Lewes District Council (202219226)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202219226

Lewes District Council

31 July 2024

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:
1. The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of anti-social behaviour.
2. The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of damp and mould.
3. This Service has chosen to investigate the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint.

Background

The resident lives in a two-bedroom flat. The resident is a tenant of the landlord, and the tenancy began on 14 February 2011. The landlord’s records stated the resident has depression and anxiety.
The earliest records provided by the landlord were dated from June 2022 when an anti social behaviour case was opened due to the resident’s reports of noise from his neighbour including making noise throughout the night, such as walking about, going to the kitchen/bathroom and that they would constantly turn their light switch on an off in their bathroom disturbing him. The landlord on 22 June 2022 stated that following a visit to the resident it had provided an update of the case to the resident. The landlord stated that multiple emails were received from the resident daily regarding anti social behaviour incidents. The landlord told the resident it could not stop someone using their home and it did not define the actions as antisocial behaviour. The landlord stated that safeguarding had been completed, and a meeting was held with social care. The resident’s case had been discussed at multi agency meetings. It had visited both parties with the Police. The resident had mentioned about moving.
The resident made a complaint to the landlord on 31 July 2022. The resident stated that the landlord had failed to stop anti social behaviour and hate crimes against him by his neighbour. It had been going all year and had been bad since 2019. He reported it, but nothing was ever done. The resident said he suffered with significant health problems and the neighbours were control freaks, who threatened him everyday. The resident said he wanted the landlord to act on the reports and to sanction blatant breaches of the tenancy agreement.
The landlord acknowledged the complaint on 5 August 2022, the acknowledgement did not inform the resident when he would be provided with a stage one response.
On 12 August 2022 the resident was offered an alternative property, a bungalow, by the landlord and was asked to provide a decision on if he would accept the property by 19 August 2022.
The landlord issued it stage one response 15 August 2022. The landlord stated the necessary actions had been taken by its neighbourhood housing team and had involved other stakeholders to provide the best outcomes to ensure the resident’s safety considering his health needs. Upon reviewing the evidence, it was the opinion of the landlord the issues the resident was experiencing was not anti social behaviour but was general living noise. A tenancy management team leader stated that upon the resident initially reporting concerns in 2019 a property was offered which was declined by the resident. Another bungalow was offered, and it had asked the resident to respond by 19 August 2022. It was sorry to hear from the complaint that the resident’s mental health had been affected and recommended the resident contact his social worker or GP. The landlord also provided details of services that could offer housing support. The landlord did not uphold the complaint.
The resident spoke to the landlord and informed it he was refusing the offer of the property on 18 August 2022. The landlord’s records state the resident did not think it would be suitable but would not, at that time, go into why he felt it was unsuitable. The resident confirmed he would not be viewing or accepting the property. A multi agency meeting took place on 27 September 2022 where all parties involved stated they would be closing their cases as the issues were social services issues. The resident was informed of this.
The resident emailed the landlord on 2 October 2022 and said he could not find any email where he asked for a formal complaint procedure to be opened, he was very confused, and the noise disturbance issues were still continuing.
In a telephone call on 24 October 2022 the resident informed the landlord he had mould in his bedroom due to a neighbour smoking outside and he was having to keep his window closed. The landlord and resident agreed for the landlord’s contractor to carry out an inspection. The landlord also noted the resident accepted it could not take action regarding the issues he had reported regarding his neighbour and that he would have to adjust with the support of social services.
The resident reported noise consisting of loud tv’s, cleaning, banging and crashing during the nighttime to the landlord on multiple occasions including 27 October 2022, 19 December 2022, 23 December 2022, 10 January 2023, 13 March 2023, 20 March 2023 and 27 March 2023. From March 2023 the noise reports also included sounds of excessive water flowing through pipes from toilet flushes by the neighbour.
The resident also reported on 21 November 2022 and 28 November 2022 an assault by his neighbour. From March 2023 the noise reports also included sounds of excessive water flowing through pipes from toilet flushes by the neighbour.
On 20 November 2022 the resident emailed the landlord and informed it an electrician who visited his property to repair a shower had taken photos of damp and mould in the bathroom. The resident said the mould was due to the wrong paint being used by the decorator as part of adaptions work.
The landlord’s contractor attend the resident’s property on 5 December 2022 and completed a mould wash and repainting of the bathroom.
On 13 March 2023 the resident emailed the landlord and asked what had happened about the Stage 1 complaint. The resident said he was confused at the time of the landlord’s communication and had been very unwell. The resident said he wanted to continue with the complaint and because nothing had changed and his situation since had become truly dreadful, he needed an urgent response.
This Service contacted the landlord on 4 April 2023 to inform it the resident had contacted this Service and asked the landlord to work with the resident to resolve the complaint.
On 17 April 2023 the landlord enquired if all the work regarding damp and mould had been carried out as the resident had approached the Ombudsman. It established no inspections had been completed since the works completed in December 2022, but its records show it arranged an inspection that took place on 20 April 2023 and identified the need for an extractor fan to be installed in the bathroom.
The landlord issued it stage two response on 7 November 2023. The landlord stated that it apologised for the delay in its response as it was impacted by staff shortages for several months. The landlord said:
1. With regards to the antisocial behaviour, it had been in regular contact with the resident since the stage one response was issued to assist with the enquiries and reports the resident had made. It understood social care and support services were supporting the resident with a move to a property and offered appointments which the resident had been unable to attend. It asked the resident to make contact to arrange a further meeting.
2. With regards to the damp and mould it could see mould treatment took place in December 2022 and a surveyor attended the property in May 2023 for a damp and mould inspection. A new shower was fitted and works carried out to the window.
3. It did not uphold the complaint stating as advised in the stage 1 response in 2022, the landlord considered that the issues he was experiencing at the property were related to general living noise. Several offers of alternative properties had been made which had been refused and there were no further actions that the landlord could take to resolve that for the resident.

Assessment and findings

Scope of the investigation

The landlord has provided evidence in relation to roof repairs however those repairs were not requested until after the completion of the landlord’s complaints process and therefore the matter was not raised in the initial complaint to the landlord. The Ombudsman cannot investigate aspects of a complaint which have not exhausted the landlord’s complaint procedure. The resident will need to contact the landlord and, if appropriate, raise a separate complaint to get that matter investigated.
The Housing Ombudsman can consider complaints about a local authority in connection with its housing activities, insofar as they relate to the provision or management of housing. Issues that come under a local authority’s broader public service functions are not within the Housing Ombudsman’s jurisdiction to consider. Where a complaint involves such broader functions, this would fall under the jurisdiction of the Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman (LGSCO). The resident made reports of light pollution from external lights in a block opposite the resident’s property from a nearby car park impacting his property. Complaints regarding those lights would be dealt with by the Councils Environmental Health Service and any complaint raised about it’s handling of the resident’s reports would need to be investigated by the LGSCO. If the resident is unhappy with the response from the Environmental Health Service, he may consider if he wants to refer those complaints to the LGSCO.
The resident has reported that the matters raised in his complaint have had a negative effect on his mental health. This Service does not doubt the resident’s comments. However, as this Service is an informal alternative to the courts, it is unable to establish legal liability or whether a landlord’s actions or lack of action had a detrimental impact on a resident’s health. The resident may wish to seek independent advice on making a personal injury claim if he considers that his health has been affected by any action or failure by the landlord. While this Service cannot consider the effect on health, consideration has been given to any distress and inconvenience the resident experienced as a result of any service failure by the landlord

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of antisocial behaviour.

When assessing complaints about the landlord’s handling of reports of anti social behaviour, the Ombudsman’s role is to assess whether the landlord has adequately investigated the reported issues and taken appropriate and proportionate action in line with its policies and procedures.
Section 6 of the landlord’s antisocial behaviour policy states that day to day noise for example from washing machines, toilets flushing and vacuum cleaners, the hours people keep, or other lifestyle differences are not antisocial behaviour, but it would work to manage residents’ expectations in regards to behaviour that is not deemed anti social behaviour. This includes offering advice and guidance to encourage and enable residents to deal with or manage the situation themselves.
The landlord’s anti social behaviour policy states what actions it would take when a resident reports anti social behaviour this includes carrying out initial assessments and risk assessing the situation.
It is clear the landlord was in constant contact with other support services throughout the period covered in this report including social services, the police and other support services. The evidence provided showed the landlord provided regular updates to those services which kept them informed of the reports the resident was making and the resident’s updates about his mental health. The evidence provided showed the landlord made specific efforts to inform social care when the resident reported a deterioration in his health. These were positive actions taken by the landlord.
The resident was offered a one-bedroom bungalow in August 2022. This was a potential positive step as the move to an alternative property would have removed the resident from the situations he was reporting as anti social behaviour.
When the resident refused the offer, he informed the landlord that his health was not where it needed to be for him to be in a position to move and he also needed social care to help him go through his items and substantially reduce them before he could consider a move. The landlord’s records noted the resident refused the landlord’s offer to refer that process to another agency which would have restricted the landlord’s ability to progress that situation.
The resident reported noise consisting of what would be considered daytime activities such as cleaning, banging and crashing during the nighttime to the landlord on 27 October 2022. The landlord responded on 31 October 2022 saying the neighbour being awake at night was a lifestyle choice and it could not act on the reports the resident had made, and it was proposing to close the current anti social behaviour case.
The landlord has evidenced it did respond when new events of potential anti social behaviour were reported. When the resident reported to the landlord that he was attacked by his neighbour in November 2022 the landlord responded by conducting a risk assessment and noted there had been an ongoing neighbour dispute, a number of agencies were currently involved, and it needed to understand the full dynamics of the incident. Advice was given about reporting any escalation to the police and the landlord did inform the police and social services of the incident.
Following that, in an email to the resident in December 2022 the landlord noted it would chase the police to ensure that they had visited the neighbour and ask them to visit or contact the resident to inform him of what action they intended to take. It had emailed the current social worker regarding the duty team not being in touch and asked that they contact him as soon as possible. It had emailed allocations to ask it to contact him to explain whether he was able to bid on properties, as he believed he had a bidding number but was confused whether that was live or not. The landlord did chase the police on 4 January 2023 who responded on 10 January 2023 to say it believed that the resident was sent a letter to state that the neighbour had been spoken to and given advice, but due to lack of evidence the case was closed.
The resident continued to make reports of noise to the landlord and on 15 March 2023, in a call with the resident asked the landlord for noise monitoring equipment. The landlord’s records showed it did ask Environmental Health for noise recording equipment but was refused as Environmental Health would not issue the equipment based on the type of noise being reported. The landlord suggested to the resident that he used a noise app which the resident said he would consider using. This demonstrated that the landlord took the action it could to respond to the resident’s request and also provided an alternative solution to the resident.
In an email to the landlord in March 2023 the resident noted the noise of toilets flushing was heard by a support worker who agreed with him that at night it would be very loud. The resident said there had been over 40 toilet flushes in 24 hours. In this event there was no evidence the landlord considered if an inspection of the pipework noise was required or if it spoke to the support worker to rule out a potential repair issue that may have resolved the noise reported which was a shortcoming from the landlord.
The evidence provided showed that the landlord was in frequent contact with the resident concerning his initial reports of anti social behaviour and kept other support services regularly informed. The reports made by the resident were consistent in the type of anti social behaviour being reported which the landlord had concluded to be general living noise under section 6 of its anti social behaviour policy. Following that decision there was no evidence of different types of anti social behaviour being reported that would have meant the landlord should open a new anti social behaviour case.
There was therefore no maladministration by the landlord in its handling of the resident’s reports of anti social behaviour.

The landlords handling of the residents reports of damp and mould.

The landlord’s repairs records showed that following a phone call with the resident on 24 October 2022 it was informed that a bedroom in the resident’s property had mould. The landlord’s contractor attended on 11 November 2022 for works to a shower and stated a mould wash and repainting was required in the bathroom.
The resident on 20 November 2022 informed the landlord that the mould was due to the wrong paint being used by a decorator and that nothing had been done about mould in the bedroom. The landlord responded the next day and informed the resident that it had escalated the reports of mould and its repairs service would contact him urgently.
The landlord’s records showed it raised works on 25 November 2022 for a mould wash in the bathroom and an inspection of the bedroom which were completed on 5 December 2022. The landlord’s records stated the mould wash was completed and repainted with anti mould paint in the bathroom.
The landlord would be required to follow the timescales set out in its repairs policy. The repairs policy states it categorises repairs as Emergency to be completed within 24 hours, Urgent to be completed within 7 days, Routine within 28 days and planned within 85 days. The inspection of damp and mould would be expected to be completed within the landlord’s routine period of 28 days. From the evidence provided the landlord completed the inspection and works required to treat the reported mould within that timescale.
After contact by this Service to issue the resident’s stage two response the landlord enquired if any further damp and mould issues had been raised by the resident since December 2022. The landlord records showed no further reports being made.
A further damp and mould inspection however took place on 20 April 2023. From the evidence provided this appeared to be in response to contact from this Service rather than a request made directly by the resident. This was a proactive step taken by the landlord. The inspection found there was mould on the external walls in the bathroom which needed to be washed off and a fan was to be fitted in the bathroom.
The landlords repair records showed those works were raised on 26 April 2023 but did not show as being completed at the time the stage two response was issued. This was a failure by the landlord.
The landlord issued the stage two response in November 2023 and therefore the inspection and fan works raised took place during the period up to the stage two response. In the landlord’s stage two response if failed to refer to the steps it had taken in April 2023, or the outcome of the works identified as part of the stage two response. The landlord only referred to the mould works completed in November 2022 and December 2022.
The landlord’s records however also showed works were raised to install an extractor fan on 19 December 2023. It is not clear from the landlord’s records if those works were separate to the works raised in April 2023 however the repairs records noted the works raised in December 2023 were a reraise of the repair reference number from April 2023.
The landlord’s handling of the mould works including the installation of the extractor fan identified following the inspection in April 2023 amounts to service failure and it should pay the resident £100. An order is also made for the landlord to carryout a full damp and mould inspection at the property and compete any identified works.

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

The landlord acknowledged the resident’s complaint within the five working days stated in its complaint’s policy. The acknowledgment however failed to provide the resident with the date he should expect his complaint to be responded to as stated in the landlord’s complaints policy which would have caused him inconvenience as he was continuing to report incidents of anti social behaviour that he had already said he felt had not been dealt with by the landlord.
In the landlord’s stage one response the landlord informed the resident it concluded his reports of anti social behaviour were general living noise. The landlord also stated the necessary actions had been taken. The landlord failed to offer a thorough explanation to the resident of what those actions were and how it had come to the conclusion the reports were considered to be general living noise. The response would have failed to reassure the resident of what steps the landlord took and how it therefore came to its conclusion.
When the resident emailed the landlord on 13 March 2023, he made it clear he wished to continue his complaint. The landlord at that stage should have escalated his complaint to stage two. There is however no evidence it did so. Instead, it provided the resident with a copy of the stage one response and asked him to contact it again if he wished to escalate the complaint.
After contact by this Service on 4 April 2023 asking the landlord to work with the resident to resolve the complaint there is no evidence provided that the landlord made contact with the resident or established with him if he was escalating his complaint to stage two.
On 18 April 2023 this Service requested the landlord respond to the resident’s complaint at stage two by 18 May 2023. The landlord internally discussed the contact from this Service and asked if the resident had escalated his complaint to stage two as it could find no record. The landlord did not refer to the previous request made by the resident on 13 March 2023 that stated he wished to continue his complaint.
On 23 October 2023 this Service wrote to the landlord again asking for it to respond to the resident at stage two.
The stage two response was issued on 7 November 2023. This was 166 working days after the resident first informed the landlord that he wished to continue his complaint and 142 working days after this Service asked the landlord to issue a stage two response. This was significantly outside the landlords 20 working day timescale for a stage two response to be issued. Although the landlord offered an apology to the resident for the delay it failed to offer him any further redress.
As with the stage one response the stage two response failed to go into any specific detail regarding the complaint the resident had made and the investigations the landlord took. The landlord failed to explain any actions it had taken in relation to the resident’s reports since the stage one response was issued, and the response provided no clarity to the resident why the complaint decision was reached. This was maladministration by the landlord.
The landlord’s delay in issuing the stage two response along with the missed opportunities to raise the stage two complaint when first requested and the lack of detail provided in both complaint responses is maladministration by the landlord and it should pay the resident £200.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration by the landlord in respect of its handling of the resident’s reports of antisocial behaviour.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure by the landlord in respect of its handling of the resident’s reports of damp and mould.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord in respect of its handling of the resident’s complaint.

Orders

Within four weeks of the date of this report the landlord must:
1. Provide a written apology for the failures identified in this report to the resident.
2. Pay the resident £100 for the distress and inconvenience caused by the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of damp and mould.
3. Carryout a full damp and mould inspection at the property and provide a timetable to the resident for any identified works.
4. Pay the resident £200 for the distress and inconvenience caused by the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint.

Recommendations

The landlord reviews its complaint handling process to ensure complaints or escalation of complaints are correctly identified and logged in accordance with the landlord’s complaints policy.