Town and Country Housing (202121309)

Back to Top

 

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202121309

Town and Country Housing

31 July 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 handling of:
    1. The resident’s reports of antisocial behaviour (ASB).
    2. The resident’s reports of being exposed to Covid-19 by a contractor .
    3. Repairs required in the resident’s former property.
    4. The associated complaint.

Jurisdiction

  1. What we can and cannot consider is called the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction. This is governed by the Housing Ombudsman Scheme. When a complaint is brought to the Ombudsman, we must consider all the circumstances of the case as there are sometimes reasons why a complaint will not be investigated. After carefully considering all the evidence, in accordance with paragraph 39(a) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the landlord’s handling of the repairs required in the resident’s former property is outside of the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction.
  2. Paragraph 42(a) of the Scheme states that the Ombudsman will not investigate complaints which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion 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 acted within a reasonable timescale;
  3. Whilst it is noted that the resident raised concerns about the landlord’s handling of repairs in her former property as part of this complaint, it is unclear from the evidence provided as to whether these issues have exhausted the landlord’s internal complaints procedure and the landlord has not provided its position regarding these issues. As such, the Ombudsman is not able to reach a determination on the landlord’s handling of these issues. It is, however, noted that the landlord had the opportunity to address the resident’s concerns which will be addressed within the report below as part of its complaint handling.

Background

  1. The resident was a tenant of the landlord. She initially moved into the building in 2020 and moved into another property within the block in January 2021. The property is a flat within a block of similar properties owned by the landlord. The resident has advised that she gave notice to end her tenancy around July 2021 and has since vacated the property.
  2. The resident initially reported noise nuisance from her neighbour above in January 2021, soon after moving into the property. She continued to report noise in March 2021 and the landlord confirmed that it had sent a letter to the neighbour on 5 March 2021 regarding her reports. It asked the resident to keep a diary log of any ongoing issues. The resident then reported that the noise from the flat above sounded like domestic violence (DV) and was advised to report this to the police or to pull the pull cord in her flat for direct assistance. The resident said that she would not complete diary sheets as she believed it was the landlord’s role to monitor the noise and to report suspected DV to the police. The landlord explained that the local authority had ownership of investigating noise nuisance but that it was responsible for conducting initial investigations. It confirmed that it would require the resident to provide diary sheets so that the case could be progressed. It also offered mediation to the resident as a means to resolve any neighbour dispute. The landlord sent a further letter to the neighbour regarding noise on 19 March 2021. The ASB case was closed on 31 March 2021 as the resident had refused to provide diary sheets.
  3. The resident also raised concerns regarding the money she had spent moving to the property and on carpets to make the property liveable which had now been wasted. She said that she was seeking to be reimbursed for these costs as a result of the landlord’s failings related to previous disrepair issues at her previous property and its handling of the noise and ASB at her current property. She noted the impact the issues had on her health and said that she had been hospitalised due to high blood pressure as a result of the landlord’s lack of action.
  4. The resident initially raised a formal complaint with the landlord in April 2021. She expressed dissatisfaction with the landlord’s handling of repairs needed at her former property and repeated cancelled appointments. She added that an operative had visited on 4 December 2020, she later found out that they had Covid-19 and she then became ill. She remained dissatisfied with the landlord’s handling of her reports of noise from her upstairs neighbour at her current property and felt that the landlord had not taken suitable action. She was dissatisfied that she had been asked to complete diary sheets of incidents and did not feel that the landlord had considered the consequences of it asking her to do this. She wanted to be moved away from the building as a resolution. She later added that she wanted to be reimbursed for the cost of carpets she had installed in an attempt to muffle the noise and for the removal costs associated with moving form her former property.
  5. In response to the resident’s complaint, the landlord explained that:
    1. It had previously agreed to a management transfer for the resident as a result of the repair issues at the previous property and said that the historic repair issues were not current. It later also advised that as these issues had formed part of previous complaints, it was reviewing the communication and would contact the resident separately about the issues within the previous property.
    2. It had contacted the resident’s neighbour regarding the noise on 24 January 2021 and 5 March 2021, it had also sent a letter to all residents on 29 March 2021 asking them to be mindful of noise. It confirmed that it required assistance from residents in providing evidence in any case and that it would need completed diary logs to use as evidence in order to consider whether there had been a breach of tenancy by the neighbour and whether further action could be taken.  It explained that it had dealt with the resident’s concerns regarding noise in line with its policies.
    3. It had acknowledged that it did not address the resident’s concerns about contracting Covid-19 from an operative who visited her former property within its initial responses to the complaint. It apologised for its failure to address this aspect of the complaint and explained that this matter had been addressed directly by the contractors in December 2020. It noted that the operative visited the resident’s property on 4 December 2020 and tested positive for Covid-19 on 10 December 2020. It was satisfied that the operative was not aware that they had Covid-19 at the time of the visit.
    4. The resident had sent a separate email regarding a claim for compensation and said that this would be considered under a separate process outside of its complaints procedure.
  6. The records indicate that the resident provided diary sheets to the landlord on 11 June 2021 and these were referred to the local authority’s environmental health department (EH). The resident advised that she had given notice to terminate her tenancy on 3 July 2021 and declined the offer of noise monitoring equipment from EH on 15 July 2021 as she was leaving the property.
  7. The resident referred her complaint to this Service in December 2021 as she remained dissatisfied with the landlord’s response to her complaint. She said that she felt ignored by the landlord, her health had deteriorated and she felt forced out of her property as a result of its inaction in relation to her reports of ASB and noise. As a resolution, she wanted the landlord to reimburse her for costs associated with laying carpet and moving from both of her former properties

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

  1. The resident has said she considers that the issues affecting her property have impacted her health. The Ombudsman does not doubt the resident’s comments.  However, it is beyond the remit of this Service to decide on whether there was a direct link between the issues experienced and the resident’s health. The resident therefore may wish to seek independent advice on making a personal injury claim if she considers that her health has been affected by any action or lack thereof by the landlord. Whilst we cannot consider the effect on health, consideration has been given to any general distress and inconvenience which the resident experienced as a result of any errors by the landlord.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of antisocial behaviour (ASB).

  1. It is evident that this situation has been distressing for the resident. There remains a dispute between the resident and the landlord regarding whether the landlord responded appropriately to her reports of ASB. The role of the Ombudsman is not to establish whether the ASB reported was occurring or not. Our role is to establish whether the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of ASB was in line with its legal and policy obligations and whether its response was fair in all the circumstances of the case.
  2. In line with its antisocial behaviour policy, the landlord has an obligation to investigate reports of ASB and respond appropriately. The landlord’s ASB policy states that on receiving a report of ASB or noise nuisance, the landlord should initially consider taking informal action such as warning letters, home visits and offering mediation. Where residents have reported ASB or noise nuisance, they are responsible for providing evidence and completing agreed actions such as recording incidents on diary sheets. The policy states that more serious incidents of ASB should be reported to the police or the local authority’s environmental health department (EH).
  3. Landlords 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 the EH may be able to warn and take formal action against the perpetrator. For a landlord to take formal action in respect of ASB, such as formal warnings, injunctions or eviction proceedings etc, the landlord would require extensive evidence of the alleged behaviour to support formal action. A landlord should generally only consider taking formal action if informal attempts have been unsuccessful in resolving the issues.
  4. In this case, the landlord made reasonable efforts to investigate the resident’s reports of noise from a neighbouring property and took proportionate informal action in response to the resident’s reports in line with its ASB policy. It took steps to speak to the neighbour regarding the noise in January 2021 and then issued a written warning to the neighbour in March 2021 as the behaviour continued. Following this, the landlord acknowledged that the verbal and written warnings had not been successful in reducing the noise. It made reasonable efforts to explain its role alongside the local authority to the resident and the need for evidence in the form of diary sheets in order to support it taking further action or referring the case to EH. It also took reasonable steps to offer mediation to the resident as a means to resolve the neighbour dispute. Whilst either party was entitled to refuse to participate, mediation can be a useful took in settling neighbour disputes and it was reasonable for the landlord to offer this service in this instance.
  5. Landlord’s must be fair in their service. This means following an evidenced based approach, particularly when an ASB case involves two or more of its residents. It cannot take the word of one resident over another. This is why collecting evidence, including resident diary sheets, is important.
  6. The resident’s concerns about the consequences of providing supporting evidence to the landlord of her claims were understandable. It may have been helpful for the landlord to have explained how it could protect the resident’s identity in terms of anonymity to more fully resolve her concerns at this stage. However, the landlord would not be able to take any form of formal action against a perpetrator of ASB without sufficient evidence of the alleged behaviour such as diary sheets. It was reasonable for the landlord to advise the resident to report any concerns about domestic violence from the above property directly to the police as this would be a criminal matter, better suited for the police to investigate. It is reasonable for landlords to rely on residents to record incidents of noise or ASB as landlords are not usually present within the building at all times to witness disturbances. Diary sheets can also be used as evidence in legal proceedings should the landlord choose to take formal action against a perpetrator of ASB. In the absence of such evidence being provided to the landlord, there were limited further steps that the landlord could have taken in response to the resident’s allegations of noise from her neighbour at this stage.
  7. It is noted that the resident provided diary sheets to the landlord on 11 June 2021 and the landlord acted appropriately by referring the case to EH for further investigation into whether there was a statutory noise nuisance. The resident has advised that she was dissatisfied with the delay caused by EH once she had submitted diary sheets. It is noted that EH had contacted the resident around 15 July 2021 to discuss the installation of noise monitoring equipment, by which point the resident had given notice to the landlord and was due to move from the property. Any delay as a result of EH’s actions was outside of the landlord’s control and the evidence shows that it took reasonable steps to communicate with the resident and seek updates on her behalf. The Ombudsman cannot comment on the actions of the local authority as these matters are better suited to be dealt with by the Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman (LGSCO). The resident would need to raise a separate complaint with EH to resolve her concerns and may then approach the LGSCO if she remains dissatisfied with the local authority’s response.
  8. In summary, the landlord made reasonable efforts to investigate the resident’s reports of noise from her neighbour. There is no evidence to suggest that there was any inaction by the landlord which would merit financial compensation to the resident for the costs she had incurred decorating or moving from the property. Costs associated with moving or internal decoration would usually be the resident’s responsibility and there is also no evidence to suggest that the landlord had agreed to reimburse these costs in advance. The landlord would not be expected to offer compensation to the resident in view of these costs as there is no evidence of any service failure by the landlord.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of being exposed to Covid-19 by a contractor.

  1. As part of her complaint, the resident was dissatisfied as she believed that an operative had knowingly exposed her to Covid-19 during an appointment on 4 December 2020 at her former property. The contractors initially responded to the resident on 17 December 2020. They explained that the operative became aware that a family member had tested positive for Covid-19 on 6 December 2020 and began isolating in line with government guidance. Following this, the operative tested positive for Covid-19 on 10 December 2020 at which point the resident was informed as she had been in contact with the operative during the appointment on 4 December 2021.
  2. It would have been appropriate for the landlord to have responded to this aspect of the resident’s complaint within either of the stage one responses issued, however, the resident was not significantly disadvantaged by this failing as the landlord apologised and took steps to explain its position within its stage two complaint response. It explained that it was satisfied that this had previously been addressed by the contractors directly on 17 December 2020 and that the operative had not attended the resident’s property whilst knowingly being exposed to Covid-19.
  3. Whilst this information was understandably distressing for the resident who advised that she had contracted Covid-19 following the visit, the Ombudsman is not able to assess whether the resident contracted Covid-19 from the operative, or the liability for damages (if any) even if such an event occurred. The resident has advised that she felt that the operative was lying and was aware that they had Covid-19 at the time of the visit, but has not provided any further evidence to support her claim. The landlord’s explanation was reasonable in that there is no evidence to suggest that the operative had been aware that they had been exposed to Covid-19 whilst working in the resident’s property on 4 December 2020. The evidence shows that the operative had informed the contractors that he had been exposed to Covid-19 on 6 December 2020 and began isolating which was in line with published Government guidance at the time.

The landlord’s handling of the associated complaint.

  1. The landlord’s complaints policy states that it has a two-stage formal complaints process. At stage one, the landlord should respond within ten working days. if the resident remains dissatisfied with the landlord’s response, they can escalate their complaint to stage two. Where the reasons for escalation relate to the original subject matter, the complaint should be escalated to stage two; if not, a new stage one complaint should be opened to address the new concerns. At stage two, the landlord should respond within ten working days.
  2. In this case, the resident initially raised a complaint on 6 April 2021. The landlord issued its stage one complaint response on 12 April 2021 which was within a reasonable timeframe. The resident asked for her complaint to be escalated on 16 April 2021. It would have been appropriate for the landlord to have escalated the resident’s complaint to stage two at this stage, however there is no evidence that it did so. Furthermore it failed to address this within its further complaint responses which is likely to have been inconvenient for the resident who needed to continue to pursue her concerns.
  3. The evidence suggests that the resident raised her concerns again on 20 May 2021, although the Ombudsman has not been provided with a copy of this correspondence for review. She pursued this again with the landlord on 1 June 2021 at which point a new stage one complaint was raised and the landlord issued a further stage one complaint response on 16 July 2021. As each complaint raised by the resident was related to the same issues, it would have been appropriate for the landlord to have considered escalating the complaint in view of the resident’s continued dissatisfaction rather than addressing the matters at stage one again. The landlord’s failure to escalate the complaint at this stage lengthened the overall timescale of the complaint which was likely to have caused some inconvenience to the resident who had needed to ‘re-start’ the complaints process despite initially raising the same concerns in April 2021.
  4. The landlord issued its stage two complaint response to the resident on 10 August 2021 following her escalation on 21 July 2021. Whilst this was approximately four working days outside of its ten working day timescale at this stage, it was within the recommended 20 working day timescale at stage two as set out within the Ombudsman’s complaint handling code and is considered reasonable. It is, however, noted that the landlord had the opportunity to escalate the resident’s complaint and provide a final response to the resident at an earlier date.
  5. Whilst the landlord has acknowledged and apologised for its failure to respond to the complaint raised on 20 May 2021, it has failed to acknowledge the additional failings as set out above. In view of the service failures identified, the landlord should pay the resident compensation in recognition of the inconvenience caused by its poor complaint handling.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration by the landlord in respect of its handling of the resident’s reports of antisocial behaviour (ASB).
  2. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration by the landlord in respect of its handling of the resident’s reports of being exposed to Covid-19 by a contractor.
  3. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure by the landlord in respect of its handling of the associated complaints.

Orders

  1. The Ombudsman orders that the following actions are taken within four weeks:
    1. The landlord is to pay the resident £150 in recognition of the inconvenience caused by its poor complaint handling.

Recommendations

  1. It is recommended that the landlord considers carrying out staff training for complaint handlers to ensure that the correct process is followed and that each aspect of a complaint is addressed within each complaint stage. The landlord should attempt to avoid re-starting the complaint process unreasonably and consider addressing a residents ongoing concerns at stage two where a stage one complaint response has previously been issued and the subject matter remains the same.
  2. As the landlord has explained that it has been unable to contact the resident, the Service recommends that the resident contact it to confirm her reasons for dissatisfaction regarding its handling of repairs at her previous property. The landlord should provide a copy of its final response on the matter if this has already been provided or issue a final response within 28 calendar days from the date the resident contacts it about the matter. If the resident remains dissatisfied once she has receives the landlord’s final response, she may then approach this Service for further investigation.