Sovereign Network Homes (202209641)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202209641

Sovereign Housing Association Limited

20 February 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:
1. The landlord’s letting of the empty flat above the resident.
2. The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of noise nuisance and antisocial behaviour (ASB) from her upstairs neighbour.
3. The landlord’s response to the resident’s statement that she was discriminated against on the grounds of ethnicity and disability.
This investigation has also considered the landlord’s complaint handling.

Background and summary of events

Background

The resident has been an assured tenant of a 1-bed ground-floor flat owned by the landlord since January 2012. The property is within a purpose-built, two-storey block of four flats.
The landlord has confirmed that it is aware that the resident has physical and mental health conditions.

Scope of the investigation

The resident has stated that she experienced discrimination from the landlord based on her ethnicity and disability. It is recognised that the resident was distressed by what she perceived to be discriminatory treatment. Whether or not the Equalities Act (2010) has been breached by the landlord is a matter that would appropriately be decided by a court, not the Ombudsman. The resident could contact Citizen’s Advice if she needs assistance regarding legal action.
In this case the Ombudsman has considered whether the landlord’s response to the resident’s report of discrimination was appropriate, fair, and reasonable in the circumstances.

ASB Policy

The landlord’s ASB policy states it will:
1. Risk assess all reports of ASB.
2. Prioritise vulnerable residents.
3. Be sensitive to the diverse needs of residents.
4. Take “timely, decisive and robust action which is reasonable and proportionate”
The policy states that the landlord will try to support ASB perpetrators where their behaviour is a symptom of other support needs like mental ill-health and addiction.
The policy also states that it will reduce ASB by carrying out checks prior to offering a tenancy. It states that the checks will include:
1. Whether there is a history of ASB in previous tenancies.
2. Whether there are any support needs that require a referral for tenancy support.
Within the ASB policy the landlord also states that it will “allocate homes sensitively, especially where customers are vulnerable or have been victims of anti-social behaviour before”.

Lettings policy

The landlord’s lettings policy states that it may refuse a nomination from the local authority if:
1. “the needs of the individual may present risk or could create a negative impact on the immediate community…Particularly where there are other vulnerable residents”.
2. “The applicant has a history of or has existing substance…misuse issues, which have or could have resulted in ASB or criminal proceedings.”
The policy also states that each case will be considered on its own merit and taking into account all relevant information provided by partners, support workers and the police. The landlord states it would not refuse a nomination where a “sufficient confirmed support package” was in place to support an applicant to sustain their tenancy.

Complaints policy

The landlord operates a 2-stage complaints policy. It aims to respond to stage 1 complaints within 10 working days and stage 2 complaints within 20 working days. It states that in some cases it will need extra time to provide a full stage 2 response but that this will not exceed a “further 30 days”.

Summary of events

The resident telephoned the landlord on 16 August 2021 and said she was worried about who would be moving into the empty flat above hers. She said she experienced issues with the outgoing tenant feeding birds and making noise. The landlord advised that the property would be let to someone nominated by the local council who would carry out checks prior to nominating them.
On 29 September 2021 a new resident moved into the flat above the resident.
On 11 October 2021 the resident reported to the landlord that her upstairs neighbour had turned the flat into a “trap house”. She said homeless people were living at the property and that drug dealing and loud parties were taking place. The resident said she was being “seriously disturbed”, she was “afraid of being burgled or attacked” and that her mental health was suffering. She told the landlord that her neighbour was known to her, that she was a drug-user and had been to prison and said it had put her in danger by housing her in the flat above her.
On 25 October 2021 the resident telephoned the landlord to say there had been loud parties and other ASB from her neighbour over the weekend and that the police had been involved. The resident reported that her neighbour had been ringing her doorbell and appeared to be under the influence of drugs. She said that her neighbour had left the property and had left all the windows open despite heavy rain. She asked that the ASB officer call her back.
The resident telephoned the landlord on 26 October 2021 and again said she was concerned that her neighbour had left the property and left all the windows open in heavy rain. She said she was concerned that water could enter her own property through the ceiling.
The resident telephoned the landlord on 29 October 2021 and asked for a call back from her ASB officer.
On 2 November 2021 the resident telephoned asking for a call from the ASB officer. She said she had been waiting for a call for a week.
The resident emailed the landlord on 3 November 2021 and said she wanted to report noise nuisance. She attached a video of what she described as “loud stomping and banging” which she said continued throughout the night until almost 6am. The resident said that her neighbour had asked her to swap properties with her and she felt she was making noise to force her out of her home. She also said that she was hospitalised after experiencing ASB from her previous neighbour.
On 5 November 2021 the resident emailed further noise recordings to the landlord.
On 8 November 2021 the local authority environmental health team emailed the resident and said it could install noise monitoring equipment in her property on 12 November 2021 and could collect and completed diary sheets at the same time. It also said that it had issued a final warning letter to the resident’s neighbour.
On 12 November 2021 the resident emailed the landlord and reported a high number of cars visiting her neighbour. She reported that she believed her neighbour was dealing drugs and that she was experiencing noise nuisance. The landlord replied to the resident on the same day and asked her to keep a noise diary for a 2-week period and provide this to the landlord.
The landlord issued the resident’s neighbour a formal tenancy warning letter on 20 December 2021. It said it continued to receive reports of noise nuisance from her property. The landlord issued the resident’s neighbour with an acceptable behaviour agreement (ABA) which stated she would not have visitors at her property.
The landlord attended a multi-agency risk assessment meeting regarding resident’s neighbour on 3 February 2022. The police and environmental health were unable to attend the meeting but sent updates. The minutes from the meeting demonstrated that agencies were receiving reports of ASB and criminal behaviour relating to the resident’s neighbour. All agencies agreed to carry out further investigations and to meet again the following month.
On 8 March 2022 the landlord attended a multi-agency risk assessment meeting regarding the situation. Also in attendance were the police, environmental health and support agencies. Minutes from the meeting show that:
1. The landlord had referred the case for mediation. The mediation provider had referred the case back as the case wasn’t suitable for mediation at that time.
2. The landlord had agreed to obtain a quote for sound insulation but had not received a response from the responsible department.
3. The landlord had also tried to speak with other residents on the street by door-knocking but had not had any responses.
4. Environmental health had received 2 reports from the resident of noise nuisance from her neighbour since the last meeting in February 2022.
The landlord wrote to the resident on 22 April 2022. The letter stated that the resident had emailed the landlord threatening to smash her neighbour’s windows. The landlord said that the resident was warned against engaging in any altercations with her neighbour. It also said that there had been insufficient evidence for the landlord to issue the resident’s neighbour with a tenancy warning but that it understood that environmental health had offered to install noise monitoring equipment for a third time.
On 26 April 2022 the landlord attended a multi-agency risk assessment meeting regarding the situation. The meeting was also attended by the police, environmental health and the service providing support to the resident’s neighbour. The minutes demonstrate:
1. Video evidence had been seen of the resident confronting her neighbour in the shared garden because she was playing her music loudly. The landlord would issue the resident’s neighbour with a tenancy caution due to the loud music.
2. The resident was experiencing issues with her mental health and had made threats towards her own life and her neighbour’s property. Emergency services had attended and the resident had been warned regarding the threats of damage.
3. Services were only receiving reports from the resident regarding her neighbour. It seemed others on the street were reporting their issues to the resident instead of to the landlord or other agencies.
4. Environmental health had offered to install noise monitoring in the resident’s property and had issued a final warning letter to her neighbour.
5. The landlord would consider installing noise insulation.
The resident made a formal complaint to the landlord on 13 May 2022.
On 16 May 2022 the landlord emailed the resident to confirm its understanding of her complaint. It said it understood that the resident wanted to complaint because:
1. The resident had experienced noise from her previous neighbour. She made the landlord aware of this and of her medical vulnerabilities before her previous neighbour move out.
2. She had also made the landlord aware that the property had poor noise insulation.
3. The landlord had not taken the above factors into account when allocating the property to her new neighbour. She felt this was as a result of racial discrimination.
4. The resident felt her physical and mental ill-health had not been given sufficient consideration in the landlord’s handling of her recent reports of ASB.
The resident replied to the landlord on 16 May 2022 and said that her neighbour’s drug dealer was currently at her neighbour’s property. She acknowledged that she did not have “actual evidence” of this but said she deduced this based on knowledge of her neighbour’s drug issues and the behaviour and appearance of her visits. The resident said that the disruption caused by her neighbour and lack of adequate sound insulation in the property was exacerbating her PTSD and anxiety. She also said that the situation and lack of sleep was worsening her physical health conditions.
On 17 May 2022 the resident emailed the landlord and said that she needed sound recording equipment to evidence the noise nuisance she was experiencing. She also alleged that her neighbour was being exploited. The resident said that she felt the landlord said it could only deal with tenancy breaches and the police stated they could only deal with criminal matters. She said that neither agency was taking responsibility and she was “left suffering the consequences”.
On 19 May 2022 the landlord emailed the resident. The email was not titled a formal complaint response but it is clear it was intended to be its stage 1 complaint response. It stated:
1. The landlord did have a record of the resident’s medical conditions.
2. It could not see any inspection or work raised regarding noise insulation at the property. Nor could it find any record of reports from the resident of noise nuisance from her previous neighbour.
3. The construction of the properties was “up to the required standard at the time of building”.
4. As the landlord only had “limited” knowledge of issues at the property it would not have been able to apply any special conditions in letting the neighbouring property.
5. It had a lettings and nominations agreement with the local council which limited its ability to challenge nominations.
6. The landlord was restricted in the actions it could take as it required evidence of the resident’s allegations that criminal activity was taking place.
7. It had held several meetings with other agencies and would be meeting with the police again. While the police were responsible for tackling criminal activity, the landlord would support them in actions that related to the property.
8. It could provide the resident with support in applying for rehousing with the local council.
9. The landlord would now close her complaint.
The resident emailed the landlord on 20 May 2022 and asked for her complaint to be escalated as she disagreed with the landlord’s stage 1 complaint response. She said:
1. Environmental health had confirmed there was a problem with sound insulation in the property.
2. She had told the landlord about her medical conditions many times over the years.
3. The landlord made a mistake in allocating her neighbour the flat above her.
On 22 May 2022 the resident emailed the landlord to report further ASB from her neighbour. She said her neighbour and 4 visitors to her property had been under the influence of alcohol and drugs over the weekend. She said they had caused a noise nuisance through banging and arguing and reported that she had been verbally abused when she asked them to keep the noise down. The resident described the impact the behaviour was having on her saying that she was experiencing “constant angina…due to stress” and that she was “weary and weepy…crying constantly”.
The resident asked the landlord in her email whether it had housed her neighbour above her because the resident was black and therefore “wouldn’t mind her behaviour…selling drugs and prostitution”. She said that her neighbour was mentally ill and that the support service working with her was failing her and was “worse than inadequate”.
On 24 May 2022 the resident emailed the landlord. She said that the police had advised her that her neighbour was being moved to alternative accommodation by the end of the week. She asked the landlord to confirm that this was the case and where she was being moved to. The resident reported further noise nuisance from her neighbour and said that there had been an incident that weekend as her neighbour’s visitor had disposed of his drugs paraphernalia in another neighbour’s bin.
The landlord replied to the resident and said that it was investigating events from the weekend as it had received reports of damage caused to “a front door and a car”. The resident replied to the landlord and admitted that she had caused the damage. She stated that she was “pushed to [her] limit having been kept awake by [her neighbour] for three nights” and had acted “out of character”.
The landlord emailed the resident on 25 May 2022 and said it had not been contacted by the police and therefore could not comment on what they had told her. It said it had asked for an urgent meeting with the police to discuss the matter. It advised the resident again that it could not discuss her neighbour with her and asked her not to contact her neighbour’s support workers.
The resident emailed the landlord on 26 May 2022. She copied in her neighbour’s support workers, the police and her MP. The resident said that as soon as her neighbour’s support worker left the property her drug dealer arrived and noise nuisance resumed.
The landlord emailed the resident back on the same day and asked her not to contact her neighbour’s support workers by email or telephone. It also said that it was aware that the resident had been shouting at her neighbour and that this had been witnessed by others. The landlord advised that it was mid-afternoon, her neighbour was allowed to have visitors and that there was not any excessive noise. It asked the resident to “moderate [her] behaviour”.
The resident replied to the landlord and said that the noise from her neighbour’s property was excessive. She said that her complaints regarding her neighbour had been ignored by the landlord and police yet she was receiving “threatening emails from [the landlord]” because she “snapped due to lack of sleep” caused by her neighbour’s behaviour. The resident said she had previously “tried to die” and that the situation with her neighbour was again making her feel suicidal.
On 27 May 2022 the resident reported that “random men” were visiting her neighbour’s property “day and night”. She attached a photograph of a man arriving at her neighbour’s flat. The resident sent a further email to the landlord later than day and said that she felt she was being treated differently to her neighbour. She asked that the landlord add to her formal complaint that she felt that the landlord was institutionally discriminating against her on the basis of her race and disability.
The resident emailed the landlord on 28 May 2022 and reported that her neighbour was playing loud music, banging, being verbally abusive and had spat at her. Later than day the resident emailed the landlord, her MP and the police on 28 May 2022. She said that the reason the police had been unable to find drugs in her neighbour’s flat was because she had “stashed” them in another neighbour’s wheelie bin.
On 7 June 2022 the resident emailed the landlord and reported hearing “enormous bangs” from her neighbour’s property. She said that her neighbour was deliberately making noise to harass her. The resident also reported that her neighbour was allowing her visitor’s dog to “repeatedly defecate” in her garden.
The resident emailed the landlord again on 8 June 2022 and reported that there were drug dealers in her neighbour’s property. She said she believed that they were manufacturing crack cocaine and she had heard “an enormous bang”. The resident said that since her complaint had been moved to stage 2 of the landlord’s procedure, she had heard nothing about resolving the situation.
The resident’s GP wrote to the landlord on 10 June 2022 and stated that she was experiencing a “significant flare of her mental health problems” as a result of the situation she was experiencing with her neighbour.
On 16 June 2022 the landlord issued the resident with a tenancy caution. The caution stated that in April 2022 the resident threatened to damage her neighbour’s windows. In May 2022 the windows in her neighbour’s front door had been broken, the resident had since admitted to landlord staff that she had caused the damage.
On 17 June 2022 the resident emailed the landlord and asked if her rehousing options would be limited due to her formal tenancy caution.
The resident emailed the landlord on 22 June 2022 and said that “homeless drug addicts” were walking through her front garden and that she did not want to be confronted by them outside her property. The resident emailed the landlord again later that day and said she had recorded her neighbour talking loudly on her phone and that she had heard her abuse and threaten her.
The landlord emailed the police on 24 June 2022 and said it understood that it had attended the property following a report and that while they were in attendance the resident had threatened her neighbour. It asked the police to confirm if this was correct.
The landlord’s ASB case notes of 28 June 2022 demonstrate that it had opened a new ASB case. It stated that the resident had previously refused to attend mediation offered by the landlord and that noise recording equipment installed by environmental health had recorded “nothing excessive”.
On 30 June 2022 the landlord visited the resident at her property. It discussed her application to the local council for a move to another property and the option of a management move to a property owned by the landlord. The landlord emailed the resident the following day to confirm the details of the conversation and that the resident had said that she did not want to move.
Later on 30 June 2022 the resident emailed the landlord and said that her neighbour was again making a noise. She reported “heavy footfall throughout the night” and loud music being played.
The resident emailed the landlord on 4 July 2022 and requested a management move.
Also on 4 July 2022 the landlord emailed the police to arrange a joint visit to the resident and her neighbour.
The resident emailed the agency providing support services to her neighbour on 5 July 2022. She said that her neighbour was “as high as a kite” and was throwing things at the resident’s dog and being verbally abusive to the resident. She also stated that her neighbour was blasting her music and shouting loudly on the phone. Later that day the resident emailed the landlord again and said that the landlord would be to blame if the resident “passed away”.
Internal landlord emails of 5 July 2022 demonstrate that the landlord felt that the resident had “to some extent antagonised the situation” with her neighbour.
The landlord attended a multi-agency meeting on 7 July 2022 regarding the situation between the resident and her neighbour. Also in attendance were the police, environmental health and housing support provider for the resident’s neighbour. The minutes from the meeting demonstrate:
1. The resident’s neighbour had signed an ABA. One of the terms of this was that she did not have visitors at the property.
2. The landlord was considering taking legal action to exclude one of the visitors to the resident’s neighbour’s property from the street. He was known to the police and was causing a nuisance at several properties owned by the landlord.
3. The police had previously issued 2 community resolution orders against the resident.
4. The police were investigating an incident where the resident pushed her neighbour. She was likely to receive a police caution.
5. Environmental health had not found sufficient evidence of noise nuisance but had again offered to install noise monitoring equipment in the resident’s property.
6. The landlord was considering tenancy enforcement action against the resident. It was also considering installing sound insulation.
7. The landlord was going to refer the resident for support with her mental health.
Also on 7 July 2022 the resident asked for an update on her stage 2 complaint.
On 10 July 2022 the resident reported noise nuisance from her neighbour who had been playing loud music with her friends since 3am.
On 11 July 2022 the resident sent several emails to the landlord describing ASB from her neighbour. She said that her neighbour was “blaring” music loudly, had thrown water over her and kept ringing her doorbell. The landlord replied to the resident on 11 July 2022 and asked if she had reported the noise nuisance to the environmental health out-of-hours team. It said that environmental health could attend to assess the noise. The landlord advised that it would contact the police regarding the incident described in the resident’s email.
The resident also telephoned the landlord on 11 July 2022 and stated that she had been physically assaulted by her neighbour. She said she “couldn’t do this anymore and was going to overdose”. The landlord’s records show that it telephoned for an ambulance and contacted the police.
The police emailed the landlord on 12 July 2022 and confirmed that it had attended the property the previous day following a report from the resident that her neighbour had thrown water over her. The police were investigating the incident.
On 12 July 2022 the landlord provided its stage 2 complaint response. It said:
1. The landlord followed its lettings process.
2. Checks were carried out prior to the letting and there was nothing to indicate that the upstairs flat shout be dealt with as a ‘sensitive let’. It was therefore treated as a “standard letting”.
3. The landlord had several vulnerabilities recorded for the resident at the time the letting was completed including mobility issues and physical health issues.
4. The resident’s health issues would not have been a consideration when letting a neighbouring property and would not have influenced the allocation process.
5. The resident had disclosed that she had recently received a mental health diagnosis. She had given the landlord permission to record this as a vulnerability flag.
6. There were no records of any failings in the “audio insulation” of the property. It was a relatively new property and was constructed to the required standard.
7. The local authority’s environmental health department had recorded “normal daily living noise” at the property.
8. The landlord acknowledged there had also been incidents where the resident was disturbed by loud music. It had responded to these reports appropriately.
9. It was clear that the resident was distressed by the ASB issues that she had reported.
10. The landlord had investigated her reports and worked with the police and environmental health department.
11. Not all of the issues reported by the resident were considered to be ASB.
12. The landlord was also unable to evidence some of the resident’s reports.
13. The landlord found that decisions made by the landlord had been made following its processes and were made collectively by professionals from various services.
14. It did not consider that any of the decisions were linked to direct or indirect discrimination on the basis of ethnicity or disability.
15. While the landlord had followed its processes, the resident experienced distress and the landlord could have explored more support for the resident on that basis.
16. The landlord asked to meet with her to agree how the landlord and resident could communicate in the future. It also said it would discuss with the resident a service that it could offer through a “partner provider” who supported those experiencing ASB.
On 18 July 2022 the landlord issued the resident with a final warning due to ASB. It warned that if it received further complaints regarding her behaviour, it would take legal action against her tenancy.
Also on 18 July 2022 the landlord referred the resident for specialist support around “managing her perception of the situation and reactions to it”.
Following the landlord’s stage 2 complaint response the resident continued to report ASB from her neighbour. She said her neighbour was manufacturing and dealing crack cocaine from the property and was causing a noise nuisance.
On 21 October 2022 the resident asked the landlord to log a further complaint regarding it’s handling of the ASB she had experienced from her neighbour following the landlord’s final complaint response in July 2022.
On 30 October 2022 the resident’s neighbour was moved to another address. Internal landlord emails of 17 October 2022 stated that it would assess the soundproofing between the flats before the property was re-let and ensure that the property was dealt with as a ‘sensitive let’.
In February 2023 the landlord confirmed to the resident that it would not be installing sound insulation to the neighbouring property before re-letting it

Assessment and findings

The landlord’s letting of the empty flat above the resident.

The landlord’s ASB policy states that, in order to prevent ASB, it will carry out pre-tenancy checks. It also states it will allocate properties “sensitively” having regard for vulnerabilities and whether residents have previously been victim of ASB.
The resident has stated that she reported ASB from a previous neighbour. The landlord states that it has no record of any previous ASB reports from the resident. This Service has not seen evidence that corroborates either account. We are therefore unable to determine whether the landlord should have had regard to previous incidents of ASB in letting the property.
The landlord was however aware of the resident’s health issues. It has acknowledged that it was aware of her physical and mental ill-health.
The landlord stated to the resident in its stage 2 complaint response that her vulnerabilities would not have been considered when letting the property next door.
This Service does not consider that the resident’s vulnerabilities would necessarily have been sufficient justification to refuse the nomination. This is particularly the case as the landlord was not at the time of letting the property aware that the resident had a history of feeling suicidal. It was wrong of the landlord however to assert that this would not be a relevant consideration during the letting process.
Our Spotlight Report on Attitudes, respect and rights demonstrates that there are varying definitions of ‘vulnerability’ and that how vulnerable someone is will change over time. Not everyone with a physical or mental illness will consider themselves to be vulnerable and therefore the landlord’s knowledge of the resident’s health conditions in and of themselves would not automatically mean that properties neighbouring her own should be treated as a “sensitive let”.
Cases such as these highlight the need for landlord’s departments to work closely together. Where local officers are aware of vulnerabilities or of issues such as unreported ASB, they should record these and communicate them to other teams such as lettings.
In this case, this Service considers that had the landlord been aware that the resident had previously been the victim of ASB it may have been appropriate to manage the empty property above her as a sensitive let. As this Service has not seen evidence to confirm that the landlord was indeed aware of any previous ASB, it was reasonable that it did not apply a sensitive lettings approach in this case.
The landlord has a nominations agreement with the local council. The council nominates individuals from its waiting list to the landlord and the landlord can only refuse nominations in limited circumstances.
The landlord’s lettings policy states that it may refuse a nomination from the local council if the individual would present a risk or negatively impact the local community and vulnerable residents. It states that it would consider when assessing the risk, whether the individual has a history of drug misuse or has been involved in criminality.
The resident has stated that her neighbour was a habitual drug user and had been in prison before. While this Service has not seen evidence to corroborate this, the landlord has not contradicted the claims.
This Service acknowledges that some factors, including drug use and previous criminality, would increase the risk of an individual engaging in future ASB. We also acknowledge that such individuals have the right to a safe place to live and, if the risks can be effectively managed, it would be unreasonable and potentially unlawful of the landlord to refuse to house them.
The resident’s neighbour had a support package in place, provided in partnership with the local council, before moving into the property. The landlord has demonstrated that it was working closely with her support workers and that she had signed an ABA at the time she signed her tenancy agreement.
This Service considers that this was in line with the landlord’s lettings policy as it had taken into account information from other agencies including the local council and support services. It had also confirmed that a support package was in place prior to the letting to assist the resident’s neighbour in sustaining the tenancy.
It is accepted that the resident’s neighbour did not ultimately sustain the tenancy. The landlord however carried out reasonable actions to support her and could not have been expected to foresee the outcome in this case.
Overall, the landlord adhered to its own lettings and ASB policies. It reasonably relied on checks carried out by the local authority and ensured that a package of support was in place to sustain the resident’s neighbour’s tenancy. Therefore there was no maladministration in relation to the landlord’s handling of the letting of the empty flat.

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

It is acknowledged that the resident has been extremely distressed by the noise and other ASB that she has reported to the landlord. In cases concerning ASB it is not the Ombudsman’s role to ascertain whether the ASB occurred. Rather, it is the responsibility of this Service to assess how the landlord responded to the reports of ASB and whether its response was reasonable and proportionate in all circumstances of the case. This Service has also considered whether the landlord’s management of the ASB case and subsequent complaint were in accordance with its policies and procedures.
The landlord has provided this Service with a copy of a risk assessment completed with the resident. It is unclear when this was completed.
Statutory guidance issued alongside the Antisocial Behaviour Crime and Policing Act 2014 states that landlords and other agencies should assess the risk of harm to the victims, and any potential vulnerabilities, when they receive a complaint about anti-social behaviour.
The guidance encourages landlords to have particular regard to whether ASB is having “a cumulative effect” on a residents mental or physical well-being. It states that risk assessments should be continuous and updated regularly as, as previously discussed, vulnerability and risk are not static concepts. Only one risk assessment has been seen in this case and an order has been made in this regard.
It is of concern to this Service that the resident expressed suicidal thoughts to the landlord on several occasions and clearly stated that the ASB was causing her mental ill-health to worsen.
It is clear that from April 2022 there was a significant and quick decline in the resident’s mental health and she reported on 4 occasions between 22 April 2022 and 11 July 2022 that she was feeling suicidal.
This Service considers that, while we cannot evidence a causal link between the ASB and the resident’s worsening mental well-being, the landlord did not respond with sufficient empathy, speed or urgency.
In June 2022 the resident’s GP wrote to the landlord and stated that she was experiencing a “significant flare” in her mental health condition because of issues with her neighbour.
This Service has not seen evidence that the landlord considered referring the resident for mental health support until July 2022. By this time she had already told the landlord that she was suicidal on 3 occasions.
The landlord itself acknowledged in its stage 2 complaint response that it “could have explored more support” for the resident.
The landlord referred the resident for specialist ASB support following its stage 2 complaint response. The support was aimed at managing the resident’s perceptions of and reactions to ASB. This service considers that this was a positive step aimed at preventing future disputes. It would however have been beneficial for this referral to have been made sooner.
It would also have been beneficial for a referral for an adult social care assessment and for specific community mental health support to have been made given the suicidal feelings expressed by the resident.
The landlord has demonstrated that it took a multi-agency approach to the ASB issue. From the time the resident’s neighbour moved into the property it worked together with her support provider to address any issues. It also attended monthly meetings with environmental health and the police between February 2022 and July 2022 to discuss the ongoing case. This was in line with good practice and with the landlord’s own ASB policy.
The resident clearly stated within her stage 1 complaint to the landlord and several of her communications throughout the case that she believed the noise nuisance was worsened by poor sound insulation in the properties.
The landlord stated to other agencies on 3 occasions between 8 March 2022 and 7 July 2022 that it was considering installing sound insulation in the resident’s property.
The landlord however advised the resident in its stage 1 complaint response in May 2022 and stage 2 complaint responses in July 2022 that the construction of the properties was up to standard and that there were no records of any failings in the sound insulation.
This Service has not seen any evidence that the landlord carried out any inspections at the resident or her neighbour’s property or carried out any testing of the sound insulation. It was therefore unreasonable that it stated with any certainty that excessive noise transference was not exacerbating the alleged noise nuisance.
We consider that it would have been reasonable and proportionate of the landlord to carry out investigations into the sound insulation in the properties and to consider installing additional insulation as it had told other agencies it was doing. That it did not do so was a failing.
The failings in this case were not that the landlord could or should have taken more action against the resident’s neighbour. Rather, they were that it failed to take actions that it could and should have taken to safeguard the resident.
Overall, while the landlord generally followed its ASB policy and acted reasonably it failed to carry out some significant actions. It has not evidenced that it carried out continuous risk assessments or that it took reasonable and proportionate action to support the resident who reported experiencing extreme distress and feeling suicidal. Therefore there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of noise nuisance and ASB from her upstairs neighbour.

The landlord’s response to the resident’s statement that she was discriminated against on the grounds of ethnicity and disability.

As has been previously explained, whether or not the Equalities Act (2010) has been breached by the landlord is a matter that would appropriately be decided by a court, not the Ombudsman. If the resident is considering legal action she should seek legal advice and can also access assistance from Citizen’s Advice.
The Ombudsman has considered however whether the landlord’s response to the resident’s report of discrimination was appropriate, fair, and reasonable in the circumstances.
This Service has not seen evidence that the landlord addressed the resident’s concern that she was experiencing institutional discrimination in its stage 1 complaint response. This was despite the landlord’s complaint acknowledgement clearly including this within its understanding of her complaint. This was unreasonable.
The landlord did however address the issue in its state 2 complaint response where it said that it didn’t consider that any of the decisions made in its letting of the neighbour’s property or the ASB case were “linked to direct or indirect discrimination on the basis of ethnicity or disability”.
The landlord’s assertion may have been fair, however as it did not evidence this or describe any investigations that it had carried out this Service cannot corroborate this.
This Service has not seen any evidence that the landlord engaged with the resident’s allegations, gave them reasonable consideration, and responded appropriately. Therefore there was service failure in relation to this complaint.

The landlord’s complaint handling.

The landlord’s stage 1 complaint response in May 2022 did not clearly describe itself as such. It was within the body of an email and the email title did not state that it contained a complaint response.
The landlord’s stage 1 complaint response failed to address the resident’s concern that the landlord was institutionally discriminating against her. This was a failing.
The resident asked the landlord to escalate her complaint to stage 2 of its complaint process on 20 May 2022. The landlord provided its stage 2 complaint response on 12 July 2022.
The landlord took 35 working days to respond to the stage 2 complaint. This was outside the timeframe in the landlord’s own complaints policy and the expectations outlined in the Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code) in place at the time.
The resident had contacted the landlord on 8 June 2022 and again on 7 July 2022 stating that she had not yet received any response to her complaint. Neither of these contacts appeared to prompt the landlord to apologise for the delay or provide a holding response.
The landlord’s stage 2 complaint response did address all the issues raised by the resident.
While the landlord acknowledged within its final response that it could have done more to support the resident, it did not offer any financial redress for this failing. An order for compensation has therefore been made.
The Ombudsman’s dispute resolution principles state that one of the primary aims of a complaints process is to put right what has gone wrong. In this case the resident continued to report ASB from her neighbour, did not receive redress for accepted failings of the management of the case, and continued to feel that she was being discriminated against.
Overall, the landlord failed to adequately address all of the resident’s concerns within its complaint responses. It also failed to provide its stage 2 complaint response within a reasonable timeframe or offer any financial redress. Therefore there was maladministration in the landlord’s complaint handling.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was:
1. No maladministration in the landlord’s letting of the empty flat above the resident.
2. Maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of noise nuisance and antisocial behaviour (ASB) from her upstairs neighbour.
3. Service failure in the landlord’s response to the resident’s statement that she was discriminated against on the grounds of ethnicity and disability.
4. Maladministration in the landlord’s complaint handling.

Reasons

The landlord adhered to its own lettings and ASB policies. It reasonably relied on checks carried out by the local authority and ensured that a package of support was in place to sustain the resident’s neighbour’s tenancy. Therefore there was no maladministration in relation to the landlord’s handling of the letting of the empty flat.
Though the landlord generally followed its ASB policy and acted reasonably, it failed to carry out some significant actions. Evidence has not been seen that it carried out continuous risk assessments or took reasonable and proportionate action to support the resident was extremely distressed.
The landlord’s assertion that there was no direct or indirect discrimination may have been correct. It did not however evidence this or describe any investigations that it had carried out and therefore this Service cannot corroborate this.
The landlord failed to adequately address all of the resident’s concerns within its complaint responses. It also failed to provide its stage 2 complaint response within a reasonable timeframe, put things right, or offer any financial redress.

Orders

Within 4 weeks of the date of this report a senior officer of the landlord at Director level or above to apologise to the resident.
Within 4 weeks of the date of this report the landlord to pay the resident compensation of £1,100 comprising:
1. £600 for distress and inconvenience relating to the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of noise nuisance and antisocial behaviour (ASB) from her upstairs neighbour.
2. £200 for time and trouble relating to the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of noise nuisance and antisocial behaviour (ASB) from her upstairs neighbour.
3. £150 for distress and inconvenience in relation to the landlord’s response to the resident’s statement that she was discriminated against on the grounds of ethnicity and disability.
4. £150 for distress and inconvenience, time and trouble in relation to the landlord’s complaint handling.
Within 2 weeks of the date of this report the landlord to arrange to visit the resident and ascertain whether she has any un-met support needs and assist her in accessing relevant support services if she wishes. At this meeting the landlord should discuss with the resident whether she is willing to give permission for the landlord to make a referral to adult social care for support.
Within 4 weeks of the date of this report the landlord to arrange an independent survey of the adequacy of the sound insulation at the resident’s property and the property above. Within 2 weeks of the date of the survey the landlord should advise this Service of its intentions in relation to any recommendations made in the survey report.
Within 12 weeks of the date of this report the landlord to carry out a self-assessment against the Ombudsman’s attitudes, respect and rights Spotlight recommendations with the aim of ensuring it is taking a ‘human-centric’ approach to service provision. As a minimum the landlord should:
1. Review its vulnerability policy.
2. Implement a vulnerability strategy in conjunction with residents.
3. Introduce minimum staff training requirements on issues such as customer care and mental health.

Recommendations

Within 8 weeks of the date of this report the landlord to review its ASB practices to ensure that risk assessments are carried out at regular intervals throughout a case. Risk assessments should also be updated following key events in a case eg if a victim discloses particular support needs or following a serious incident.