West Kent Housing Association (202117684)

A blue and grey text

Description automatically generated

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202117684

West Kent Housing Association

21 September 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

The complaint is about the landlord’s response to the resident’s:
1. Concerns about her neighbour’s dog.
2. Query regarding the path at the side of the property.
3. Reports of noise transference.
4. Complaint.

Background and summary of events

The resident has occupied the property, a one bedroom ground floor flat, since 13 May 2013. She has an assured tenancy and has arthritis, depression and anxiety. The property has a garden to the rear. To the side of the property there is an access path that is shared by the resident and her neighbour (Ms G).
In 2020 the resident liaised with the landlord over concerns she had about Ms G accessing her garden using the path at the side of her property. The resident expressed concern that it was affecting her privacy. It was agreed at the time that Ms G and her family and visitors, would use a second access when attending the property; however they could still use the shared access that went past the resident’s property. The agreement resolved the issue at the time.
On 15 September 2021, the resident installed a dog gate outside her property to prevent Ms G’s dog from entering her garden. The landlord subsequently asked the resident to remove it on 12 October. On 21 October 2021, the resident contacted the landlord to raise concerns about the situation. She said she had raised issues she had been having with Ms G, to her housing officer and their manager; but, she was not happy with the way it had been handled. She said:
1. Ms G’s dog was roaming on her property and fouling as it was not supervised. There was also an issue with a dog gate she installed.
2. Ms G’s grandchildren were playing in her garden; and she was unhappy with her body language when she used the access path at the property.
3. There was noise from Ms G’s property, due to laminate flooring or an issue with floorboards.
4. She wanted to complain about the attitude of landlord staff to the issues raised.
It is unclear whether the landlord responded. On 25 October 2021, the resident completed a complaint form via the landlord’s website. The landlord called the resident, to discuss her concerns. They discussed Ms G’s behaviour, including having lots of visitors congregating near her property, and an inappropriate comment made, by Ms G’s child. It is recorded that the previous year, the resident spoke with Ms G about them using an alternative access, and that was agreed, so the issue was not formally recorded as ASB at the time. However, since then things had not improved and the relationship between both parties had gone downhill. The resident said she would consider mediation, and the landlord said it would see if Ms G would also consider it.
During the conversation, the resident also reported that Ms G was:
1. Making noise upstairs in the early hours, such as putting the washing machine on, when there was laminate flooring.
2. Letting the dog out “unsupervised”; and it had entered her property when the door had been opened. She added that the dog had been fouling in her garden too, and Ms G did not ensure that the mess was cleaned up.
On 26 October 2021, the resident advised that she still wished to complain. She felt the phone call with her housing manager was “totally pointless and a waste of time” and she just wanted the call to end. She felt as if she was being patronised and treated unfairly.
The landlord acknowledged the complaint on 28 October, and said it would issue a response by 9 November 2021. On the same day, the resident told the landlord that children (Ms G’s visitors) were playing in her garden again and she wanted it noted.
The landlord emailed the resident on 4 November 2021, summarising a conversation that took place on 27 October 2021. It noted all the issues with Ms G and it tried to reassure the resident that the Tenancy Officer was understanding. It sought to address her concerns and suggested mediation as a means of resolving the situation. It is unclear whether the resident responded.
The landlord emailed the resident on 8 November 2021, and said it had contacted Ms G to discuss the issues she had raised in relation to their dog. It said it hoped this would assist in preventing any further incidents; but if there were further issues, to report them and it would raise an ASB case in line with its policies and procedures.
The landlord then issued its response to the resident’s complaint on 9 November. It said:
1. It would speak to Ms G about the dog and children playing in her garden.
2. It would investigate her concern over the flooring.
3. The officer was notified that the resident had installed a dog gate on 12 September. The officer asked the resident to remove the dog gate on 12 October 2021 as it was a health and safety risk. It had not been possible to notify the resident of this sooner as the officer was unavailable for a period. It added that if this were to happen again, the resident could email a general email address so that another officer could deal with her request.
4. It would need to liaise with its legal team in order to obtain documentation showing the access path and the right of way.
5. It could not control Ms G’s body language, but could investigate if there was a report of ASB.
6. The member of staff dealing with the matter accepted she could be very direct but did not mean to offend, and she would take this into consideration when she next spoke to the resident.
7. The resident could request a review of the complaint.
The resident responded on 10 November 2021. She said:
1. It was a passage way gate, not a side gate.
2. She was upset with comments made the named member of staff, and this had not been mentioned within the letter. Although she noted that the Customer Resolution Officer had advised that she had spoken with her.
3. She had informed the tenancy officer of the gate installation on 15 September, not 12 September.
4. She did not mind the dog being in her garden, as long as its mess was picked up and the dog not left unattended.
The landlord agreed to amend the letter in response. It is unclear what transpired following this. However, on 6 December 2021, the resident emailed the landlord, and said she had not had a response to some of her issues. She queried whether it would be necessary to escalate her complaint to stage 2.
On 7 December 2021, the landlord sent an internal email, saying the resident had asked the day before, to escalate her complaint to stage 2 as she had not been given documents she asked for, or informed about the laminate flooring. It said the resident had been told this information should be available by 13 December 2021. The landlord also acknowledged the resident wanted a letter regarding the legal situation over access; by way of remedying her complaint at stage one.
On 9 December, the landlord emailed the resident. It said it had spoken with Ms G about children playing football in the garden and noise disturbance from the laminate flooring. Having done so it wished to advise:
1. Ms G agreed that she would not allow her grandchildren to play football, or other games, in the garden unless she was present. They would only play in her share of the garden.
2. The laminate flooring was in place when Ms G moved in, and they discussed putting rugs down.
3. Ms G also advised her tumble dryer was on a shelf in the cupboard. She did not use it very often, but was happy to stop using it to prevent any noise transference.
The landlord added that if the resident did have any further problems relating to these issues it could raise an ASB case in line with its policies and procedure.
The landlord sent the resident a letter about access to the property on 14 December. A copy of the letter has not been provided to this service. The resident responded and explained that was not what she had asked for. She said she had asked for documentation from the legal department detailing the access rights through the passage way. In response, the landlord apologised that the resident was unhappy with the letter that had been sent. It said that within the letter is had explained its position as the land owner and its rights in relation to it. It advised that the matter had been forwarded to its inhouse solicitor for their attention. It is unclear whether the solicitor provided any further clarification to the resident.
On 11 and 12 January 2022, there were email exchanges between the resident and landlord about the noise coming from the floorboards in the neighbouring property. The resident also raised another issue with Ms G’s dog being in her garden. She was asked if she wanted to go down the route of an “ASB order”, and on 12 January, she confirmed she did.
On 21 January 2022, the resident submitted another complaint to the landlord. She referred to her complaint in October 2021 and said some issues had been resolved. However, she said when the floor was being walked across it was squeaking, creaking and there was a vibration noise. She was also still waiting for a legal document detailing access right of way through the passage way.
On 23 January, the landlord emailed the resident, and advised that it wished to know if the noise from the flooring was continuing. It added that it had discussed having an engineer attend, but it wished to see if the additional flooring Ms G agreed to supply had made any difference. The resident responded the same day and confirmed the issue still existed. She said she had recordings, but they were too big to send by email. A call between the landlord and resident, was arranged for 27 January 2022 and the landlord attended the resident’s property on 9 February 2022, in order to listen to the noises being complained of.
On 22 March 2022, the resident told the landlord she did not wish to pursue the issue of the dog fouling on her property any further. She said she had cut her grass short, so if it did foul, it could be seen.
Between 22 and 23 March 2022, the landlord and resident exchanged emails about the neighbour’s floorboards. The landlord confirmed that one of the boards had been identified as needing repair. and it would take a few weeks in order to arrange access with Ms G. It also confirmed that they had discussed that the issues did not constitute a deliberate act of ASB, as Ms G was unaware of the noise. It added that it would wait for the works to be complete to see if this rectified the problem. The resident had also advised that the situation with the dog mess had “greatly improved”. The resident had seen some excrement in her garden the day before, but she noted that Ms G had “probably not” found it.
Towards the end of March, the resident contacted this service as she was concerned that the landlord had not escalated her complaint. We wrote to the landlord on 28 March 2022 and asked it to issue a stage 2 response. The landlord wrote to the resident the following day, to explain it would send a response by 28 April 2022.
On 31 March 2022, the resident emailed the landlord. She said:
1. She had been told at the 9 February 2022 visit, that Ms G’s floor would be inspected, but that clearly had not been done.
2. She did not feel listened to, and noted that despite asking for her reports of Ms G’s dog accessing her property, to be reported as ASB, this was not done.
3. She had taken photos of the dog mess and mentioned it to Ms G, but had been ignored, and said the recent dog mess was still in her garden.
4. She had told the landlord in the past, how much these issues were affecting her wellbeing. She wanted to know when the floorboard issue would be resolved.
The landlord and resident spoke about the issues on 7 April 2022, and on 8 April, the resident asked the landlord for an email to confirm what was discussed. The landlord’s records state the resident, “would like the ASB case to be instigated. She feels let down that this has not been done before when she had asked for this”. The landlord responded and said:
1. The floor would be inspected at the end of April, and it wished to apologise for the delay.
2. The fault with the flooring was identified by Ms G. It said once the hallway flooring was fixed, it would inspect the dining room.
3. It would set up an ASB case to monitor the dog mess issue.
4. There was a wait for tenancy support, but it would contact the resident, when this became available.
The resident responded the same day and said she raised the floorboard issue in October 2021, and she reiterated it was affecting her wellbeing. An arrangement was made for the resident and landlord to speak, at the end of April 2022.
The resident chased the landlord for an update on 13 April 2022. A discussion took place between landlord staff and the resident; however the date of this is unclear. Following the conversation, the landlord wrote to the resident on 19 April and confirmed that the following had been agreed:
1. It would write to Ms G and explain that a complaint had been made about pets and animal nuisance and discuss the issues with her Ms G. It added that it would not disclose where the complaint had come front, but that sometimes this could be “obvious”.
2. It would keep in regular contact with the resident.
3. The resident would keep an ASB diary to record any further instances of ASB. Diary sheets would be returned by 3 May 2022.
4. The resident would consider mediation and keep in touch with the landlord.
On 26 April 2022, the landlord updated the resident. It said it had spoken with Ms G and she said that since 4 April her dog had not been unattended. It added that the case would be kept open and the resident was to report any incidents on the diary sheets. The landlord also confirmed it had received photographic and video evidence from the resident but had issues viewing the video, which it hoped to resolve.
On 28 April 2022, the resident emailed the landlord, and said she had put evidence on a memory stick, and would drop it in. She also said she heard someone had visited Ms G’s property the day before, to inspect the floor. She said the floor was still noisy and she thought only a small section of floorboards had been repaired.
The landlord issued its stage two response on 29 April 2022. It noted the issues the resident remained unhappy with, were:
1. That an ASB case had not been logged/actioned.
2. The issue with noise from her neighbour needed investigating.
The landlord said:
1. In terms of Ms G’s dog fouling in the resident’s garden and it not being cleared up, the resident had said she would deal with that herself.
2. The complaint about the dog entering the resident’s house had not been logged as an ASB case, which it wished to apologise for.
3. It noted the resident had agreed to mediation and the situation would continue to be monitored.
4. Someone had been out to look at the floorboards, some of which had been refixed, but as the resident complained about further noise, she was invited in to the office so it could hear her recordings.
5. It was also waiting for a further inspection report of Ms G’s property, but would monitor the noise going forward.
On 3 May 2022, the landlord was notified that after an inspection of Ms G’s property, the floorboard was now sound as it had been refixed. The following day, the landlord confirmed with the resident that it had received the memory stick. It said Ms G had been asked about attending mediation, and it would revert back, if agreed. It said it would “also look at the possibility of any loose furniture, which may involve a visit to the property.”
The resident met with the landlord on 5 May 2022, and sent an email to it the following day, to clarify some points. The resident advised that while she was open to mediation with Ms G, she meant in the future rather than at that time.
The following day, on 6 May 2022, the resident emailed the landlord again, thanking it for meeting with her and listening to her noise recordings. She said in terms of the floorboards, at an inspection on 27 April 2022, a loose floorboard was repaired under a carpeted area in Ms G’s hallway, as well as under laminate in the dining area. She said she had been told it would be too costly for Ms G to uninstall and then reinstall the laminate flooring, so no further inspection was going to be undertaken of this floor area. She said it had suggested she contact Environment Health and she had taken its advice.
On 9 May 2022, the resident’s GP wrote to the landlord, and said the situation was having a detrimental effect on her mental health. The GP explained that the resident had a history of depression and anxiety and said her mood had deteriorated as a result of not feeling “safe or comfortable” in her home. It asked that it help her find another property or to settle the concerns with her living arrangements.
The resident reported her issues, to her MP on 10 May 2022 and on 12 May 2022, the landlord emailed the resident. It referred to her request to consider mediation later, and said it could be kept open and visited any time. It acknowledged the letter from her GP and the request to be rehoused and said her support worker had said she did not wish to be rehoused at that time. The landlord asked her to let it know if that had now changed.
The resident replied the same day and confirmed she had discussed moving with her support worker, but she was considered “adequately housed” and as such there were not any options apart from mutual exchange. The resident added that she would not be happy to leave due to the work she had put in to her home. She reiterated her view that the issues with Ms G she felt were deliberate and she had tried to rectify matters with Ms G, but she was not open to mediation. She said the issues she reported were ongoing and she found it distressing.
The landlord replied on 17 May. It said the housing register criteria was set by local government, and it had no jurisdiction over that. It said an application could be made on the grounds of ill health if the resident’s GP considered that her home was “detrimental” to her long term health. It recommended that the resident call the local authority to explore this further. On the same day, the landlord logged that the resident had had no further dog fouling issues.
The resident’s MP wrote to the landlord on 23 May, and in return it confirmed that a visit would be carried out to both properties on 1 June 2022.
On 28 May 2022, the resident advised the landlord she could not go ahead with the visit on 1 June as she felt it would be an unfair exercise. In that email she raised concerns about the laminate flooring in the neighbouring property.
The landlord wrote to the resident on 6 July 2022 and said:
1. It could not ask Ms G to remove all her flooring without more evidence, as it would create a “financial burden”.
2. It had suggested visiting to gather sound evidence, as it had been difficult to prove.
3. If Ms G could be present at the visit, it could try moving furniture and listen to footsteps to review noise transference.
4. It wished to know if the resident had any more issues with Ms G’s dog.
5. It wished to thank the resident for agreeing to mediation and Ms G was considering it also.
6. To progress with the noise investigations, it wished for the resident to reconsider its offer of visiting both properties.
The resident emailed the landlord on 25 July 2022. She agreed to a joint visit and said she wanted someone there to put pressure on the flooring. She said there had been no further dog issues or with Ms G. On 2 August 2022, the landlord replied. It said it could not arrange for an engineer to attend during the visit as it would not be able to justify this action. However, if it identified an area of concern during the visit it could request the engineer attend at a later date. The landlord also closed down the ASB case.
A joint homes visit took place on 24 August 2022. The following day, on 25 August, an internal email sent by landlord staff said a sound test had been completed by monitoring below and walking across the floors above. It noted there was creaking of the floorboards from the dining room above which could be heard in varying degrees below. It said:
1. The noise would be “normal daily living noise”, but there did seem to be an issue with the floorboards and not the laminate flooring.
2. There would always be sound transference in older flats but there did seem to be a disturbance for [the resident] which could trigger her mental health.
3. The floorboard that was fixed in the hallway was due to the type of nails that were previously used on the flooring which had worn loose. A different type was now used.
4. To fix the issue it would need to ask [Ms G] to remove at least half of the flooring to allow repair works, and it was unlikely the flooring could be relayed.
5. It was not sure whether to wait until Ms G moved or to try and resolve now, at a cost to Ms G.
On 6 September 2022, the landlord wrote to the resident, and confirmed it visited both properties. It concluded that there was some transference of noise from above, and it would raise appropriate works orders to address the situation, and would liaise with Ms G over access. The landlord then contacted Ms G about lifting and repairing the floorboards.
The resident chased the landlord on 29 September 2022, about the floorboard repair. She referred to the landlord’s website saying a routine repair should be done within 21 days; and expressed her opinion that the work should have been completed. The landlord replied the same day, and said it was working with Ms G to replace flooring and had different dates for different repairs. It added that the target date would take in to account the initial visit. It went on to say it could not discuss appointment made with Ms G, as that would be a breach of data protection.
On 6 October, the resident emailed the landlord, and said she did not need to know appointment details, but wanted to know timescales for the repair. The landlord subsequently confirmed that one job was to be completed by 2 November 2022, the other by 20 December 2022. In addition, difference trades are required which may need to liaise with each other regarding time.
The landlord had since told this Service that on 17 October 2022, Ms G’s floorboards were removed and re–laid, to the right of the dining room. On 24 October 2022, laminate flooring was lifted, floorboards fixed and new carpet was laid near the bedroom, and carpet was laid in the dining room and lounge on 5 February 2023.

The landlord’s obligations, policies and procedures

Policies and procedures

The landlord’s Complaints Policy says, “You do not need to use the word ‘complaint’ for us to treat your issue as a complaint. Our definition of a complaint is: An expression of dissatisfaction, however made, about the standard of service, actions or lack of action by the organisation, its own staff, or those acting on its behalf, affecting an individual resident or group of residents”. It goes on to say, “When you first tell us that you are unhappy about something, we’ll consider whether it is something we can put right quickly, without needing to go through our formal complaints process. We call this a quick fix. If we are unable to resolve your issue within two working days, or we don’t think it is suitable for a quick fix, we will log it as a stage one complaint.”
The Complaints Policy has three stages:
1. Quick fix – The landlord will try and resolve the issue within two working days.
2. Stage one – If the matter cannot be resolved within two working days, or is not suitable for a quick fix. A response will be issued within ten working days; although a further ten working days may be needed, but would be discussed with the resident if required.
3. Stage two – A request can be made within 20 working days of the stage one complaint being closed, for it to be escalated. A member of the customer resolution team not previously involved in the complaint will carry out an independent review of the stage one response and a response issued within 20 working days of the complaint being escalated. If it requires more time to complete the investigation, it will discuss this with the complainant and may extend the response time by a further ten days working days.
4. There may be instances where the landlord does not escalate a complaint. This may include where:
  1. a request is made more than 20 working days after the stage one complaint is closed.
  2. the outcome requested is not within its remit or control.
  3. the response at stage one is considered reasonable and in line with its policies.
  4. the request is for compensation which is not in line with its compensation policy.
  5. the complainant has started legal proceedings about the issues in the complaint.
The landlord says if it decides not to escalate the complaint, it will explain why in writing within five working days and say what the next steps may be if the complainant remains unhappy.
The landlord’s Compensation Procedure says for calculating discretionary payments for inconvenience and goodwill, there are three tiers of impact:
1. Minor impact – up to £100.
2. Moderate impact – £101-£250.
3. Severe impact – £251-£500.
The landlord’s Community Safety Policy says, “where appropriate, we will always advise residents to talk to each other, with information about how to access support from independent mediation services if they want, to find a way to resolve any differences and respect each other as neighbours.”
The policy sets out what the landlord will do on receipt of an ASB report. This includes:
1. Allocating the case to a lead Officer for investigation if the complaint is within our remit to address.
2. Contacting the complainant within five working days (or within one working day if the complaint is involving physical violence, serious threats of violence or hate crime) to;
3. Completing a risk assessment matrix to identify the level of harm experienced by the complainant and/or any vulnerabilities or support needs as soon as possible.
4. Agreeing what will happen next to investigate the complaint.
5. Keeping in regular contact, at least every two weeks unless agreed otherwise, until the case is closed.
The policy also details the range of methods that the landlord may use to tackle ASB. This includes:
1. A referral to mediation services to resolve the problem amicably.
2. Interviewing perpetrators and give them opportunities and support to improve or change behaviour.
3. Collecting evidence by issuing incident logs, known as ‘diary sheets’ for complainants to complete.
4. Supporting the complainant and other witnesses where support needs are identified.
5. Advising the victim to contact the police immediately if the complaint is a criminal offence.
The landlord’s Repairs Policy says the timescales for repairs are:
1. Emergency (by the end of the next day) – This priority is used when there is an immediate risk to health or security or serious damage to a home. It will make it safe but may finish the repair at a later date.
2. Urgent repair (up to three full days) – This priority is used where there is a risk to the resident’s health or security.
3. Routine (up to 21 full days) – All other repairs will be completed by appointment made with the resident. This includes repairs to flooring that is not a health and safety issue. The landlord would then agree an appointment with the resident and keep them informed of any delays and the progress of the repair.
4. Planned (up to 12 months) – Some repairs involving large scale replacement or improvement work may by scheduled outside routine repairs.
5. Further works – If it identifies further work it will advise the resident when these will be completed.

Assessment and findings

Concerns about her neighbour’s dog.

The landlord’s Community Safety Policy (policy) states, “where disagreements or clashes of lifestyle are evidenced to be persistent and causing significant harm, we will consider our role to intervene and manage as anti-social behaviour.” In this case, the landlord appropriately noted the resident was raising the same issues over a prolonged period of time, and that she had advised that it was affecting her wellbeing.
The landlord informed the resident in November 2021 and December 2021 that it could open an ASB case if she experienced further issues with Ms G and her dog. Following further reports from the resident in December, the landlord again reiterated that it could open an ASB case. Given the history of the case, and that the resident had been reporting the issue for several months by this time, it is unclear why the landlord did not proceed to open an ASB case. It is acknowledged that the landlord’s policy is to encourage residents to work together to resolve differences. However, the situation could reasonably have been regarded as “persistent” by this time. As such, it would have been reasonable for it to intervene at this stage and seek to manage the ASB in line with its policy. That it did not, amounts to a failure in the circumstances.
The resident confirmed in January 2022 that she did want the matter to be logged as ASB and a case opened. However, the landlord then failed to do so, and the resident sent a further request for a case to be opened in April. From the evidence that is available, it is not possible to tell why there was a further delay. However, that the landlord did not open a case in January 2022 was a yet a further failing in its handling of the matter.
Although the landlord delayed in dealing with the matter in line with its policy, it is recognised that it did take some reasonable steps to try and resolve the issues. It spoke with Ms G on several occasions, it asked the resident to keep a diary and report the issues and also suggested mediation. These actions were proportionate in the circumstances, and in line with the landlord’s policy. In addition, the landlord did check with the resident throughout, whether she was still having problems with the dog. By July 2022, she confirmed there had been no further issues, and the ASB was closed down.
While the landlord’s actions in managing the case were appropriate, the evidence provided to this service does not demonstrate that it completed a risk assessment. In not doing so it did not consider the impact the situation had on the mental health of the resident; having been put on notice of this. It also did not send regular clear communication about the status of the case every two weeks. Instead, it asked the resident to advise of any further issues. Thereby taking a reactionary stance, rather than a proactive approach to the situation.
Taking all this in to account, and the impact this had on the resident, there were failings in the landlord’s response to the situation. As such, the Ombudsman has made a series of orders aimed at putting things right, and preventing similar errors from occurring in the future.

Query regarding the path at the side of the property.

The resident raised some concerns about Ms G walking past the side of the property and had liaised with the landlord over whether an alternative access route could be used. It was appropriate for the landlord to consult with its legal team as the resident had asked for the legal document detailing right of way access through the passage way at her property. However, before obtaining legal advice, the landlord provided an assurance that it would send the resident the relevant documentation, when it responded to her initial complaint.
The landlord then established, following advice from its legal team, that there was no legal documentation to send. Instead, it sent a letter to the resident, that it deemed adequate. However, it failed to explain to the resident at that time, why it could not send the information it had promised.
The resident was therefore understandably unhappy, because the landlord did not comply with the agreement reached, in order to resolve the earlier complaint. This led to the resident being inconvenienced having to chase the landlord for information that was not available, and also meant her expectations had been mismanaged.
As such, the landlord made appropriate enquiries with its legal team in a timely manner. However, its overall handling of the situation could reasonably have been improved. The evidence does not suggest that the resident was significantly inconvenienced as a result. However, it would be appropriate for the landlord to acknowledge the loss of expectation and to apologise for the inconvenience that was a caused as a result of it providing an assurance that documentation would be provided.
It is also noted that the landlord had advised that its inhouse solicitor would follow the matter up; but it is unclear that they did. It is noted that the solicitor had explained the rights of each party in communication with the landlord in 2020. However, given the resident’s concerns and that the landlord had advised the solicitor would follow the matter up, it would be reasonable for this to happen now.

Reports of noise transference.

The resident initially mentioned to the landlord that she could hear noises from Ms G’s property, coming from a washer and a dryer, as well as from floorboards, in October 2021. The landlord, in response, said it would investigate these issues and it took the appropriate step of speaking with Ms G about the noise. This led to her stopping using the dryer and steps were also taken to stop the washer making a noise. In terms of the noise from the flooring, the landlord explained it had discussed the issue with Ms G, but the laminate flooring had been fitted before Ms G moved in, but she did agree to put a rug down, to hopefully help reduce the noise.
The landlord also explained to the resident that as Ms G would not have been aware of the noise herself, and it was coming from the floorboards, this did not constitute a deliberate act of antisocial behaviour, which in the circumstances, was a reasonable response.
When it became apparent in January 2022, that the resident could still hear noise from the floorboards, the landlord visited the property to listen to the noise, on 9 February. This was an appropriate response. Although it did not deem the noise to amount to ASB, the landlord took the appropriate step of continuing to liaise with Ms G about the noise. In March 2022, it established a floorboard in the hallway was probably causing the noise and it arranged for a contractor to assess the floor. However, this could not be done until April 2022.
While the landlord took reasonable steps to establish the source of the noise, a routine repair of a floor should take place, according to the landlord’s Repairs Policy, within 21 days. While it is understandable that the landlord may have initially attributed noise to there being laminate flooring at the neighbouring property, and considered other options, such as laying a rug, the resident continued to complain about the noise. Therefore, having initially reported the issue in October 2021, by January 2022 it was evident the noise was still an issue. It is not reasonable to have taken a further three months before it arranged for a contractor to visit the property to inspect the flooring. When it did then arrange for a contractor in April 2022, it only arranged for them to investigate the noise from the dining room area; despite the resident making it clear the noise was not just coming from that area. Therefore, it would have been more appropriate for a general inspection to be carried out, to reduce the time it was taking to resolve the issue.
The landlord did attempt to manage the resident’s expectations. It explained that because there was laminate flooring throughout Ms G’s property, checking floorboards would not be easy. It also explained that it would be too costly for Ms G to uninstall and reinstall the laminate flooring, in order for the floorboards to be inspected. Both reasonable points of note. It did though, take some positive steps. It looked at whether any loose furniture in Ms G’s property may be causing the noise. It referred the resident to the Tenancy Support Service, as it realised the effect the issue was having on her, and it reviewed the recordings she sent in, of the noise. When the landlord was contacted by both the resident’s GP and MP, it noted their concerns over the resident. It then took the appropriate step of providing advice about how to potentially look to move to another property, for the benefit of her wellbeing.
The landlord did attempt to arrange a joint visit/inspection on 1 June 2022; however, the resident cancelled that, and it was rearranged for 24 August 2022. It was established there was some noise transference from floorboards in the dining room, as well as the hallway. It is likely that had the landlord instructed the contractor in April to look at the property as a whole, this issue could have been identified earlier.
The landlord did not comply with its Repairs policy, in terms of completing the repairs within 21 days; however, due to the nature of the work, the repair seems to have become ‘further work’ as defined under the Repairs Policy, rather than a routine repair. Even taking that in to account, the repairs were not completed until December 2022; some 14 months after they were reported; which is unreasonable.
The landlord does have to be credited with trying to find ways to minimise noise to the resident and in trying to manage her expectations in terms of the difficulties of doing repairs at the property. Overall though, the landlord did take too long to arrange a full inspection and to get the repairs done. The Ombudsman appreciates that this meant the resident suffered distress and inconvenience longer than necessary. An order has been made, taking this in to account, along with the landlord’s Compensation Procedure.

The landlord’s handling of the complaint.

The resident submitted a complaint to the landlord, on 21 October 2021 and submitted a complaint by web form on 25 October 2021. It sent an initial response on 4 November, but issued its stage one response on 9 November 2021. Its Complaints Policy says a stage one response should be sent within ten working days; therefore, the landlord’s response was sent three working days late. However, the landlord had said to the resident that it would respond by 9 November 2021; therefore, her expectations had been managed.
The landlord at stage one said it would speak with Ms G about the issues with their dog. That it would investigate the problem with the floorboards, and it would need to liaise with its legal team in order to obtain documentation which shows the access path has a right of way to the resident and her neighbour. The landlord advised that it would take these actions to try to resolve the complaint.
The landlord did look in to the floorboard issue, and speak with Ms G about the dog. However, it did not send the resident documentation to show access rights over the property, as agreed, following advice from its legal team. It did send a letter to the resident on 14 December (having said on 7 December 2021 it would get the information to the resident by 13 December 2021) about access, but that was not the information the resident requested, or that the landlord said it would send. Therefore, the resident’s expectations were not adequately managed, and it failed to send the information it had promised, in order to resolve the complaint.
The resident was unhappy with the stage one response. However, she did not say in her email of 6 December, that she wanted to escalate her complaint. She asked if she needed to, as she had not had an adequate response to her concerns and she was mindful of the deadline to escalate the complaint, given by the landlord, of 7 December 2021. However, an internal email the following day, referred to the resident having asked for her complaint to be investigated at stage two.
Section 5.9 of the Code says, “If all or part of the complaint is not resolved to the resident’s satisfaction at stage one it must be progressed to stage two of the landlord’s procedure, unless an exclusion ground now applies.” In the circumstances therefore, it would have been reasonable for the landlord to escalated the complaint to stage two or sought clarification from the resident.
As it was, the landlord maintained a dialogue with the resident, and provided further responses on 9 and 14 December 2021. The resident then made a further complaint on 21 January 2022, and focused on the noisy floorboard issue, but also reminded the landlord that she was still waiting for a legal document detailing access right of way through the passage way. Something the landlord had promised to do, in order to try and resolve her complaint at stage one.
Having failed to seek clarification from the resident as to whether she wished for the complaint to be escalated to stage two in December 2021, the complaint in January should reasonably have prompted the landlord to move the complaint to stage two. The resident made it clear that she remained unhappy and that issues from the stage one complaint remained unresolved. In accordance with its Complaints Policy, the landlord should have escalated the complaint to stage two of its process. It is unclear why it did not.
The landlord’s Complaints Policy says that if it decides not to escalate a complaint, it will explain why in writing within five working days and say what the next steps may be if the complainant remains unhappy. It did not do that here. It was only when the resident escalated her complaint to this Service, and the landlord was contacted, that the complaint was addressed at stage two. The landlord told the resident it would respond by 28 April 2022, but sent its response a day late, on 29 April 2022. While that was only a small delay, it was 20 weeks after the resident first expressed dissatisfaction after the stage one response was issued, and 14 weeks after she made another complaint, on 21 January 2022. Either way, the resident had to wait too long for the landlord to address her concerns under stage two.
When the landlord issued its response, it noted the issues to be that an ASB case had not been logged/actioned and the noise from Ms G’s property (floorboards) needed investigating. However, it failed to note that the resident remained unhappy that she had also not received the documentation to show access rights over the property, that she had asked for at stage one, and that the landlord had promised in its response. The landlord did though, acknowledge it had failed to log the dog issue as ASB, and it apologised for that, and went on to make an ASB report. It also agreed to continue to look in to and deal with the noise from floorboards, and monitor the issue, which was appropriate.
Overall, the landlord did not adhere to its Complaints Policy as it failed to address the resident’s complaint at stage two promptly, or provide a written explanation as to why it would not be escalating the complaint. The landlord was on notice of how important these issues were to the resident, and it had received a letter from the resident’s GP explaining the impact the situation was having on her health. Therefore, it is disappointing to note that when it addressed the complaint at stage two, it failed to acknowledge that there had been an error in its complaints handling, as it had not adhered to its Complaints Policy.
Taking this in to account, it is clear the resident was not only inconvenienced as a result of the landlord not dealing with the complaint reasonably, but it inevitably added to her existing upset and frustration. Therefore, in line with its Compensation Procedure, it would have been appropriate for the landlord to have considered compensation for distress and inconvenience caused to the resident. Having failed to do so, and in accordance with the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance, the Ombudsman had made an order to remedy the situation.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in respect of the landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns about her neighbour’s dog.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was a service failure in respect of the landlord’s response to the resident’s query regarding the path at the side of the property.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in respect of the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of noise transference.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in respect of the landlord’s handling of the complaint including the request for compensation.

Reasons

The landlord responded appropriately to the majority of the resident’s concerns in relation to ASB. However, it failed to open an ASB in a timely manner and did not carry out a risk assessment.
The landlord’s overall response to the resident’s reports of noise nuisance could have been improved. While the landlord proactively engaged in discussion with the resident, there was some delay in taking action to resolve the issues that had been reported.
While the landlord provided the resident with the correct information in relation to the access path, it provided an assurance which it was unable to fulfil.
The landlord did not adhere to its Complaints Policy and failed to adequately consider the detriment caused to the resident, as part of its complaints handling.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

Within four weeks of the date of this report, the landlord should:
1. Apologise to the resident for the failings identified by this investigation.
2. Pay the resident £900 compensation, made up of:
  1. £250 compensation due to the delay and inconvenience caused dealing with the resident’s concerns about the neighbour’s dog.
  2. £50 compensation to recognise the inconvenience caused having to chase for documentation regarding the path at the side of the property.
  3. £200 compensation due to the delay dealing with reports of noise transference.
  4. £400 compensation for inconvenience, time and trouble caused by poor complaint handling.
3. Ask its inhouse solicitor to provide the resident with a response regarding the shared access, as it had advised in December 2021. The landlord should ensure that a response is provided no later than six weeks from the date of this determination.
Within six weeks of the date of this determination, the landlord should consider the failings identified in this case, and provide refresher training to staff on:
1. The processes set out within the Community Safety Policy, in particular its ASB procedure, with a particular focus on the importance of completing risk assessments.
2. The processes and systems for recording ASB cases to ensure that all information relating to cases is logged and accessible. This should include the opening and closing of cases and retention of fundamental records including risk assessments, action plans and contemporaneous file notes.
3. Its Complaints Policy along with the Ombudsman’s Complaints Handling Code.