2020 it ended its temporary closure as similar places had reopened in the area following an ease of covid-19 restrictions. The landlord adopted a reasonable approach here as it took account of the resident’s concerns, closed the ball cage due to the restriction in place at that time and then reopened it once restrictions had eased.
Around same time, on 23 July 2020 the landlord told the resident that:
1. It had locked the ball cage despite objections from some residents.
2. It said it spoke to other resident who said the older youths no longer used the ball cage since other courts in the area had been opened.
3. It reassured the resident that it was doing all it could to address the issue but said it was receiving conflicting information. It said it would welcome suggestions from him to help it resolve the issue.
It is noted that soon after the landlord re-opened the ball cage the resident reported further issues with it being used late at night. The evidence shows the landlord was working to appoint a contractor to lock and unlock the ball cage and in October 2020 it told the resident that it was considering the cost implication of this. It is understood that it appointed a contractor later in October 2020. The landlord’s decision to appoint a contractor demonstrates it adopted a resolution focused approach and it appropriately kept the resident updated with its plans to resolve the issue here.
It is noted that the resident was keen to understand the agreed lock up time in his communication with the landlord and repeatedly asked it to confirm this. There is no evidence to show the landlord confirmed this at that time despite the concerns raised about the time the ball cage was being used. Whilst it is acknowledged that the resident was reasonably aware of the lock up time by July 2021, the landlord should have confirmed this sooner and its failure to do so was not appropriate in the circumstances.
Overall there was a service failure in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of noise disturbances from the ball cage. The landlord was aware that the resident lived close to the ball cage and as such it would have understandably been important for him to know the expected time it would lock the ball cage.
It is acknowledged that the landlord sought input from other residents, liaised with the police, decided to temporarily close the ball cage and appointed a contractor to lock the ball cage in attempts to resolve the concerns. It is also acknowledged that it asked the resident for his input and involved other residents in attempts to understand and resolve matters. Its actions here were appropriate and resolution focused. However, there was a minor failing in it not telling the resident of the agreed lock up time when he asked for confirmation of this on multiple occasions. The resident knew of the confirmed lock up time by July 2021 and as such was not significantly impacted by its service failure.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of noise from a neighbour

The resident reported concerns about a baby crying at a neighbour’s property and said this kept him awake at night. He said the neighbour had regular guests stay with them which included a baby and that when he confronted the neighbour about the issues he was met with intimidating behaviour.
The resident initially reported concerns about a baby crying and overcrowding at the neighbour’s property in March 2021 and in its response from March and April 2021 the landlord was clear that it would not consider a baby crying as ASB and would not contact the neighbour about this.
Whilst it is acknowledged that it was a difficult time for the resident especially when he said he was being woken by the crying at night, the landlord’s handling of the reports of the baby crying was in line with its policy and procedure. It appropriately told the resident at the outset and throughout his repeated concerns that it did not consider the sound of a baby crying as ASB and as per its policy it could not take action for this type of noise. This was appropriate in the circumstances.
In terms of the resident’s reports of overcrowding at the neighbour’s property. The evidence shows that following the resident’s initial concerns in March 2021 the landlord spoke to the neighbour. It then told the resident that it had no concerns about the occupancy at the neighbour’s property and that the neighbour was allowed to have guests.
The resident reported similar concerns in June 2021 and again the landlord spoke to the neighbour to follow up on matters. It then told the resident that the neighbour’s daughter visited at times with her family and this included a baby. The landlord explained that it was satisfied with the occupancy of the neighbour’s property and that the neighbour was allowed guests. The landlord acted appropriately in following up on the concerns raised, speaking with the neighbour and explaining the outcome to the resident.
It is noted that the resident reported further concerns about the occupancy of the neighbour’s property in July and August 2021. At this point the landlord appropriately initiated an occupancy check in September 2021 where it found no tenancy breaches had occurred.
The landlord’s approach to the resident’s reports of noise was appropriate in the circumstances. It spoke to the neighbour to gain an understanding of the circumstances of their guests and when further reports of overcrowding and noise continued it adjusted its approach and conducted an occupancy check. This was a reasonable approach to adopt in its attempts to alleviate the resident’s concerns about who lived at the neighbour’s property. There was no maladministration in the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of noise from a neighbour’s property.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of anti-social behaviour from a neighbour

The evidence shows the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of harassment and intimidation from the neighbour was not in line with its policy. The landlord’s ASB policy says:
1. Harassment and intimidation would be considered as ASB.
2. Low level disagreements between neighbours where there is no breach of tenancy will generally not be considered ASB and says it may offer mediation and other support to assist residents in resolving issues amongst themselves.
However, whilst it opened ASB cases on 12 April 2021 and 26 April 2021, it closed these cases citing it was satisfied with the occupancy of the neighbours property. Whilst it may have been satisfied with the occupancy of the neighbour’s property and that no breach of tenancy had occurred it should have offered support to assist in resolving the issues as per its ASB policy. It did not do this and this was not appropriate.
The landlord initially encouraged the resident to resolve the issue with the neighbour despite it being told that he experienced hostile behaviour from the neighbour. This was not appropriate.
It is noted that the neighbour made counter allegations about the resident demonstrating the relationship between the parties was strained. Whilst the landlord told the resident not to approach the neighbour in September 2021 it failed to adopt an approach to encourage a good neighbour relationship.
Overall there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the residents reports of harassment/intimidation from the neighbour. It failed to offer the resident support to assist in resolving the issues as per its ASB policy. This meant the resident had to repeat the same concerns to the landlord, this Service and the police. Whilst there is no evidence to show the police took any further action, the landlord should have adopted an approach to help resolve the issue between the parties regardless of this.

The landlord’s complaint handling

The resident told this Service that he was experiencing difficulties in progressing his complaint in March 2019, however this Service has not seen evidence of a complaint from that time. It is noted that the resident made reports about noise from the ball cage to this Service and these were passed to the landlord in May 2019. The evidence shows that it was in contact with the resident directly about these reports.
On 18 June 2020 this Service told the landlord about the resident’s concerns in relation to the ball cage and that he said he was experiencing difficulties in escalating his complaint. The landlord was asked to write to the resident within 15 working days. The evidence shows it spoke to the resident on 18 June 2020 and on 23 July 2020 it told him about the steps it was taking to resolve the concerns about the ball cage. At times the resident’s contact with this Service was about reports of issues with the ball cage and as such it was not unreasonable for the landlord to attempt to understand the issues and tell the resident of the steps it was taking to resolve them.
However, on 28 July 2020 and 27 August 2020 this Service asked the landlord to respond to the resident’s complaint about the ball cage. It is noted that the landlord said it was at the beginning of its complaints process at that time. However there is no evidence to show that it issued a stage one response. This was not appropriate and meant the resident had to contact the landlord and this Service again about the same issues in February and March 2021. The landlord then issued its stage one response on 6 April 2021.
It took the landlord almost nine months from the date it said it was at that beginning of its complaints process to issue its stage one response. This was not in line with its complaints policy or the timeframes this Service asked it to respond within. This timeframe was not appropriate and meant the resident had to repeatedly contact it, this Service and involve his MP in attempts to get a response to his complaint.
In August 2021 the resident told this Service that he had escalated his complaint but heard nothing from the landlord. This Service has not seen evidence of his escalation attempts. However on 19 August 2021 this Service asked the landlord to escalate the resident’s complaint and provide a stage two response within 20 working days.
Whilst the landlord acknowledged the escalation request on 26 August 2021 and said it would respond by 17 September 2021, it issued its stage two response on 24 September 2021. This was 16 working days more than the timeframe it set in its complaints procedure. It also did not provide the resident with a revised timeframe to explain that it would take longer to respond. This was not appropriate.
Overall, the landlord took almost 9 months to issue its stage one response. It failed to adhere to the timeframe it set within its complaints procedure, which meant the resident did not know when it would respond and had to repeatedly contact it, involve his MP and this Service for assistance. The landlord also delayed in issuing its stage two response and exceeded its 20 working days timeframe by 16 working days. This was not appropriate and amounts to maladministration.
It is acknowledged that at times this Service notified the landlord of reports of noise and it is also acknowledged that the landlord was in contact with the resident in its attempts to address the issues. Whilst its attempts to address the cause of complaint are recognised the landlord should also have progressed the resident’s complaints as per its complaints procedure.
However within its stage two response the landlord appropriately acknowledged its delay in issuing its stage two response, apologised and offered the resident £50 compensation in recognition of this. Whilst the landlord’s attempts to remedy its failings are acknowledged it did not recognise its delay in issuing its stage one response and it is clear its complaint handling failings would have had a greater impact on the resident. As such a greater compensation amount would be more appropriate to acknowledge the distress and inconvenience caused to the resident and the time and trouble spent in his attempts to progress his complaint.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was a service failure in relation to the landlord’s handling of reports of noise disturbance from the ball cage.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in relation to the landlord’s:
1. Handling of the resident’s reports of ASB.
2. Complaint handling.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration in relation to the landlord’s handling of reports of noise from a neighbour.

Reasons

The landlord acted reasonably in appointing a contractor to lock and unlock the ball cage. It worked with other resident’s and external agencies in attempts to address the use of the ball cage at night. It kept the resident reasonably updated on its approach and in light of his concerns it temporarily suspended the use of the ball cage. However the landlord’s service fell short when it failed to respond to the resident’s request for confirmation of lock up time which meant the resident had to contact it a number of times to request this information. It is not disputed that the resident was told the lock up time at a later date and as such the delay in responding to the query about lock up time amounts to a minor service failure.
Following reports of noise from the neighbour’s property the landlord spoke to the neighbour to gain an understanding of the situation and told the resident the outcome of this which included its position with noise from a baby crying and that it was satisfied with the occupancy of the neighbour property. When further reports of overcrowding were made it appropriately adjusted its approach, conducted an occupancy check, and kept the resident reasonably updated with its outcome. The landlord acted reasonably here.
The landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of harassment and intimidation from a neighbour was not in line with its ASB policy. The landlord closed ASB concerns by stating it was satisfied with the occupancy of the neighbours property. Whilst it was satisfied the tenancy was not breached it did not appropriately address the ASB concerns, it did not offer the resident support to assist in resolving the issues with the neighbour or adopt an approach that would encourage good neighbour relationships.
The landlord failed to respond to the resident’s complaint in accordance with its complaint’s procedure and this Service’s Complaint Handling Code. It delayed in concluding its stage one process and caused a further delay in issuing its stage two response. This was at the time the resident and this Service had to repeatedly contact it about the resident’s complaint. Whilst it is acknowledged that it was in communication with the resident about the underlying issues relating to his complaint, it should also have progressed the complaint as per its complaint policy and procedure.

Orders

The Ombudsman orders the landlord to pay the resident £550 in compensation within four weeks of the date of this report. Compensation should be paid directly to the resident and not offset against any arrears:
1. £300 to acknowledge the distress and inconvenience caused by the handling of the residents ASB concerns.
2. £200 to acknowledge the distress and inconvenience caused by its complaint handling failings.
3. £50 it previously offered, if it has not paid this already.
The Ombudsman orders that within six weeks of the date of this report, the landlord to consider this Service’s “Spotlight on noise: time to be heard” report along with the findings of this report and make the appropriate recommendations to its policies and procedure for handling noise nuisance concerns. The landlord should share its learning with this Service.
The Ombudsman orders that within four weeks of the date of this report, the landlord should contact the resident to establish any ongoing issues in relation to:
1. ASB concerns that formed part of the concerns considered within this report
2. Any current concerns about the ball cage.
3. It should then write to the resident and this Service detailing how it seeks to support the resident with these issues. If the resident is not satisfied with the landlord’s response here the landlord should raise a new complaint.
The Ombudsman orders the landlord to consider this Service’s Complaint Handling Code and it should train its staff in how to handle complaints in line with this.