Southwark Council (202205642)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202205642

Southwark Council

27 March 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 response to:

The resident’s reports of anti-social behaviour (ASB) by his neighbour.
The resident’s report that a contractor damaged a pane of glass at the property.
The resident’s report that the landlord did not clean the gutters serving the property during external works.
The resident’s report of damage to the communal front door lock.
The resident’s report of trees causing damage to the boundary wall.
The resident’s reports of leaks from the neighbour’s property.

The Ombudsman has also investigated the landlord’s complaints handling.

Jurisdiction

What the Ombudsman can and cannot consider is called the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction. This is governed by the Scheme. When a complaint is brought to this service, the Ombudsman must consider all the circumstances of the case, as there are sometimes reasons why a complaint will not be investigated.
The resident sent his stage 2 complaint to the landlord on 12 November 2021 in which he included a complaint that the guttering had not been cleaned during external work that had taken place approximately 4 years earlier. The Ombudsman encourages residents to raise complaints with their landlords in a timely manner, which would normally be within 6 months of the matters arising. This is in accordance with paragraph 42c of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme. Furthermore, the landlord’s complaints policy states: “We will not normally consider a complaint that is made more than twelve months after the individual first became aware of the issue they want to complain about”.
Therefore, as the resident submitted the complaint about the cleaning of the gutters 4 years after the external works took place, this aspect of the resident’s complaint is outside of the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction.
Paragraph 42a of the Scheme states: “The Ombudsman will not investigate complaints which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion…are made prior to having exhausted a member’s complaints procedure, unless there is evidence of a complaint-handling failure and the Ombudsman is satisfied that the member has not taken action within a reasonable timescale”. In this case, the resident reported the following issues in his stage 2 complaint that had not been included at stage one of the complaints process:
1. A contractor had damaged a pane of glass at the property.
2. The communal front door lock had been damaged.
3. Trees were causing damage to the boundary wall.
The landlord did not address these issues in its stage 2 reply. Therefore, the view of this Service is that these matters have not exhausted the landlord’s complaints process and are therefore outside the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction. A recommendation has, however, been included in this report that the landlord should issue a stage 2 reply covering these matters.
The resident mentioned in his stage one complaint that he would like the landlord to check the neighbour’s property for leaks. The landlord stated that it had not been aware of the leaks and therefore treated this as a service request. It stated that it would send the resident details for claiming against the buildings insurance. The landlord did not mention the leaks in its stage 2 reply. The view of this Service is therefore that the resident’s reports of leaks from the neighbour’s property has not exhausted the landlord’s complaints process and is outside of the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction.

Background

The property is a one-bedroom, ground floor flat with a garden. It is one of 2 flats in a converted Victorian terraced house. The resident became the leaseholder of the property in 2007. The landlord is a local authority, and the upstairs flat is occupied by a tenant of the local authority (the tenant is referred to in this report as ‘the neighbour’).
The landlord has advised this Service that it does not have any vulnerabilities logged for the resident.
The local authority operates a Noise Team, which all residents of the borough can use to report noise problems during the day or night. The service is provided by the council as part of its wider local authority services and is not part of its landlord function or role. The local authority also has an ASB Unit as part of its wider services.
For the purposes of brevity, the Ombudsman has used the term ‘the resident’ throughout the report, even where correspondence was sent by the resident’s wife.

Summary of events

On 20 February 2019, the resident wrote to the landlord to report that he could hear noise from the flat above, even though new carpets had been laid in the flat. The landlord replied to the resident on 6 March 2019 and stated that it had visited the neighbour on 5 March 2019. The landlord stated that it would update the resident further when it had completed its investigation.
The resident wrote to the landlord on 5 December 2019 and reported that the neighbour was causing noise by using a machine late at night, which the neighbour had advised was a heater. The resident requested the landlord to log a formal complaint about the noise and about the neighbour smoking cannabis in her flat. The resident stated that the cannabis smell was entering his flat.
The landlord’s records show that on 9 December 2019 the landlord spoke to the neighbour about the allegations, provided the resident with incident diary sheets and submitted a referral form for mediation.
On 11 January 2020, the mediation company wrote to the resident and advised that it had met with the neighbour. The mediator stated that the neighbour had good quality carpet and underlay fitted. The neighbour denied that there were visitors going in and out of her flat late at night.
The resident wrote to the mediator on 2 and 10 March 2020 and stated that the neighbour was constantly smoking cannabis and he had contacted the police about this.
The resident wrote to the landlord and the mediator on 24 June 2020 to make a formal complaint that the neighbour had been smoking cannabis and making noise. He stated that there had been visitors entering and leaving the neighbour’s flat at night and stamping their feet.
The resident contacted the local authority’s Noise Team on 24 June 2020. He then contacted the landlord on 1 July 2020 to request an update regarding his reports of noise.
The landlord replied to the resident on 2 July 2020 and advised him to report all ASB, including cannabis smoking, to the police and then to the council’s ASB hotline. The landlord stated that it had spoken to the neighbour about the number of visitors to her flat, but pointed out that this was not in itself a breach of the tenancy conditions. The landlord advised the resident that he should report any noise problems to the council’s Noise Team.
The resident wrote to the landlord on 11 and 30 November 2020 to report further disturbances from the neighbour. The resident stated that the neighbour had removed a decorative wreath he had placed on the communal door. The resident also reported an incident that had taken place on 29 November 2020. The resident stated that he had knocked on the neighbour’s door due to noise and one of the neighbour’s visitors had become aggressive. The resident called the police and recorded the incident on video.
On 5 December 2020, the police wrote to the landlord and advised that the resident had reported various incidents to them, including the neighbour playing loud music, having constant gatherings in the flat, smoking cannabis. The police concluded that the neighbour’s actions appeared to be “a clear breach of the tenancy agreement”.
During the remainder of December 2020, there was further correspondence between the police and the landlord. The police asked the landlord whether noise monitoring equipment could be installed to establish if there was excessive noise and whether the landlord could consider soundproofing. The landlord stated that it would write to the neighbour to remind her of the tenancy conditions. It added that both parties had agreed to mediation. The landlord clarified that it did not install soundproofing in its properties.
On 6 January 2021, the landlord wrote to the neighbour and warned her about possible legal action if she was found to be causing a statutory noise nuisance. The landlord reminded the neighbour that it had spoken to her on 22 November 2020 about a party that she had allegedly held. The landlord also stated that the police had attended the neighbour’s flat on 29 November 2020 and were satisfied that loud music and shouting were at a level so as to be causing a nuisance to other nearby residents.
The neighbour replied to the landlord on the same day (6 January 2021) and disputed the information in the landlord’s warning letter.
On 8 January 2021, the mediator wrote to the police and confirmed that he had carried out ‘shuttle mediation’ between the 2 parties in July 2020. However, matters had recently escalated again between the 2 parties.
During the remainder of January 2021 and on 18 February 2021, the neighbour wrote to the landlord on various occasions to complain about the resident, who she stated had been shouting and banging on her door. The neighbour added that she had called the police.
During February 2021, the resident contacted his councillor, the council’s ASB Unit and the council’s Noise Team to report noise and cannabis smoking. The council’s records show that the resident had contacted the Noise Team on 25 and 27 February 2021. The team had visited on 27 February 2021 and could not hear any noise.
The landlord met with the council’s ASB Unit and the police on 3 March 2021 to discuss the issues involving the resident and his neighbour. It was agreed that the landlord would speak to the neighbours living either side of the resident to check whether they had witnessed any nuisance. The police confirmed that they had not made any arrests. The ASB Unit advised the landlord to arrange for the resident and the neighbour to sign an Acceptable Behaviour Contract (ABC).
On 9 March 2021, the landlord confirmed to one of the local councillors that neither party had cooperated with mediation lately. Therefore, the landlord had agreed an action plan with the police and the council’s ASB Unit which involved taking the following action:
1. Both parties would be served with an ABC once the current Covid restrictions were lifted.
2. The landlord would speak to the residents either side of the property to check if they had witnessed any nuisance.
3. Both parties had been advised to contact the council’s Noise Team if there was excessive noise.
4. Both parties had been advised to contact the mediator if there were further incidents.
The landlord sent the ABCs to the resident and the neighbour on 23 March 2021 and asked them to sign. The landlord’s records show that both parties refused to sign the contract.
The resident wrote to the landlord on 5, 8 and 17 May 2021 to report further incidents involving the neighbour, including noise. The resident asked whether noise monitoring equipment could be installed. The resident stated that he was living elsewhere because of the ASB. The landlord replied on 18 May 2021 and advised that it would recommend a referral to the professional witness service.
On 20 May 2021, the landlord sent an internal email confirming that it would send a referral to a professional witness company. It added that it was not part of the mediator’s role to witness noise nuisance.
On 20 June 2021, the mediator produced a report stating:
1. The landlord had commissioned the mediator in December 2019.
2. The mediator had visited the resident and the neighbour in January 2020.
3. The mediator had noted that the neighbour had good quality carpets and the electric heater did not make excessive noise.
4. The neighbour had accepted that her husband went in and out of the property late at night for work. The mediator therefore reminded her to be mindful of the impact on the resident.
5. In July 2020, the mediator offered a visit to witness any cannabis smoking but the resident refused this as he stated that the cannabis smoking had ceased.
6. On 16 November 2020, the resident had sent an email to the mediator refusing to have a noise monitoring visit (by the mediator) as he felt it would be biased against him. The resident had stated that he did not want further mediation but wanted the landlord to take tenancy action against the neighbour.
On 5 July 2021, the resident submitted a stage one complaint in which he included the following points:
1. The resident stated that he and his wife now suffered from depression as a result of the neighbour’s ASB, which included banging, shouting, jumping, visitors banging the front door late at night and stamping on the stairs.
2. The neighbour was smoking cannabis in her flat and the smell was entering the resident’s property.
3. The resident’s wife had to leave the property to stay elsewhere because of the reported noise.
4. The resident said he had been advised that noise monitoring equipment would be fitted but this had not been done.
5. The resident stated that the jumping and stamping in the neighbour’s flat had damaged his ceiling.
6. The resident stated that in January and February 2021 he had knocked on the neighbour’s door regarding noise and the neighbour swore at him from behind the door and therefore he had kicked the neighbour’s door. The neighbour called the police, who attended but did not take any action.
7. The resident said that the problems caused by the neighbour had stopped for 3 or 4 weeks after the landlord had spoken to the neighbour in February 2021.
8. The resident understood that the landlord would be speaking to the residents living either side of the resident’s property to check whether they had witnessed any ASB. The resident said as far as he was aware, the landlord had not done this.
9. The resident set out various actions he wanted the landlord to take, including sending a referral to the council’s ASB Unit, engaging a professional witness, or installing noise recording equipment, speaking to the neighbours either side and providing financial assistance as the resident was unable to occupy his property.
10. The resident requested the landlord to check the neighbour’s bathroom for leaks and to check the resident’s hallway for signs of damage caused by “constant jumping”.
The landlord sent its stage one reply on 2 August 2021 in which it stated the following:
1. There had been “mutually unsubstantiated allegations” made by the resident and the neighbour.
2. The landlord accepted that mediation had been tried but had not resolved the situation.
3. The police had reported attending the property several times and found that no crimes had been committed.
4. The landlord stated that it could not refer the case to the council’s ASB Unit for enforcement action as the landlord, the Noise Team and the police had not determined that any nuisance, harassment, or crime had been committed.
5. The Noise Team had not been able to use noise recording equipment due to the pandemic. The landlord said it would advise the resident further once these services had resumed.
6. The landlord confirmed that it would take statements from the neighbours either side of the resident and would contact the resident to provide regular updates.
7. The landlord refused the resident’s request to be reimbursed for the rent and council tax he had paid.
8. The landlord stated that it was not aware of further leaks from the neighbour’s flat and the resident would therefore need to arrange for his ceiling to be inspected. The landlord agreed to send the resident details for making an insurance claim in relation to any damage caused by the leaks.
On 26 October 2021, the landlord sent a warning letter to the neighbour. It explained that it had received reports from the police of repeated cannabis consumption. The landlord advised the neighbour that this was a breach of the tenancy conditions.
The resident sent a stage 2 complaint to the landlord on 12 November 2021 in which he included the following:
1. The resident stated that there had been further incidents of noise and cannabis smoking.
2. The resident stated that the landlord had failed to follow its ASB process by failing to produce a risk assessment and action plan and not communicating with him. He stated that the landlord had not provided regular updates despite agreeing to do this in its stage one reply.
3. The landlord had still not indicated when the noise monitoring equipment would be installed.
4. The landlord had not given an explanation of why the rent and council tax could not be reimbursed.
5. The resident asked why the neighbour’s tenancy had been changed from a probationary tenancy to a secure one given the problems he had reported.
6. The resident requested a referral to the council’s ASB Unit, a professional witness or noise monitoring equipment to be used and for the landlord to contact him monthly.
7. The resident also included various other issues in his email, including a damaged pane of glass, problems with the communal door lock, trees affecting the boundary wall and leaks from the neighbour’s flat.
On 14 November 2021, the police wrote to the landlord and advised that they had attended the property on 11 November 2021. The police stated that the resident had been banging on the neighbour’s door as he had accused the neighbour of smoking cannabis. However, the police had not found any signs or smells of cannabis in the neighbour’s flat when they attended.
The resident wrote to the landlord on 31 January 2022 and stated that he wanted to escalate his complaint as he did not wish to “waste” further time before the complaint was escalated to stage 2. He stated that his neighbour had called the police on 30 January 2022 and had made false accusations. The resident stated that the neighbour had continued to make excessive noise by running, stamping, and slamming doors. The resident added that the neighbour was constantly filming him and his relative.
On 25 February 2022, the landlord wrote to the resident and stated that it had reviewed video footage of an incident involving the resident and the neighbour. The landlord concluded that although there had been a disagreement between the 2 parties, it had not heard any threats or verbal abuse. Therefore, the landlord said it would not take further action. The landlord did, however, reiterate that the resident and the neighbour should not approach each other.
The landlord sent its stage 2 reply on 7 March 2022 in which it confirmed that it had served the ABCs on both the resident and the neighbour. The landlord added that it upheld the findings of its stage one reply.
The resident contacted this Service on 20 June 2022 to report ASB by his neighbour and to request reimbursement of expenses while he had been living elsewhere because of the reported ASB. He stated that his marriage had broken down because of the reported problems caused by his neighbour.
The resident contacted the Ombudsman again on 4 December 2023 to report ASB. During the conversation, the resident mentioned other issues, including the damaged pane of glass, issues with the gutters not being cleaned, trees damaging the boundary wall and leaks from the neighbour’s flat.
On 19 March 2024, the landlord sent additional information to this Service in which it stated:
1. That no formal risk assessment had been completed in relation to the resident. Instead, contractors and technical officers used their expertise to determine whether there had been any cause for immediate concern, risk or threat to life or significant damage.
2. No referral had been made to the professional witness service as the resident had indicated that he did not wish to engage with the process because the landlord had failed to take legal action against the neighbour.
3. Noise monitoring equipment had not been installed by the Noise Team as the team was impacted by the lockdown restrictions.
4. Mediation had ceased on 16 November 2020.

Assessment and findings

Scope of the investigation

The resident wrote to this Service on 20 June 2022 and stated that he wanted to be fully compensated for expenses incurred, including rent, council tax and rent for the alternative property at which he had been living. The resident also stated that he wished to be fully compensated for any loss in value of his property. The resident added that he wanted the landlord to buy back the property at a fair price.
It is not within the Ombudsman’s authority or expertise to determine negligence, liability or compensation claims in the same way as the courts, or to order damages in relation to these, and only a court can offer a definitive and legally binding decision. This means that the Ombudsman is unable to order the landlord to reimburse the resident for rent, council tax or an amount for any depreciation in the value of his property. Similarly, this Service cannot order the landlord to buy back the resident’s property as this would require a court judgement.
The resident also advised this Service that the stress of the landlord’s actions had led to the break–up of his marriage and that he wanted to be compensated for the “mental and physical anguish and pain”. The Ombudsman is unable to draw conclusions on the causation of, or liability for, impacts on health and wellbeing, including any impact on the resident’s marriage. This would be better dealt with as a claim through the courts. The resident may wish to consider taking independent legal advice if he wishes to pursue this option.
The Ombudsman has, however, assessed whether the landlord appropriately considered matters within the timeframe of the complaint and responded reasonably. The Ombudsman has also considered whether the landlord applied its policies and procedures, complied with any relevant legislation, and followed good practice when reaching decisions.

The landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of anti-social behaviour by his neighbour

The landlord’s ASB Procedure states: “The case officer will complete a Risk Assessment Scorecard during the initial interview with the [person reporting ASB] so that risks in the case can be managed effectively”.
The policy lists various non-legal remedies that are available to its staff, including:

Interviewing the alleged perpetrator to address behaviour.
Sending warning letters to advise of concerns.
Drawing up an acceptable behaviour or good neighbour contract.
Referring to mediation services
Requesting professional witness services.

The policy states that before making a referral for mediation, its staff should ensure that…” guidelines for referral for professional witnessing have also been considered if the case involves a noise dispute”.
It is evident that this situation has been distressing for the resident and there remains a dispute between the resident and the landlord regarding whether the landlord responded appropriately to his reports of ASB. The role of the Ombudsman, however, is not to establish whether ASB was occurring or not. The role of this Service 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.
Following the resident’s report of noise from the neighbour’s flat on 20 February 2019, the landlord visited the neighbour and then wrote to the resident on 6 March 2019. The landlord agreed to update the resident further when it had completed its investigation. As this was an initial report of noise by the resident, it was reasonable that the landlord had visited the neighbour as part of its initial assessment and then agreed to provide the resident with an update. However, the Ombudsman has not seen any evidence that the landlord carried out a follow-up investigation or that it provided a further update to the resident. This was inappropriate as the landlord had not kept to the commitments it had made to the resident.
On 5 December 2019, the resident reported further noise from the neighbour, which he stated was caused by a machine that the neighbour was using late at night. The resident also reported that the neighbour was smoking cannabis. In response, on 9 December 2019 the landlord spoke to the neighbour about the allegations, provided the resident with diary sheets for logging further incidents and referred the matter for mediation.
At this stage, the landlord had therefore chosen to use non-legal remedies to resolve the resident’s reports of ASB, which included interviewing the neighbour and referring the matter for mediation. Both of these remedies were listed as options in the landlord’s ASB procedure under non-legal remedies and therefore the landlord was acting appropriately within its procedures. The landlord had also provided the resident with diary sheets for recording any future incidents. This was a reasonable step as incident diary sheets can help provide an accurate record of ASB should the landlord decide to take future tenancy enforcement action.
The landlord has confirmed to this Service that it did not carry out a risk assessment following the resident’s reports of ASB. It has advised that its staff used their expertise to assess any immediate concerns or risks. However, by not producing a risk assessment, the landlord failed to follow its ASB procedure and therefore this was inappropriate. The procedure makes it clear that the risk assessment is required to enable the landlord to manage risks effectively.
From December 2019, the mediation company had attempted to resolve the dispute and, for example, had visited the resident and the neighbour in January 2020.
The resident wrote to the landlord and the mediator in June 2020 to report that the neighbour had been smoking cannabis and making noise. The landlord therefore wrote to the resident on 2 July 2020 and advised him to report any allegations of cannabis smoking to the police and the council’s ASB Unit. This was appropriate advice as the consumption of cannabis is a crime and should therefore be reported to the police in the first instance.
In the same email, the landlord advised the resident to report any noise issues to the council’s Noise Team. The Ombudsman’s view is that this advice was also reasonable at this stage. The landlord was aware that the resident and the neighbour were involved in mediation and therefore it was reasonable for the landlord to give the mediator sufficient opportunity to try to bring about an improvement in the situation. The mediator’s records state that it carried out ‘shuttle mediation’ between the parties in July 2020.
During November and December 2020, the resident reported further incidents regarding the neighbour. During December 2020, the police also contacted the landlord to explain that the resident had reported various incidents to them, including playing loud music and smoking cannabis. As a result, the landlord sent a warning letter to the neighbour on 6 January 2021. This was reasonable and proportionate as the landlord had already spoken to the neighbour on 22 November 2020 about a party. In addition, the police had attended her flat on 29 November 2020 and, according to the landlord, were satisfied that music/shouting were causing a nuisance to other residents. The warning letter was again one of the remedies identified in the landlord’s ASB procedure.
During January and February 2021, the resident made further reports that the neighbour was causing noise and smoking cannabis. As a result, the landlord met with the council’s ASB Unit and the police on 3 March 2021 to agree an action plan. It was positive that the landlord worked with other agencies to agree an action plan. This was in line with the Regulator of Social Housing’s Neighbourhood and Community Standard, which states: “Registered providers shall work in partnership with other agencies to prevent and tackle anti-social behaviour in the neighbourhoods where they own homes”.
However, it was a shortcoming that the landlord had not involved the resident in agreeing the action plan or advised him that he could request a case review under the community trigger arrangements. The case review would have given the resident an opportunity to describe the incidents that had occurred and their impact on him and his wife.
The landlord agreed with the police and the ASB unit that it would serve an ABC on both the resident and the neighbour. It was also agreed that the landlord would carry out further investigations by speaking to the neighbours occupying the properties either side of the resident’s property.
The ABC was sent to the resident and the neighbour on 23 March 2021 but they both refused to sign the document. As an ABC is a voluntary agreement, the landlord had no powers to compel the parties to sign.
During May 2021, the resident reported further incidents and on 5 July 2021 he sent a stage one complaint to the landlord. The resident explained that he had moved out and his wife had also left the property due to the noise. As stated earlier, it is not the Ombudsman’s role to determine whether ASB had occurred. However, the resident had advised the landlord in his stage one complaint that the reported ASB had significantly impacted on him and his wife. Therefore, it was incumbent on the landlord to carry out further investigations, such as requesting noise monitoring equipment or engaging a professional witness, to determine whether the neighbour and her visitors were causing ASB.
The landlord had stated in its email to the resident on 18 May 2021 that it would recommend a referral to the professional witness service. It had also stated in its stage one reply dated 2 August 2021 that it would advise the resident when the Noise Team had resumed installing noise monitoring equipment. However, the landlord has confirmed to this Service that it did not carry out either of these actions. The reasons given by the landlord were that the Noise Team had been impacted by the lockdown restrictions and the resident had chosen not to engage with the option of using a professional witness.
The Ombudsman is aware that many council and landlord services were affected by the COVID lockdowns. However, the majority of COVID restrictions ended on 19 July 2021 and the evidence seen shows that the Noise Team had already resumed its services by this date. In the resident’s stage 2 complaint dated 12 November 2021, he again requested the landlord to arrange noise monitoring equipment (or send a referral to the professional witness service). It was therefore unreasonable that the landlord had not contacted the Noise Team about installing noise monitoring equipment given that it had agreed to follow this up once the team had resumed its services.
In relation to the use of a professional witness, the Ombudsman has not seen any evidence showing that the resident refused to engage with the landlord’s approved professional witness company. In fact, as already mentioned, he requested in his stage 2 complaint that the landlord use a professional witness. The mediator’s report dated 20 June 2021 did state that the resident had refused an offer by the mediator to monitor the noise. However, it was clear from the landlord’s internal emails that it was not considered part of the mediator’s role to witness noise nuisance.
The landlord had written to the resident on 18 May 2021 confirming it would recommend a referral to the professional witness company. The resident subsequently chased the landlord on various occasions about a referral to the professional witness company, for example, in his stage one letter dated 5 July 2021 and his stage 2 complaint dated 12 November 2021. It was therefore unreasonable that the landlord had not responded to the resident’s request for a professional witness to attend his property. It was particularly unreasonable because the landlord had previously given a commitment to recommend a referral to the professional witness company.
Based on the evidence seen, the Ombudsman’s view is that the landlord did not take sufficient steps to establish whether the neighbour and her visitors were responsible for causing noise and other ASB. In particular, the landlord did not follow up the resident’s request for noise monitoring equipment and using a professional witness, even though the landlord had given a commitment to do so.
In terms of the landlord’s communication with the resident, this was also lacking. For example, the landlord had stated in its stage one reply dated 2 August 2021 that it would “contact the resident to provide regular updates”. However, the evidence seen shows that the landlord did keep to this commitment. As a result, the resident stated in his email dated 12 November 2021 that the landlord had not provided him with regular updates. Similarly, the Ombudsman has not seen any evidence that the landlord provided regular updates, such as a monthly update, to the resident during 2022. This was unreasonable as the landlord was aware that the case was still open and it had previously agreed to provide regular updates.
In his complaints dated 5 July 2021 and 12 November 2021, the resident asked the landlord to review why the neighbour’s tenancy had been converted from a probationary tenancy to a secure tenancy. The landlord has provided information to this Service to confirm that it took the various incidents and events into account when making its decision regarding the neighbour’s tenancy. Understandably, due to data protection restrictions the landlord is unable to make any further comments regarding the neighbour’s tenancy.
Overall, this service has found there was maladministration because:
1. The landlord did not carry out a follow-up investigation after it had visited the neighbour to discuss the resident’s noise complaint in February 2019.
2. The landlord did not carry out a risk assessment following the resident’s reports of ASB.
3. The landlord did not carry out adequate investigations to establish whether the neighbour was causing noise and other ASB. In particular, it did not follow up the options of requesting the Noise Team to install noise monitoring equipment or sending a referral to the professional witness company, even though it had agreed to do so.
4. The landlord did not provide regular updates to the resident regarding his reports of ASB.
This Service has therefore ordered compensation of £500, which is within the range of financial redress specified in the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance for failures which adversely affected the resident where the landlord has failed to acknowledge its failings. Orders have also been made for the landlord to request the Noise Team to install noise monitoring equipment and to arrange for the professional witness company to monitor whether the neighbour is causing ASB.

The landlord’s complaints handling

At the time of the complaint, the landlord operated a 2-stage complaints process which stated it would provide a stage one response within 15 working days and a response at stage 2 (the review stage) within 25 working days. Its policy said if the complainant remained dissatisfied with the review stage response, they would be informed of their rights to escalate to the Ombudsman. Although at the time of the complaint, the timescales within the landlord’s complaints policy did not comply with the Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code, the landlord has since changed the timescales so that they now comply with the Code.
The resident submitted a stage one complaint on 5 July 2021 and the landlord sent its stage one reply on 2 August 2021. The landlord therefore sent its reply 20 working days after receiving the complaint. It was a shortcoming that the landlord took longer than its advertised timescale of 15 working days to reply. However, the delay was not excessive.
The resident sent his stage 2 complaint to the landlord on 12 November 2021. It is not clear from the evidence why the landlord did not immediately register this as a stage 2 complaint or write to the resident confirming the reasons it would not be escalated. This was therefore inappropriate as the resident had clearly stated in his email that he wanted to escalate his complaint to stage 2. The Ombudsman has not seen any evidence from the landlord that it wrote to the resident setting out a good reason why it would not escalate the complaint.
The resident wrote to the landlord again on 31 January 2022 and requested the landlord to escalate his complaint. The landlord acknowledged the stage 2 complaint on the same day and sent its reply on 7 March 2022. The landlord therefore replied to the resident’s email of 31 January 2022 within the advertised timescale of 25 working days for stage 2 complaints.
In the absence of any evidence that the landlord wrote to the resident to confirm it would not escalate the complaint dated 12 November 2021, the Ombudsman has found there was a service failure by the landlord. The landlord’s failure to escalate the resident’s complaint earlier meant he had to wait an additional 53 working days for his complaint to be escalated.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord in its response to the resident’s reports of anti-social behaviour (ASB) by his neighbour.
In accordance with paragraph 42a of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the landlord’s response to the resident’s report that a contractor damaged a pane of glass at the property is outside the jurisdiction of the Ombudsman.
In accordance with paragraph 42c of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the landlord’s response to the resident’s report that the landlord did not clean the gutters serving the property during external works is outside the jurisdiction of the Ombudsman.
In accordance with paragraph 42a of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the landlord’s response to the resident’s report of damage to the communal front door lock is outside the jurisdiction of the Ombudsman.
In accordance with paragraph 42a of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the landlord’s response to the resident’s report of trees causing damage to the boundary wall is outside the jurisdiction of the Ombudsman.
In accordance with paragraph 42a of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of leaks from the neighbour’s property is outside the jurisdiction of the Ombudsman.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was a service failure by the landlord in relation to its complaints handling.

Reasons

The landlord did not carry out a follow-up investigation after it had visited the neighbour to discuss the resident’s noise complaint in February 2019. The landlord did not carry out a risk assessment following the resident’s reports of ASB and it did not carry out adequate investigations to establish whether the neighbour was causing noise and other ASB.
The landlord did not register the resident’s stage 2 complaint dated 12 November 2021 nor write to him confirming that it would not be escalating his complaint.

Orders

The landlord is ordered within 4 weeks of this report to:
1. Write to the resident to apologise for the failings identified in this report.
2. Pay the resident £500 for its response to the resident’s reports of ASB.
3. Pay the resident £50 in relation to its complaint handling.
4. Request the Noise Team to install noise monitoring equipment.
5. Arrange for a professional witness to attend the property to monitor for ASB.

Recommendations

It is recommended that the landlord issues a stage 2 complaint response covering the following matters:
1. The resident’s report that a contractor had damaged a pane of glass at the property.
2. The resident’s report that the communal front door lock had been damaged.
3. The resident’s report that trees were causing damage to the boundary wall.
4. The resident’s report that leaks from the neighbour’s flat had affected the resident’s property.