Victory Housing Trust (202201169)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202201169

Victory Housing Trust

22 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:
    1. Response to the resident’s reports of antisocial behaviour (ASB), particularly noise nuisance from the adjacent property.
    2. Handling of the resident’s complaint.

Background

  1. The resident is an introductory tenant of the landlord. The property is a semi-detached bungalow. The resident has advised she has vulnerabilities which she stated were impacted by the noise nuisance she reported.
  2. In April 2022, the resident raised concerns to the landlord about the poor quality of noise insulation in the property, which she stated was leading to noise nuisance from her neighbour’s property. The noise nuisance included excessive noise from her neighbour’s television, loud music and talking. The resident added that this was impacting her health.
  3. On 29 April 2022, the resident raised a complaint with the landlord about the lack of insulation between the two properties and requested that further insulation be installed so that the property was soundproofed.
  4. The landlord’s contractors inspected the insulation of the property on 11 May 2022 and found no structural faults. Throughout May 2022, the resident continued to report noise from her neighbour’s property, which she stated was frustrating and demoralising. The landlord asked the resident to complete diary sheets, and record any incidents on a noise app. In addition, the resident made further reports regarding alleged drug usage in the neighbour’s property which the landlord reported to the local police. On 1 June 2022, the local authority’s Environmental Health department installed its own sound equipment in the resident’s property, as the resident had stated she found the noise app to be inconvenient. Throughout June 2022, the resident continued to send regular emails to the landlord about the noise nuisance, which included the neighbours hoovering, coughing and choking. The landlord sent a warning letter to the neighbour who was suspected of causing the noise nuisance.
  5. On 29 June 2022, the landlord reviewed the noise recordings and concluded that there was no statutory noise nuisance, as it was largely household noise during daytime hours. Throughout July and August 2022, the resident continued to send the landlord a high volume of emails about the noise nuisance she was experiencing. In addition, she believed that the landlord had destroyed evidence in relation to her reports and was dissatisfied that the landlord would not disclose information to her about any past incidents involving her neighbour.
  6. The landlord provided its final complaint response (at stage three of its complaint procedure) on 21 September 2022, after its review panel met on 14 September 2022. It stated that the sound barrier the resident sought was not an appropriate remedy and advised it considered it had thoroughly investigated the resident’s reports, but found no evidence of statutory noise nuisance. It declined the resident’s request for a management move as it felt this was unwarranted. However, it stated that she would be eligible for a mutual exchange from February 2023, if her rent account was clear.
  7. The resident escalated her complaint to this Service on 30 September 2022. She was dissatisfied as she believed that the landlord had taken no action against the ASB, including the noise nuisance and drug usage at the property. In addition, she was unhappy the landlord had refused to move her.
  8. Throughout October and November 2022, the resident continued to report noise nuisance via email. The landlord has informed this Service it had tried to contact the resident on several occasions to offer mediation between her and the neighbour and to discuss other steps it may be able to take, but it had not been able to make contact.

Assessment and findings

The landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of antisocial behaviour (ASB), particularly noise nuisance from the adjacent property.

  1. The landlord’s Anti-Social Behaviour (ASB) policy states that ASB is conduct which may cause harassment, alarm or distress, or conduct which may cause nuisance and annoyance. It provides examples of ASB which includes unreasonable noise. It states the landlord will work in partnership with agencies such as the police and environmental health and that resolution methods and actions it takes will be proportionate to the case. The ASB policy also explains that the landlord will use a range of methods when dealing with an ASB case.
  2. On 29 July 2022, the resident expressed concerns to the landlord, as she believed it had destroyed the evidence which she had collected. However, as this did not form part of the resident’s original complaint, this is not something that this investigation will consider as the landlord needs to be provided with the opportunity to investigate and respond to these concerns. This is in accordance with paragraph 42(a) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, which states that the Ombudsman may not consider complaints which are “made prior to having exhausted a member’s complaints procedure”. If the resident wishes for this matter to be investigated further, the resident would first need to contact the landlord and raise a new complaint.
  3. The resident has also stated that the noise nuisance has exacerbated her medical conditions. However, it is beyond the remit and expertise of this Service to make a determination on whether there was any direct link between any action or inaction by the landlord and the resident’s reported medical conditions. The resident therefore may wish to seek independent advice if she considers that her health has been affected by any action or lack thereof by the landlord.
  4. Following the resident’s initial concerns about a lack of insulation, it was appropriate that the landlord carried out an inspection at her property. During the inspection on 11 May 2022, records show the contractor found no faults and reported that no repairs were needed. It was therefore reasonable that the landlord decided not to install any further insulation, as it is entitled to rely on the findings of its qualified staff. The contractor did state that the landlord could consider providing soundproofing plasterboard but noted this was generally only used in cases where there was significant ASB and police involvement. In view of this, the landlord acted appropriately by opening an ASB complaint so that it could investigate further.
  5. After opening the ASB case, the landlord took appropriate actions in order to gather evidence, which were in line with its ASB policy. During May 2022, it provided the resident with an action plan for the case, asked her to keep diary sheets of any incidents and to record any noise nuisance through a noise app on her phone. In addition, the resident was provided with a direct point of contact, who arranged to visit the resident. Whilst this Service appreciates that it would have taken time to record the incidents and complete the diary sheets, it was reasonable when considering that the landlord’s ASB policy states that each case would be investigated on an evidence-based basis.
  6. Furthermore, the landlord also sent a warning letter to her neighbour about the allegations of noise nuisance, which the neighbour disputed. Where a perpetrator of alleged ASB denies their behaviour, the landlord would need extensive evidence to support them in taking further enforcement action. The landlord had taken reasonable steps to verbally warn the neighbour against making excessive noise, and it continued to investigate the resident’s reports. It is clear that the landlord had understood that the resident was distressed by the situation, and it had shown commitment to trying to resolve the situation despite the lack of evidence at that time. 
  7. As the resident found the noise app inconvenient to use, the landlord considered other actions it could take in order to gather evidence. It communicated with the local authority’s Environmental Health officer and decided to install additional sound equipment in the resident’s property on 1 June 2022. This was a reasonable and proactive step for the landlord to take. This is evidence that the landlord was taking the resident’s concerns seriously while also being flexible in terms of how it attempted to gain evidence. It also showed it was investigating the reports of noise nuisance in line with its ASB policy.
  8. In addition to the reports of noise nuisance, the resident had also reported that there was drug usage in her neighbour’s property, which made her feel uncomfortable. The landlord asked the resident to report the drug usage to the local police force. However, as the resident was uncomfortable with reporting the incidents to the police due to concerns about the system being corrupt, the landlord acted appropriately by reporting the incidents itself. Whilst the Ombudsman recognises the resident’s concerns and that she was dissatisfied that the landlord discussed her case with other agencies, it was appropriate for the landlord to do so when considering the nature of the allegations, the concerns she had raised about reporting the issues herself, and it had taken action which was in line with its policies.
  9. After the landlord had reviewed noise recordings from the installed equipment, it concluded that the noise was not statutory noise nuisance, but household noise. It is noted that the resident has, at times, expressed to the landlord that her home should be silent at all times, such as on 3 May 2022. However, landlords cannot reasonably be expected to take formal action against tenants for noise that is considered everyday household noise. Nevertheless, the landlord had appropriately identified that the situation was causing distress for the resident, and in view of this it referred her to Shelter, where she would be able to seek further support. In addition, it also offered to refer her to a local wellbeing service. This is evidence of the landlord’s commitment to try and improve the situation for the resident, despite no statutory nuisance being identified.
  10. It is noted that the resident requested to be moved into a different property as she no longer felt comfortable in her home in view of her reports. The Ombudsman can understand the resident’s reasons for wanting to move. However, the Ombudsman would not order the landlord to move a resident as part of our investigation. However, it is clear that the landlord also understood the resident’s concerns, and it took reasonable steps to provide her with alternative options, such as explaining that from February 2023, she would be eligible to apply for a mutual exchange, subject to her rent account being clear at that time. It is recommended that the landlord should continue to support the resident with her request to transfer from her current property and discuss her available options.
  11. Due to the resident’s concerns about her neighbour’s behaviour, she had requested information from the landlord about any past incidents involving the neighbours but was dissatisfied that the landlord would not disclose the information. However, the landlord has a duty to follow relevant data protection legislation and it therefore would not be appropriate for the landlord to disclose information to the resident about her neighbour. This is in line with the landlord’s legal and contractual obligations and in the Ombudsman’s opinion, the landlord’s response to the resident’s request for information was reasonable.  
  12. The landlord informed this Service on 29 November 2022 that it had recently reviewed the actions it could take, in line with the findings from the Ombudsman’s investigation into noise complaints (“Time to be Heard”, published in October 2022). It stated that following its review, it had tried to contact the resident to offer mediation with the neighbour, and to consider other alternative steps it may be able to take if the situation remained ongoing. However, it stated that it had been unable to contact the resident. That the landlord carried out a further review was positive and evidence of it trying to learn and improve its handling of cases involving allegations of noise nuisance. It is recommended the landlord tries to contact the resident again about this, to assess whether the situation is ongoing and, if so, discuss what further proportionate actions it may be able to take.
  13. Overall, the landlord took reasonable actions in response to the resident’s reports of noise nuisance, which were proportionate to the evidence available throughout its investigation. It investigated the issue appropriately, opened an ASB case promptly, made adjustments in terms of how it sought to gain evidence when the resident advised she found the noise app hard to use and, when it found no evidence of statutory nuisance, advised the resident accordingly. However, if the resident is able to provide further evidence in relation to the noise nuisance, or if the situation progressively worsens, it would be appropriate for her to continue reporting these so as to allow the landlord to investigate further.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint.

  1. The landlord’s complaints policy lists no timeframe for a stage one complaint response, and 20 working days for a stage two response. It lists a stage three within its complaints policy which consists of a designated person liaising with the landlord about the complaint.
  2. The resident raised her initial complaint on 29 April 2022 and the landlord provided its stage one response on 4 May 2022, which was a total of three working days. Whilst the landlord’s complaints policy at the time did not list an appropriate timeframe in which a stage one response should be issued, the Complaint Handling Code provided by the Ombudsman states that a stage one response should be provided within 10 working days. As such, the landlord had issued the response within an appropriate timeframe.
  3. The resident then escalated her complaint to stage two on 19 May 2022, and the landlord provided the stage two response on 16 June 2022. This was a total of 19 working days which was in line with the appropriate timeframe of 20 working days as listed in the landlord’s complaints policy and the Complaint Handling Code.
  4. Within the stage two response, the landlord stated that the resident could either appeal its decision through its ‘Complaint Appeal Panel’ or escalate her complaint to the Ombudsman. Whilst the Complaint Handling Code provided by the Ombudsman states that he Ombudsman does not believe a third stage is necessary, the landlord had acted reasonably by giving the resident the choice of how to escalate her complaint.
  5. Following the resident’s choice to escalate the complaint to the landlord’s Complaint Appeal Panel on 17 June 2022, the panel did not take place until 14 September 2022, which was a total of 63 working days. It is clear that there was a delay during this stage three process, and the resident had contacted this Service on 5 July 2022 to state that there had been no progress. However, the landlord has also provided evidence to this Service to show that it had been trying to organise an appropriate date for the panel to take place such as on 29 June 2022, 12 September 2022 and 13 September 2022. In addition, it contacted this Service to state that it had not been able to communicate with the resident, and that she had terminated calls from members of its staff on several occasions. Therefore, it would not be reasonable for the Ombudsman to determine that the full extent of the delay was within the landlord’s control.
  6. Once the panel had taken place on 14 September 2022, the landlord issued its stage three response on 21 September 2022. This was a total of five working days, and was within the 20-working day timeframe as listed in the Complaint Handling Code.
  7. In addition, whilst the landlord’s complaints policy at the time did not fully adhere to the Complaint Handling Code, it should be noted that the landlord has since updated its complaints policy, with the up to date version being available on its website. The updated policy is now in line with the Ombudsman’s guidance that complaint procedures should contain no more than two stages. This is evidence of further learning on the landlord’s behalf. When considering all the factors listed above, there was no maladministration by the landlord in its handling of the associated complaint.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration by the landlord in respect of its:
    1. Response to the resident’s reports of antisocial behaviour (ASB), particularly noise nuisance from the adjacent property.
    2. Handling of the resident’s complaint.

Recommendations

  1. It is recommended that the landlord contacts the resident again and tries to engage with her about the other steps it may be able to take, such as mediation.
  2. It is also recommended the landlord should continue to support the resident with her request to transfer from her current property and contact her to discuss any available options.