Sanctuary Housing Association (202213810)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202213810

Sanctuary Housing Association

24 April 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

1. The complaint is about:
   1. The landlords handling of the residents reports of noise nuisance.
   2. The landlords handling of the residents reports of poor staff conduct.

Background

2. The resident occupies a two-bedroom terraced house under an assured tenancy. She was assigned this tenancy on 14 March 2022, following a mutual exchange. The resident lives in the property with her daughter, who she suspects might have autism, but no definitive evidence of this has been provided. The resident told the landlord that she has mental health issues, depression, and anxiety, which has been impacted by excessive noise she experiences from the neighbour.
3. From 17 March 2022, shortly after moving into the property, the resident reported that she was experiencing noise nuisance from the neighbour next door. This included loud banging intermittently at night, and “thudding around her house” at 6.30am every morning. The landlord responded by sending a letter about being mindful of the noise to the neighbour, and encouraged the resident to use a noise app to record any further disturbances. In April 2022, the resident approached the neighbours herself, which she said did not go well. Shortly after this, the landlord received counter claims from the neighbour, about noise nuisance from the residents property; they could hear a young girl screaming and shouting late at night from a games console. Both parties had now been advised to record any noise nuisance and submit to the landlord. The situation deteriorated in August 2022. A police report dated 7 August 2022, stated that they had been called out at night, by both parties, after the neighbour approached the resident at her home complaining that she was banging on the walls. The resident had reported the neighbour banging on her door, screaming at her and her brother trying to intimidate the resident. During this incident the resident said that the neighbour told her that the housing officer had warned her about the resident. Following this incident, the resident contacted the landlord and said that the police attended the previous evening, viewed the residents video footage, and issued a warning to the neighbour. The landlord disputed this version of events, as the police had sent it the report. The report indicated that they saw this as a neighbour dispute over noise, it found no evidence of intimidation, no-one was found to be at fault and no further action was being taken. The landlord said the resident got upset and terminated the call. The landlord opened an anti-social behaviour (ASB) case for the resident on the same day.
4. On 9 August 2022, the resident raised a complaint about the landlords handling of the situation, the landlord disclosing to the neighbour that she was the complainant, and the conduct of the housing officer when she had spoken to her previously. She described a difficult encounter, with the member of staff shouting and accusing her of causing the noise problem. The residents complaint was logged and acknowledged on the 11 August 2022. The investigating officer advised the resident that she was on leave from that day and would contact the resident on her return in 2 weeks.
5. By 13 September 2022 the resident had not had any further contact from the landlord, so she chased it up. The landlord called her back on the 15 September 2022 to discuss the complaint. The landlord issued its stage 1 response to the resident on the 16 September 2022. In summary it said:
   1. It had reviewed the noise app recording since the incident of 5 August 2022, which were mainly daytime, but it could not  find evidence of excessive noise to be able to take enforcement action against the neighbour.
   2. It had checked the information received from the Police regarding the incident on 5 August 2022, and they confirmed that no further action was taken against either party. It was satisfied that the correct action had been taken and that part of the complaint was not upheld.
   3. It had investigated allegations about the conduct of  its staff member, specifically in relation to her attitude towards the resident and her allegation that the staff member had warned her neighbour about her. It had not found any evidence to substantiate this part of the complaint, but gave the resident 5 further days to submit any further concerns.
6. The resident did not feel this brought any resolution to the noise problems she was experiencing, and escalated her complaint to stage 2 of the landlords complaints procedure. It sent out its final complaint response on 16 November 2022. In summary it said:
   1. It did not uphold the complaint about the member of staff, the previous investigator had not found any evidence its staff member had discussed the resident with the neighbour, and it was unable to investigate why the neighbour had made that allegation. The resident did not submit any further concerns in the 5 days offered to her.
   2. It was satisfied with its initial response to the residents’ complaints about noise. It was not satisfied however, that the appropriate action to contact the resident within five working days, carry out a vulnerability assessment and agree an action plan, had been taken when the ASB case was opened.
   3. It had liaised with the police over the incident with the neighbour in August 2022, who had reviewed all footage and confirmed that it showed an argument, but no threats were made by either party and no further action would be taken.
   4. It acknowledged the resident had sent in, 15 – 20 recordings and the landlord had received only 2. The landlord apologised and confirmed the app had not worked as it should have. The recordings submitted between August 2022 and November 2022 were not accessed, and as a result a nuisance case was not raised and actioned.
   5. They had since found the recordings, all of which would be reviewed, and the Housing Officer would be contacting the resident within five working days to confirm that a nuisance case had been recorded and to discuss the contents of the recording and proposed next actions.
   6. It found the first stage of the residents complaint at stage 1 had been delayed for which it apologised. It awarded compensation of £150 for the time, trouble, and inconvenience in relation to the handling of anti-social behaviour reports and failures with accessing information on the noise monitoring app. As well as £50 for delays in complaint handling.
7. The resident escalated her complaint to the Ombudsman. She said she was not satisfied with the way the landlord had handled her reports of ASB from the neighbour, or the complaint she had made about the conduct of a member of its staff. The noise nuisance was ongoing and having an impact on her health and well-being. She felt she should be moved to band ‘A’ for a priority transfer and the neighbour should be dealt with by the landlord.

Post the complaint process.

8. The landlord advised that the resident continues to report noise nuisance, which it is still monitoring, but notes there are 3 parties involved in this case, with allegations and counter allegations, and it is struggling to identify a clear perpetrator and obtain the evidence for it to take action against a specific individual. The resident is on the list for noise monitoring equipment, as the app has not provided conclusive evidence of noise nuisance. The resident has been approved for a management transfer, but wanted to be considered for a specific property, which is not yet available for letting.

Assessment and findings

Scope

9. Paragraph 42(f) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme states that the Ombudsman may not investigate complaints which concern matters where the Ombudsman considers it quicker, fairer, more reasonable, or more effective to seek a remedy through the courts, other tribunal, or procedure.
10. The Ombudsman is concerned to note that the residents complaint to this service indicated that the reported noise was said to be having a detrimental effect on her mental health. However, it is outside the remit and authority of the Ombudsman to determine if there was a direct link between the reported noise and any ill-effects experienced by the resident.
11. This investigation will therefore focus on whether the landlord responded reasonably to the resident’s reports of the noise. If the resident considers that she or her household have experienced a negative health impact as a direct result of the landlord’s actions or inaction, then she may wish to seek independent legal advice on making a claim through the courts or a personal injury insurance claim.

The landlords handling of the residents reports of noise nuisance.

12. A key recommendation from the Ombudsman’s spotlight report on noise, was that landlords have a proactive good neighbourhood management policy, these ensure that low level issues of neighbour friction are dealt with at the appropriate levels and not wrongly handled as ASB in cases where they do not need to be. They should be distinct to the ASB policy, with a clear set of options for maintaining good neighbourhood relationships, such as mediation, information sharing and community building events. It was noted that the landlord has not adopted such a policy and deals with all forms of nuisance, (with the exception of domestic abuse and hate crime), within its ASB policy.
13. On receipt of the report of noise nuisance the landlords approach to write to the neighbour, and later advise the resident to use its noise app, was not unreasonable. However key early actions in a good neighbour policy would be a triage assessment of whether noise is ASB and the introduction of mediation. The landlord did raise mediation about 5 months after the first report, but did not pursue it. Had a good neighbour type of policy been in place, it would likely to have been considered and pursued much earlier on, and might have possibly prevented the later escalation and breakdown of the neighbour relationships.
14. Furthermore, as many of the residents recordings were during the day, and there were conflicting allegations as to who was the perpetrator of the noise, it might also have been  beneficial for the landlord to visit the residents property rather than just rely on the noise app. This might have assisted in verifying more quickly, (considering the problems later identified with the app), whether there was ASB and if so, who was causing it, or if it was just noise transference of day-to-day living. Either way next steps could have been concluded as to whether it was a case of the residents expectation needing to be managed, or that further action with either the neighbour or the properties concerned was required.
15. The landlord stated in communication on 26 June 2022, that “through experience it knew walls could be thinner in new build properties”. In recognition of this and the problems it causes, it might have been appropriate for the landlord to look at what more it could have done with the building to alleviate the problem. As a minimum it could have looked into the neighbours floor covering, as it is widely known that a lack of carpet and underlay or hard flooring like laminate, can exacerbate the transference of noise.Although the Ombudsman accepts that landlords are not responsible for soundproofing homes above the standards applicable at the time of building, it needs to be recognised that actions taken to prevent and/or mitigate for the typical sources of noise nuisance will, in the long run, be more cost-effective than handling the subsequent noise nuisance reports. In this case landlord records indicated that there might be a wider issue,as three of the households (including the resident) were making noise nuisance claims with the landlord.
16. It was appropriate for the landlord to liaise with the police, the spotlight report identifies the need for landlords to work with other agencies when responding to noise. It allowed the landlord to obtain an impartial view of what occurred. The speed with which the police shared the information with the landlord suggested there were good working partnership practices in place.
17. When considering the response to a complaint of anti-social behaviour, the statutory guidance for frontline professionals requires that agencies must  consider the effect that the behaviour in question is having on the lives of those subject to it. The harm, or the potential for harm to be caused to the victim, is an important consideration for the landlord in determining its approach, as the more vulnerable can be less resilient to anti-social behaviour. The guidance promotes the use of risk assessments in cases of ASB as, whilst they cannot provide a definitive assessment of someone’s needs, they can assist in determining an appropriate response.
18. The landlord had a procedure with a risk-based approach which required staff receiving the report to carry out a vulnerability assessment to ensure the case and any risk to the resident was correctly categorised. It stressed the importance of understanding any vulnerabilities which included known disabilities and mental health problems. It was recorded several times in the residents records that she had mental health problems, and that the noise nuisance was making it worse. The landlord was not however able to demonstrate that it carried out the required assessments, in this case. As a result it would have had no understanding of the risks involved and could not develop an appropriate action plan for moving forward which was a service failing.
19. Furthermore this failing should have been picked up and addressed by the landlord in the stage 1 complaint investigation, but it was not. The landlords stage 2 review, had however identified that the resident had not been contacted within the required timescales, when raising her nuisance case and steps in relation to the action plan and vulnerability assessment were not completed. It apologised to the resident and offered her £150 compensation for the time and trouble experienced by the handling of the ASB, and the service failings related to accessing the noise app. It also awarded £50 for the delay in responding to the stage 1 complaint. Both offers were in accordance with the landlords compensation policy.
20. There was evidence of considerable effort on the residents part in recording and reporting the noise problem to the landlord. She had, known vulnerabilities, and it was noted that at one point the residents mother contacted the landlord to raise her concerns about the deterioration in the residents mental health as a result of the ongoing noise problem. The stage 1 complaint was not only delayed, it did not pick up that a fundamental part of the ASB process, had not been implemented. In this Service’s view, the offer of compensation for both aspects of the complaint was low, and not proportionate to the failings identified by our investigation.
21. The Ombudsman is aware that post the internal complaints process (ICP) the resident reported that the noise problem had increased. The landlord has responded, mediation was being arranged between the resident and her 2 neighbours in February 2023, but relationships deteriorated and the commitment for some to participate has since been withdrawn. It also advised us on the 25 September 2023 that it has referred the resident for noise recording equipment, and she is currently on the waiting list. Whilst this action was commendable and shows the landlord had taken some learning from the complaint, it is this Services view that this type of action would have been more effective if the landlord had taken it sooner.

The landlords handling of the residents reports of poor staff conduct.

22. The residents complaint about the member of staff, was in relation to her neighbours disclosure that the housing officer had warned the neighbour about the resident. The resident took this to mean, that the landlord had told the neighbour that she had made the complaint about them. Her complaint was also about the member of staffs behaviour and attitude towards the resident when she approached her about this.
23. The landlord has a policy and guidance to deal with complaints about its staff. It stated that the complaint would usually be handled by the line manager or an officer of equivalent seniority. The complaint must be logged, and the investigator must consider the complaint with an objective and evidence-based approach. The policy requires that there should be a discussion with the member of staff as early as possible to understand what occurred from their perspective. The resident should be asked to provide a clear overview of the allegation that they are making including any dates, times of alleged incidents and exactly what their recollection of the incident is. Investigators should then assess the available information including other records and interactions, to consider whether there is evidence that a staff member has not delivered the service in a professional and fair way as would be expected.
24. In its complaint investigation response, the landlord said it had investigated these claims but could find no evidence to substantiate it. It would have been appropriate to explain to the resident how it investigated and why it concluded there was no evidence, this might have assured her that a proper investigation had taken place, as it stood the resident did not believe her complaint had been looked into.
25. Furthermore the landlords policy promotes an evidence-based approach. The resident said she had footage of the neighbour making the allegation, but there was no indication it was requested or considered by the landlord. Moreover, the stage two response stated that it was “unable to investigate why the neighbour had made the comments as part of this complaint, but gave no explanation as to why it was unable to. It would have been reasonable in this Services view, to approach the person who alleged the landlord had spoken to them about the resident, and get their views as part of an investigation into the matter.
26. Furthermore we would have expected to see file notes from the investigating officer of discussions about the incident with both the staff member and the resident, as its policy sets out, but none were provided by the landlord.
27. The residents correspondence with the landlord showed that she believed that all calls with the landlord were recorded, and as such the alleged behaviour of the housing officer towards her would have been captured. If that was the case it would have been appropriate for the landlord to review the call and note the findings. If that assumption was incorrect and the landlord does not record calls, the landlord should have explained this to the resident and advised her that with no evidence from a one-on-one conversation it was unable to draw any conclusions.
28. Overall the landlord was unable to demonstrate that it had adhered to its ‘complaints against staff ‘policy. Its failure to consider other forms of evidence available may not have changed the outcome but, this alongside not explaining clearly how it came to its conclusion, only cemented the residents view, that it had failed to complete a thorough investigation which was not reasonable.

Determination

29. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman’s Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlords handling of the residents reports of noise nuisance.
30. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman’s Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlords handling of the residents reports of poor staff conduct.

Orders

31. The Ombudsman orders that in the next four weeks the landlord must:
    1. Send a written apology to the resident.
    2. Pay the resident compensation of £750 (in addition to the compensation it has already paid). Comprised of:
       1. £500 for the failings identified in the landlords handling of the residents reports of noise nuisance.
       2. £250 for the failings identified in the landlords handling of the residents reports of poor staff conduct.
32. The Ombudsman orders that the landlord within 8 weeks carries out a self-assessment against the Ombudsman’s spotlight report on noise, and provides a copy to this Service.

 Recommendations

33. The Ombudsman recommends that the landlord considers developing a good neighbour policy, to run alongside its ASB policy, to assist in tackling low level issues of neighbour friction quickly and at the appropriate levels.