Southern Housing (202336178)
REPORT
COMPLAINT 202336178
Southern Housing Group Limited
2 October 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
- The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of antisocial behaviour (ASB) relating to noise nuisance.
- This report has also taken into consideration the landlord’s handling of the associated complaint.
Background
- The resident is an assured tenant of the landlord. She has lived in the 1 bed flat since 30 November 2020. The landlord has confirmed it has vulnerabilities and health conditions recorded for the resident.
- In May 2023, the resident reported noise from the neighbour above. Although she said she had no proof, she believed the ‘generator’ noise could be linked to the growing of cannabis. She downloaded the noise app but stated it did not pick up a lot of the noise and so she continued to report the noise, stomping, loud music and shouting to the landlord through to August 2023.
- On 27 November 2023, the resident submitted a complaint about the landlord’s lack of action regarding her reports of noise from the neighbour. As she said she believed the noise was linked to drug manufacturing, she had also reported it to the police. The resident told the landlord the continuous noise was affecting her health. Throughout the complaint process, the resident continued to report noise from the neighbour.
- Although there is evidence of the landlord liaising with the police and the local authority’s environmental health team (EH), the resident did not receive a response to her complaint. On 31 January 2024, she contacted this Service for assistance, and we asked the landlord to respond by 21 March 2024.
- The landlord acknowledged the stage 1 complaint on 20 March 2024, and responded on 4 April 2024. The landlord did not uphold the complaint regarding the handling of ASB. It said it had investigated each report received, had offered additional resources, and had collaborated with external agencies such as the police and EH. The landlord also investigated the complaint handling which it upheld and offered £65 compensation. It also reimbursed the resident £3 to cover the cost of downloading the noise app.
- On 11 April 2024, the resident asked for her complaint to be escalated as she said she was not happy with the response. She said she had agreed to mediation (the response letter said she had refused) and the noise continued. The landlord acknowledged the escalation request on 19 April 2024 and asked the resident what she wanted as an outcome. The resident said she wanted a reasonable improvement to the noise transference and to establish what was causing the droning sound. The landlord told the resident it aimed to respond by 20 May 2024.
- On 20 May 2024, the landlord emailed the resident to advise it needed extra time and would respond by 24 May 2024. The final complaint response was provided on 23 May 2024. The landlord did not uphold the ASB aspect of the complaint – it confirmed that it had worked within its policy and procedures, had been proactive in working with the resident and neighbour to identify the cause of the noise, and had worked with external agencies. The landlord confirmed it would continue to work with her, the neighbour and EH to investigate the noise and work to a resolution. The landlord upheld the handling of the complaint and identified learning. It increased the compensation offer to £93 to account for the miscommunication and the additional delays in the final complaint response.
Post completion of the complaint process
- Following the final complaint response, the landlord sent a letter to all the residents in the block of flats (in May 2024). It informed them of reports of excessive noise and reminded them to be considerate with noise levels. The landlord continued to work with EH and asked for advice on whether the recordings provided would constitute a statutory noise nuisance – EH said they would not. The evidence provided shows the resident continued to report noise to the landlord who advised that if she was unhappy with the complaint response, she should escalate her complaint to this Service. On 24 July 2024, the resident asked this Service to investigate her complaint – she said she wanted the landlord to resolve the ASB, or alternatively rehouse her. The landlord has informed this Service that the resident continues to provide it with recordings and that visits have been arranged to speak to her and the neighbour.
Assessment and findings
Handling of ASB
- It is not the role of this Service to establish whether someone has committed ASB; we assess the landlord’s handling of the resident’s ASB reports. We will determine whether the landlord’s response was fair and reasonable in view of all the circumstances, considering its own policies and procedures.
- On 2 May 2023, the resident told the landlord she had experienced a weekend of noise coming from the neighbour above. The landlord contacted her on 5 May 2023 which was a reasonable response time. It confirmed which flat the noise was coming from, provided instructions on how to download the noise app and confirmed the matter had been raised with a manager. The landlord told the resident someone would contact her within 5 to 10 working days. However, she contacted the landlord again the same day to confirm the app (which she stated cost her £3 to download) did not pick up the vibrating noise, the feet stomping or the washing machine.
- The resident chased the landlord for an update on 9 and 10 May 2023 and the landlord raised a call back request. Although this was still within the initial timeframe of 5 to 10 workings days, this contact indicated that the resident was very anxious and that the matter was causing her a disturbance. Although there is evidence of the landlord appropriately contacting the resident within the 10 working days, due to a series of voicemails left by each party, it was not until 26 May 2023 that the landlord spoke to the resident.
- The resident told the landlord she was struggling with the situation. She said she felt low, vulnerable, trapped and did not want to bump into the neighbour if she left her home. While the landlord talked about completing diary sheets, using the noise app, and approaching the neighbours about the noise, the resident told the landlord she did not want the neighbours approached as she feared repercussions. While this was understandable, it did restrict the actions available to the landlord. Nevertheless, it would have been appropriate for the landlord to set the resident’s expectations as to what action it could, or could not, take but there is no evidence of a discussion of this nature. This was unreasonable.
- Additionally, there is no evidence that the landlord completed a risk assessment with the resident at any time. This was a failing on the part of the landlord as it did not comply with the service standards from its ASB policy. Furthermore, the landlord’s ASB policy stated it would follow its Safeguarding Adults Policy(SAP) if there was concern for the safety of someone vulnerable. As the resident had told the landlord she felt vulnerable, low, and trapped, it was unreasonable of the landlord not to act on these concerns by completing a risk assessment and referring to the SAP which may have highlighted the need for further support referrals.
- On 24 June 2023, the resident provided the landlord with noise recordings. She told the landlord it was affecting her mental health and asked it to investigate the noise. There is no evidence to confirm the landlord responded. The Ombudsman finds this unreasonable as the resident had made it clear this was impacting her health.
- According to the landlord’s records, there were no further incidents reported until 24 July 2023. The landlord then contacted the resident within a reasonable timeframe to confirm where the noise was coming from. The resident provided several different flat numbers which made it difficult for the landlord to determine if this was the same flat that was being reported.
- On receipt of the reports, the landlord has provided evidence which confirmed it approached surrounding neighbours and allegations of noise were denied. As there was little evidence submitted, the landlord was restricted as to the actions it could take. There is however no indication that the landlord discussed its findings and limitations with the resident. This is likely to have caused frustration for her as she did not believe the landlord was acting on her reports, and she subsequently logged a complaint on 27 November 2023.
- On 20 December 2023, after receiving more noise recordings and reports from the resident, the landlord contacted EH for assistance on the level and regularity of the noise and if it would be classed as statutory nuisance. The landlord told EH it had spoken to the neighbour ‘many times’ but the situation had not improved. EH confirmed the noise was not statutory nuisance. The landlord contacted the police with the resident’s concerns over the noise and potential growing of cannabis. This was appropriate action to take as it showed the landlord was collaborating with external agencies for advice and assistance as per its ASB policy.
- While EH said they did not have capacity to install noise monitoring equipment, the police conducted door to door checks on 2 January 2024. After visiting the resident’s neighbour, the police confirmed to the landlord that there was no evidence of any cannabis in the flat and no signs of any cultivation equipment. It confirmed it only received one report of noise which was from the resident. There was no evidence of the landlord confirming the feedback from the police to the resident – this was unreasonable and raises concerns regarding the level of communication with the resident who at this point thought her complaint was being investigated.
- According to the landlord’s records, the resident did not make any further contact until 22 March 2024. The landlord spoke to her at this time following her contact with this Service. She said the noise had stopped since contacting us, but had started again, and she wanted the case manager to contact her. Although the landlord’s records show it discussed the case internally, there was no evidence of it contacting the resident as per her request.
- The Ombudsman finds the lack of communication with the resident unreasonable. This meant the landlord did not have an up-to-date awareness of the situation. It did not know if it was the same type of noise as previously reported, if it was more severe than before, and importantly, how it was affecting the resident. The next contact with the resident (according to the landlord’s evidence) was on 4 April 2024 when it provided the stage 1 complaint response.
- Following the escalation of the complaint, the resident provided the landlord with a log of incidents (from 22 March 2024 to 19 May 2024) which captured incidents of stomping, banging, moving of furniture, shouting and the droning/generator like noise. Despite the resident telling the landlord her health was worsening and that she had called the mental health crisis line for support, the landlord again did not complete a risk assessment with her – this was a failing by the landlord and showed a lack of awareness of the impact the situation was having on the resident. This was further evidence of non-compliance with its ASB policy.
- Furthermore, there is no evidence of the landlord making any contact with the resident until it provided its final complaint response on 23 May 2024. There was no indication from the landlord that it had stopped looking into the noise reported. Indeed, in the final complaint response, the landlord confirmed it would continue to work with her. The Ombudsman therefore finds the lack of communication unreasonable and raises concern regarding the landlord’s management of ASB and risk management.
- In summary, the Ombudsman finds maladministration in relation to the landlord’s handling of ASB relating to noise nuisance. It is acknowledged that the landlord took a series of positive steps to help resolve the situation. These included visits to the neighbour, offers of mediation, collaborative working with the police and EH and letters to the residents (although this was after the final complaint response letter), however the visits did not provide any evidence to support the allegations made. However, there was evidence of a lack of (or delayed) communication with the resident which led to her spending more time and effort chasing the landlord for updates. There was no evidence that the landlord set the resident’s expectations as to what action it could, and could not, take nor that it followed up on the action agreed with the neighbour who was to try and soften the area around the washing machine.
- The landlord did not comply with its ASB policy by failing to complete a risk assessment with the resident. There was a lack of awareness regarding the resident’s vulnerability and the potential for support referrals. It is a further concern that the landlord did not highlight these service failures through its complaint investigation. It is the Ombudsman’s opinion that, in recognition of the failures identified within this report, the landlord offers the resident compensation. An order has been made to that effect which takes into consideration the failures, distress, and inconvenience caused to the resident.
The associated complaint
- The landlord’s records confirm the resident submitted a complaint on 27 November 2023. She did not receive an acknowledgement or response from the landlord and contacted this Service for assistance. Although the landlord was asked to provide a response to the resident by 21 March 2024, it was only acknowledged on 20 March 2024 and then responded to on 4 April 2024, 89 working days from receipt of the complaint.
- The Ombudsman finds it unreasonable that the landlord failed to recognise the complaint and that it took the involvement of this Service. The landlord failed to respond within its own policy timescales, and those within the Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code). Furthermore, it did not respond within the timescale requested by this Service – this is likely to have caused further inconvenience and frustration for the resident and raises concern with the landlord’s complaint management.
- In its stage 1 complaint response, the landlord said it did not find any failings in the handling of the ASB and did not uphold the complaint. It confirmed it had taken the following action:
- Contacted the police who conducted a door knocking exercise to the neighbours in the block of flats.
- Contacted EH who confirmed they were unable to consider the case without evidence.
- Visited the neighbour to inspect the property and discuss the allegations. It confirmed the property was carpeted except for the kitchen and there was no machinery in the property that could account for the noise reported. The neighbour had agreed to try and soften the area around the washing machine to try and dampen the noise.
- Offered mediation which it said the resident did not want to pursue.
- The landlord told the resident the building had been suggested for work to help with noise transference, but advised there was no guarantee as a final decision had not yet been made.
- The landlord told the resident that to pursue the matter further, it would need 2 weeks of diary sheets and recordings from the noise app so they could be reviewed prior to consideration of any further action.
- The landlord took the opportunity to review its complaint handling as part of the wider investigation. This was appropriate as it acknowledged its failure to log the complaint in November 2023 and the delays with the complaint handling. It apologised that the resident had to involve this Service, and, in recognition of the service failures, it offered the resident £65 compensation. While it was reasonable to offer the compensation, the landlord did not identify any learning in respect to the complaint handling. By including this, it would have demonstrated to the resident that it had taken the failures seriously and was willing to make improvements to stop these happening again. It would have also shown that the landlord had followed the Dispute Resolution Principles of this Service: be fair, put things right, and learn from outcomes.
- The resident requested an escalation of her complaint on 11 April 2024, and this was acknowledged on 19 April 2024.The landlord took reasonable steps to understand the reason behind the escalation and the desired outcome. It informed the resident of the case handler and provided the expected response date. The acknowledgement was 1 day over the 5 working day policy timescale. Although this was unlikely to have caused any serious detriment to the resident, this indicated that the landlord did not take sufficient learning from the delays associated with the stage 1 complaint. The Ombudsman finds this unreasonable.
- The landlord recognised it needed more time to complete its investigation and on 20 May 2024, it contacted the resident to explain this. This was compliant to the landlord’s policy and the Code, and ensured the resident was kept updated.
- The landlord provided its final complaint response on 23 May 2024, 29 working days from receipt of the escalation and ahead of the revised response date. The landlord advised it could not investigate the noise itself but would assess if the case had been managed in line with the ASB policy and procedure. This was appropriate in setting the expectation of the resident.
- The landlord apologised for misinformation regarding the offer of mediation and asked her to make contact if she wished to pursue this. It confirmed its receipt of the noise recordings and advised it would review these and would send them to EH to see if there was any action that could be taken. The landlord re-affirmed the actions as per the stage 1 response and confirmed it did not uphold the ASB aspect of the complaint. While the landlord could not provide a definitive answer as to where the noise was coming from, it confirmed it would continue to work with the resident, neighbour, and EH to investigate the noise – this demonstrated a commitment to finding a resolution. The landlord increased the offer made at stage 1 to £90 for the service failures highlighted and identified learning from the case to improve complaint handling.
- In summary, the Ombudsman finds reasonable redress in relation to the landlord’s handling of the associated complaint. The landlord demonstrated a thorough and fair investigation which highlighted its own service failures and non-compliance to its policy. It apologised for these and for the need of the resident to involve this Service. It identified learning from the case and offered reasonable redress which was in line with its own compensation framework. The offer was also in line with the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance and what we would expect to see for failures over a short duration where the overall outcome would unlikely have been different. It is the Ombudsman’s opinion that the offer reflected the level of disappointment and inconvenience caused to the resident by the delays.
Determination
- In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, the Ombudsman finds maladministration in relation to the landlord’s handling of antisocial behaviour (ASB) relating to noise nuisance.
- In accordance with paragraph 53.b. of the Scheme, the Ombudsman finds reasonable redress in relation to the landlord’s handling of the associated complaint.
Orders
- Within 4 weeks of this report, the landlord should:
- Write a letter of apology to the resident for the failures identified within the report.
- Pay the resident £200 for the failings identified in its handling of antisocial behaviour (ASB) relating to noise nuisance and for the distress and inconvenience caused.
- The compensation should be paid directly to the resident and not offset against any debt that may be owed.
- Within 4 weeks of this report, the landlord should:
- Contact the resident to discuss the current situation with the noise and complete a risk assessment with her, making any support referrals that may be needed and appropriate.
- If necessary, arrange to visit the neighbour to confirm if the actions agreed have been completed (the softening of the area around the washing machine).
- Confirm if both parties are still open to mediation and, if so, arrange for this to happen.
- The landlord should provide this Service with confirmation that it has complied with the above orders within the given timeframe.
Recommendations
- If it has not already done so, the landlord should pay the resident the £90 as agreed in the final complaint response. The Ombudsman’s finding of reasonable redress for the failure in the landlord’s handling of the complaint is made on the basis that this compensation is paid.
- The resident has raised a desire to move to alternative accommodation because of the ongoing ASB. The landlord should discuss the options that are available to her and provide any support needed.
- This Service is aware that as part of the recommendations from the Paragraph 49 special report, it is rolling out a complaint handling training programme to all staff and contractors. This recommendation will therefore not be repeated.
- As part of the recommendations from the Paragraph 49 special report, the landlord is putting performance monitoring measures in place to ensure that timely and accurate risk assessments are carried out in all ASB cases, and that the results of the risk assessment are considered in any follow-up action throughout the life of the case. This recommendation will therefore not be repeated.