Waltham Forest Council (202118210)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202118210

Waltham Forest Council

28 April 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

The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of anti-social behaviour (ASB).

Background and summary of events

Background

The resident is a tenant of the landlord, a Local Authority. She has resided at the property, a ground floor one-bedroom flat, since 2001. Landlord records indicate that it is aware the resident experiences mobility issues.
The landlord operates a two-stage Complaints Procedure. It states it aims to respond to complaints at Stage One within 20 working days and within 25 working days at Stage Two.

Scope of Investigation

Within her correspondence with this Service, the resident has outlined that one of her desired complaint outcomes is to be moved to a new property and that she is unhappy the landlord has not awarded her a higher priority on its housing list. It is important to note that this Service does not have the authority to compel a landlord to move a resident, or provide new accommodation, and complaints regarding a landlord’s Housing Allocations policy are more appropriately addressed by the Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman (LGSCO). In accordance with Paragraph 39(m) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, this Service will not determine issues which “fall properly within the jurisdiction of another Ombudsman”. If the resident does wish to pursue this aspect of her complaint, she may wish to contact the LGSCO: www.lgo.org.uk

Summary of Events

On 7 June 2021, the resident submitted a complaint to the landlord. In her letter, the resident raised the following concerns:
1. She had undergone “4 almost 5 years of constant ASB” from her neighbour, which she stated had caused her health to deteriorate considerably. She stated she felt the landlord was “powerless to stop him” regarding his “constant noise/fly tipping and drug taking” and that the fact he had “mates who are let in at all times of day and night (and use the flat) as a gym” meant she was unable to sleep.
2. The ASB amounted to “mental torture” which had left her “stressed and traumatised”, and sleep deprived as a result of the neighbour’s “bullying” towards her.
3. She stated she believed the neighbour had laminate flooring which was against his tenancy agreement, and this meant the noise created “travels”. She queried whether the landlord had taken action about this.
4. She had “constantly” kept diary sheets, for a 12-month period at one stage and she had to pay out for further photocopies as the landlord had only provided her with six diary sheets.
5. A noise recording app the landlord had recommended using on her phone did not work, while neither did a noise recording machine provided. She stated she was also promised the use of a tablet with a pre-loaded noise recording app but “that had never happened”.
6. She had not used her front door in “over two years” for fear of bumping into the neighbour “or one of his cronies” and, due to the secluded nature of the close, she felt “very isolated and vulnerable” at her end of the block. The landlord had also refused to install CCTV at the rear of the close, stating that the cost was too high.
7. She claimed the neighbour’s flat was a “drugs den” and used for prostitution and the smell of drugs came into her flat and affected her Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease (COPD). The resident advised she needed to move because of the ASB and requested the landlord update her on how long it would take for her to move and whether she would be given a high priority on its housing list. She also stated that she felt bullied by the landlord, as well as by the neighbour, as it had “allowed” things to “continue for so many years”
The resident wrote to the landlord on 20 July 2021 to chase its complaint response. The landlord provided its Stage One response the same day. It advised that it understood the resident’s complaint to be about:
1. The fact she was “experiencing ongoing ASB from your neighbour”, which included noise, weights being dropped onto the floor, the neighbour not having a carpet and his friends coming “in and out of his house to use the weights”.
2. The fact that the neighbour had failed to sign an Acceptable Behaviour Agreement (ABA).
3. The neighbour was storing items in the communal areas.
4. She had provided the landlord with completed diary sheets and asked for them to be returned, but it had not done so. She had also paid out of her own pocket to photocopy new sheets as the landlord had not provided them.
5. Noise monitoring equipment had been offered in the past, but this had not been forthcoming, or it did not work.
6. She was being bullied both by her neighbour but also by the landlord for allowing the ASB to “continue for so many years”.
7. She had also requested to be moved to sheltered accommodation.
Addressing the concerns it understood the resident to have raised, the landlord stated it had “reviewed the case file” and advised the following:
1. It was sorry that the case had “gone on for so long and that you have been made to feel the way you do about how we have managed the case” but it believed that it had “visited and engaged with both you and your neighbour” during its ongoing investigations.
2. It clarified that the neighbour had been issued with a final warning, had signed an ABA, and it was “about to issue possession proceedings imminently”.
3. It accepted that the neighbour had been storing items in communal areas and that, while it believed it had “addressed these issues when identified”, it notes that the neighbour had “continued to breach our warnings”.
4. Regarding her request for a move, it apologised that “plans that were made with you to visit a sheltered block did not take place” but stated that “on at least one occasion” this was because the resident was unavailable. It advised it had referred the resident to its Community Independent Living Officer who would assist her with her application.
5. It advised that it had visited the neighbour’s flat but had “not had sight of any weights or weightlifting equipment” and that while he did have floor coverings, “it is clearly not adequate to prevent sound being transmitted to your flat”.
6. Regarding diary sheets that had not been returned, it advised that it had sent these to the resident by post “some time ago”. It apologised if she had not received them and “for any inconvenience this may have caused”. It also clarified that it was most common for it to send new diary sheets via email, and it would not have expected the resident to print them out before submitting them. It apologised if “the process of receiving and submitting diary sheets” had not been explained.
7. It confirmed that it did not uphold the resident’s complaint that it had “not done anything to resolve this case or take action against your neighbour” but clarified that it had now “been able to obtain sufficient evidence of breaches and as such…we are instigating possession proceedings” and a judge would decide on its application “based on the evidence provided”.
8. The resident’s Tenancy Officer would “maintain regular monthly contact with you” and deal with any further ASB reports and would also provide the resident with an update on her application for sheltered accommodation by 30 July 2021 “or sooner”. The Tenancy Officer would also “explore the use of the Noise App” with the resident by the same date or sooner.
The resident requested that her complaint be escalated to Stage Two of the landlord’s complaints procedure on 11 August 2021. Reasons given for escalating the complaint included:
1. She denied that her complaint had implied the landlord had “done nothing” and clarified that its actions had been, and continued to be, “ineffective”.
2. In addition to the ASB from her neighbour, she had previously experienced ASB problems from a former tenant who was evicted and from a private tenant. She stated this had left her “exhausted” and taken a toll on her health.
3. She noted that the landlord had acknowledged that her neighbour’s flooring was “not adequate to prevent sound from being transmitted” but had not clarified if it was laminate flooring. She clarified that the ASB continued in the form of noise nuisance (“moving of toys in the early hours”) and “young males coming to the flat at all hours”.
4. In its Stage One response, the landlord had advised that it would provide an update on her transfer application by 30 July 2021, but this had not happened. She had also sent a letter to the Housing Team in July 2021 but had not received a response and she was “angry” she had not been given any points or a priority banding on the landlord’s housing list because of her health.
5. The landlord had not addressed the point she raised about the noise recording equipment not working, or that she had been promised the use of a tablet which had not happened.
6. The landlord had not addressed her comments about its decision to not install CCTV in the rear of the close.
7. The landlord acknowledged “that there is noise transfer between the upper and lower flats” but it had not provided any solutions or suggestion as to how it could improve noise insulation.
8. It had also acknowledged that the neighbour “dumped…very large amounts of ‘stuff in the communal areas” and it should be more proactive in dealing with the issue by patrolling the area more regularly.
9. She also stated she wished to “claim compensation for the years of ASB and the slowness of action” by the landlord, although she did not specify how much she was seeking or provide more details of the actions/inactions or delays that she believed warranted a compensation award.
The landlord provided its Stage Two response on 10 September 2021. It summarised the resident’s complaint as being about the ASB from her neighbour and other previous tenants; that the landlord’s actions to address her concerns had been “tardy and ineffective” and that she had been “forced” to request a transfer to a new property, as this would be her “only option to escape”. In response, the landlord noted the following:
1. It had a ’12-month rule’ when responding to complaints and therefore, while it noted the resident had referred to past ASB she had experienced from other neighbours in her block, it would only consider events which took place within the previous twelve months. However, it also noted that it had addressed a similar complaint from the resident “regarding these matters” in 2019, which it partly upheld. This Service has not seen details of this complaint.
2. Its Housing Management team had provided details of the steps it had taken to address the reported ASB. These included:
  1. Logging reports made from other neighbours.
  2. Records of visits to the neighbour and records of discussing the allegations made with him.
  3. Making referrals to the Police.
  4. “Communication regarding noise recording equipment”.
  5. An ABA signed by the neighbour in May 2021.
  6. Serving a Notice of Seeking Possession on the neighbour in August 2021.
3. The landlord advised it would not provide further details for data protection reasons but having reviewed the case, it was satisfied the Housing Management team had taken “reasonable action” in response to the ASB reports. It stated the last record on file was from August 2021 which noted the noise recording app had been set up and it was awaiting recordings.
4. Regarding the resident’s comments about CCTV not being installed, the landlord advised that it had “explored areas in which (we) could install CCTV to assist with the investigation of ASB”, and staff visited twice, on unspecified dates, “to look into possible locations”, with residents also attending one of the site visits. It stated it had established the cost of installing CCTV “at the back of (the resident’s) close” was too high and would have required “several works which would have taken quite some time to complete”. It had therefore temporarily installed one camera “to capture the front entrance of the estate” between March and May 2021. It noted this was “standard” for the installation of temporary CCTV but that, during this period, it “did not pick up any images or video of ASB which would be used in evidence”.
5. Regarding items left by the neighbour in communal areas, the landlord advised it had noted the resident’s comments that it should be more proactive in carrying out site visits. It explained that its Place Officers each have a patch list which covers various sites, and these are inspected at “regular intervals”. It clarified that the resident’s estate was inspected “every two months”, while “ad hoc visits are also done”. It noted that it also had a caretaker who could draw issues to the Place Officer’s attention. However, it advised it was not possible for the Place Officer to schedule more frequent visits “due to the volume of other tasks that…is expected of them” and conceded that “with the resources available, the service provision is reactive rather than proactive”.
6. Addressing the resident’s concerns over its lack of contact with her, the landlord noted that it had, in its Stage One response, advised that a Tenancy Officer would contact her by 30 July 2021 at the latest to assist with the noise recording app and provide an update on her transfer application. While it noted that its records showed it had helped her set up the app on 24 August 2021, it acknowledged that this was “later than promised”. It also advised its records showed its Community Independent Living Officer had contacted her regarding the transfer application and, following this, she had emailed the Housing Management Team on 21 July 2021 to further outline “the issues you were having”. If noted it had responded to reiterate that the type of property the resident sought was “in extremely high demand” and that while its Housing Management Team had no say in the allocation of properties, it clarified that “legal proceedings are at an advanced stage with your neighbour which may bring about some respite for you in the not too distant future”.
7. It upheld the resident’s complaint about not contacting her regarding the noise app by 30 July 2021 and offered an apology for the “inconvenience and uncertainty” this may have caused. However, it advised it did not uphold the “substantive complaint” about its handling of the ASB case overall. While it stated it “appreciate(d) that you have been facing a difficult situation”, it believed it had followed its ASB policy, provided relevant support and noted that “it can take a significant period of time to gather sufficient evidence that will stand in a Court of Law”.
Subsequently, the resident contacted this Service on 8 November 2021 to escalate the complaint. She stated her desired outcomes were for the landlord to “evict (the neighbour) asap, put noise insulation in the flat, enforce the tenancy agreement on no laminate flooring in upper flats” and that it should “move me to a different area and alter (its) allocations procedure to give points or priority…if you are suffering from ASB”.

Assessment and findings

The landlord’s ASB policy outlines that its approach to dealing with ASB is to “reduce the need for legal action by offering support services in all appropriate cases…(but) legal action can and will be taken in appropriate cases, where the complaint is sufficiently serious and all informal remedies…have failed”. It advises that it considers ASB complaints about noise to be ‘medium risk’ and complaints about drugs and ‘”other criminal behaviour” to be ‘high risk’.
The landlord’s published ASB service standards also state it will write to residents “within 5 days of your first complaint to let you know what we plan to do” and that “we will contact you at agreed frequencies and as a minimum every four weeks to keep you updated on your ASB complaint and the action we are taking”.
The landlord, in its Stage Two response, referred to a previous complaint made by the resident which it stated was “similar” and partly upheld in 2019, and it would therefore only respond to issues that occurred within the previous 12 months (prior to her complaint in June 2021). However, it is noted that the ASB investigation under consideration in this complaint was opened in March 2019 so, while the landlord may have determined that some of the events in this period were out of time, or already responded to in 2019, given the case remained open when it was brought to this Service, this investigation will consider the landlord’s actions since the case was opened. In the Ombudsman’s opinion, as part of a comprehensive review of the case and so as to be fair to the resident, it would have been helpful for the landlord to take the same approach, given the complaint related to what was a long-running and complex but continual case.
While the resident has advised in correspondence that she has experienced ASB for a number of years, some of these events relate to former residents and are outside of the period covered by this complaint. Regarding the ASB reports made against the neighbour in question in this investigation, records show the landlord had opened a new case in March 2019.
After opening the case, the information available indicates that the landlord acted appropriately and in line with its ASB policy. Logs show it completed an ASB Action Plan with the resident on 11 March 2019 and offered mediation, which she declined at the time. Records show it also completed a Victim Support referral for the resident. These were all reasonable steps for the landlord to take and it is clear it initially responded appropriately and in line with its ASB policies. However, the landlord’s ASB policy states the Action Plan will be “regularly” reviewed and, from the information available, there is no evidence it did so. As the case was opened in March 2019 and information submitted to this investigation indicates it remained open as recently as January 2022, this Service would expect to see evidence that the landlord had sought to update the Action Plan with the resident at some stage. That it did not do so meant it did not act in accordance with its policy and this amounted to a service failure.
However, records show the landlord wrote to the neighbour to invite him for an interview about the allegations, which took place promptly on 29 March 2019 and it followed this up by writing to him on 26 April 2019, having carried out a home visit the previous day. The landlord’s letter outlined the allegations made against him (noise nuisance from visitors “late at night”, children playing and “dragging” furniture across the floor, as well as storing items in communal areas) and that it would serve a Notice of Seeking Possession if it continued to received nuisance reports. These were reasonable, and prompt, actions for the landlord to take.
However, the landlord’s letter to the neighbour also notified him that he was in breach of his tenancy agreement due to having laminate flooring in part of his home. It quoted his tenancy agreement which advised “if laminate…flooring is laid without permission, the (landlord) may require you to move it”. The landlord further noted it had “reason to believe that given the nature of your home…even day to day household noise such as walking within your home or moving household items along the floor can be greatly amplified”.
While it was reasonable that the landlord brought this to the neighbour’s attention, having advised him that he was in breach of his tenancy, it is unclear if the landlord considered taking any further action. Once it had advised the neighbour it had the power to make him remove flooring that had been installed without permission, and having acknowledged that everyday noise would be “greatly amplified”, it does not appear to have considered whether it could take further steps to improve the situation for the resident, such as compelling the neighbour to change his floor coverings, or offering to work with both or either parties to improve the noise insulation between the properties. As the landlord had acknowledged the resident was vulnerable and reporting noise nuisance, and it also accepted that even everyday noise from the neighbour’s flat would be “amplified”, it did not treat the resident fairly by failing to consider other steps it could take. This amounted to a service failure. It also did not properly address this issue in its complaint responses, despite the resident repeatedly raising it as a concern in her correspondence. This was not appropriate.
However, records indicate the landlord otherwise continued to take reasonable steps to respond to the reported ASB, logging further reports from the resident and emailing her in July 2019 to provide an update on the action it had taken so far. It also made a further mediation referral in August 2019, which the resident agreed to on this occasion. After the landlord contacted her in September 2019 to advise it hoped the process would begin soon, correspondence from the appointed mediator shows they were unable to contact the neighbour despite visiting on multiple occasions and the case was closed in November 2019 as the resident was “happy” and the noise situation had improved.
Landlord records indicate the resident supplied four further email updates (each covering a week at a time) in December 2019, January 2020 and February 2020, although these suggested the situation had continued to improve and that any noise caused by the neighbour tended to be during daytime hours. The landlord appropriately acknowledged each update and kept the case open.
Records then show the resident made a further report on 16 April 2020, advising there had been noise from “weights and visitors” at the neighbour’s flat in the early hours. The landlord sent a warning letter to the neighbour the following day. This was a reasonable and proportionate response from the landlord and, following further reports from the resident, it also acted appropriately when it sent a further warning on 3 June 2020, advising the neighbour it would take tenancy enforcement action if the issues continued, and in May 2020 when it contacted the resident to provide instructions on how to install and operate a noise recording app. Records show the landlord went on to escalate the case with its Legal Team in July 2020 and sought permission to serve a Notice of Seeking Possession (NOSP) on the neighbour. This was an appropriate response and, as per its ASB policy, the landlord’s actions showed it acknowledged that preventative, non-legal steps to resolve the issue were not proving sufficient.
However, it is noted that following this, a NOSP was not served on the neighbour until 13 August 2021. Having written a further letter to the neighbour in September 2020 advising that it had received further reports and a NOSP was now “pending”, it is not clear why it took eleven months for the landlord to reach this stage. While in its complaint responses, the landlord advised that the case had not been escalated because the resident’s reports had been “sporadic”, it is noted that it continued to take other, non-legal steps to address the issue with the neighbour, which included asking him to sign an Acceptable Behaviour Agreement in October 2020. While this would ordinarily be a reasonable step for the landlord to take, it is not clear why it decided to de–escalate its approach having apparently decided that the situation was serious enough to begin tenancy enforcement action in July 2020 and, as records show, it received further ASB reports regarding noise and alleged drug use both from the resident and other neighbours on the estate in July and August 2020.
While this Service acknowledges that carrying out enforcement action against a tenant can be a lengthy process and the landlord may have decided there was insufficient evidence for it to proceed with further action at that time, this is not clear from the information available. Nevertheless, landlord records indicate it did otherwise take further reasonable steps to manage the case and support the resident, including making a further referral to Victim Support for the resident in September 2020. This indicated it understood the effect the ASB and noise nuisance was having on her.
Other concerns raised by the resident in her complaint included the landlord’s failure to provide noise recording equipment and failing to provide her with additional diary sheets. From the information available, as early as August 2019 the landlord had emailed the resident to advise that it hoped to install a ‘noise monitoring machine’ “this week”. However, there is no evidence that this materialised. This was not appropriate and while internal landlord correspondence seen by this investigation indicates that the equipment may have subsequently not been available at the time, it is not clear if this was explained to the resident, and she would have therefore likely had her expectations raised.
With respect to the landlord not providing further diary sheets, while the resident has advised that she is not confident using technology and the landlord apologised in its complaint responses if it had not explained how the diary sheet process worked, this investigated has noted that the resident provided the landlord with several email updates regarding the ASB. While it is acknowledged that she was upset at the landlord not collecting paper sheets she had compiled and photocopied at her own expense, the resident appeared to have been able to submit reports to the landlord via email without any issue. The landlord’s failure to provide further diary sheets did not therefore appear to cause her detriment.
Regarding the use of a noise app and the promise of a tablet with a pre-installed app, this Service has not seen evidence of this being promised to the resident so it cannot determine whether there was any failing by the landlord. There is evidence of the landlord providing the resident with the instructions for using the app in May 2020, which was an appropriate action for it to take. However, in its Stage One response, it advised it would follow up with her again regarding the use of the app by the end of July 2021, but it acknowledged it did not do so until August 2021. While this only amounted to a short delay, the Ombudsman’s Dispute Resolution Principles make clear the importance of landlord following through on actions promised in resolution to a complaint. As the landlord did not complete the action laid out in its Stage One response, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, it would have been proportionate for it to offer an apology for the delay.
Landlord records also indicate that, as part of its investigations, it explored other means of gaining evidence, such as the installation of temporary CCTV in the resident’s close between March and May 2021. While it is noted in her complaint that the resident was unhappy with the landlord’s decision to not install CCTV at the rear of the close, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, the explanation the landlord gave in response was reasonable, as it advised it had assessed the cost as being too high and that it would have required additional works. As a provider of social housing, this Service is mindful that the landlord has a duty to manage its limited budgets and resources responsibly and, while it is understandable that the resident would have appreciated additional, or permanent CCTV near her property, the landlord’s position was not unreasonable. Its explanation that the temporary CCTV was moved to another location after it failed to detect any evidence within the three months it was in place was also reasonable.
It is also noted that the landlord’s Stage Two complaint response also addressed the resident’s concerns over the neighbour leaving items in communal areas. While evidence available to this Service indicates that during its ASB investigations the landlord acted appropriately to the reports it received, which included writing to the neighbour about this and discussing it with him during other interviews, it was also reasonable when it outlined in its complaint response that it would not be possible for its staff to be more proactive and monitor the estate more frequently than once every two months, as the resident had requested in her complaint. It noted its service would have to be “reactive rather than proactive” due to the volume of tasks each Place Officer had to manage. While this would not be what the resident wanted to hear, in the Ombudsman’s opinion this was a reasonable position for the landed to take and it gave the resident an honest and candid explanation of how it had to manage its resources, while also seeking to manage her expectations.
When considering how the landlord handled the ASB investigation overall, records seen by this Service indicate it largely responded appropriately to the resident’s reports and took her concerns seriously. This Service acknowledges the resident’s frustration that the ASB investigation has been open for a lengthy period and the impact that the reported nuisance has had on her is clear. However, while information indicates the landlord could have potentially escalated the case more promptly at certain stages of its investigation and could have provided the resident with more regular updates at times, its position that the reports it received during the investigation were at times sporadic and at other times indicated that the issues had died down was reasonable. It is acknowledged that an improvement or reduction in ASB would have potentially made it disproportionate to escalate its enforcement action at times.
However, the landlord could have been more proactive with assisting the resident to set up a noise app and it is regrettable that it did not provide the “noise recording machine” when it advised it would in 2019, but it did carry out other reasonable and proportionate steps such as mediation, issuing warning letters and Acceptable Behaviour Agreements and installing temporary CCTV in its efforts to gather evidence. While its overall handling of the case was reasonable, there were issues outlined above which the landlord could have handled better, so a finding of Service Failure has been made.
Ultimately, records show that, as above, the landlord served a NOSP on the neighbour in August 2021 and its Stage One complaint response had provided the resident with an update regarding this, advising that it was imminent. However, while the landlord has provided evidence that it obtained a three-month Closure Order for the property in January 2022, advising that only the neighbour and two other named persons could visit the property, it is not clear whether the landlord has now progressed the case for Possession proceedings after the expiry of the notice. An Order has therefore been made at the end of this report for the landlord to update the resident on the current situation and its next steps, particularly considering the Closure Order has recently expired.
While this investigation has focussed on the landlord’s handling of the ASB case, turning to the resident’s request to move to new accommodation, information seen by this Service shows that the landlord has generally responded reasonably to her requests. The first record of the resident requesting to move appears to have been in May 2019, when she advised that she wished to move closer to her daughter. Since then, the resident appears to have been able to make a transfer application with the landlord’s Housing Management Team and the landlord has provided updates and sought to manage her expectations regarding the high demand of the kind of property she has advised she would like. It also acted reasonably by attempting to conduct a viewing of a sheltered accommodation block, although it is noted that this did not happen.
The landlord’s Stage Two response also reasonably acknowledged that it did not fulfil its promise, made in its Stage One reply, that it would provide her with an update on her transfer application by the end of July 2021. It was appropriate that it provided an apology for this, and it was also reasonable that it advised in its complaint response that it would not reassess the banding or priority she had been awarded. As above, if the resident wishes to pursue a complaint about the priority she has been awarded, she may wish to refer the matter to the Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with Paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure regarding the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of anti-social behaviour (ASB).

Reasons

While the landlord’s responses to the ASB reports and its handling of the ASB investigation were reasonable overall, there is no evidence that it updated the ASB Action Plan it agreed with the resident in March 2019. This Service would have expected it to revisit the Action Plan regularly during the investigation period to ensure the actions remained relevant and that the resident was being supported.
There is also no evidence that it considered what steps it could take to improve the noise insulation between the neighbour’s and resident’s flats, despite acknowledging that the neighbour was in breach of his tenancy due to installing laminate flooring without permission, and that the floor coverings in place meant that even everyday noise would be “greatly amplified”. It did not appropriately consider the impact this had on a vulnerable resident.

Orders

The landlord should, within four weeks of the date of this report, pay the resident compensation of £250 in consideration of its failure to review the ASB Action Plan and failure to fully consider whether it could take further action to reduce noise transference between the flats.
The landlord should write to the resident to update her on the current status of its ASB investigation against her neighbour and clarify its position in relation to the legal action it has taken so far.
The landlord should provide evidence to this Service of its compliance with these Orders by 27 May 2022.