Sanctuary Housing Association (202101582)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202101582

Sanctuary Housing Association

4 March 2022

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).
2. Request to transfer properties.
3. Associated complaint.

Background and summary of events

The resident is a tenant of the landlord and commenced her tenancy in 1996.
The resident made historical reports of noise nuisance from her upstairs neighbour between 1999 and 2015 when she submitted diary sheets detailing the incidents. This resulted in noise recording equipment being installed in June 2015. As part of her complaint, the resident has expressed dissatisfaction with the landlord’s handling of her reports of ASB since 1999. The Ombudsman would expect a resident to raise a formal complaint about dissatisfaction with a landlord’s actions, or lack of action, within a reasonable period; this would normally be within six months of the matters arising. This is because with the passage of time, a reliable determination cannot be made on historical events. As there was an interval of approximately five years between the resident’s report of noise nuisance on 7 May 2020 and her previous ASB case up until 2016, this investigation will focus on events from May 2020 onwards.
The landlord opened a new ASB case for the resident on 7 May 2020 in response to her reports of her upstairs neighbour “stomping his feet”, playing a radio at loud volume, banging kitchen cupboards, repeatedly dropping items, DIY noise and using his washing machine after 7 pm. She reported that this had been ongoing for 23 years. The landlord recorded that the resident agreed to complete at least one week’s worth of diary sheets to enable to progress the investigation through a professional witness. It explained to her that noise recording equipment could not be installed due to corona virus restrictions meaning its staff could not visit the property to install the equipment.
The landlord recorded that it spoke to the resident’s neighbour to advise that it would be investigating the noise reports. They suggested to it that the source of the DIY may originate from elsewhere in the building. This was relayed to the resident.
On 27 August 2020, the landlord closed the ASB case due to receiving no further reports from the resident or the return of diary sheets.
The resident’s MP contacted the landlord on 10 September 2020 to convey her dissatisfaction with its handling of her reports of ASB from her upstairs neighbour. She said that the noise had impacted on her health and wellbeing and that landlord had not followed it procedure in tackling the ASB. The landlord confirmed to the MP the next day that it had raised a stage one complaint and would provide a full response to the resident.
The resident reported to the landlord on 12 September 2020 that she was experiencing hammering and constant tapping noises from her upstairs neighbour’s property. It opened a new ASB case that day.
The landlord wrote to the resident on 17 September 2020 to advise her that her ASB case opened in June 2020 had been closed as the diary sheets provided to her were not returned. It said that without these, it could not proceed to instruct an independent witness to records the ASB, nor could it continue its investigation. The landlord enclosed more diary sheets and advised the resident that its staff would be in contact with her shortly about her new case. It spoke with her on 25 September 2020, when it stressed that the use of a professional witness was reliant on the return of the diary sheets. The resident enquired about moving properties, to which the landlord advised that it would look into this, but cautioned that a move based on reports of noise was unlikely.
On 2 October 2020, the resident’s MP forwarded the resident’s communication to the landlord in which she expressed her dissatisfaction with being required to complete diary sheets again. She said that this had been ineffectual in resolving her historical reports of noise nuisance, and she felt that the landlord failed in its duty of care to her.
The landlord attempted to call the resident on 12 October 2020 on both her mobile and landline telephones but was unable to make contact.
The local authority’s independent witness informed the landlord on 18 October 2020 that they had attempted to call the resident twice but had been unable to connect as her calls were screened.
On 19 October 2020, the landlord wrote to the resident to advise that it had attempted to call her on two occasions unsuccessfully. It proposed to arrange an appointment with her to discuss the resolution of the complaint. The landlord confirmed that it had requested a professional witness from the local authority to contact the resident to witness the ASB noise nuisance she had reported. It also informed her that it would be inspecting the upstairs neighbour’s property to confirm that the correct floor coverings were in place to minimise noise transference and would speak to surrounding neighbours to investigate the source of noise. The landlord said that it would be utilising a second independent witness to visit the block over a seven-day period to witness and noise issues. It said that it was not insisting on diary sheets at this point but these may be needed after feedback from the independent witnesses.
The resident returned diary sheets to the landlord on 23 October 2020. and 11 January 2021. These detailed noises from the upstairs property which included footsteps, banging and knocking sounds, furniture dragging and the radio.
The landlord emailed the resident on 20 November 2020 to ask her to provide convenient times for it to contact her as it had been unable to make contact with her.
The resident provided diary sheets to the landlord on 11 January 2021.
After the landlord contacted the resident on 21 January 2021 to inform her that the local authority’s independent witness had been unable to contact her by telephone, she replied to it on 24 January 2021 to confirm that she was prepared to engage with the independent witness service.
The resident made further reports of noise from her upstairs neighbour on 21 and 28 January 2021.
The local authority’s independent witness wrote to the resident on 9 February 2021 to state that they had attempted to contact her by telephone on three occasions but had been unable to connect due to her call screening service. They asked her to contact them.
On 22 February 2021, the resident submitted a recording and diary sheets to the landlord of noise nuisance.
The resident provided further diary sheets to the landlord on 24 February 2021 which detailed footsteps, items being dropped on the floor and sound from the radio from her upstairs neighbour.
The landlord emailed the resident on 26 February 2021 to advise that the second independent witness had been unsuccessful in contacting her and asked her to make contact. It asked her to propose a resolution to the noise nuisance ASB she reported, noting that she had previously expressed a reluctance to move from the property. The landlord explained that a move to another block may not necessarily mitigate the noise issues the resident was experiencing and it currently did not have enough evidence to move her upstairs neighbour. It relayed that the neighbour had agreed to lay floor coverings to mitigate the noise transference.
The resident emailed the landlord on 2 March 2021 to say that she found completing diary sheets to be time consuming and unreasonable. She disputed that both the landlord and the professional witness had attempted to contact her and expressed frustration with it not resolving the noise issues which she contended that her neighbour created deliberately to intimidate her. The resident said that the neighbour’s laying of floor coverings was an inadequate response after such a prolonged period and requested that the landlord re-house her.
On 30 March 2021, the resident informed the landlord that, after a period of quiet, the noise from her upstairs neighbour had re-occurred. She requested an update on her request to move property.
The landlord called the resident on 15 April 2021 to discuss the independent witnessing. She was unable to discuss the matter but enquired about transferring properties. The landlord advised that “it could take several years to be moved” and suggested she seek a mutual exchange.
After intervention from the Ombudsman on 20 April 2021, the landlord issued its stage one complaint response to the resident on 23 April 2021, in which noted that she had informed her housing officer about having a sensitivity to noise. It relayed that it had suggested she contact an occupational therapist to seek supporting medical evidence to assist with transferring property. The landlord noted that the local authority’s independent witness had attempted unsuccessfully to contact the resident twice on 18 October 2020 and once on 9 February 2021, and had asked her to contact them, which she had not done so.
The landlord acknowledged that the resident had made previous reports of noise nuisance but these cases had all been closed due to no contact from her or diary sheets not being returned. It said that its review of the case had found that it had done all it could to progress the case in line with its policy and procedure. The landlord asked her to confirm if she still wished to transfer property and if she wished the independent witness to assist with her reports of noise nuisance.
The resident escalated her complaint to the final stage of the landlord’s procedure on 12 May 2021. She said that she had been experiencing noise nuisance for 24 years which she had reported throughout yet the landlord had continually closed her cases without investigating. The resident relayed that this noise consisted of “loud radio, heavy walking, dragging furniture, scrubbing flooring” and noise from the kitchen utensils which occurred whenever her neighbour was awake.
The resident expressed reluctance to engage with witnessing services as this had not been productive in the past. She disputed being provided with diary sheets in the past and that the landlord had attempted to contact her on the dates specified in its stage one complaint response. The resident questioned why it had not paid due consideration to her submissions of recording and diary sheets, and highlighted that she had yet to receive a response to her request to be re-housed.
On 2 July 2021, the landlord provided its final complaint response to the resident, which noted that she continued to be dissatisfied with its handling of her reported ASB and her request to transfer to a new property. It noted that she had made historical reports of ASB and there was a four-year interval between her report on 7 May 2020 and her previous case in 2016, therefore it would not consider the historical reports.
The landlord did not uphold the complaint, stating that there was no evidence that it had not followed its ASB policy and procedures. It explained that since the onset of the corona virus pandemic, its staff had not been able to enter resident’s properties unless in an emergency, therefore it had been unable to install noise recording equipment. The landlord noted that the resident had informed it of a sensitivity to noise and said that it would work with other professionals to provide adequate support when no ASB could be found. It apologised that it had not yet acted on her request for a transfer and advised that the relevant forms would be sent to her, along with information on seeking a mutual exchange. For its delay in addressing her request for a transfer, it offered her £100 compensation.
The landlord found that, while it did not uphold her complaint about its handling of ASB, it had handled her stage one complaint poorly and delayed in providing its final complaint response. It therefore offered her £75 compensation for its failures in the handling of the complaint.

Assessment and findings

Policies and procedures

The landlord’s ASB procedure states that ASB includes conduct capable of causing housing-related nuisance or annoyance to any person. It clarifies that this includes noise nuisance which affects the comfort or quality of life of a reasonable person. This procedure specifies that a vulnerability assessment should be carried out on receipt of the initial report of ASB, and the victim of ASB should be contacted and interviewed within five working days for cases of ASB where there is no immediate danger. During this interview an action plan should be agreed and diary sheets provided if applicable. The landlord should interview the alleged perpetrator of the ASB within ten working days if applicable.
The landlord’s ASB procedure provides for the use of informal measures to resolve ASB such as referral to mediation, referral to the local authority’s environmental health service and the use of professional witnesses. AN ASB case may be closed if no further incidents are reported within six weeks or when there is no further action which can be taken. ASB cases may re-opened if it is considered that a new incident reported is related to a previous incident. If an ASB case has been closed for over six months then it may not be re-opened. In the case that statutory noise nuisance is reported then the matter should be referred to the local authority’s environmental health service.
The landlord’s voids, allocations and letting procedure confirms that it operates a three-band system for the allocation of properties with the highest priority band, band A, reserved for management transfers in exceptional cases and cases where a resident must be moved to prevent significant and imminent harm to a them. It reserves band B for residents which had a medical condition which is affected by their current housing situation, and band C for residents experiencing current and serious ASB.
The landlord’s complaints policy provides for a two stage complaints procedure. At stage one of this procedure, it should provide a written complaint response to the resident within ten working days; at the final it should provide a written response within 20 working days. If it cannot meet these timeframes, it is to agree an extension with the resident.
The landlord’s compensation guidance provides for offering compensation for time, trouble and inconvenience caused by its action or inaction; delayed or poor responses to residents’ complaints or an unreasonable delay in its provision of services. This guidance provides for payments of up to £400 dependent on the level of impact on, or the effort required of the resident. For poor complaint handling, payments of up to £150 made be offered dependent on the level of delay or difficulty faced by the resident.

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

It is outside role of the Ombudsman to determine whether or not the neighbour acted in an antisocial manner. Rather, it is the role of this Service to determine whether the landlord responded reasonably to the resident’s reports of ASB, in line with its obligations under the law and its relevant policies and procedures.
For a landlord to take formal action in respect of ASB, it must have a substantial body of evidence on which to act upon. This is because the ultimate consequence of tenancy enforcement action is legal action to remove a tenant from their property. The landlord would be required to ask a court for permission to evict a tenant. The court would expect the landlord to substantiate that it had taken all steps possible to gather evidence of the ASB and exhausted all options available in resolving the ASB before pursuing eviction.
As confirmed by its ASB policy and procedure above, the landlord will provide diary sheets to a resident enable it to investigate reports of ASB, and it is noted that it duly did so in response to the resident’s report on 7 May 2021. In response to her expressing reluctance to compile diary sheets, it acted reasonably and with consideration of her wishes by forgoing these and arranging directly for professional witnesses to attempt to gain evidence of the reported noise nuisance.
While the resident disputed the landlord’s account of its contact attempts with her, it is evident that the process of engaging the professional witnesses was delayed by communication difficulties. This effectively stalled the ASB investigation process as, although the resident went on to provide diary sheets detailing noise issues, these would need to be supported by independent witnesses, as noise recording facilities could not be installed due to the coronavirus restrictions in place at the time. There is evidence of the landlord and its appointed independent witnesses making reasonable attempts to contact the resident, therefore there was no evidence of a failure by the landlord in attempting to progress the investigation of the reported noise nuisance.
In conclusion, the landlord made reasonable efforts to investigate the reported noise nuisance by speaking to the resident’s neighbour and agree the laying for floor coverings, arranging for independent witnesses to verify the reports of noise, and requesting diary sheets to build a body of evidence to allow it to take action. There was no evidence of maladministration by the landlord in its response to the resident’s reports of noise nuisance.

The landlord’s response to the resident’s request to transfer properties

The resident first enquired about the possibility of transferring to another property on 25 September 2021, which the landlord agreed to consider. While it did provide its opinions to her of the likelihood of a transfer application being successful, on 25 September 2020, 26 February and 15 April 2021, there was no evidence that it progressed her enquiry about transferring. This resulted in the resident making repeated requests to enquire about her request on 2 and 30 March, 15 April and 12 May 2021.
This was a failure by the landlord to handle her request effectively. While it made efforts to manage her expectations by explaining the likelihood of a successful transfer application, it should not prevent the resident from applying or prejudge her application. The landlord acknowledged this failure in its final stage complaint response and offered £100 compensation.
The Ombudsman’s remedies guidance provides for awards of compensation between £50 and £250 for a failure to meet service standards for actions and responses but where the failure had no significant impact on the overall outcome of the complaint. Given that the resident’s transfer application was likely to depend on the outcome of the ASB investigation assess her priority for a transfer, the amount of £100 is broadly in line this Service’s guidance and therefore constituted a reasonable offer of redress for the landlord’s acknowledged failure in responding to the resident’s transfer request.

The landlord’s handling of the associated complaint

As confirmed by the landlord’s complaints policy above, it was to provide its stage one complaint response to the resident within ten working days and its final response within 20 working days. It issued its stage one response to the resident 156 working days after acknowledging the complaint and its final response 36 working days after her request to escalate.
The landlord acknowledged in its final response that it had not handled the complaint in accordance with its policy and offered £75 compensation for its failures in the handling of the complaint. The Ombudsman’s remedies guidance provides for awards of compensation of between £250 and £700 for considerable service failure such as significant failures to follow complaint procedure.
The landlord’s complaint responses were issued a total of 166 working days in excess of the timeframes specified in its policy. There was no evidence of the landlord explaining the reason for the delayed responses or agreeing an extension to the response timeframe with the resident. This was, therefore, an excessive and unexplained delay which was likely to have led to considerable inconvenience and excess effort for the resident in attempting to resolve the complaint, in addition to delaying her ability to progress the matter beyond the landlord’s internal complaints procedure if she wished. Therefore, the compensation offered by the landlord for its complaint handling failures was not proportionate to the failure and £250 compensation should be paid to the resident; this is £175 in addition to the £75 it already offered.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration by the landlord in its response to the resident’s reports of ASB.
In accordance with paragraph 55(b) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the landlord offered redress to the resident prior to our investigation which, in the opinion of the Ombudsman, resolve the complaint satisfactorily concerning its response to the resident’s request to transfer properties.
In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure by the landlord in its handling of the associated complaint.

Reasons

The landlord made reasonable efforts to investigate and resolve the noise nuisance reported by the resident, in line with its ASB policy and procedure.
The landlord acknowledged its delay in processing the resident’s transfer request and offered a reasonable level of compensation in view of this.
The landlord acknowledged its failures in the handling of the complaint; however, its offer of compensation was not proportionate to its excessive delay in responding to the resident’s complaint.

Order

Within 28 days, the landlord should pay £175 compensation to the resident, in addition to the £75 it already offered her, for its failures in the handling of the complaint.

Recommendations

The landlord should:
1. Pay the resident the £100 compensation it previously offered her for its delay in progressing her transfer application, unless this has already been paid.
2. Continue to engage with the resident to acquire evidence of the reported noise nuisance through its appointed professional witnesses to bring the ASB case to a resolution.
3. Carry out refresher training with its complaint handing staff to ensure that complaints are progressed in accordance with its policy and procedure.