Read our new Spotlight report on repairs and maintenance – repairing trust.

Stockport Homes Limited (202329004)

Back to Top

 

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202329004

Stockport Homes Limited

30 October 2024

 

Our approach

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

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

The complaint

  1. The complaint is about how the landlord handled the resident’s reports of drug use and noise nuisance.

Background

  1. The resident is a secure tenant of the landlord, a housing association. The property is a flat within a block made up of 3 other flats. The resident is elderly and has explained she is bed bound. She also has mental health vulnerabilities.
  2. On 11 October 2022 the resident reported noise nuisance but was unable to identify which of her neighbours she thought it was coming from. The landlord opened an antisocial behaviour (ASB) case and installed noise monitoring equipment (NME) in her property from 27 October 2022 to 3 November 2022. The landlord considered the recordings this gathered but not find any evidence of noise nuisance and closed the case.
  3. The resident made a further noise nuisance report on 10 March 2023 about her downstairs neighbour. She alleged their TV was too loud and that she could hear loud banging and shouting. The landlord opened an ASB case and sent the resident an action plan on 13 March 2023 which included a request for her to log each alleged incident over 2 weeks and send these to it. On 15 March 2023 she then reported that the same neighbour was using cannabis and that the fumes were permeating her flat and harming her health. Over the next couple of weeks the landlord contacted the resident and advised her to send it incident logs for it to consider. On 29 March 2023 the landlord noted that the resident had not provided any of the requested evidence and closed the case.
  4. Following this the resident made another noise report on 12 May 2023. She made a further allegation about the neighbour’s alleged drug use soon after. The landlord interviewed her on 24 May 2023 and she advised that she had not heard any noise disturbances for the past 7 days. She also said she did not want the landlord to contact the neighbour in relation to her reports. The landlord advised her to contact the police if she was concerned about illegal drug use. It then contacted social services and the police to discuss the alleged ASB. Following these discussions the landlord began trying to assist the resident with an application to move to a different property.
  5. On 26 June 2023 the landlord wrote to the resident and asked her to contact it. It advised that, as she had not responded to recent emails and phone calls related to the ASB case, it would close it on 30 June 2023 if she did not engage. The resident then made a complaint on 29 June 2023 about the landlord’s handling of her concerns about cannabis use and ASB. The landlord closed her ASB case on 6 July 2023. It then provided a stage 1 response on 18 July 2023 and explained that it had handled all her ASB cases from 2019 to present in line with its policy. It also advised her to contact the police with her concerns about cannabis use.
  6. The resident continued to report alleged drug use and noise nuisance to the landlord over the following months. On 29 September 2023 the landlord visited the resident and agreed to deliver general warning letters about noise to all residents in both her block and the adjacent flats to ensure she remained anonymous. It did so on 2 October 2023. The resident continued to make reports of the alleged drug use over the next few months, and the landlord responded each time to advise her to report it to the police. It also offered to send a warning letter to the neighbour. It was continuing to support her application to move home during this time. This continued until the resident brought her complaint to us on 23 February 2024.
  7. Following the resident’s referral of her complaint to us, the landlord agreed to escalate her concerns to stage 2 despite the resident having exceeded its 20 working day escalation deadline at stage 1. It provided a stage 2 response on 20 March 2024 and reiterated the position it gave at stage 1. It explained its powers were limited to take any enforcement action in relation to her drug-use allegation until the police had investigated and determined whether there was any illegal activity ongoing. It concluded by advising her to continue to report any new instances of ASB.
  8. The resident was unhappy with this response because she considered the landlord should have offered her a management transfer to a new property. To resolve her complaint, she would like the landlord to move her to a bungalow.

 

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

  1. The resident has complained about the landlord’s handling of her reports of ASB from 2019 onwards. However, under paragraph 42.c of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, we may not consider complaints that were not brought to the landlord’s attention as a formal complaint within a reasonable period, which we typically consider to be within 12 months of the matters arising. As the resident made a formal complaint on 29 June 2023, this investigation will not consider the events that occurred before 28 June 2022 because these did not occur within 12 months of the complaint.
  2. The resident has also complained about the landlord’s replacement of a care call alarm box and its handling of an electrical wiring safety test. Paragraph 42.a of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme states we may not consider complaints which 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.
  3. The resident raised a complaint about these issues via the Ombudsman in February 2024, and the landlord provided a stage 1 response on 1 March 2024. This stage 1 response invited her to contact it if she remained unhappy and wanted to escalate her concerns to stage 2. We have seen no evidence the resident did so. We can also see the landlord sent the resident correspondence in early March 2024 advising that it was providing a stage 2 response in relation to its handling of the ASB cases. We can see no evidence the resident asked it to include these other issues at this stage. Therefore, we can see no evidence of a complaint handling failure. For this reason, in line with 42.a, this investigation will not consider the resident’s complaints about the care call alarm box or electrical wiring safety test.

How the landlord handled the resident’s reports of noise nuisance and drug use

  1. The landlord’s policy on handling noise-related ASB cases states it will investigate by gathering evidence from complainants, other residents, partner agencies like the police, and through the use of NME. It states that, in cases where it considers the noise qualifies as ASB, it will consider a wide range of tools including:
  1. Warnings.
  2. Noise Abatement Notices.
  3. Mediation.
  1. The landlord’s policy on closing ASB cases states that it will not do so without making reasonable attempts to contact the resident to discuss this first. It states that it will also explain to the resident the reasons for why it is closing the case. If the complainant alleges that the ASB is still ongoing, it states the landlord will not close the case unless there is nothing more it can reasonably do to resolve the issues.
  2. Its policy on handling reported “cannabis smells” explains that it cannot take legal action against anyone using illegal cannabis unless they are convicted of using, possessing, or intending to supply it. It encourages residents to report drug use to the police. If the police then make the landlord aware of any tenant being convicted of drug related offences, the landlord will open an ASB case and explore what other legal action it can take against the tenant.
  3. The resident raised a noise report on 11 October 2022. She reported that loud banging, shouting, and loud music from a neighbour’s TV were permeating her property and making it hard for her to sleep. The landlord opened an ASB case and contacted the resident to discuss her concerns on the same day. She was unable to advise which neighbour was generating the noise, and so the landlord offered to install NME in the property which she agreed to. The landlord’s policy does not set out specific timescales for progressing noise reports. In any case, it acted reasonably and promptly by responding to the resident on the same day and agreeing an action plan to address her concerns.
  4. The landlord then contacted the resident’s social worker on 26 October 2022 to discuss her concerns, and how it could best support her during its investigation. This was appropriate and in line with its policy. Furthermore, given the resident’s vulnerabilities, this was a positive way of ensuring that its investigation took these into account. The landlord then installed the NME on 27 October 2022, and the resident used it to gather 5 days’ worth of recordings. It removed the equipment on 3 November 2022, and on 9 November it analysed the recordings. Once it had done so it created a spreadsheet which listed each individual recording and the noises it identified at specific time intervals. We consider this was a reasonable and thorough way of analysing the evidence.
  5. Across 5 days of recordings, most of the noise was noted as coming from the resident’s own property. Aside from this there was 1 instance where a neighbours’ TV could be heard, and another of a man’s laughter outside the property for 3 seconds. Based on this, the landlord concluded that there was no evidence of the noise nuisance the resident reported. We consider this was a reasonable conclusion. It wrote to the resident on 16 November 2022 and explained this decision. It advised that it would close the ASB case within 7 days of this letter and invited her to contact it to discuss this. This was in line with its policy and gave the resident a reasonable opportunity to present any challenges she may have had to this decision. The resident did not respond to this letter, and so the landlord closed the case on 24 November 2022.
  6. On 10 March 2023 the resident then reported that her neighbour was using his TV at excessive volumes. The landlord opened an ASB case on the same day and contacted the resident to discuss her concerns. We consider this was a prompt and reasonable intervention, and it gave the resident an immediate opportunity to discuss her concerns in more detail.
  7. The landlord then wrote to the resident on 13 March 2023 and outlined an action plan agreed by both parties during the call 10 March 2023. One of the agreed actions was for the resident to keep a log of when any incidents occur, and to email these logs to the landlord each day for 2 weeks. The landlord explained that, once it had this evidence, it could consider next steps. It also advised her to use its noise recording app if she had a smartphone. It explained that, if she did not have a device, it could provide her with written diary sheets as an alternative. This was an appropriate and clear plan for the landlord to start gathering evidence to properly assess the resident’s concerns. We also note that the landlord acted with her vulnerabilities in mind by outlining alternative ways in which she could gather this evidence.
  8. The landlord also discussed the new report with the resident’s support worker on 13 March 2023. It provided the support worker with the action plan and explained it could not progress the case without this evidence. This was an appropriate and thorough way to go about investigating this report. It also meant that the resident’s care network was made aware of the situation. This was a positive measure to take to ensure the resident was supported during the investigation.
  9. The resident made another noise report on the same basis on 15 March 2023 and alleged that a strong smell of cannabis was coming from the same neighbour’s property. The resident emailed the landlord again on 20 March 2023 and restated that the neighbour played his music too loudly, but did not note any specific incidents of this or when they occurred as per the action plan. The landlord then replied on the same day and explained that she had not provided any of the evidence requested in the action plan. It explained how she could do this via email. It also explained that her social workers could supply this evidence if they heard any noise nuisance and emphasised that it needed this evidence to progress the case.
  10. We consider the landlord could have, at this stage, advised the resident to contact the police about the alleged smell of drugs. However, we also note emails from the police to the landlord in late January 2023 which explain that the resident was on a “last warning” for making allegedly vexatious complaints about another tenant throughout late 2022 and early 2023. Therefore, the landlord may reasonably have considered that involving the police at this early stage may not have been in the resident’s best interests.
  11. Following the landlord’s 20 March 2023 email, neither the resident nor her support workers supplied any logs of alleged noise. We also note that her support workers wrote to the landlord and explained they had not heard any of the noise the resident reported on any of their visits. On this basis, the landlord closed the case on 29 March 2023.
  12. The landlord wrote to the resident advising it had done so because she had not provided any of the evidence it had requested since 13 March 2023. The landlord also explained that if the resident felt the noise nuisance was continuing, she should collate 2 weeks’ worth of incident logs and provide these. It explained that it would then open a new case if she did so. We consider this was appropriate and in line with its policy on handling reports of noise nuisance.
  13. The resident then raised another noise report on the same grounds on 12 May 2023. The landlord sent the resident a letter acknowledging this and raised an ASB case on 19 May 2023. We consider this was a reasonable timeframe for it to do so within. Internal emails also note that the landlord unsuccessfully tried to reach the resident by phone several times during this period. The resident called the landlord back on 24 May 2023. She explained that she had not heard any loud noise from the neighbours’ property for the past 7 days. However, she explained that the smell of cannabis and fumes were harming her health. The landlord offered to speak to the neighbour about this, which the resident refused. This was a reasonable action for the landlord to suggest to try and gather more evidence and potentially resolve things informally.
  14. On 24 May 2023 the landlord also contacted the resident’s social worker and the police to discuss the latest report. The social worker advised that neither they, nor the other support workers, had ever smelled cannabis at the property. The police explained that the resident had made them aware of the alleged drug use, but that she would not engage with their attempts to discuss this with her in more detail. It was appropriate for the landlord to engage with both of these agencies at this stage and in line with both its policies on handling noise nuisance and cannabis smells. We also note that seeking the social workers’ view on the allegations was a particularly sensible decision given the deeper insight they likely had given their proximity to the resident.
  15. On 29 May 2023 the resident reported that the noise had started again, and that the cannabis smells persisted. At some point over the coming days, it appears the resident mentioned wanting to move to a new property. The landlord wrote to the resident and acknowledged this on 7 June 2023. It also offered to help her to bid on a new property. This was a reasonable time frame to do so within, and we note that the landlord acted sympathetically by offering its assistance with the bidding process. The landlord then attempted to call the resident on 8 June 2023 to discuss the ASB case, but she did not respond. It wrote to her on 26 June 2023 to explain that if she did not contact it to discuss her concerns by 30 June 2023, it would close the case. The landlord then delivered letters to all the residents within the block to ask them to contact it if they had experienced any noise nuisance. This was an appropriate strategy for the landlord to gather evidence related to the case.
  16. On 28 June 2023 the resident complained about how the landlord had handled her reports about the neighbours’ alleged drug use. The landlord acknowledged this complaint on 5 July 2023. It closed the ASB case on 6 July 2023 because the resident had not responded to its attempts to discuss the case in detail or gather evidence since 24 May 2023. This was appropriate and in line with its policy on handling noise nuisance reports.
  17. The landlord provided its stage 1 response on 18 July 2023. It explained that it had handled her reports of noise in line with its policy, and that it had closed the 2 cases raised in March and May 2023 because the resident failed to engage with it. The resident then advised her support worker on 30 August 2023 that she could still smell cannabis, and they contacted the landlord about this to ask for advice. The landlord replied the following day and explained that it had revised its policy on “the smell of cannabis” so that residents were advised to contact the police in the first instance. We consider this was reasonable and prompt advice.
  18. We cannot see which policy the landlord was using to guide its response to the drug-use allegations before this, or when this revised policy came into effect. However, we can see the landlord had consistently advised the resident to contact the police about these allegations before this point, and we consider this was a reasonable response regardless of when the new policy came into effect.
  19. The resident then contacted the landlord on 29 September 2023 and said that the neighbour was being excessively noisy. The landlord offered to speak to them which the resident refused. Instead, the landlord agreed to send a letter with advice about excessive noise to all residents of the block to reassure the resident that her complaint would remain anonymous. This was an appropriate step to take to resolve the resident’s concerns, and the landlord demonstrated flexibility by offering an alternative means of warning the neighbour. We also note that, from this point onwards, the resident did not make any further noise reports. Based on this, it was reasonable for the landlord to assume that the actions it took had resolved things. Following this the resident did not contact the landlord at all over the next month or so.
  20. On 17 November 2023 we can see the landlord contacted the service which residents use to apply for new housing (Homechoice) to see if it could help progressing her application to move. We can see Homechoice then advised the landlord that the resident needed to provide some more information.
  21. On 20 November 2023 the resident contacted the landlord again about the neighbours’ alleged drug use. The landlord, as per its policy, replied on 21 November 2023 that she should contact the police about this. It also encouraged her to contact Homechoice to progress her housing application and relayed the information it received on 17 November. We note that the landlord acted sympathetically here in proactively trying to progress her application and keeping her updated on this.
  22. Over the next week the resident contacted the landlord on a daily basis to report the alleged cannabis smell and to demand a management transfer. The landlord repeatedly advised that she needed to contact the police about the alleged drug use. We can see it also discussed with her whether she would like it to send a warning letter to the neighbour explaining that a neighbour had reported the smell. She agreed to this, and so it did so on 27 November 2023. We consider this was a positive attempt to try and go beyond its own policy to resolve things.
  23. We can also the landlord continued to try to assist her with her housing application between 20 and 27 November 2023. We can see it emailed her on 23 November 2023 and outlined the number of points she had been allocated to bid with. It also explained how to go about doing this. We recognise the resident considered the landlord should have facilitated a management transfer. However, its policy on moving residents to a new property because of ASB states that it will only do so in extreme cases, and for their own protection. In other words, it will only do so if remaining in the property poses too great a risk to their safety. While we recognise the resident considers a cannabis smell was permeating the property, this is not reasonably described as a risk to her safety. Therefore, the landlord acted appropriately by not considering a management transfer. Ultimately, the resident was responsible for progressing her application for new housing, and we consider the landlord made consistent and reasonable attempts to assist her with this.
  24. Following this there are no records of contact between the resident and the landlord about the alleged drug use or noise until the landlord wrote the resident on 23 February 2024 explaining that the Ombudsman had contacted it. It also explained that it would provide a stage 2 response regarding how it had handled her noise reports and allegations of drug use by 21 March 2024. It provided this response on 20 March 2024. It explained that it had handled all of the noise reports in line with its policy and advised her to contact the police about the alleged drug use. It explained that, until the police had made some kind of decision, its powers were limited in what it could do to address any cannabis use.
  25. While we recognise the resident strongly considers the landlord should have done more about the alleged drug use, it was not obligated to. The evidence we have seen indicates it made consistent and reasonable attempts to signpost the resident to the police, and that it handled her ASB cases appropriately and sympathetically.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration in how the landlord handled the resident’s reports of drug use and noise nuisance.