Shepherds Bush Housing Association Limited (202105908)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202105908

Shepherds Bush Housing Association Limited

29 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 concerns:
    1. How the landlord responded to the resident’s reports of noise nuisance and antisocial behaviour (ASB).
    2. The associated formal complaint into these matters.

Background

  1. The resident is an assured tenant of the landlord, which is a housing association. The property is a flat in a communal building. The resident had experienced noise nuisance and ASB from neighbours in the building from at least February 2020. Counterclaims of ASB had also been made against the resident.
  2. The resident contacted the landlord on 14 April 2021 and requested to raise a complaint. The landlord described the elements of the complaint as:
    1. She was dissatisfied with how the landlord had responded to her reports.
    2. The noise nuisance was still occurring despite the resident first reporting the matter to the landlord over a year ago.
    3. The ongoing ASB and noise nuisance had had a serious impact on her mental health.
  3. A stage one response was sent to the resident on 29 April 2021. The landlord gave a timeline of what action it had taken since April 2020 and informed the resident that it was working with neighbour A to install carpeting in their property to lessen noise transference and was in contact with neighbour B about the allegations she had raised.
  4. The landlord apologised to the resident  for the length it time it was taking to resolve the matter and for not keeping her regularly updated. It also offered her £125 compensation.
  5. Following an escalation request from the resident, the landlord sent a stage two complaint response on 9 July 2021. The landlord explained that it was satisfied by its position and redress offered at stage one. It then noted that the resident had since complained about noise from the communal area due to the poor soundproofing in her property.
  6. The landlord stated that it had opened a new ASB case into this issue and that it was working with its repairs team to improve the soundproofing in the property. The landlord further stated that it would contact the resident to discuss the options available.
  7. In a telephone call to this Service on 24 March 2022, the resident described the outstanding issues of the complaint were that the landlord had not updated her on the status of the carpeting in her neighbour’s property and that it had not taken suitable enforcement action relating to the ASB she had reported, particularly the leaving of personal items in communal areas.
  8. As a resolution to the complaint, the resident requested that the landlord increase its compensation offer.

Assessment and findings

Relevant policies and procedures

  1. The landlord’s ASB policy defines antisocial behaviour as “acting in a manner that causes or has the ability to cause nuisance, annoyance, disturbance or harassment to neighbours, other people living with or visiting the resident, the wider community and adversely impacts [the landlord’s] ability to manage its housing stock”. The policy also notes what actions it does not consider to be ASB. This includes “sounds of normal day to day living that we can hear such as opening and closing of doors, going up and down stairs”.
  2. The policy states that the landlord will, on receiving a report, contact the complainant within two working days and arrange to meet within ten working days. The landlord will then undertake an assessment of the reports and make a decision as to whether an ASB case will be opened.
  3. In regard to what enforcement action the landlord will consider taking, the ASB policy states that it may issue “warning letters or consider legal action where there is enough evidence of a tenancy, licence or lease breach. Eviction is only considered either in exceptional circumstances or where all other interventions have failed or where the ASB is so significant that only a claim for possession is suitable”.
  4. The landlord operates a two-stage complaints process. When a complaint is received, the landlord aims to provide a response at stage one within ten working days. If the complainant is dissatisfied with the response, they can request an escalation of the complaint to the next stage. The landlord will then undertake a review of the complaint and provide a stage two response within 20 working days. This will be the landlord’s final response to the complaint.
  5. The landlord’s compensation policy states that it will consider a financial payment “to make amends or to recognise distress or inconvenience caused because of a service failure”.

Scope of investigation

  1. In her correspondence with the landlord and with this Service, the resident has described the adverse effect on her mental health caused by the ASB and noise nuisance.
  2. The Ombudsman does not doubt the resident’s comments regarding her health, but this Service is unable to draw conclusions on the causation of, or liability for, impacts on health and wellbeing. Matters of personal injury or damage to health, their investigation and compensation, do not form part of the Ombudsman’s consideration of a complaint, and are more appropriately addressed by way of the courts or through insurers as a personal injury claim.
  3. This is in line with paragraph 39(i) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, which states that “The Ombudsman will not investigate complaints which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion 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 and how the landlord responded.
  4. The resident has also stated her dissatisfaction with how the landlord has handled her reports of personal items being stored in communal areas. This element was not raised by the resident during the formal complaint process, nor was it referred to by the landlord in either of its complaint responses.
  5. Before this issue can be considered by this Service, the landlord needs to be provided with the opportunity to investigate and respond. The resident will need to contact the landlord and, if appropriate, raise a separate complaint regarding this matter. This is in line with paragraph 39(a) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, which states that the Ombudsman can only consider complaints that have exhausted a member’s complaint procedure.

How the landlord responded to the resident’s reports of noise nuisance and ASB

  1. The role of the Ombudsman is not to establish whether the noise nuisance or ASB reported was occurring or not; the Ombudsman’s role is to establish whether the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports was in line with its legal and policy obligations and whether its response was fair in all the circumstances of the case.
  2. In its two complaint responses, the landlord explained what action it was taking relating to the noise nuisance from the property upstairs and the communal stairway. It also informed the resident that it had spoken to her neighbours about the allegations of ASB she had made. However, the landlord also acknowledged that it had not properly kept the resident updated on the action it was taking and accepted that the time taken to resolve the noise nuisance was not acceptable. The landlord apologised and offered £125 compensation for its service failures.
  3. Where there are admitted failings by a landlord, the Ombudsman’s role is to consider whether the redress offered by the landlord put things right and resolved the resident’s complaint satisfactorily in the circumstances. In considering this the Ombudsman takes into account whether the landlord’s offer of redress was in line with the Ombudsman’s Dispute Resolution Principles: be fair, put things right and learn from outcomes.
  4. The landlord acted fairly in acknowledging its mistakes and explaining what it did wrong. It put things right by apologising to the resident and awarding appropriate compensation. It looked to learn from its errors by improving its contact with the resident and working to reach a resolution to the noise nuisance.
  5. The compensation payment was made in line with the Ombudsman’s own remedies guidance (which is available on our website). This suggests a payment of £50 to £250 in cases of service failure which had an impact on the complainant but was of short duration and may not have significantly affected the overall outcome, the guidance suggests situations such as the below, would warrant this level of compensation:
    1. Repeated failures to reply to letters or return phone calls
    2. Failure to meet service standards for actions and responses but where the failure had no significant impact 
  6. In this case, the landlord accepted that its communication prior to the complaint being raised was poor and that the issue of noise nuisance had remained unresolved for a significant period of time. However, the landlord has also followed its ASB policies and procedures. It responded within its published timescales, opened an ASB case, undertook an assessment, contacted the neighbour and the resident to discuss the allegations. When it determined that the resident had experienced noise nuisance, it wrote a warning letter to the neighbour and also looked to work with them to fit more suitable flooring to lesson noise transference. The landlord has also looked to add soundproofing to the resident’s property to lesson noise transference between the property and the communal stairway. A payment of £125 was therefore reasonable in the circumstances.
  7. The resident’s frustration and distress with her situation is entirely understandable and regrettable. Nonetheless, the landlord has handled her reports reasonably. It has looked to work with the neighbours to resolve the issues, suggested mediation as a method of resolving the matter and explained why it was not in a position to take enforcement action.
  8. The resident has stated that she has not received any updates from the landlord as to whether new carpeting has been installed in the neighbour’s property. From the evidence provided, it is not clear what information has been given to the resident since the complaint process ended.
  9. Therefore, it is recommended that, if it has not done so, the landlord is to write to the resident and explain what work has been undertaken to the neighbour’s property to lessen noise transference.

The landlord’s complaint handling

  1. The landlord did not follow its complaint policy at stage two of the complaints process. The resident wrote an email to the landlord on 30 April 2021 requesting an escalation of the complaint to the next stage and explained why she was dissatisfied with the stage one response.
  2. However, it was not until the intervention of this Service that the landlord agreed to escalate the complaint on 15 June 2021. A stage two response was then sent on 9 July 2021, 49 working days from when the resident first requested an escalation. The response did not address this delay.
  3. Therefore, there has been service failure by the landlord in its complaint handling and compensation should be paid in view of the distress and inconvenience this would have caused to the resident. As stated above, for failure to meet service standards for actions and responses but where the failure had no significant impact, the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance suggests a payment of £50 to £250. Therefore, a compensation payment of £50 to recognise the delay in providing the stage two complaint response is reasonable in the circumstances.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 55(b) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the landlord made an offer of redress to the resident in respect of how it responded to the resident’s reports of noise nuisance and ASB which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, satisfactorily resolves the complaint.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure by the landlord in respect of its complaint handling. 

Orders

  1. For the service failure and reasons set out above, the landlord is ordered to pay to the resident £50. This payment should be made within four weeks of the date of this report. The landlord should update this Service when payment has been made. The compensation award is in addition to the compensation already awarded by the landlord in its complaint process.

Recommendations

  1. It is recommended that, if it has not done so already, the landlord write to the resident and explain what work has been undertaken to the neighbour’s property to lessen noise transference.