Steve Biko Housing Association Limited (202120451)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202120451

Steve Biko Housing Association Limited

16 February 2023

Our approach

The Housing Ombudsman’s approach to investigating and determining complaints is to decide what is fair in all the circumstances of the case. This is set out in the Housing Act 1996 and the Housing Ombudsman Scheme (the Scheme). The Ombudsman considers the evidence and looks to see if there has been any ‘maladministration’, for example whether the landlord has failed to keep to the law, followed proper procedure, followed good practice or behaved in a reasonable and competent manner.

Both the resident and the landlord have submitted information to the Ombudsman and this has been carefully considered. Their accounts of what has happened are summarised below. This report is not an exhaustive description of all the events that have occurred in relation to this case, but an outline of the key issues as a background to the investigation’s findings.

The complaint

1. The complaint is about the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of noise nuisance.

Background

2. The resident was previously a tenant of the landlord and used to reside in sheltered accommodation for vulnerable residents. He has since moved to a new property under a new landlord.
3. The landlord began visiting both the resident and his neighbour from October 2021, after the resident reported alleged noise nuisance by his neighbour. Ultimately however, it did not detect any unreasonable noises. It identified a noise coming from the neighbour’s bathroom fan which was then disconnected, and it believed that this may have been the noise that the resident heard. It advised him in January 2022, that the noise recording equipment that it had previously installed in his property had not detected any unreasonable sounds. It also wrote to a health group and to his GP, advising them of its concerns about the resident’s mental health and hearing, and offered him an alternative property which he rejected.
4. Both the landlord and the resident also contacted the police, who informed it, in January 2022, that they and a mental health practitioner had visited the resident and had not perceived any mental health concerns during their welfare check on him. They also advised the resident, in February 2022, that without any further evidence no action could be taken against his neighbour.
5. On 25 March 2022, the resident made a formal complaint to the landlord about its response to his reports of noise nuisance by his neighbour. The landlord’s overall response was that there was insufficient evidence to uphold his complaint because it had not identified any unreasonable noise during any of its visits, nor had the noise recording equipment that it had installed, and that ultimately it had offered him alternative accommodation. It noted the local council, police and an organisation advocating on his behalf, had all carried out investigations and found no evidence of any noise nuisance. A designated person acting on his behalf was also satisfied with that conclusion.
6. The resident was again offered another property which he also rejected. On 1 September 2022, he gave notice to the landlord and moved out on 2 October 2022. The resident then contacted this Service and complained about the landlord’s response to his reports of noise nuisance. He wanted it to appoint an independent party to investigate and take further steps to address his reports. He also wanted to be reimbursed for the rent paid from December 2021 to September 2022, as well as an apology from the landlord for alleged defamation of character and accusing him of suffering from mental health issues.

Assessment and findings

The landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of noise nuisance

7. A Landlord cannot reasonably be expected to take formal action against tenants for noise that is considered everyday household noise; however, if a noise is confirmed as constituting statutory noise nuisance, then both a landlord and Environmental Health service may be able to warn and take formal action against the perpetrator. Ultimately however, in this case, there was no clear evidence of noise nuisance, despite the landlord’s investigations into the matter, and it was therefore reasonable that it did not take further action against the neighbour.
8. Under the landlord’s anti-social behaviour (“ASB”) policy, a noise complaint is listed as a priority two complaint. For a priority two complaint, a face-to-face interview should be offered to the resident within five working days. The resident first reported a noise nuisance on 6 October 2021, and the landlord initially attended both the resident’s and his neighbour’s property, in response to his reports about noise nuisance, on 8 October 2021. This was an appropriate response time, as it was within its ASB policy timescale for responding to a priority two complaint.
9. Section two of the landlord’s ASB policy states that the landlord should deal with complaints with empathy, sympathy and with sensitivity, considering the diverse needs of residents. The landlord showed empathy and concern for the resident during its interactions with him, by contacting a health organisation and his GP in relation to its concerns about him. It also contacted the police and asked them to do a welfare check on him, and to see what, if any, further action could be taken. It also offered him alternative suitable accommodation twice, although he subsequently rejected both offers. It additionally liaised with the local council, that arranged for noise recording equipment to be installed in his property. These were appropriate actions by the landlord as the actions were in line with section two of its ASB policy.
10. It is noted that the resident did not dispute the suitability of either alternative properties offered by the landlord to him. Although he liked the first property, he rejected it on the basis that he wished to have his noise nuisance concerns resolved without him needing to move. He rejected the second property due to personal reasons.
11. Section five of the landlord’s ASB policy states that it must draw up an action plan, and provide diary sheets. The landlord has not provided this Service with any evidence of an action plan that it may have prepared in response to the resident’s noise complaint, nor of any diary sheets that it may have provided him. Therefore, this Service is unable to determine whether the landlord acted appropriately in regard to section five of its ASB policy. If it had produced an action plan and/or provided the resident with diary sheets, it would have been helpful if it had provided copies of these to this Service. Nevertheless, even if it had failed to act in line with section five of its ASB policy, this does not affect the outcome for the resident, as there was no tangible evidence of noise nuisance by his neighbour, after multiple visits by the landlord, and an investigation by it and by the police. Therefore, this was a minor failing that had no significant impact on the resident.
12. Section eight of the landlord’s ASB policy states that it should work with the resident, maintaining regular contact with them, make referrals to support agencies and to the police, and also employ the use of devices such as a sound recorder. The landlord did maintain contact with the resident; it raised its concerns about his mental health with his GP (although the resident was dissatisfied with this action), with a health organisation and with the police, and also installed noise recording equipment. Therefore, the landlord’s actions were appropriate and in line with section eight of its ASB policy.
13. The landlord also arranged for a plumber and electrician to attend both the resident’s and his neighbour’s properties after his son reported allegedly hearing a humming noise. When the bathroom fan in the resident’s neighbour’s property was found to be making noise, the landlord had the fan isolated and arranged to have it replaced. It also made a number of visits, some unplanned, to the resident’s property and waited for a short duration, in order to see if it could hear any noises. The landlord was also willing to listen to the resident’s alleged recording of the noise that he believed that he heard.
14. The resident has advised that part of the outcome that he wants, is for the landlord to appoint an independent party to investigate and take further steps to address his reports. He also wishes to be reimbursed for the rent paid from December of 2021 to September 2022. The local council, the police and an organisation advocating on his behalf, all carried out investigations and found no evidence of any noise nuisance. The designated person acting on his behalf was also satisfied with that conclusion, based on the evidence of all of the investigations. Considering these factors, it is not reasonable to ask the landlord to appoint another independent party to carry out further investigations, and there is also no evidence of any failings by the landlord that would give cause to the resident’s belief that he is entitled to reimbursement of rent for the period in question.
15. While the resident believes that his character was allegedly defamed by the landlord, and that he was accused by it of suffering from mental health issues, it was reasonable that the landlord raised its concerns with relevant organisations, both in line with its policy and obligations as a landlord. This is as it had concerns and contacted third party organisations, in the resident’s best interest. It would be helpful however, if the landlord was to offer an apology to the resident if it inadvertently led him to believe otherwise.
16. Therefore, it is determined that there was no maladministration by the landlord. This is because, although it has not provided this Service with any evidence of an action plan, nor provided this Service with copies of any diary sheets that it may have provided the resident, these were ultimately very minor failings. These failings caused no significant detrimental impact on him, as a result of the landlord’s actions, nor affected the outcome of his complaint. This is because it frequently attended his property to check for noise and also installed noise recording equipment. Under the Ombudsman’s outcomes guidance, these are sufficient grounds for a determination of no maladministration.

Determination

17. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration by the landlord, in relation to its response to the resident’s reports of noise nuisance.

Recommendation

18. It is recommended that the landlord offer an apology to the resident if it caused any distress and inconvenience by its referral to third party organisations.