Walsall Housing Group Limited (202111671)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202111671

Walsall Housing Group Limited

27 June 2022


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:
    1. The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of antisocial behaviour and noise nuisance from her neighbour.
    2. The landlord’s handling of the associated complaint.

Background

  1. The resident is a tenant of the landlord. The property is a flat within a block of similar properties. The resident’s neighbour lives in a property somewhere below the resident.
  2. The resident initially raised concerns about loud music emanating from her neighbour’s property in January 2021. The landlord issued a verbal warning to the neighbour around this time. In May 2021, following reports of excessive noise and cannabis use, the landlord visited the neighbours property alongside the police and issued a written warning advising the neighbour that if further reports of drug-use were received, it may take action against their tenancy.
  3. The resident continued to report loud music from her neighbour’s property through the noise app. In July 2021, the landlord sent an anti-social behaviour (ASB) case closure letter to the resident; it had listened to the noise app and found that the submissions yielded no conclusive evidence which would support it in taking further action against the neighbour. It had also visited the neighbour who had denied making excessive noise and raised a counter complaint against the resident as they felt they were being harassed. The landlord confirmed that it would be withdrawing use of the noise app as the case was now closed but confirmed that it would investigate concerns in future should the resident provide new evidence.
  4. Following contact from the resident during August 2021, the Ombudsman asked the landlord to respond to the resident’s complaint about how it had handled her reports of excessively loud music, drug use and harassment from her neighbour. The resident later added concerns that she had not refused mediation at any stage; the member of staff responsible for investigating her concerns had provided incorrect information and had stopped another member of staff from contacting her. She added that there was an ongoing police investigation into her reports of harassment from her neighbour which she felt could have been avoided had the landlord dealt with the situation differently. She was also dissatisfied that she had been spoken to about allegations of harassment made by her neighbour but had been advised to contact the police regarding her own concerns and that she had attempted to activate a ‘community trigger’ but had not received a response form the landlord.
  5. In response to the resident’s complaint, the landlord explained that it had listened to the noise app recordings submitted by the resident but these did not meet the threshold to support it taking any further action against the resident’s neighbour. It noted that some noise was heard but the recordings, however, it could not pinpoint the location of the noise and the resident’s neighbour had denied playing excessively loud music. It deemed the noise to be ’normal family noise’ and confirmed that it could not act against a tenant for this as it would not be considered a tenancy breach unless there was evidence that it was being created deliberately to annoy the resident or other neighbours.  It confirmed that it had previously offered the resident mediation, but this had been refused. It also confirmed that its offer of mediation would remain open and had always been available should the resident change her mind. It confirmed that requests to activate a community trigger would need to be made through the local authority and it was not able to activate this itself.
  6. The landlord refused to escalate the resident’s complaint to stage three of its formal complaints process in December 2021. It explained that it was satisfied that it had completed a thorough investigation of the aspects raised in the resident’s initial complaint and that there was no new information to consider.
  7. The resident referred her complaint to this Service as she remained dissatisfied with the landlord’s response. She explained that the landlord had disciplined her when her neighbour had reported harassment, but when she had reported the same, it had advised her to speak to the police. She also advised that the issue of drug usage within the building was ongoing but the landlord had stated that there was not enough evidence to act on this. As a resolution, the resident wanted the landlord to take action in relation to the drug-usage within the building and encourage other resident’s to come forward.

Assessment and findings

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of antisocial behaviour (ASB) and noise nuisance from her neighbour.

  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 and noise. 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 accordance with the landlord’s ASB Policy, when the landlord receives reports of ASB it should respond and start an investigation into the reports as quickly as possible, and always within three working days. The landlord’s policy is not specific in relation to the actions it should take. In line with best practice, landlords would usually be expected to take steps to gain evidence of the alleged ASB through the use of diary sheets or a noise app to determine the severity, frequency and type of ASB reported.
  3. Landlords should usually take informal steps to resolve the ASB in the first instance such as through verbal and written warnings or an offer of mediation services. The landlord cannot take any formal action against alleged perpetrators of ASB such as an injunction or eviction without strong supporting evidence to show the behaviour is serious and prolonged. Landlords also cannot reasonably be expected to take formal action against tenants for noise that is considered everyday household noise; however, if noise is confirmed as constituting statutory noise nuisance, then both a landlord and the local authority’s Environmental Health service may be able to warn and take formal action against the perpetrator. In line with its ASB policy, the landlord should work alongside third-parties such as the Police and local authority where appropriate in order to resolve ASB.
  4. In this case, the resident had accused her neighbour of playing excessively loud music, drug usage and also harassment. The landlord took reasonable steps to investigate and seek corroborative evidence in line with its obligations by initially asking the resident to record noise experienced through a noise app. The evidence shows that the landlord responded to each report within a reasonable timescale and initially took steps to verbally warn the neighbour against making excessive noise in January 2021 following the resident’s reports. The resident advised that the landlord’s warning had proven successful for a number of months and that the loud music had ceased.
  5. Following reports of the neighbour using cannabis in their property in May 2021, the landlord took reasonable steps to investigate the matter alongside the Police, which was appropriate as drug usage would be a criminal matter. The landlord acted appropriately by issuing a written warning to the neighbour reminding them of their obligations and explaining that legal action could be taken against their tenancy should it receive further reports. It is noted that the resident has since reported that the issues with cannabis use within the block are ongoing, however, at the time of the resident’s complaint the landlord had advised that it had received no further reports of drug usage from the neighbours property. As such it was reasonable that no further action was taken at this stage.
  6. The resident then continued to report loud music from her neighbours property through the noise app. The landlord acted appropriately by discussing the allegations with the resident’s neighbour, who advised that the music was not coming from their property and raised a counter-allegation that they felt the resident was harassing them with their complaints. The landlord also acted appropriately by listening to the audio recordings submitted and gaining a second opinion from several members of staff at this stage.
  7. The landlord took reasonable steps to explain its position to the resident and concluded that the level of noise recorded would not meet the threshold to support it in taking further action against the neighbour. The landlord advised that due to the time of day the music was recorded and the level of music, it was considered acceptable. It was unable to determine the exact location of the noise from the recordings and the neighbour had advised that the noise was not coming from their property. In addition, the landlord contacted other tenants who confirmed that there was no noise emanating from the address. As such, it was reasonable for the landlord to close the case due to lack of evidence to support the resident’s claim that there was excessively loud music coming from her neighbours property.
  8. The resident has raised concern that she had not been offered mediation by the landlord, as it had stated, and had not refused this at any stage. The evidence shows that the landlord was not able to offer mediation in early 2021 due to the impact of Covid-19 which was outside of its control. Following this, the records show that it had offered mediation between the resident and her neighbour in August 2021 once it had established that there had not been a tenancy breach, which the resident refused. The landlord confirmed that its mediation offer would remain open should the resident change her mind in August 2021 within its stage one complaint response and in November 2021 the resident accepted the offer. Either party is entitled to refuse to participate in mediation, however, it was reasonable for the landlord to offer this in an attempt to resolve the neighbour dispute.
  9. The resident later raised concern that the member of staff dealing with her ASB case had provided incorrect information in that she had been offered mediation and had prevented another member of staff from contacting her. The landlord clearly explained its reasons behind its decision to ask another member of staff who had not been previously involved in the case not to contact the resident. It said that the member of staff was not familiar with the case and it was better suited to the member of staff who had been involved previously. This is not considered unreasonable and the landlord had apologised for any inconvenience caused by the delay in contacting the resident in August 2021 which she accepted at the time and did not raise again as part of her initial complaint to the landlord. 
  10. The landlord would be responsible for investigating and responding to all reports of alleged ASB. As the neighbour had reported that they felt the resident had harassed them, it was reasonable for the landlord to make the resident aware of the allegation. There is no evidence to suggest that the landlord took any further action in relation to the allegation which would have impacted the resident negatively. The resident has reported that she also raised reports of her neighbour harassing her, noting that there was an incident on 21 July 2021 where the neighbour and their friend had harassed the resident in the street and that there was an ongoing police investigation into this matter.
  11. The Ombudsman has not been provided with any further information in relation to a police investigation, however, it is noted that the landlord worked alongside police in relation to the resident’s ASB concerns and there is no evidence to suggest that any further action had been taken by the police in relation to this matter. Ultimately, as harassment is a legal term, it was not unreasonable for the landlord to refer the resident to the police for further support.
  12. The resident expressed dissatisfaction that her requests to activate the community trigger had not been responded to by the landlord. A community trigger is designed to allow victims of ASB the ability to request a review of how their reports of ASB have been handled. This is something that is independent from the landlord. The landlord acted appropriately by confirming that it was not responsible for activating the community trigger and that the resident would need to contact her local authority if she wished to proceed.
  13. Overall, the landlord has demonstrated that it took reasonable steps to investigate and respond to the resident’s reports of ASB from her neighbour. It is noted that the resident has reported that the issues of drug-usage and music is ongoing. As such, it is recommended that the landlord contacts the resident to discuss her concerns regarding ongoing drug usage within the building and supplies diary sheets so that it is able to determine the frequency and severity of the issues reported. It should take proportionate action where appropriate and signpost the resident to the Police regarding any criminal matters. 

The landlord’s handling of the associated complaint.

  1. Reports of ASB would not usually be considered under the landlord’s formal complaints process in the first instance as the landlord needs to be provided with the opportunity to respond and attempt to resolve the ASB through its ASB management process. If the resident remains dissatisfied with the landlord’s handling of their ASB reports, they can then raise a formal complaint for the landlord to investigate its handling of the matter.
  2. The landlord’s complaints policy states that it has a three-stage formal complaints process. At stage one, the landlord should respond within ten working days. If the resident remains dissatisfied, they can escalate their complaint to stage two. At stage two, the landlord should respond within 15 working days.  if the resident remains dissatisfied with the landlord’s stage two response they can again request to escalate their complaint and a response should be issued at stage three within 20 working days.  The landlord may decline a request to escalate a complaint where each element of the resident’s complaint has been previously addressed and where there has been no change of circumstances.
  3. The resident’s reports about her neighbour were initially dealt with in line with the landlord’s ASB policy. Prior to the Ombudsman’s involvement in August 2021, there is a lack of evidence to suggest that the resident had asked for her concerns to be raised as a formal complaint. The Ombudsman initially asked for the landlord to respond to the resident’s complaint on 19 August 2021. The landlord issued its stage one complaint response on 24 August 2021 which was within a reasonable timeframe.
  4. The resident asked for her complaint to be escalated to stage two on 6 September 2021, following this the evidence suggests that the resident had asked for the complaint to be put on hold which the landlord acknowledged on 27 September 2021.It also managed the resident’s expectations by confirming that the complaint would remain open and it would await her instruction before proceeding. It is unclear from the evidence provided as to when the resident asked for the landlord to reopen her complaint, however, the landlord appears to have spoken to the resident on 1 November 2021 and issued its stage two complaint response on 5 November 2021.
  5. The resident asked for her complaint to be escalated to stage three on 29 November 2021. The landlord responded within a reasonable timescale on 10 December 2021 and confirmed that it would not be escalating the matter further as it had addressed each aspect of the resident’s complaint and there was no new information to consider. It is the Ombudsman’s view that a two-stage complaints process is ideal and that a third stage is not necessary as long as the complainant has had the opportunity to respond to the landlord’s position.
  6. In this case, the landlord has clearly explained its reasons for refusing to escalate the resident’s complaint in that the resident had not produced any new evidence which would support her complaint and that it had previously addressed each aspect of the resident’s complaint. The reasons provided are reasonable in line with the landlord’s complaints policy and the Ombudsman is satisfied that the resident had been provided with the opportunity to respond to the landlord’s position within her stage two escalation and received a response at stage two of the landlord’s complaints procedure. As such, she was not disadvantaged by the landlord’s decision not to escalate her complaint further.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration by the landlord in respect of its handling of the resident’s reports of of antisocial behaviour and noise nuisance from her neighbour.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration by the landlord in respect of its handling of the associated complaint.

Recommendations

  1. it is recommended that the landlord contacts the resident to discuss her concerns regarding ongoing drug usage within the building and supplies diary sheets so that it is able to determine the frequency and severity of the issues reported. It should take proportionate action where appropriate and signpost the resident to the Police regarding any criminal matters.