Selby District Council (202010596)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202010596

Selby District Council

24 June 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

  1. The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of antisocial behaviour (ASB) and noise nuisance from her neighbour.

Background

  1. The resident is a tenant of the landlord, which is a local authority. The property is a bungalow. The resident has appointed a solicitor who has acted on her behalf for most of the complaint. 
  2. The landlord’s telephone records showed that in July 2020 the resident reported ASB by her next-door neighbour. She said that her neighbour had thrown objects at her walls and her closed-circuit television (CCTV) camera, knocking it out of position. She also reported deliberate banging and slamming of doors, and said that she believed that her neighbour had thrown urine on her car and front door. The resident’s solicitor wrote to the landlord in August 2020 explaining that her health was affected by the ASB from her neighbour; he suggested that it warn the neighbour about the resident’s reports and “commence appropriate proceedings against them for harassment”. The solicitor indicated that the landlord should have threatened to withdraw the neighbour’s tenancy or arrange rehousing.
  3. According to the landlord’s records it installed sound monitoring equipment (SME) in the resident’s property on 18 August 2020 and advised her to provide diary entries along with any noise recordings. The landlord wrote to the resident’s solicitor in October 2020 advising that it had liaised with the Neighbourhood Policing Team regarding her reports against her neighbour. The landlord explained the findings from the SME, stating that there was no evidence of statutory noise nuisance, tenancy breach or evidence in support of the ASB reports made by the resident. It further explained that the noise described in her diary entries were not evident on the SME.
  4. The landlord has treated its telephone conversation with the resident dated 21 January 2021 as the formal complaint (details have not been provided to this Service). The landlord issued its stage one complaint response on 12 February 2021, it recalled the resident’s reports and its communication with her and her solicitor. It advised that the period monitored by the SME did not provide evidence of statutory noise nuisance, nor was there any substantial noise detected at the times she highlighted in her diary entries, which could be used as evidence of ASB. It advised it was disappointed that her neighbour was unwilling to engage in mediation offered in 2019, but that it could not force an individual to participate. It explained that it had reviewed all the information available and had not found any corroborating evidence that would enable it to take further action.
  5. In late June 2021 the resident stated that she was dissatisfied with the landlord’s response as she believed things had been misinterpreted. She asked that it escalate her complaint and explained that extenuating circumstances caused by her current situation was the reason for the delay in her escalation request.
  6. The landlord accepted the resident’s escalation request and issued its final complaint response on 21 July 2021. The landlord apologised that the resident felt things had been misrepresented and recalled that it had telephoned her thereafter for clarification. It noted the resident had explained that the ASB continued but officers were not responding, it noted that she still did not have corroborating evidence relating to her formal complaint or to support her view that the ASB was ongoing. The landlord explained similar findings as in its stage one complaint response and said that it had provided her with the appropriate information and support, including liaising with police and other partners on her behalf in an effort to resolve her reports of ASB. It noted that the resident was receiving support from her general practitioner (GP) for her health. It advised that although her complaint was not upheld it was not dismissing her claims of ASB by her neighbour. It said that without corroborating evidence it nor the police were able to act, but it suggested that if she provided such evidence, it would act accordingly.
  7. The resident advised that she was dissatisfied with the landlord’s final complaint response due to the lack of action concerning her reports of ASB. She raised further reports of ASB and asked that it issue a warning to her neighbour. She subsequently contacted this Service.

Assessment and findings

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports about antisocial behaviour and noise nuisance from her neighbour

  1. The Ombudsman does not doubt the resident’s comments regarding her health however, it is outside the role of the Ombudsman to draw conclusions on the causation of, or liability for, impacts on health and wellbeing. This would be more appropriately dealt with as a personal injury claim through the courts or the landlord’s liability insurer, if it has one. This is a legal process and the resident should seek independent legal advice if she wants to pursue this option. This is an accordance with paragraph 39(i) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme which says the Ombudsman will 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, a designated person, other tribunal or procedure. Nonetheless, consideration has been given to the general distress and inconvenience which the situation may have caused the resident.
  2. It is evident that this situation has been distressing for the resident. There remains a dispute between the resident and the landlord regarding whether it responded appropriately to her reports of ASB. The role of the Ombudsman is not to establish whether the ASB reported was occurring or not. Our role is to establish whether the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of ASB was in line with its legal and policy obligations and whether its response was fair in all the circumstances of the case.
  3. The resident reported ASB from her neighbour including throwing urine at her car and throwing objects at her CCTV camera. In accordance with the landlord’s ASB procedures, when it receives reports of ASB it may take informal resolutions such as issuing warnings to the offender; or the use of formal powers and tools which may lead to legal action against the perpetrators. The resident’s solicitor asked that the landlord commence appropriate proceedings against her neighbour for harassment. For a landlord to take formal action in respect of ASB it requires strong corroborative evidence of the alleged behaviour. A landlord cannot reasonably be expected to take formal action against alleged perpetrators of ASB such as an injunction or eviction without strong supporting evidence to show the behaviour is serious and prolonged. Therefore, it was reasonable for the landlord to request the resident keep diary entries and audio recordings of any noise nuisance or instances of ASB.
  4. The landlord explained in its stage one complaint response, that its offer of mediation was refused by the neighbour, although this was refused it was a positive and appropriate course of action for the landlord to take as mediation can often help to reduce tensions, and possibly allow amicable resolutions. It was also appropriate for the landlord to liaise with relevant third parties including the police in response to the resident’s reports and to provide her with the necessary support.
  5. The resident reported deliberate banging and slamming of doors by her neighbour. It was appropriate for the landlord to install SME in the resident’s home to capture any instances of ASB or noise nuisance to enable it to resolve the issues she raised. In the landlord’s complaint responses, it explained that it did not identify any evidence of statutory noise nuisance, tenancy breach or evidence in support of her ASB reports. It said that the noise described in her diary entries were not evident on the SME. Similarly, a landlord cannot take formal action against residents for noise that is considered everyday household noise (slamming of doors) however, if a noise is confirmed as constituting statutory noise nuisance, then both a landlord and Environmental Health service may be able to warn and take formal action against the perpetrator. 
  6. Despite the landlord’s investigation of the resident’s reports of ASB and noise nuisance, it was unable to find any evidence to support her claims. Subsequently there was no basis for the landlord to pursue further action against the neighbour. In short, the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of ASB and noise nuisance was reasonable and proportionate in the circumstances.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration by the landlord in respect of its handling of the resident’s reports ASB and noise nuisance.