Your Housing Limited (202205147)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202205147

Your Housing Group Limited

25 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. Reports of noise nuisance.
2. Reports of other types of antisocial-related behaviour (ASB).
3. Request for rehousing.

Jurisdiction

Reports of other types of antisocial-related behaviour (ASB)

What the Ombudsman can and cannot consider is called the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction. This is governed by the Scheme. When a complaint is brought to this service, the Ombudsman must consider all the circumstances of the case, as there are sometimes reasons why a complaint will not be investigated.
Paragraph 42(a) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme states that the Ombudsman may not consider complaints which are made prior to having exhausted a member’s complaints procedure.
The resident informed this service that in addition to noise nuisance, he was also dissatisfied with the landlord’s handling of a range of other issues. These included: drug dealing; staff conduct; and ASB counter allegations. These issues were raised by the resident as complaints in 2021 and 2022, and the landlord sent initial responses to them. However, we have not seen evidence that these particular issues were escalated by the resident to the landlord before he brought them to the Ombudsman. As they were not escalated as part of the landlord’s complaints process they cannot be considered to have exhausted it. In line with paragraph 42(a) of the Scheme that means they cannot be considered in this investigation.

Background

The resident is the tenant of the landlord. He occupies a flat (the property), which is located above a commercial property, also let by the landlord, which is used as a community centre.
The resident made reports of noise and disturbance from the community centre to the landlord in mid-2022. He said there was constant noise from the centre throughout the week, and staff and visitors used bad language and smoked outside his window, preventing him from opening them. The resident said that he would consider moving away to avoid the noise disturbance and felt the landlord should arrange that because it had allowed the community centre to operate.
The landlord replied to the resident providing ASB diary sheets and information on how to use a noise app to gather evidence. It said it would contact the community centre to discuss the issues and confirm it was adhering to the opening times. There was further correspondence between the landlord and resident in July and August in which the landlord explained it had discussed his concerns with the community centre, who had confirmed it was keeping to the opening hours it was allowed, agreed to attempt to minimise noise, and relocated a poster the resident had complained about. The landlord also explained how the resident could search for a new property to move to.
An internal note in October 2022 states the landlord had not received any noise recordings or diaries.
On 15 November 2022 the landlord made enquiries with the local authority about any noise nuisance complaints it had received from resident’s at the resident’s location. It explained it had not received any such complaints.
On 15 November 2022, the landlord wrote to the resident confirming the actions it had been taking. It explained it had investigated the noise reports, confirmed the operating hours and activities of the community centre, and had found no evidence of excessive noise. It suggested that the resident record evidence on the noise app and diary sheets, and contact the local authority’s environmental heath team if he considered that there was excessive noise.
The resident raised a stage 1 complaint with the landlord on 21 November 2022, as he disagreed with the findings of its investigation. He disputed that the centre was being used at the times relayed by the landlord. The landlord issued its stage 1 response to the resident on 7 December 2022. It explained that it would arrange a move for him to alternative accommodation, and would continue to investigate his noise reports and act if sufficient evidence was obtained.
After initially postponing the escalation of the complaint on 30 January 2023, the resident escalated his complaint with the landlord to the final stage on 3 February 2023 and as he was unhappy with its investigation of his noise reports and the property it had offered him.
The landlord provided its final complaint response on 2 March 2023. It noted that the resident wanted to be offered a two-bedroomed bungalow or age-restricted apartment of relatively new build in two preferred locations. The landlord explained that it had investigated his noise reports and had provided the resident with the means to gather evidence of the noise reports; however, no evidence had been found. It confirmed that the local authority’s environmental health team had attended the community centre and found no evidence of statutory noise nuisance.
The resident informed the Ombudsman on 24 April 2023 that he remained dissatisfied with the landlord’s handling of his noise reports and the standard of the properties it had offered him. Following the conclusion of the complaint, the landlord liaised with the environmental health team concerning its investigation of the community centre which found no evidence of noise nuisance. It continued to engage with the resident about his request to move and continued to act on his reports of noise by speaking to the community centre. It reviewed video recordings provided by the resident, which it concluded did not show evidence of excessive after-hours noise, or that the community centre was opening outside its allowed hours, as alleged.

Assessment and findings

The landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of ASB

The landlord’s ASB and hate crime policy confirms that it considers “conduct that causes or is likely to cause a nuisance or annoyance to anyone directly or indirectly as to interfere with the quiet enjoyment of their home”. This goes on to specify “noise nuisance such as shouting, loud music etc” as an example of ASB.
The landlord’s ASB and hate crime policy sets out that it will make positive interventions at an early stage to prevent situations from escalating and will work with agencies such as the local authority to tackle reports of ASB.
For a landlord to take action in response to ASB it needs to meaningful evidence indicating that ASB is taking place. Therefore, while the resident may have experienced frustration with the landlord’s progress in tackling the ASB, it would be expected to exhaust all informal options and gather evidence of the reported ASB before considering formal action.
In this case, there was a lack of evidence. While the landlord provided the resident with opportunity to provide evidence of noise nuisance through diary sheets and the noise app it is not apparent that it received any. As no evidence was provided to the landlord to enable it to investigate further, it was reasonable that it took no formal action at the time.
The landlord next contacted the resident on 15 November 2022, when it confirmed that it had found no evidence of noise nuisance from the community centre and directed him to the local authority’s environmental health team if he continued to experience noise nuisance. It also asked him to provide any evidence by way of diary sheets or recordings.
After the resident escalated his complaint the landlord again spoke to the manager of the community centre and evidence viewed by the Ombudsman showed that the issues raised by the resident were discussed in depth. It is noted that there were conflicting accounts between the resident and the centre manager of the times and the nature of use of the community centre. When accounts vary, and there is no independent third-party evidence to corroborate these accounts, it is reasonable for a landlord to seek to resolve matters through informal actions, as there was insufficient evidence for formal enforcement action.
The landlord confirmed that the centre had taken reasonable steps to limit the use of the premises at certain times and to reduce the noise generated by its users. It also confirmed that a visit by the local authority’s environmental health team had identified no concerns.
Consequently, the landlord’s assertion in its final complaint response to the resident, that there was no evidence of noise nuisance, was reasonable. It took reasonable and proportionate steps to remedy the noise generated by the community centre and it liaised with the local authority to confirm whether noise issues existed. There was no evidence of a failure by the landlord in its response to the resident’s reports of noise nuisance.

The landlord’s response to the resident’s request for rehousing

The landlord’s access to housing policy provides for it to make urgent management lets to directly rehouse existing tenants under specific circumstances. The circumstances listed are:
1. An immediate threat of harm/threats to life.
2. Serious safeguarding concerns exist.
3. Serious domestic abuse exists.
4. Emergency medical need where a tenant cannot live in their home.
5. The needs to be rehoused while major repairs are carried out.
6. Other exceptional circumstances where remaining in the property would have a seriously detrimental impact on the tenant’s health and wellbeing.
The landlord’s final stage complaint response to the resident said that it considered that it could have discussed relocating the resident sooner. The resident first mentioned that he wanted the landlord rehouse him on 27 July 2022; on this call, it advised him to register with home moving services. Given that, at this point there was no evidence of the resident meeting any of the above criteria for the landlord to rehouse him, it was reasonable that it did not agree to the request at that time.
The landlord first confirmed to the resident on 7 December 2022, in its stage 1 response, that it had agreed to directly offer rehousing to the resident. There was still no evidence at this point that the resident met any of the conditions of the landlord’s access to housing policy for a direct offer of rehousing. Accordingly, the landlord used its discretion to make the offer, and was not obligated to do so.
In accordance with the landlord’s access to housing policy, above, it appropriately considered that the resident’s situation could be improved by offering him a direct move to another property. The offer of a direct move was a reasonable proposal to address the resident’s concerns of noise. The resident expressed dissatisfaction with the properties he was offered; however, there was no failure by the landlord in offering these, as these properties were in the locations the resident specified a preference for, which is usually the primary criteria for urgent management transfers because of the emergency and time critical need for a new home. Tenants with less urgent needs to move are usually better placed to use other options, such as choice based letting schemes, which allow tenants more options and better control over the properties they consider moving to.
The landlord’s access to housing policy is silent on the number of direct offers it may make. In general, landlord’s will usually only make a limited number of offers before closing a management transfer. This is because there is often a high demand for social housing, and the needs of some applicants may require prioritisation. In that light, the landlord should ensure that it makes clear to the resident the number of offers it will make, so that he can make properly informed decisions about any future properties.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration by the landlord in its response to the resident’s:
1. Reports of noise nuisance.
2. Request for rehousing.