Sovereign Housing Association Limited (202001875)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202001875

Sovereign Housing Association Limited

16 April 2021


Our approach

  1. 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.
  2. 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 reports of Anti-Social Behaviour (ASB).

Jurisdiction

  1. What we can and cannot consider is called the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction. This is governed by the Housing Ombudsman Scheme. When a complaint is brought to the Ombudsman, we must consider all the circumstances of the case as there are sometimes reasons why a complaint will not be investigated.
  2. The resident made a formal complaint to the landlord about its handling of her reports of ASB over the previous six years on 30 June 2020.  Making a report of ASB should be differentiated from making a formal complaint. 
  3. In her complaint, the resident stated that she is dissatisfied with the landlord’s handling of ASB over a period of six years.  In its response to the complaint, the landlord referenced five reports of ASB over a period of seven years (from September 2013) and found that it responded appropriately in all instances. 
  4. In raising a formal complaint as close as possible in time to the event/s, it is possible for a robust investigation into the issues to take place and provides the best chance of a satisfactory outcome being reached.  With the passage of time, problems arise, including records and witnesses no longer being available and staff involved in the issues having moved on or have left the organisation.  The resident did not make a formal complaint within a reasonable period of time but many years later.
  5. Paragraph 39(e) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme states that “The Ombudsman will not investigate complaints which, in its opinion, were not brought to the attention of the member as a formal complaint within a reasonable period, which would normally be within six months of the matters arising”.
  6. After carefully considering all the evidence, in accordance with paragraph 39(e) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the historic reports are outside of the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction and will not be considered.  Instead, this report will consider matters from January 2020; six months prior to the resident making a formal complaint.

Background and summary of events

Background and policies

  1. The resident has been an assured tenant of the landlord, at the property, from 14 October 1996.
  2. The landlord’s website states that when ASB is reported, it will usually try to meet with everyone and speak about what has happened as well as speak to any witnesses.  Actions the landlord may take in addressing ASB include offering mediation and making ‘Acceptable Behaviour Agreements’.
  3. The landlord has a two-stage complaints procedure whereby it aims to investigate and provide a response at stage one within 10 working days and in more complicated cases, within 20 working days. 
  4. Where a complainant is dissatisfied with the outcome of their complaint at stage one, they may request escalation of the matter to stage two of the landlord’s complaints procedure, where the complaint outcome at stage one will be reviewed. The landlord aims to review a complaint within 20 working days or more complex cases, within 50 working days.
  5. The landlord’s compensation policy states that the landlord rarely offers compensation and that when an offer of compensation is requested, it will consider if there has been a service failure, including delay or disruption and whether there has been “significant distress”.  Financial loss and paying for a service not received may also indicate an offer of compensation is appropriate.

Summary of events

  1. The resident has stated that on 28 January 2020 her neighbour smashed the second upstairs bedroom window as well as the glass in front door using concrete from underneath her water butt which was emptied the day before. She has said that the neighbour ripped out her water butt, crushed her outside food caddy and smashed the concrete blocks.  The landlord has not provided records of reported ASB to this Service and so there is no record of this report or any actions the landlord took in response.

 

  1. Similarly, the resident has referred to an “act of violence” by her neighbour in February 2020, although no further details or evidence has been provided.

 

  1. The landlord does have a record, however, of a report of ASB being made by the resident on 24 June 2020, where she reported “noise”, “intimidation” and “dog fouling”.  The police were involved in this incident and the neighbour was warned by the landlord about her behaviour.  The landlord discussed the incident with the resident and said it would contact her again in two weeks to “review” the situation. There is no information as to whether the landlord did in fact review this with the resident, although the neighbour did ultimately move out of the property.

 

  1. Six days later, on 30 June 2020, the resident raised a formal complaint with the landlord about its handling of ASB, stating that she had been “suffering for 6 years” at the hands of her neighbours and their friends and that she was currently suffering “victimisation” and “theft” from them.

 

  1. As an outcome to her complaint, the resident wished for £2010 compensation, which she said she had arrived at by looking at similar cases on the Ombudsman’s website.  She wanted this compensation in recognition of the landlord’s failure to take action to stop the ASB and for the impact the situation had had on her physical and mental health.  Additionally, the resident asked for reimbursement of damaged goods due to “vandalism” that had occurred.

 

  1. The resident added that she was also dissatisfied that she had not been contacted about soundproofing works between the properties and that “during lockdown” the landlord had said it would be in touch “shortly” about this but had not.

 

  1. Following a telephone conversation between the landlord and resident on 2 July 2020, on 3 July 2020 the landlord responded to the complaint at stage one of its complaints procedure. The landlord acknowledged there had been a history of “low level ASB” which would have been “annoying” but did not uphold the complaint, finding that it had responded appropriately to each report.  Consequently, it would not be offering any compensation.

 

  1. The landlord advised the resident that her neighbour would be moving out at the end of August/beginning of September and it would be sensitive as to who the property is re-let to.  It said too, that it would continue to keep in touch with the resident about the situation and would also be in contact about the resident’s request for soundproofing.

 

  1. On the same date the resident responded to the landlord expressing her dissatisfaction with its response to her complaint.  In her email the resident emphasized the severity of the ASB which had led to police involvement and said that her neighbour was continuing to leave dog mess.

 

  1. On 21 August 2020 the landlord responded to the complaint at stage two of its complaints procedure. The complaint was again not upheld, with the landlord declining to offer compensation, explaining that compensation would not ordinarily be offered in circumstances such as this but instead where there had been financial loss or payment for services not received. 

 

  1. The landlord explained that having inspected its records, all reports of ASB had been responded to and closed. Going forward, the landlord said that it would contact the resident once her neighbours had moved, given her fear of reprisals and also that it would follow up in respect of an investigation into soundproofing between the properties.

 

 

Post complaint

  1. In November 2020 a sound survey was carried out at the property and it was deemed to be sufficiently insulated.  The landlord advised the resident of the outcome in February 2021.

Assessment and findings

  1. In cases of ASB or noise nuisance, it is not the role of the Ombudsman to determine whether or not the ASB occurred, but rather, to assess how the landlord responded to reports made and whether its responses were in accordance with its policies and procedures and were appropriate and reasonable in all the circumstances.
  2. As an evidence–based Service, the Ombudsman relies on records of reports and responses to carry out its assessment and these records have not been provided to this Service by the landlord, nor has the resident evidenced reports she made to it (such as emails or text messages for instance).
  3. The landlord in its complaint responses does accept, however, that a report was made in June 2020 but says that this was appropriately responded to by warning the neighbour.  Issuing a warning is one appropriate way in which to respond to ASB, however, due to the lack of information, it is not possible to assess whether this was entirely proportionate to the incident; there is no information as to whether the landlord liaised with the police about the incident or indeed, why the police were called or what the warning stated.
  4. There is no mention of the January 2020 or February 2020 incidents to which the resident refers, in the landlord’s complaint responses. The lack of referral to any incidents other than the one in June 2020 does not mean that the Ombudsman does not believe that they happened but it is not possible to assess what exactly was reported, when and how the landlord responded and whether its responses were appropriate and reasonable.
  5. The landlord has accepted that there was ongoing ASB, however, albeit at a “low level” although this does not accord with police involvement. However, there is no further information as to how frequently the police were called or what the police were called for.
  6. Notwithstanding the lack of records, it is not disputed that the resident was affected by the actions of her neighbour and was frustrated with what she perceived as the landlord’s lack of action and lack of communication in respect of this.
  7. The landlord did not do enough in communicating any action it was taking or had taken, including in its complaints response.  In particular, its reference to the ASB being “ongoing” yet “low level” and “annoying” although intending to demonstrate empathy was unhelpful and served to inflame the situation rather than demonstrate an understanding for what had been a difficult and prolonged experience for the resident.
  8. In addition to ASB, the resident requested soundproofing for noise she could hear from these same neighbours, although the noise appears to have been ordinary living noise (such as hearing light switches), with her dissatisfaction being around the insulation at the property, which she believed to be inadequate and causing excessive noise transference.  The landlord addressed this, however, with a sound survey which deemed the property adequately sound insulated. 
  9. Living in close proximity to others, it is inevitable that sound will sometimes be heard, however, there should be reasonableness in any sound being made, for example, refraining from using a washing machine late at night.  There are other steps that can be taken too, to help reduce noise transference, such as carpeting properties rather than having laminate or wooden flooring (or laying rugs over these types of flooring), although this is not necessarily enforceable by the landlord, unless it is specifically part of the tenancy agreement.  Soft door closers are another method of helping to reduce noise which can indeed be annoying over time. The landlord has not demonstrated an attempt to reduce the noise in these or other ways, which would have been a reasonable step to take.  The landlord is not obliged to improve the property by installing sound proofing – even in circumstances where the building does not meet sound proofing regulations of properties built today – however, in resolving a complaint, it is important that all reasonable options and avenues for resolution are explored and the landlord missed an opportunity to do this.
  10. Turning to the resident’s compensation request, compensation is not an automatic right even where there are findings of service failure.  The landlord did not find service failure in this case either and so it was reasonable for it to decline compensation on this basis.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration in respect of the complaint.

Reasons

  1. There was no maladministration in respect of the complaint insofar as there is evidence of one report of ASB being made shortly before the alleged perpetrator moved out of the property and the landlord responded to this by issuing a warning and carrying out a sound survey at the property.
  2. While the landlord could have communicated more effectively, in the absence of further information or evidence, it is not possible to make a finding of service failure against the landlord. 

Recommendations

  1. In light of the findings in this report, the landlord reviews its records management processes and systems, ensuring that records are appropriately and comprehensively made and provided to this Service when requested (the landlord to review its procedures in respect of this).
  2. The landlord offers to meet with the resident to discuss any ongoing issues with noise transference and where relevant, to ascertain whether there are any steps it can take to help alleviate noise transference.

*The resident is to note that this does not mean that the landlord is obliged to carry out sound proofing works or make improvements to the property as it is only responsible for keeping the property in good repair.