London Borough of Lambeth (202308316)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202308316

Lambeth Council

30 January 2025

Our approach

The Housing Ombudsman’s approach to investigating and determining complaints is to decide what is fair in all the circumstances of the case. This is set out in the Housing Act 1996 and the Housing Ombudsman Scheme (the Scheme). The Ombudsman considers the evidence and looks to see if there has been any ‘maladministration’, for example whether the landlord has failed to keep to the law, followed proper procedure, followed good practice or behaved in a reasonable and competent manner.

Both the resident and the landlord have submitted information to the Ombudsman and this has been carefully considered. Their accounts of what has happened are summarised below. This report is not an exhaustive description of all the events that have occurred in relation to this case, but an outline of the key issues as a background to the investigation’s findings.

The complaint

1. The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of, and response to, the resident’s reports of anti-social behaviour (ASB), and her request for soundproofing.

Background

2. The resident was a secure tenant of the landlord. The property was a 1–bedroom flat in a purpose-built block. Her tenancy began in May 2019 and ended in September 2023. The resident lived alone. The landlord was aware from the beginning of the tenancy that the resident had autism.
3. On 25 October 2021, the resident contacted the landlord to report loud music played by a neighbour on an almost daily basis. Between this date and September 2022, the resident regularly reported ASB, mainly loud music, occurring at different times of day. She highlighted that this caused sensory overload, stress, anxiety, and negatively impacted her sleep and ability to focus on work from home.
4. The resident regularly completed and returned ASB diary sheets and used a noise app to make audio recordings as part of her reports. As time passed, the resident reported an increasing deterioration in her wellbeing and mental health, such that she was referred to the mental health crisis team and had to spend time staying away from home.
5. Between October 2021 and April 2022, the landlord took the following actions to investigate and respond to the resident’s reports of ASB:
   1. Reviewed diary sheets provided by the resident.
   2. Reviewed noise app recordings provided by the resident.
   3. Offered mediation.
   4. Spoke to alleged perpetrators.
   5. Sent warning letters to alleged perpetrators.
   6. Sent warning letters to the entire block.
   7. Liaised with the local authority’s noise team.
   8. Carried out door-knocking exercises at the block to enquire if other neighbours experienced ASB.
   9. Provided information to the resident regarding advice and support.
   10. Made a safeguarding referral for the resident to adult social services.
   11. Visited the resident to discuss the case.
6. The landlord told the resident on 7 January 2022 and 30 March 2022 that it had not found evidence of loud music, and the local authority noise team had not witnessed statutory nuisance. The landlord therefore told the resident that it was unable to take any legal actions in response to her reports.
7. On 21 April 2022, 8 May 2022, 10 June 2022, and 1 July 2022, the resident asked the landlord to provide soundproofing in her property as a disability adaptation. She provided a letter from her doctor saying she was hypersensitive to sound as a result of autism spectrum disorder, noise from neighbours impacted on her anxiety and depression, and asking the landlord to provide alternative housing. The landlord said it did not provide soundproofing.
8. On 10 June 2022, the landlord said it would send a surveyor to assess if any structural problems were contributing to noise transference. On 24 June 2022, it provided information on the resident’s options to move, including transfer via the housing register and mutual exchange.
9. The landlord’s repairs team manager inspected the property on 4 July 2022. They reported the building and flat were adequately constructed, there was no disrepair, and the property would not allow for normal sound transmission. Due to the type of construction, for the resident to hear sounds from external sources in her flat, the sound would have to be very loud. They suggested the landlord install sound meters to monitor if there was ASB.
10. On 11 July 2022, the landlord told the resident it was closing the ASB case as it had not found evidence of ASB, and the construction of the building would not allow normal sound transmission. It said its neighbourhood housing officers would be able to assist the resident with transfer/mutual exchange, should she wish to pursue this.
11. On 15 July 2022, the resident complained to the landlord saying the landlord had not adequately responded to her 1 July 2022 request for a reasonable adjustment.
12. On 26 July 2022, the landlord told the resident its procedure was to request auxiliary aids from Adult Social Care. It said the resident’s GP had referred her to Adult Social Care and it had followed up on, this referencing the need for an auxiliary aid.
13. The landlord provided a stage 1 response on 10 August 2022. It said it was waiting for Adult Social Care to assess the resident. It would then act accordingly. The resident was dissatisfied with the response and requested escalation to stage 2 of the complaints procedure on 4 September 2022. She said Adult Social Care would not assess her as it said she did not have any need. She said she had constant anxiety, suicidal thoughts, and had been self-harming. She said if the landlord did not intend to provide soundproofing as a reasonable adjustment, then she wanted to be moved.
14. On 20 September 2022, the landlord sent the resident a form to complete to apply for an emergency transfer via the housing register. The landlord supported the resident’s application and assisted her to provide evidence of her need to move.
15. The landlord provided a stage 2 response on 11 October 2022. It repeated that its procedure was to refer requests for auxiliary aids to Adult Social Care and asked the resident to update it regarding any contact with Adult Social Care.
16. On 27 October 2022, the local authority emergency panel rejected the resident’s application for priority on the housing register for an emergency transfer. On 3 September 2023, the resident’s tenancy of the property ended, and she moved to a new property through a mutual exchange.

Assessment and findings

Scope of the investigation

17. In her correspondence, the resident has said she has experienced noise nuisance from neighbours going back to 2019. The records provided by the landlord contain reference to reports of ASB, including noise nuisance, going back to 2020. When a complaint is referred to the Ombudsman, we must consider what is fair in all the circumstances. We must also consider whether the matters should have been escalated to our service at an earlier stage to receive a determination. This is to ensure that events can be clearly recalled, and that appropriate evidence will still be available to support the investigation.
18. For this reason, it is not fair to either party to consider matters that have not been escalated previously over this extended period. This investigation will therefore only consider matters raised in the 12 months prior to the formal complaint being raised. Any reference to events before this, or after the stage 2 response, is made for contextual purposes only.
19. The Ombudsman also notes that the resident has raised concerns about the actions of the local authority’s noise response team and the handling of her emergency transfer via the housing register application. Complaints about these issues fall under the jurisdiction of the Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman (LGSCO). The resident has the option to refer any concerns to the LGSCO on this matter, should she wish to pursue them.
20. Finally, the Ombudsman is unable to consider the cause of, or liability for, any impact on the resident’s health and wellbeing. Such a determination is more appropriate for the courts or as part of an insurance claim. Nevertheless, consideration has been given to the general distress and inconvenience which the situation may have caused the resident.

ASB

21. It is evident this situation has been distressing to the resident and she has highlighted a negative impact on her health and wellbeing. It may help to firstly explain that the Ombudsman’s role is not to decide if the actions of the neighbours amounted to noise nuisance or ASB, but rather, whether the landlord dealt with the resident’s reports about this, and her request for soundproofing, appropriately and reasonably, in line with its policies and best practice.
22. The landlord’s ASB procedure current at the relevant time said that when it received a report of ASB it would log the complaint, assess the risk and response time, contact the reporting person to advise when the tenancy enforcement team would be in touch, and allocate a case manager. It would start the investigation by interviewing the reporting person, offering a vulnerability risk assessment, and exploring opportunities for early intervention activity. It would complete an action plan with actions for both the case manager and the reporting person, for gathering evidence and achieving a resolution. It would provide the reporting person with diary sheets for recording incidents as evidence, and a timeline for review would be agreed.
23. The landlord’s records show the resident reported loud music played by a neighbour (neighbour A) on 25 October 2021. The landlord acknowledged this the same day and advised that a senior tenancy enforcement officer would review the case and update her by 29 October 2021. The prompt contact in response to the report was appropriate; however, no evidence has been seen that the landlord carried out a risk assessment at this time. This was not in line with its own procedure and was a poor approach to protecting its resident and managing risk.
24. The records show that the landlord contacted the resident again on 27 October 2021 to say it had written to neighbour A about the resident’s allegations. It provided diary sheets for the resident to complete, gave information on the local authority’s noise team, and offered to arrange mediation with the alleged perpetrator. It was appropriate that the landlord responded within the promised timeframe, made prompt contact with neighbour A, and provided diary sheets. However, no evidence has been seen that it interviewed the resident, offered a vulnerability risk assessment, or explicitly shared an action plan with the resident, as required by its procedure. It therefore missed an opportunity to better understand the resident’s point of view, ensure she felt it took her reports seriously, and identify her noise sensitivity as a result of autism at an early stage. 
25. The landlord’s ASB procedure stated that if the risk score from a vulnerably risk assessment was high, it would refer to its vulnerable victims analyst and vulnerable victims panel to develop a protection plan. If the score was medium or low, the case manager would repeat the risk assessment as the case progressed. The landlord’s records show it did not carry out a vulnerability risk assessment, or any kind of risk assessment, until 28 October 2022 (a year after the resident’s report of ASB), at which time the score was high. The landlord referred the resident to its vulnerable victim analyst, and the resident’s case was then reviewed at monthly multi-agency risk assessment committees (MARACs). This delay was unreasonable and meant that the landlord missed opportunities to ensure that appropriate steps were taken to protect the resident.
26. In the period from the end of October 2021 to the end of January 2022, the landlord’s initial steps to investigate and respond to the resident’s reports of ASB were broadly appropriate. For example:
    1. On or around 1 December 2021 – it reviewed noise app recordings provided by the resident.
    2. On or around 2 December 2021 – in response to a report from the resident, landlord spoke to a neighbour (neighbour B) who denied playing loud music, but said the walls were very thin. The landlord sent a warning letter to neighbour B.
    3. On or around 2 December 2021 – the landlord spoke to the local authority noise team. The team said they had not witnessed any statutory nuisance when they attended the building in response to the resident’s reports.
    4. On or around 8 December 2021 – the landlord visited the block and spoke to residents. All other residents said they did not experience ASB or loud music. A letter was sent to all residents reminding them of their obligations under their tenancy agreement. 
    5. 8 December 2021 – it referred the resident to Adult Social Care for support around autism and sensory overload.
    6. 6 January 2022 – the landlord reviewed noise app recordings provided by the resident. It told the resident that, in its opinion, the recordings did not evidence ASB, and it could not take any legal action as a result of these.
    7. 10 January 2022 – in response to the resident telling it the local authority’s noise team took too long to arrive, it asked the noise team to prioritise reports of noise from the resident.
    8. 19 January 2022 – in response to reports from the resident, it sent a warning letter to all residents of the building regarding reports of dog fouling, spitting, and not disposing of bins properly.
27. However, in the following respects the landlord’s response it that period fell short:
    1. Neighbour A did not make contact with the landlord in response to its 27 October 2021 letter. There is no evidence seen that the landlord made any further attempts to contact neighbour A.
    2. The resident sent it an email on 31 October 2021, in which she said neighbours played loud music every day, there was no soundproofing in the building, and she wanted the landlord to investigate and respond to her. However, the landlord did not reply until 1 December 2021, despite the resident having chased it for a response on 19 November 2021.
    3. On 1 December 2021, it said a structural problem may be contributing towards noise transference, but did not take steps to investigate this.
    4. On 10 January 2022, the resident reported that neighbour B had threatened her, saying she was harassing them. However, the landlord did not attempt to make contact with neighbour B until 21 February 2022 (when neighbour B denied the allegations and alleged that the resident had been listening outside their door).
28. The records provided by the landlord show that in the first 3 months following the resident’s reports, it did not find any evidence of ASB or statutory nuisance. At this point, it would have been appropriate for the landlord to review the case and speak with the resident to discuss the way forwards. However, the landlord did not do this. It continued to receive reports from the resident about loud music in February and March 2022, but it did not respond to her or update her in any meaningful way over this period. This meant that it failed to manage the resident’s expectations, and she felt ignored by the landlord. This was also not in line with its policy.
29. The resident contacted a borough councillor for help on 8 March 2022, and the councillor made a member’s enquiry to the landlord on 9 March 2022. The landlord did not respond. The councillor made contact again on 29 March 2022, forwarding an email from the resident in which she said:
    1. The loud music from neighbours A and B had got worse.
    2. A loud alarm had been sounding throughout the building at 6am every day.
    3. She was going to stay with a friend for 2 weeks as they were worried about her due to her history of self-harm and “suicidal issues.”
    4. She felt discriminated against. She was more sensitive to sound due to her autism and if the landlord would not stop other tenants playing music it should provide her with soundproofing.
30. While it was unreasonable that the landlord did not act until the councillor had emailed it twice, its actions in response to the 29 March 2022 email were broadly appropriate:
    1. 29 March 2022 – It visited the building to carry out a door-knocking exercise.
    2. 30 March 2022 – It emailed the resident saying her noise app recordings showed as ‘low decibel,’ it was difficult to progress the case without evidence of ASB, and it would investigate further, including a visit to the building on 1 April 2022. It offered a safeguarding referral and provided information on support services.
    3. 1 April 2022 – It visited the building. It identified that the alarm sound was from the ambulance service entrance and arranged for this to be fixed. It attempted to speak to neighbour A, who was not home. It visited neighbour B and did not witness them playing loud music. It visited another neighbour (neighbour C), however, its records do not state the outcome of this. It spoke to 2 other residents of the building, 1 of whom said they could hear music, but it was not loud.
    4. 4 April 2022 – It contacted Adult Social Care expressing concern for the resident’s wellbeing, asked if she was known to them and if there was a support package.
    5. 11 April 2022 – It updated the resident regarding the alarm sound, which had now been fixed, and arranged to visit her on 20 April 2022.
    6. 20 April 2022- It reviewed the resident’s noise app recordings but did not find evidence of loud music.
    7. 22 April 2022 – It visited the building and carried out a further door-knocking exercise. It spoke to 1 other resident who said loud music came from the building across the street.
31. However, the landlord had agreed to visit the resident on 20 April 2022, but did not do so. It also did not make contact to cancel or rearrange. This caused inconvenience and frustration to the resident, and further damaged the landlord/tenant relationship.
32. The landlord visited the resident on 21 April 2022. It wrote to her on 25 April 2022 and summarised its discussion with her and actions on that day:
    1. It had spoken to neighbours about the resident’s reports of threatening behaviour and ASB. Neighbour A said they did not have a loudspeaker, and the landlord verified this. Neighbour B said they only had a small speaker, which the landlord verified. They provided evidence they were not at home during the times of the loud music recordings from 20 April 2022.
    2. An independent resident said most nights there was loud music from the building across the street.
    3. The resident asked for soundproofing. The landlord said it did not soundproof properties.
    4. It advised that it was difficult to progress the case without an independent witness and an identifiable perpetrator. The agreed action plan was as follows:
       1. The resident was to continue to use the noise app.
       2. The resident would avoid direct contact with the neighbour.
       3. The resident would report harassment and intimidation to the police, and provide CAD numbers to the landlord.
       4. The resident would continue to report noise to the local authority noise team. They could issue abatement notices and seize sound equipment if they witnessed statutory nuisance.
33. The resident had told the landlord that she was particularly sensitive to sound as a result of autism, and it was clear she was distressed by the noise she reported. The landlord simply said it did not provide soundproofing, without giving its reasons. Although installing soundproofing was an improvement not a repair, and not something the landlord had a general obligation to provide, it would have been good practice to communicate the reasons for its position to the resident in order to manage her expectations.
34. The resident requested soundproofing again on 8 May 2022, 22 May 2022, and 10 June 2022. In her emails, she explicitly stated she needed this as a disability adaptation due to experiencing sensory overload as a result of autism, and she did not want to move. She also requested an independent soundproofing survey. She reported daily loud music, drilling sounds, and a smell of cannabis in the building. She said she was having to stay with a friend due to this. She also provided a letter from her GP confirming she was hypersensitive to sound as a result of autism spectrum disorder, and noise from neighbours was impacting on her mental health. The GP asked the landlord to provide alternative accommodation to the resident.
35. The landlord did not respond promptly to the resident’s request for a disability adaptation, or her report of a cannabis smell in the building. This was poor practice, below the standard expected by the Ombudsman. This was clearly frustrating for the resident and damaging to the landlord/tenant relationship.
36. On 10 June 2022, the landlord offered to make a referral for support or safeguarding and said it would send a surveyor. It would consider the GP’s request to provide alternative accommodation and revert to the resident by 14 June 2022. While the landlord’s proposed next steps were appropriate, no evidence has been seen that it reverted to the resident regarding alternative accommodation within the timeframe it promised. It did not provide the resident with information about her options to move until 26 June 2022.
37. On 1 July 2022, the resident emailed the landlord saying the landlord had a duty to make reasonable adjustments under section 20 of the Equality Act 2010. If the landlord did not provide soundproofing as an auxiliary aid, she would be at a significant disadvantage in relation to non-disabled people, as her disability made her susceptible to noise. While the landlord provided its position on providing soundproofing on 25 July 2022, it did not ever explicitly provide its position on the resident’s statement that it was reasonable for it to provide soundproofing to prevent her being at a significant disadvantage in relation to non-disabled people.
38. The landlord’s repairs team manager inspected the property on 4 July 2022. They said the building and the flat were adequately constructed and would not allow for transmission of normal sound. If sound was being transmitted from external sources this would have to be very loud. As the resident had reported being able to hear music from neighbours the repairs team manager suggested the landlord may want to consider installing sound meters.
39. The landlord wrote to the resident on 11 July 2022 setting out the actions it had taken in response to her reports of ASB, and saying it had not found evidence of ASB or statutory nuisance. The type of construction of the property would not allow for normal sound transmission. The GP had reported the resident was hypersensitive to sound and recommended alternative accommodation. The landlord provided information on her options to move (including transfer within and outside of London) and said its housing officers would assist her with applying for a transfer. It said it had “tentatively” closed the ASB case but would reopen it if it received substantial evidence of ASB within the next 3 months.
40. While deciding to assist the resident to move on the basis of the GP recommendation was appropriate, it was unreasonable that the landlord did not communicate to the resident why it did not intend to install sound meters, as suggested by the repairs team manager, or explain its position regarding soundproofing. The resident had told the landlord she did not want to move, and took the time to explain why she believed providing soundproofing would be a reasonable adjustment. The lack of response meant the landlord failed to manage the resident’s expectations, the resident felt the landlord was not listening, and felt discriminated against.
41. On 16 July 2022, the landlord contacted the police and requested regular welfare checks and increased patrols in the area to deter drug use in the building. It informed the resident it had done so. It requested disclosure of any drug-related crime or ASB in relation to neighbour A. While this was appropriate, it is not evident that it had taken any previous action or preliminary action until this point, which was over a month since the resident first reported cannabis smells on 10 June 2022.
42. On 25 July 2022, the landlord informed the resident that its procedure was to request auxiliary aids from Adult Social Care. It said it had followed up on a referral to Adult Social Care made by the GP, referencing the resident’s need for an auxiliary aid. It asked if the resident had been contacted by Adult Social Care. Asking Adult Social Care to assess the resident’s needs was a reasonable step. However, the landlord missed an opportunity to explicitly provide its position on the resident’s statement that it would be reasonable for it, as the landlord, to provide soundproofing, to prevent her being at a significant disadvantage in relation to non-disabled people.
43. As we have not been provided with a copy of the correspondence with Adult Social Care referenced by the landlord, it has not been possible to assess the appropriateness of its request for assistance, or to what extent it monitored the progress of this.
44. The landlord provided a stage 1 complaint response on 10 August 2022. It said it did not uphold the resident’s complaint. It had referred the resident’s request for soundproofing to Adult Social Care, and would “act accordingly” when Adult Social Care had assessed her. It advised the resident to report concerns regarding drug use to the police and said it had asked the police to increase patrols. It had cleared up rubbish and dog fouling reported by the resident. While these responses were appropriate, it would have been helpful for the landlord to be clear about what actions it might take after Adult Social Care had assessed. In not doing so it missed an opportunity to manage the resident’s expectations.
45. The resident was dissatisfied with the landlord’s response and requested escalation to stage 2 of the complaints procedure on 4 September 2022. She told the landlord Adult Social Care had said she did not have any need, and had not responded to arrange an assessment. She described having constant anxiety and suicidal thoughts as a result of stress. While she preferred that the landlord provide soundproofing, if it did not intend to do so she wanted to be moved. Given its apparent position on soundproofing, it was therefore reasonable that in September 2022 the landlord assisted the resident to apply for an emergency transfer via the housing register.
46. The landlord provided a stage 2 complaint response on 11 October 2022. It said it could only consider the resident’s requests for soundproofing and rehousing once it had received the outcome of the referral to Adult Social Care. However, the resident had told it on 4 September 2022 and 17 September 2022 that Adult Social Care would not assess her, and the landlord failed to acknowledge this, which would have been frustrating. As it postponed making its own decision until Adult Social Care had assessed, Adult Social Care would not assess, and there is no evidence seen that the landlord intervened to pursue an assessment, it in effect, indefinitely postponed making its own decision. This was a failing on the part of the landlord, which meant resolution of the matter was delayed, and the resident expended considerable time and effort chasing a decision.
47. Considering the landlord’s handling of and response to the resident’s reports of ASB overall, while many of the steps it took were appropriate, its response fell short in the following areas:
    1. Did not carry out a risk assessment soon enough as required by its policy.
    2. Did not interview the resident soon enough.
    3. Multiple delays responding to the resident.
    4. Delay responding to the resident’s report that she had been threatened.
    5. Reactive rather than proactive in its management of the case. It also did not regularly review case and next steps.
    6. Did not explicitly provide its position on the resident’s statement that it would be reasonable for it, as the landlord, to provide soundproofing to prevent significant disadvantage.
    7. Did not effectively manage the resident’s expectations.
    8. Missed appointment on 20 April 2022.
    9. No reasons given for not installing sound meters, as recommended by repairs team manager.
48. Cumulatively the above failings constitute maladministration on the part of the landlord. As a result of these failings the resident experienced inconvenience and distress, and expended time and trouble chasing the landlord. Therefore, the landlord is ordered to apologise and pay the resident £350 compensation, which is in line with the Ombudsman’s Remedies Guidance for maladministration where there was a failure which adversely impacted the resident, and the landlord has failed to acknowledge its failings and attempt to put things right.

Determination

49. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in relation to the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of anti-social behaviour, and response to her request for soundproofing.

Orders

50. Within 4 weeks of the date of this report:
    1. A senior officer of the landlord, at minimum Director level, must apologise to the resident for the impact of its failures, having regard to the Ombudsman’s apologies guidance.
    2. The landlord must pay the resident compensation of £350, broken down as follows:
       1. £250 for the resident’s inconvenience and distress arising from its handling of her reports of ASB, and her request for soundproofing.
       2. £100 for the resident’s time and trouble chasing the landlord to for a response, and pursuing her complaint.