Applications are open to join the next Housing Ombudsman Resident Panel – find out more Housing Ombudsman Resident Panel.

Tower Hamlets Council (202005008)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202005008

Tower Hamlets Homes

18 June 2021


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 response to the resident’s anti-social behaviour (‘ASB’) and noise reports.

Background and summary of events

Background

  1. The resident is a tenant of the landlord, an Arm’s Length Management Organisation of a local authority. The property is a ground floor flat in a block. The tenancy commenced in 2018.
  2. From its ASB policy and website, the landlord’s approach to ASB aims to use preventative and intervention measures before resorting to legal/enforcement measures. It aims to discuss noise nuisance/domestic noise reports with a complainant within two to three working days; agree an action plan; encourage evidence collection; encourage initial discussion of issues with alleged perpetrators; provide advice and support; take appropriate action where it can and enforce lease conditions when required; monitor incidences; keep appropriate records; and keep complainants updated.
  3. At the time of the complaint, the landlord operated a two stage complaints procedure, where it aimed to respond at each stage within 20 working days.
  4. The landlord’s compensation policy advises it awards financial compensation where there should be more tangible recognition of a customer’s right to reasonable levels of service, in addition to other types of remedy such as service improvement and effective action, although it does not define specific amounts.
  5. The Ombudsman’s remit in relation to complaints is limited by its Scheme. Paragraph 39(a) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme advises that the Ombudsman will not investigate complaints which, in its opinion, “are made prior to having exhausted a member’s complaints procedure, unless there is evidence of a complaint handling failure and the Ombudsman is satisfied that the member has not taken action within a reasonable timescale.”
  6. This means that the Ombudsman is unable to consider all the complaints the resident has about her landlord, such as its response to reports of further noise after the landlord’s final response to a complaint. This investigation has therefore focused on events from March 2019 when the resident reported ASB, up until the landlord’s final response on 24 February 2020 and its follow up to this on 11 March 2020.

Summary of events

  1. On 19 March 2019, the landlord opened an ASB case, after recent contact from the resident to report noise nuisance from the occupants of the upstairs property, a private leasehold flat. The landlord wrote to the resident and enclosed diary sheets, on which it asked her to record incidents. Following this, in June 2019, the resident handed in completed diary sheets to the landlord’s offices, which were mislaid.
  2. In July 2019, the resident emailed copies of the diary sheets to the landlord’s ASB team. The diary sheets noted noise experienced from February 2019 in relation to movement, cleaning, DIY, items dropping and washing machine use. They noted that the resident discussed DIY noise with her upstairs neighbour who advised “it needed to be done,” and knocked on the door to discuss further noise without any answer. The diary sheets also noted incidents of suspected domestic abuse in March and April 2019 which she reported to the police, who advised that suspected domestic abuse in March 2019 was denied by the upstairs neighbours.
  3. The landlord’s records advise that it discussed matters with the resident, and that she elaborated that noise such as footfall, sweeping and items dropping was audible due to the upstairs property’s laminate flooring; and that sometimes there was quiet for weeks and then noise several nights in a row. The resident was informed that ownership/management of the property would be established, as this was unclear from the system, and the owner written to; and domestic violence reports would be discussed with the police. The landlord’s records confirm that internal enquiries were submitted as to the ownership of the upstairs property. The outcome to intended discussions with police is unclear, however the resident’s account confirms she was advised by the landlord and the police not to get directly involved with her upstairs neighbour’s arguments.
  4. In August 2019, the resident contacted the landlord twice, to advise she had reported another suspected domestic abuse incident to the police, and to report two instances of noise disturbance at unsocial hours. She queried if the diary sheets had been received; if there was any update about who owned the property; and if anything could be done about the noise and the laminate flooring or if there was an update on an outcome to her ASB case. The landlord’s records advise it subsequently chased a lack of response to the previous internal enquiries about the ownership of the upstairs property, and retuned calls from the resident to update her in discussions.
  5. In October 2019, the resident reported another suspected domestic abuse incident to the police, who informed her the occupants were moving out. In October and November 2019, the resident contacted the landlord to advise of her report to the police and to report noise disturbance from new occupants of the upstairs property, whose door she had tried knocking on to discuss the noise without any answer. The resident’s account confirms the landlord provided her with further diary sheets and arranged to visit to discuss the reports about her new upstairs neighbours.
  6. On 15 November 2019, the resident complained to the landlord.
    1. She complained about its lack of contact concerning her ASB reports from March 2019; its loss of diary sheets; and its lack of input on copies of these.
    2. She noted it had arranged to visit about reports of noise nuisance from new occupants of the upstairs property, which seemingly had laminate flooring that went against the lease agreement. She noted she had discussed noise with the new neighbours but that this continued.
    3. She raised concern about the landlord’s handling of previous reports and requested it help remove the laminate flooring, or help make her neighbours aware of the impact of noise on her property.
  7. On 19 November 2019, the landlord visited the resident and noted she reported general household noise from the property upstairs daily and during the night that included walking, stamping and cupboard opening, as well as washing machine use at an unsocial hour. It collected diary sheets dated from 29 October 2019 when the new occupants moved in, which mainly note noise from movement across floors.
  8. On 26 November 2019, the landlord’s ASB team spoke to the resident. It was noted that she recognised the noise nuisance was different to that from previous neighbours, which included “violent domestic arguments,” and it was noted that she was happy for the ASB case related to the previous neighbours to be closed. It was noted that she was satisfied at being informed the laminate flooring issue would be looked into and that the domestic noise nuisance would be investigated by a housing officer rather than the ASB team.
  9. On 11 December 2019, the landlord issued its stage one response to the resident’s complaint. It noted the issue was being investigated by an housing officer and had also been reported to the local authority noise team. It noted in discussion with her that she was happy for the issue to be dealt with by an housing officer who it confirmed would keep her updated.
  10. On 2 January 2020, the resident requested escalation of her complaint. She advised the response was inadequate and did not address the handling of her reports since March 2019 or the lost diary sheets handed into the landlord’s offices. She reported that she was suffering nightly from noise due to the flooring and had not had any further contact or resolution to the issue.
  11. On 4 February 2020, the landlord wrote to the leaseholder of the upstairs property, following a telephone call with the leaseholder on 22 January 2020. It advised that reports had been received about noise related to laminate flooring and use of a washing machine late at night. It highlighted the lease does not grant permission for laminate and asked for it to be removed and replaced with carpet by 2 March 2020, to comply with the conditions of the lease.
  12. On 24 February 2020, the landlord issued its final response to the resident’s complaint.
    1. It noted that following noise reports in March 2019, the resident was advised to complete diary sheets. It noted these were not submitted until June 2019 and explained that without incident records it is difficult to investigate claims.
    2. It noted that on receipt of a copy of the lost diary sheets, feedback was not provided. It acknowledged this did not meet the standard of service it aimed to provide and apologised for this failing. It explained staff had been reminded of the importance of document retention and keeping residents informed.
    3. It noted that on receipt of diary sheets about the new occupants, the leaseholder of the upstairs property was written to. It explained the leaseholder being abroad had delayed progress, however they had since been given until 2 March 2020 to remove and replace the laminate flooring with carpet. It explained that an inspection was arranged to ensure this was done, after which the resident would be updated.
    4. It apologised for delays, stress and inconvenience experienced by the resident, including delay in response to the complaint, and offered £50 in recognition of these.
  13. On 11 March 2020, the landlord wrote to the resident and confirmed it had inspected the property on 9 March 2020, and that laminate flooring had been removed and replaced with carpet.
  14. The Ombudsman understands the resident has submitted further reports to the landlord, including in January and March 2021. She advises this Service that she still hears a lot of noise and she suspects the laminate has not been changed and that thin carpet has been laid over it.

Assessment and findings

  1. ASB case management is a crucial aspect of a landlord’s service delivery. Effective use of an ASB procedure enables the landlord to identify appropriate steps to resolve potential areas of conflict, improve landlord/tenant relationships and improve the experience of tenants residing in their homes. ASB cases are often the most challenging for a landlord as, in practice, options available to a landlord or chosen by a landlord to resolve a case may not include a resident’s preferred outcome, and it can become difficult to manage expectations.
  2. In cases relating to ASB, it is not the Ombudsman’s role to determine whether ASB occurred or who is responsible. It is also not within the Ombudsman’s authority or expertise to decide on specific matters such as whether laminate has been removed or carpet properly laid (as the Ombudsman cannot inspect individual properties), nor does it decide on what correct courses of action were based on hindsight and later events. However, the Ombudsman can assess how a landlord has dealt with reports it has received in the timeframe of a complaint, and assess whether the landlord has followed proper procedure, followed good practice, and behaved reasonably, taking account of all the circumstances of the case.
  3. Following reports, it is necessary for the landlord to consider and respond to these in accordance with its ASB policies, therefore after the resident’s report in March 2019, it was appropriate for it to respond to her report and encourage collection of evidence through maintenance of diary sheets. This demonstrates it initially assessed the report and considered next appropriate steps.
  4. When the resident contacted the landlord in July and August 2019, it is not disputed that it received and returned calls from the resident and discussed matters with her. It subsequently took steps to attempt to identify the ownership of the upstairs property and advised her not to engage directly with the upstairs neighbours. This demonstrates that the landlord responded to the resident’s calls, took steps to try to progress the case, and provided some advice and support.
  5. The landlord however did not provide specific feedback on the resident’s diary sheets, nor are outcomes clear about intended enquiries with the police about reports of suspected domestic abuse, which are not in accordance with its obligations to update residents and maintain records. The landlord should provide appropriate updates to residents and, while its response to criminal allegations are informed by police findings, it should record relevant discussions on its ASB files even if these are unable to be disclosed to the resident.
  6. After the resident next contacted it in October 2019, the landlord provided her with further diary sheets, arranged a visit where it collected these, and discussed her concerns. It then followed up to confirm the laminate flooring issue would be progressed by a housing officer and to confirm that the ASB case about the previous occupants could be closed. This demonstrates that the landlord assessed the resident’s new reports, directly engaged with her and updated her with an initial plan. Further, it was reasonable for it to suggest closure of the ASB case about the previous occupants in order to focus upon resolution of current issues that affected the resident.
  7. Between January and March 2020, the landlord discussed the issue with the leaseholder of the upstairs property by telephone, requested they take action to remove the laminate flooring in accordance with their lease, and inspected if the request had been complied with. This demonstrates that the landlord met its commitment to the resident for the laminate issue, and that it took effective steps to request and verify that appropriate action was taken.
  8. From the above, the resident’s reports were relatively infrequent, particularly between July 2019 and October 2019, and by her own account there could be quiet for weeks. The reports of suspected domestic abuse were more infrequent and the police, the appropriate party to primarily investigate such incidents, clearly had involvement.
  9. The landlord was generally responsive to the resident’s contacts and took action in relation to these, however it is clear there was lack of feedback and delay in progress, which it is understandable may have undermined the resident’s confidence in the landlord to resolve matters. There is also some concern about the apparent difficulty the landlord had to establish the ownership of the upstairs property, as such information about its housing stock is expected to be held and to be easily accessible where necessary. A recommendation has therefore been made about this aspect, in addition to a recommendation about the resident’s subsequent concern about whether the laminate has in fact been removed.
  10. In this instance, the Ombudsman notes that the landlord identified and acknowledged service failures in its management of the case. The Ombudsman will not make a finding of maladministration where a landlord has offered suitable redress to resolve a complaint, and this further assessment considers whether the landlord has offered reasonable redress for its acknowledged failings.
  11. The Ombudsman’s Dispute Resolution Principles are:
    1. Be fair – treat people fairly and follow fair processes
    2. Put things right
    3. Learn from outcomes
  12. Following the resident’s original complaint, the landlord took 19 working days to respond in accordance with its complaints procedure. It then took the landlord 38 working days to respond at its final stage, which was not in accordance with the 20 working day timeframe stated in its policy, although during this time it took steps to enforce the lease conditions and ensure removal of the laminate flooring.
  13. In its final response the landlord subsequently acknowledged, apologised and offered compensation for delays and failings, provided assurances about steps to improve service, and made commitments about the laminate flooring, which it met. This was in line with aims in its policies to recognise where service standards have not been met; to take steps to improve service; to take effective action in response to a complaint; and to award compensation where it considers there should be more tangible recognition of service failings.
  14. In our Remedies Guidance the Housing Ombudsman Service sets out three compensation ranges which this Service takes into account when determining cases. The landlord’s financial remedy of £50 falls in the first range, where there has been failings such as meeting service standards for actions and responses, which may not have significantly affected outcomes but resulted in distress and inconvenience, loss of confidence and delay in getting matters resolved. Considering the failings and the overall remedy provided by the landlord, in the Ombudsman’s opinion this amount appears reasonable.
  15. While delays, communication and complaint handling in this case were not appropriate, the landlord’s subsequent response was in accordance with this Service’s Dispute Resolution Principles to try to ‘put things right’ and learn from outcomes. The remedy the landlord provided was reasonable for the failings and its subsequent actions demonstrate its commitment to resolve matters for the resident. In the Ombudsman’s opinion therefore, considering all of the circumstances of the case, the landlord has overall responded reasonably to the resident’s complaint.

Determination (decision)

  1. In accordance with paragraph 55(b) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, and in the Ombudsman’s opinion, there was reasonable redress offered by the landlord in its response to the resident’s anti-social behaviour and noise reports.

Reasons

  1. While there were issues in delays, communication and complaint handling, the landlord’s response, apology and actions/remedy provide, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, an appropriate level of redress in accordance with this Service’s Dispute Resolution Principles and remedies guidance. The landlord’s subsequent actions which fulfilled promises it made demonstrated its commitment to resolve matters for the resident.

Orders and recommendations

Recommendations

  1. The landlord to re-offer the £50 compensation, if this has not been paid already.
  2. The landlord to arrange to re-inspect the upstairs property, to confirm laminate has been removed and replaced with carpet to its satisfaction.
  3. The landlord to ensure it maintains accurate records in regards to ASB reports and its actions in response to them.
  4. The landlord to review the difficulty to establish the ownership of the upstairs property and ensure such information is more easily obtained in future.