Stonewater Limited (202309212)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202309212

Stonewater Limited

13 January 2025

Our approach

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

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

The complaint

The complaint is about the landlord’s:
1. Response to the resident’s reports of noise nuisance and antisocial behaviour (ASB) from a neighbouring property.
2. Complaint handling.

Background

The resident is an assured tenant of the landlord, which is a housing association. The property is a 2-bedroom ground-floor flat. The resident’s tenancy began in May 2019. The landlord is aware of the resident’s physical and mental health vulnerabilities.
The resident raised a formal complaint to the landlord on 22 May 2023. She said the landlord employed “negligent” staff who had not addressed her reports of ASB and noise from her neighbour’s property. She said it was a tedious process to gather evidence, considered her mental health had deteriorated, and wanted the neighbour evicted. She informed the landlord she considered reporting the matter to the police as a hate crime. She said she was aware of Islamophobia in England and “especially in the establishment.”
In its stage 1 complaint response on 23 June 2023, the landlord explained that:
1. it had received counter allegations of ASB against her
2. she had not supplied any evidence which would support it taking any action against her neighbour
3. it had changed her staff point of contact, as she had considered there to have been “a personal grudge” against her
4. she had made serious allegations regarding its commitment to equality and diversity which it could find no evidence to suggest that it had acted in any way to prejudice her by her religion or ethnicity
5. it asked her to provide any further information in relation to this matter
On or around the 29 June 2023 the resident asked to escalate her complaint to stage 2 of the landlord’s internal complaints process (ICP). She expressed dissatisfaction with the landlord’s handling of her ASB reports, considered there had been a lack of support, and did not believe it had adhered to its ASB policy.
In its stage 2 final complaint response on 12 July 2023, the landlord said it:
1. had worked in conjunction with the police and local authority’s environmental health (EH) team
2. noise equipment installed by EH at her property had not identified any noise nuisance
3. considered there had been opportunities where it could have been more responsive to her reports of mental health. However, it had been difficult because she had subjected its staff to rude and abusive language, along with accusations of racism
4. believed that mediation may provide a resolution. It offered a home visit alongside EH to see if it could identify any improvements to the property to reduce sound transference
5. was mindful that this was not the first neighbour that she had reported. It suggested discussing the suitability of the property for her needs and wondered if it could identify more suitable, alternative accommodation for her
The resident remained dissatisfied with the landlord’s response and brought her complaint to us. She said that she wanted an apology and acknowledgement of its failure to address her reports of ASB. She considered her neighbours were causing noise deliberately and wanted the landlord to take action against them.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

We note from the resident’s correspondence that she said the landlord’s handling of her reports of noise and ASB affected her mental health.
Although we are an alternative dispute resolution service, we are unable to prove legal liability on whether a landlord’s actions or lack of action have had a detrimental impact on a resident’s health. Nor can we calculate or award damages. Therefore, we are unable to consider any personal injury aspects of the resident’s complaint. A court or insurer must make an assessment of liability in such matters. The resident may wish to seek independent legal advice if she wants to pursue a claim for damages for any adverse effect on her health.
We also note the resident’s correspondence raised concerns that the landlord had treated her differently due to her religious beliefs and ethnicity. Allegations of discrimination are serious legal complaints which require a decision by a court of law. These matters therefore fall outside of our expertise. The resident may wish to seek legal advice if she wants to pursue her concerns further using equalities legislation or speak to The Equality Advisory and Support Service (EASS) for guidance.
In reaching a decision about the resident’s complaint, we consider whether the landlord has kept to the law, followed proper procedure and good practice and acted in a reasonable way. Our duty is to determine the complaint by reference to what is, in our findings, fair in all the circumstances of the case. Where we identify a failure by a landlord, we can consider the resulting distress and inconvenience.

Response to the resident’s reports of noise nuisance and antisocial behaviour (ASB) from a neighbouring property

The landlord’s ASB policy adopts the Crime and Policing Act 2014 definition of ASB. In which, it states that it is conduct which:
1. has caused, or is likely to cause, harassment, alarm or distress to any person
2. is capable of causing nuisance or annoyance to a person in relation to that person’s occupation of residential premises
3. is capable of causing housing-related nuisance or annoyance to any person
Paragraph 3.4 of the landlord’s ASB policy defines behaviour that it does not consider ASB. This includes examples such as lifestyle differences, day to day living sounds such as flushing a toilet or using the stairs, putting rubbish out on the wrong day, and cooking smells. While this list is not exhaustive, the landlord states in such situations it will provide appropriate advice and information, encourage tolerance, and for resident’s to seek resolution themselves.
The evidence shows that the resident first reported noise nuisance and ASB to the landlord on 25 March 2023. While this was a specific complaint about her neighbour, there is evidence she had made similar complaints about previous tenants in 2019. There is no evidence that tenancy enforcement action was necessary.
Paragraphs 5.2.1 and 5.2.2 of the landlord’s ASB policy state the landlord’s response times to ASB reports. In cases of hate crime, domestic or high harm where there are significant vulnerabilities, it will respond within 1 working day. It will respond to all other reports in accordance with its customer service standards, within 2 working days for an email and 5 working days for a letter.
The resident’s reports said she could hear loud talking, laughing, music, a ball bouncing, and people using the stairs. She also described that her neighbour had moved her bin. She said she was unable to sleep and matters were affecting her mental health. It was therefore appropriate that the landlord responded to the resident’s webchat reports the same day.
On 5 April 2023 the resident reported that the noise made her feel suicidal. The landlord has provided evidence that its ASB team completed a risk assessment and informed the resident of the need to obtain evidence via diary sheets. These were appropriate steps for it to take and demonstrated the landlord considered any risk of harm to the resident.
That said, while the landlord demonstrated completion of a risk assessment, we have been unable to identify that it completed an action plan or agreed the frequency of contact at the initial stage of the resident’s complaint. The forms supplied by the landlord appear incomplete after the risk assessment scoring matrix.
Paragraph 5.3.3 of the landlord’s ASB policy states where the landlord has safeguarding concerns, it will always raise these appropriately with social services and or the police if there is an immediate safety concern. While we have identified that staff ensured the resident had the contact details of the Samaritan’s helpline on or around 18 April 2023, it is unclear what other action, if any, the landlord took before this to ensure she was safe. The landlord’ stage 2 final complaint response acknowledged that there was no evidence it had discussed her comments of suicidal thoughts prior to this.
We note the landlord recorded difficulties maintaining a level of acceptable communication with the resident at this time. We have identified that between 25 March 2023 to 11 April 2023 the resident contacted the landlord via webchat or telephone. While dealing with the resident’s ASB reports, there is evidence the landlord’s staff warned the resident of their own behaviour, abusive language, and allegations regarding staff. It was reasonable in the circumstances after warning the resident that it terminated its conversations with her on 5 occasions during this time. This is mitigation for the lack of progress offering the resident additional support.
Also, given the resident’s comments about her wellbeing, it would have been reasonable to have expected the landlord to have taken alternative steps before 18 April 2023. Such as, to report its concerns via a police welfare check or to evidence it completed a visit itself. That it did not, did not demonstrate it giving due regard for the seriousness of her wellbeing reports at this stage.
On 28 April 2023 the landlord issued the resident with an ASB written warning. There is evidence that it received counter allegations of ASB and evidence which was sufficient for it to consider this action necessary.
While the landlord took action against the resident, its warning letter also wrote to recognise her difficulties with her mental health. It offered her additional support.
This was appropriate and in line with paragraph 5.3.6 of its ASB policy. Which states, it will endeavour to identify root causes of behaviour and where the issue is as a result of an underlying vulnerability it will respond accordingly, ensuring that it works with partners, referring or signposting to specialist organisations to access appropriate support. However, there is no evidence that the resident accepted the landlord’s offer of support.
Following further noise and ASB reports and counter allegations, the landlord contacted the local authority’s EH team on 3, 17 May 2023, and 13 June 2023. There is further evidence that it discussed matters with the police. Neither considered either allegation to be noise nuisance. However, EH agreed to install noise monitoring equipment into the resident’s property. This demonstrates the landlord engaging with partner organisations to assess and monitor the resident’s concerns.
The landlord’s stage 2 final response on 12 July 2023 informed the resident that it had insufficient evidence of noise or ASB. Also, the local authority’s EH team had identified no evidence of noise nuisance from the noise monitoring equipment installed at her property. Therefore, without evidence it was appropriate that the landlord did not undertake any tenancy enforcement action against the neighbours.
We note the landlord’s records at this time recorded difficulties engaging with the resident and increasing levels of abuse directed at her neighbours and its own staff. It was therefore appropriate and in line with paragraph 5.3.3 of its ASB policy that it arranged a case assessment meeting with external partners to discuss the resident’s safeguarding. Having engaged with the police, EH, social services, and the community mental health team, the resident’s GP contacted her to offer support.
While we acknowledge that the resident remained dissatisfied with the outcome of the landlord’s investigation, our role is to assess what is fair and reasonable in all the circumstances. This is to ensure it took reasonable steps to resolve her complaint within its 2 stage process.
The Ombudsman’s Spotlight on Noise Complaints published in October 2022 explains that where noise reports do not meet the statutory threshold, then landlords should adopt a proactive good neighbourhood management policy. This should be distinct from its ASB policy, with clear options for maintaining good neighbour relationships. Our recommendations include the use of mediation, at the earliest opportunity, in an attempt to establish a mutual understanding of each other’s lifestyles.
As there is evidence the landlord offered this as an option, it gave opportunity at this stage, for all parties to discuss and consider the conduct of each household. While we acknowledge this did not take place, there is no evidence the resident accepted the landlord’s offer. While we recognise the resident says incidents continued which affected her wellbeing, the landlord must gather evidence and take reasonable and proportionate action before attempting to progress matters legally. From our findings, the landlord demonstrated doing this by working202 with external partners at this particular time.
Based on our findings, we find service failure. While the landlord demonstrated acting on the resident’s ASB reports, its stage 2 final response acknowledged its failure to address her mental health comments sooner than it did.
When there has been an admission of failure, as is the case here, our role is to assess whether the landlord offered proportionate redress. In situations, of service failure, our guidance on remedies recommends that a compensation payment should be £50 to £100 to put things right. As such, we order the landlord to pay £50 compensation. This is in line with our remedies guidance when we do not consider an apology alone proportionate redress.

Complaint handling

The Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code) 1 April 2022 required landlords to acknowledge a complaint within 5 days. Also, for landlord’s to respond to stage 1 and stage 2 complaints within 10 and 20 working days, respectively.
The landlord provided a copy of its relevant complaints, compliments, and comments policy, dated 29 September 2023. In which, at the time of the resident’s complaint, it operated a 2-stage complaints process, with an optional third stage. The third stage being an independent panel made up of other residents of the landlord. This option did not replace the landlord ensuring that it informed residents of their rights to contact the Housing Ombudsman Service.
The landlord’s relevant complaints policy states that it would acknowledge a complaint within 2 working days at both stage 1 and 2. Also, that it would respond to stage 1 complaints and stage 2 escalation requests within 10 working days. At both stages, it would agree an extension with the resident in advance, if unable to meet these timescales.
Having received the resident’s formal complaint on 22 May 2023, the landlord provided an acknowledgement letter 5-working days later, on 30 May 2023. It then provided a second letter on 9 June 2023 informing the resident it would provide a stage 1 complaint response by 23 June 2023. This was not appropriate as its acknowledgements did not meet the 2 working day timescale expectations set out in its relevant complaints policy.
Given the date of the resident’s complaint, the landlord should have responded at stage 1 of its ICP by 6 June 2023. That it did not respond until 23 June 2023 was not appropriate and 13 working days beyond its complaint policy timescales.
Having asked to escalate her complaint to stage 2 of the landlord’s ICP, it was appropriate that the landlord acknowledged her request the same day. This was in line with its complaint policy expectations. It was also appropriate that the landlord provided its stage 2 final response on 12 July 2023, 1 day before its deadline.
The landlord’s stage 2 final response demonstrated that it understood the resident’s complaint. It summarised its interactions with her and the steps its ASB team had taken to investigate her reports. While the resident may not have been satisfied with the outcome of its findings, its actions and explanations were reasonable in the circumstances.
The landlord’s complaint handling was generally in line with its policies and empathetic to the resident’s concerns. That said, there were delays to it providing a stage 1 complaint acknowledgement and response. While the detriment of these short delays would have been minimal, the landlord failed to recognise or apologise for them.
For the reasons set out above, there was service failure with the landlord’s complaint handling. It failed to recognise the effects its failures had on the resident and would therefore be unable to learn from it. We order the landlord to pay the resident £50 to put things right. This is in line with the remedies guidance available to us when there was a failure that the landlord has failed to appropriately acknowledge.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure with the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of noise nuisance and antisocial behaviour (ASB) from a neighbouring property.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure with the landlord’s complaint handling.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

We order the landlord to take the following action within 4 weeks of the date of this report. The landlord must provide the Ombudsman with evidence that it has complied with these orders:
1. Pay the resident £100 compensation. This is made up of:
  1. £50 for the distress and inconvenience caused by the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of noise nuisance and antisocial behaviour (ASB) from a neighbouring property.
  2. £50 for the distress and inconvenience caused by the landlord’s complaint handling.

Recommendations

We recommend that the landlord ensures that its health and vulnerability records accurately reflect the resident’s current circumstances.