Sandwell Metropolitan Borough Council (202004582)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202004582

Sandwell Metropolitan Borough Council

27 September 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 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. This complaint is about an email the landlord sent to the resident on 12 May 2020 regarding allegations about her causing noise nuisance.
  2. This complaint is also about the landlord’s complaint handling.

Background and summary of events

  1. The resident is a secure tenant of the landlord, which is a Council. The tenancy commenced on 29 July 1996.
  2. The landlord’s records indicate that the resident has had on-going issues of ASB allegations and counter-allegations with neighbours from two properties adjoining hers over a number of years.
  3. Whilst it is clear that there is a history of allegations and counter allegation of ASB by the resident and her neighbours, this investigation concerns the formal complaint made by the resident about an email she received from the landlord on 12 May 2020, regarding reports of ASB made about her by her neighbours, for which the landlord issued its final response to on 5 August 2020.
  4. On 12 May 2020 the landlord wrote to the resident in connection with a report of noise nuisance it had received regarding loud music coming from the resident’s property. The landlord said that it had received similar reports in the past but now had more details about the incidents and so was contacting her to discuss them. The landlord said that it was sure that the resident could appreciate that loud music can be annoying to neighbours and that it would like to resolve the issue so that all parties could have peace and quiet in their own homes. The landlord also reminded the resident of her obligations under her tenancy with regards to not causing noise nuisance to neighbours. The landlord explained that all its staff were currently working at home due to the Covid pandemic and so provided an email address and mobile number should the resident wish to discuss the matter further. The landlord said that it was hopeful that the issue could be resolved without any further problems and that it would monitor the case for a further month and if no reports were received would close the case.
  5. The resident called the landlord the same day to complain about the email she had received, which the landlord noted the resident was very angry about. The resident said that she was not at home when the initial allegation was made about her and that she had been to church and then stayed overnight at her sister’s at the time of the second allegation and so it could not have been her. The landlord said that it would note her comments on the file. The landlord advised the resident that it would ask the neighbours for evidence and if there was no evidence to support the allegations made against her the case would be closed.
  6. On 18 May 2020, the landlord wrote to the resident to confirm that it had written to her on 12 May 2020 to advise her that it was investigating reports it had received about noise from her property. The landlord said that it wanted speak to her about the allegations in order to hear her side of the story in order to decide how to progress the case. The landlord noted that the resident had requested information about who had made the complaint about her but that it could not disclose that information to her. The landlord explained that the next step would be to gain recorded evidence of any noise so that it could determine whether the source and address the neighbour had given was correct. The landlord said that as the resident had denied causing the noise, without further evidence, it would monitor the case and close it if there were no further, proven, incidents. The landlord also noted that the resident had reported her neighbour looking at her daughter in her bedroom to the Police. The landlord said that its ability to take any further action with regards to the resident’s report would depend on the outcome of any Police investigation and whether the perpetrator were one of its tenants.
  7. On 22 July 2020, the resident emailed that landlord to request that her complaint be escalated to stage two of the landlord’s formal complaints process. In her email the resident complained about the landlord’s correspondence of 12 May 2020 in which she said she had been accused of making noise for which the landlord had not provided her with any evidence. The resident also complained about the length of time she had waited for her complaint to be responded to.
  8. The landlord issued its stage two response on 5 August 2020. The landlord said that the resident had submitted significant amounts of correspondence however, from what it had been able to determine the first reference to a complaint appeared to be the resident’s email of 12 May 2020. The landlord said that it was satisfied that its response of 18 May 2020 was appropriate but acknowledged that it would have been more appropriate for it to have logged her email of 12 May 2020 as a formal complaint. The landlord apologised for any inconvenience caused and that it would ensure that any future qualifying complaints were logged appropriately. The landlord explained that it had a responsibility to investigate allegations of anti-social behaviour; and had done so in relation to both the reports it had received about the resident’s behaviour as well as her counter-allegations about her neighbours’ behaviour. The landlord went on to explain that its correspondence of 12 May 2020 followed a report made by one of her neighbours that was corroborated by another neighbour. The landlord said that whilst the investigation demonstrated there to be a noise issue, it also demonstrated it to be relatively infrequent and so its email to the resident on the 12 May 2020 was advisory rather than issuing a formal warning for a breach of tenancy.
  9. The resident bought her complaint to the Ombudsman on 18 August 2020. The resident said that her complaint concerned correspondence she had received from the landlord on 12 May 2020 regarding allegations of noise nuisance coming from her property. The resident said that the landlord never provided any proof to support the allegations made and that they had been based on hearsay from two neighbours with whom she had had a history of difficulties. The resident said that she could not understand how the landlord decided to write to her with no evidence other than witness accounts.

Assessment and findings

Relevant policies and procedures

  1. The landlord’s ASB policy states that its approach to tackling anti-social behaviour focuses on prevention, early intervention, diversion, support and enforcement; however the approach taken is determined by the individual facts of each case. The policy goes on to state that the action the landlord takes will be reasonable and proportionate to the type of anti-social behaviour that has been reported. The policy goes on to given examples of the steps the landlord might take to tackle ASB, including verbal and written warnings.
  2. The landlord has a two stage complaints process. The landlord’s complaints policy confirms that the landlord will acknowledge receipt of a stage one complaint within three working days and response within 10 working days. If the complaint is escalated to stage two, the landlord will again acknowledge the complaint within three days and then response within 20 working days.

Assessment

  1. It is acknowledged that the resident was upset by receiving the landlord’s correspondence of 12 May 2020. However, having received reports from the resident’s neighbour, that were corroborated by another of her neighbour’s, it was reasonable and proportionate for the landlord to write to the resident to advise her of the reports it had received. This not only made the resident aware of the allegations made against her but also provided her with the opportunity to respond to those allegations.
  2. Whilst the landlord did remind the resident of her tenancy conditions with regards to noise nuisance, its correspondence of 12 May 2020 did not include any explicit warnings but rather sought to advise the resident that a report had been made and to invite her to contact the landlord to discuss those reports. The landlord also said that it was hopeful that the issue could be resolved without any further problems and that it would monitor the case for a month and if no further reports were received would close the case.
  3. In its email to the resident of 18 May 2020, the landlord reiterated that the purpose of it contacting her was to seek to get her side of the story. The landlord noted that the resident had denied causing the noise and advised that in the absence of any further evidence it would monitor and then close the case. There is no evidence of any further action being taken against the resident with regards to the reports referred to in its correspondence of 12 May 2020.
  4. With regards to the landlord’s complaint handling. Both the landlord’s complaints policy, and the Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code, states that a landlord’s complaints procedure shall comprise of two stages, thus ensuring that a resident has the opportunity to challenge any decision by correcting errors or sharing concerns via an appeal process.
  5. As the landlord acknowledged in its final response, the resident’s initial complaint of 12 May 2020 should have been logged as a formal complaint but was not. Whilst the landlord’s response of 18 May 2020 was not a formal complaint response, the landlord did address the resident’s concerns with regards to its email of 12 May 2020 and later reviewed that response, following an escalation request from the resident on 22 July 2020. The landlord then provided the resident with its final response on 5 August 2020, in accordance with the timescales set out in its complaints policy. I am therefore satisfied that there was no detriment to the resident with regards to her having the opportunity to challenge the landlord’s response.
  6. With regards to any inconvenience to the resident, there is no evidence of the resident chasing the landlord for its complaint response until her email of 22 July 2020, at which point she asked for her complaint to be escalated to stage two. Between 18 May 2020 there is evidence of the resident contacting the landlord on numerous occasions regarding ASB, including counter-allegations about her neighbours. However, there is no evidence that the resident raised concerns about how long she should have to wait before her complaint was acknowledged and responded to until her escalation request of 22 July 2020. I am therefore satisfied that the landlord’s acknowledgement and apology for any inconvenience caused, by its failure to log the resident’s initial complaint of 12 May 2020 as a formal complaint, provided sufficient and proportionate redress to the resident for that failure.

Determination (decision)

  1. In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was no maladministration by the landlord in respect of the letter it sent to the resident on 12 May 2020 regarding allegations about her causing noise nuisance.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 55(b) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was reasonable redress by the landlord in respect of its complaint handling.

Reasons

  1. Given that the landlord had received corroborated reports of noise nuisance from the resident’s property, it was reasonable and proportionate for the landlord to write to the resident to advise her of the reports that had been made. The landlord’s correspondence of 12 May 2020 included no explicit warning to the resident but rather sought to make her aware of the reports it had received and to provide her with an opportunity to respond to the allegations that had been made.
  2. The acknowledgment and apology offered by the landlord provided the resident with reasonable and proportionate redress for it failing to log the resident’s complaint of 12 May 2020 as a formal complaint.