Camden Council (202123405)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202123405

Camden Council

16 April 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 resident’s complaint was about:
1. The landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of noise nuisance, harassment, and anti–social behaviour (ASB).
2. The Ombudsman will consider the landlord’s complaint handling.
The resident occupied a 3-bedroom maisonette on the upper floors in a converted Victorian property under a secure tenancy which began in 1996. The landlord informed this Service that it had poor sound insulation. It did not carry out sound insulation due to “prohibitive costs”. The neighbour the complaint was about lived in the flat below that of the resident’s and will be referred to as “N” in this report.
The resident reported that she suffered from COPD and panic attacks.

Legal and policy framework

Under its tenancy agreement, the landlord agreed to “give you help and advice if you tell us you are the victim of anti-social behaviour, and we will investigate complaints of anti-social behaviour”.
The landlord “cannot allow tenants to do, or allow anything to be done, which involves or constitutes racial harassment, including abusive behaviour, verbal or otherwise”.
The resident must not:
1. “do, cause, encourage or allow to be done, anything which causes or is likely to cause nuisance, or may cause harassment or annoyance to anyone else.
2. do or allow anything to be done in your home or on any part of the estate which is harassment. This includes abusive behaviour, verbal or otherwise, on the grounds of gender, disability, age or sexuality.
3. make any noise which can be heard outside your home between 11pm and 8am”.
The landlord’s policy on noise and nuisance reports states as follows:
1. It would act quickly to try to prevent an issue escalating and aim to avoid legal action when it could.
2. It should consider “popping round” and witness the noise, a visit might be helpful where the problem may be due to the structure of the building, providing a diary sheet to help the resident record the dates and times of the noise in future and help assess the extent of the nuisance, discuss with the perpetrator, liaising with third parties such as the noise patrol and police. It should consider whether any “imaginative solutions”, certain repairs or improvements that might help or whether using a Noise App be useful.
The landlord’s “hate” policy described a hate incident as any incident which the victim, or anyone else, thinks is based on someone’s prejudice towards them because of their race, A hate incident can include verbal abuse, intimidation, threats, harassment.
The landlord operated a two–stage complaints process. The timescale for responding at Stage 1 was 10 working days and 25 working days at Stage 2. The policy stated that its principals consisted of: “acknowledge when things go wrong • Apologise • Improve procedures so similar problems do not happen again • Pay a financial remedy, if applicable”.
The landlord adopted the Housing Ombudsman’s guidance on remedies as its benchmark.

Background and summary of events

Chronology

The complaint:

On 24 January 2022, the resident made a complaint that for the past year she had been reporting about noise and nuisance from N. The problem was escalating to the point that it was “constant harassment” in the form of deliberate noise “every day and night”, “depriving (her) of sleep and affecting her health and work”. Her neighbour was under “care in the community”. The landlord’s response was to “pass on to her care team” or “have a word with her”. This had had no effect, in fact had made things worse. N had “no boundaries” and “shouted and swore in the garden at all hours”. The worst was the slamming of street and internal doors and windows, which shook the whole house, such excessive force was used. The resident had tried to reason with and ask N to be considerate, but N either laughed or swore at her. As an example, the previous night, after waking her by slamming doors when N came home at 11:30, N continued to “bang and crash around”, every 20 minutes or so for the whole night. The resident slept in the sitting room. N started slamming windows and the recycling bin lid in the front garden.
The landlord’s records noted the complaint was closed as “informal”.
The landlord’s records referred to a complaint made on 23 February 2022 the resident described as “Over 1 year history of noise and anti-social behaviour by neighbour in downstairs flat, care in the community, no action taken by estate manager”. The record was marked “closed as not a complaint”.
On 28 March 2022, the resident contacted this Service. She had “logged” a Stage 2 complaint but the landlord had informed her that the case was closed as it could not “investigate her neighbour”.
On 2 August 2022, the resident wrote as follows:
1. She had been disturbed by N’s behaviour for two years. Her housing officer had been “ineffectual”.
2. She tried to escalate the complaint but the contact information on the website was incorrect.
3. She asked to “discuss this with someone senior.”
The landlord’s internal emails showed an internal discussion as to where to refer the complaint internally.
On 26 August 2022, the resident wrote again, attaching an email dated 11 January 2022. (That email was not provided to this Service).
1. She had made a number of reports since 2021. No action had been taken, other than “promises of meeting to discuss with her (N)”.
2. She was suffering from sleep deprivation, anxiety, and lately, depression, due to the impact of this situation on her work and mental well-being.
3. She asked for a meeting with a senior housing officer to reach a resolution, (“other than (her) own demise”).
On 20 October 2022, the landlord asked for an update internally it said it had been chasing since August 2022.
The landlord wrote on 12 December 2022 referring to the complaint made on 23 February 2022.
1. The resident had “appeared to have raised the same issue, as an earlier complaint” which was still open and under investigation. It would “withdraw” the complaint made 23 February 2022 and respond to that made 24 January 2022.
The resident made a complaint on 3 February 2023 as follows:
1. The lack of action to stop anti-social racist and disturbing behaviour for the last 3 years.
2. The landlord had given N the option to move back to her previous property once repairs were completed in September 2021 despite the landlord being aware of the ASB reports.
3. The landlord did not send her file to her MP despite her requests.
4. She “finally” met the Neighbour Housing Officer (NHO) and his manager the previous summer. She was informed N would be moved but it was not explained why she was not moved back to her old flat.
5. The ASB continued “to this day” affecting her physical and mental health.
6. Her next-door neighbours were also badly affected and had complained.
7. She was often afraid in her own home and was abused and harassed by N “day and night”.
8. She asked that either N or herself to be moved.
9. She asked to meet with someone senior to discuss.
According to an internal note 3 February 2023, it had received another complaint about as follows in January 2022. It wrote to the resident that they were duplicate cases.
It wrote on 16 March 2023 as its Stage 1 response as follows, referencing the complaint made in January 2022:
1. The issues raised in her complaint had been investigated. Her complaints had been upheld. The NHO had notified her of the progress it had made. The issue had been permanently resolved and it had identified that property as a sensitive let.
2. She could request a review of the complaint. It would respond within 25 working days.
The landlord wrote on 5 May 2023 as follows:
1. The resident had asked for financial compensation for the damage done to her mental and physical health, and loss of earnings. She had been prevented from enjoying unbroken sleep for three years, plus suffering anxiety and stress caused by the ASB.
2. It had considered her complaint of 3 February 2023, its response of 17 February and “review stage complaint” of 17 March 2023 and her earlier complaints of 24 January 2022 and 23 February 2022. .
3. It had asked the Neighbourhood Housing Manager for evidence of the steps taken to address the reported ASB and nuisance. This had not been forthcoming.
4. The landlord had upheld her complaint and it “upheld the review stage”.
5. Its response of 16 March 2023 stated that the issue had been permanently resolved and it had identified the property as a “sensitive let”. Any future lettings would be assessed before they could take on the tenancy.
6. She had been told that N was moving out. The same resident who reported repairs needs to her property in 2021 was still reporting repair needs in late April 2023.
7. Her previous complaint was responded to 13 months late.
8. “In light of the above”, it had referred the case back to the NHO’s manager for a further and more comprehensive response.
9. It agreed that she should be compensated for poor service and lack of support shown but was “unable to” compensate for lost earnings or missed promotion opportunities.
10. It offered £300 compensation in relation to her distress, in accordance with its guidance.
In our document request of 14 March 2024, this Service enquired about the referral to its case manager made in the 5 May 2023. The landlord provided undated text of an email as follows:
1. It attached an email sent “just now”, following on from its telephone conversation the day before.
2. It appeared that “the new complaint” had been raised in error as her previous complaints had been addressed through the stage 2 appeal of 2 May 2023 as she had asked the manager to look at the case.
3. It agreed with the outcome of the stage 2 review.
4. It would be “taking up the lack of communication” with the NHO and manager.
5. She could request a review of the decision.
On 28 June 2023, the resident reported that the £300 had not been paid.
On 29 June 2023, the landlord wrote:
1. It would carry out repairs once N had moved.
2. There were times where she did not receive a response. However, the NHO had been “working with N and her support team continuously” until a new home had been found.
3. The lack of communication and distress were addressed in the recent Stage 2 response dated 5 May 2023.
4. It referred to correspondence in February 2023. On 27 February 2023, the NHO advise that he hoped N would be moving in the following 3 weeks. This information was shared in good faith, however due to circumstances beyond its control, this did not happen.
The landlord reported to this Service that “verbal discussions were had at the time with the neighbourhood manager and neighbourhood officer around responding promptly and record keeping”. It added: “Unfortunately, there were no notes to confirm”.

The ASB reports

The resident made a number of reports throughout the events. The Ombudsman has summarised the reports. That is not to minimise the impact of the reported ASB on the resident but for the sake of clarity and to minimise repetition.
The resident reports started in February 2021. There was then a gap until September 2021, when the resident reported noise, including slamming doors and that N had refused access for repairs. From December 2021, the reports were almost daily, sometimes several times a day.
They decreased in March 2022 onwards to a few times a month. The resident stated she had stopped making reports as she felt the landlord was not responding or taken any action.
The reports continued to the end of June 2023 when N moved out.
The resident’s complaint summarised the nature of the reports which included shouting, screaming, banging, occasional arguments, shouting in her garden, leaving the front door open, on one occasion locking her out of the property, throwing out rubbish, including food rubbish, into the resident’s garden and the street, damaging property, walking along the garden wall, burning items. She felt targeted by N, in particular in relation to the resident’s breathing difficulties. She also reported threats, abuse, including racist abuse, including to her family visiting. She also described a period of absence by N in March to April 2022 as “respite”. Her daughter reported this as well. She provided recordings.
She reported on occasions that she called the noise patrol and the police but they did not respond. She also reported in April, May, and August 2022 that neighbours had also been disturbed by N’s behaviour.
Within her reports, the resident requested a security light, double glazing, and recording equipment.
She also reported the impact on her mental health, on her work, damage to a garden trellis, the behaviour limited her visitors and she felt frightened of N and what she might do.
The resident reported that she was aware that N had mental health issues and referred to her as a case of “care in the community”.

The landlord’s response:

The case was mainly managed by a neighbourhood officer referred to as the NHO in this report. The landlord offered a move in February 2021 which the resident accepted in March 2021.
The landlord wrote to N regarding the reports of noise nuisance on 15 December 2021, 10, 23 and 31 May 2022 regarding the resident’s reports and regarding disposing of rubbish.
On 17 December 2021, it carried out a home visit to N to discuss the reports. It also offered mediation to both parties. It liaised with N’s medical team on a number of occasions including in January 2022 and sought to mediate through them in particular regarding the repairs to a leak. It speculated as to the cause of the behaviour described by the resident. It referred to “contentious feelings between the two women”.
On 28 March 2022 and other occasions, the landlord’s internal emails noted that it could not share information about N with the resident that would explain why it was unable to take legal action to evict N. On 16 May 2022, the landlord noted a conversation with the resident that it said “there was a lot it could not discuss” but that “that circumstance” was no longer the case. It could consider action but “magistrates/judges” were reluctant to give possession (if the landlord legal agreed to take the case forward) where the tenant had mental health issues. It was trying to arrange a joint visit with the support team to which it had forwarded the resident’s reports. It noted that the resident was “getting increasingly tormented by the situation”.
On 24 May 2022, the NHO suggested the resident should pass its details to the neighbours. On 26 May 2022, it stated that it no longer used noise recording equipment as it could not prove the tenant whose home the unit was installed was not making the noise which was recorded. It referred her to its responsive security patrol team. It considered that the NHO would contact the neighbours. The resident reported that the noise patrol did not come “for a while” and dealt with “noisy parties”.
On 6 June 2022, the landlord informed the resident that the landlord had had no indication of similar behaviour. It often offered decant properties as permanent.
It made a home visit on 10 June 2022. It offered to move N who made a limited admission as to her behaviour. The resident reported some improvement after the visit. According to the landlord’s internal emails, the landlord considered serving a notice seeking possession on N.
In a note 8 August 2022, it set out it would have been unable to take action during lockdown. It thought B was causing issues “despite her denying it persistently” – but it remained “a case of one neighbour complaining about another with little or no corroboration. It was a weak case to go to court. It had explained this to the resident. It was working closely with N’s support team to find another way to resolve this. It did not consider that it had a case for taking possession action particularly given N’s vulnerability. The solution was to move N. Sharing a front door and a small building with noise transference issues was not going to work. It speculated that there was “a personality clash” between the parties and probably N made noise on occasion in order to antagonise the resident but also N had admitted that she sometimes “lost it and just yelled”, and that “had nothing to do with the issues between her and the resident. The resident had agreed to mediation but N had not. It referred to “the sheer volume of emails” from the resident. The NHO had been able to reply to every single one. He would try and reply to more of them and to reply more quickly. It considered asking N’s community psychiatric nurse (CPN) to call the resident. The resident was working on downsizing.
According to an internal email the same day, the landlord spoke to the resident to report it would be difficult to take legal action. It was being referred to its “vulnerability panel”.
It wrote to the resident on 26 August 2022 stating it could not share any details with her but “was working to resolve it”. It was meeting with a specialist panel to consult and had passed on the reports to the CPN, who did not feel could meet with the resident as it would be a conflict of interest. It also reported that it had informed the resident that it was unlikely, given N’s mental health issues, it would apply to the court for possession. There was evidence she was making noise. It was also seeking to offer a one bed in a “street property” in the area, she seemed to think she could only bid for studios. Her persistent complaints could be her trying to prompt it into doing this. On 29 September 2022, it stated it was not bias towards N as expressed by the resident. It did not doubt N’s behaviour “was an issue”. It was looking at “alternative actions”.
On 20 October 2022, the landlord wrote an internal email as follows:
1. It had referred the case to “its vulnerability panel” and were advised that it could not serve notice because of her vulnerable mental state.
2. It was “hoping” it could reassure her that it was dealing with the matter and work out “some coping plans” to deal with any ASB while working towards resolving the issues permanently.
On 21 October 2022, the resident’s daughter described the impact of N’s behaviour on the resident. Neighbours had complained which the landlord “had not noticed”. She asked the landlord to escalate the reports about N’s rubbish disposal to Environmental Health and the noise reports to the noise patrol team.
On 28 October 2022, the NHO made a home visit at the resident with her daughter present. Its attendance note stated as follows:
1. He confirmed that the situation would be resolved permanently but could not disclose what action it would be taking. It noted that the resident was pleased that it was “taking the situation seriously”.
2. The landlord had agreed that N should have a permanent tenancy after initially moving temporarily in September 2021 before the volume of complaints hadincreased.
3. It had resolved the repairs that were delayed by N not giving access.
4. Other neighbours had complained. It had since identified one email. However, it accepted that “there was an issue”.
5. The landlord agreed to look into an entryphone, as N would ring the resident’s bell.
6. It was not favouring N but it not possible to take legal action due to the vulnerability of the tenant downstairs.
7. It “could have communicated better” but this had not led to delays.
8. It had consulted with senior management on appropriate action it could take.
9. The resident’s mental health had suffered and she could no longer enjoy her home.
10. It confirmed that there were no plans to sell the building.
11. There was a “good chance” that someone with mental health problems could move in downstairs as the landlord dealt with a lot of vulnerable people.
12. The resident was upset at the NHO’s tone on the phone and on emails. He “could not help it if she got that impression”. It had said it had hoped that tenants in the same building could resolve any differences between them which felt patronising to her.
13. Emails would be copied into a colleague so they would be responded to.
14. They reported that N also took class A drugs and urinated in the garden and used sexualised and inappropriate language including to the resident’s grandsons.
On 31 October 2022, the landlord wrote stating that “you have put up with a lot and still managed to be civil to your neighbour. N’s behaviour has been unacceptable.” It would contact the resident “soon” to let her know it was over and it would considered the flat as a sensitive let.
There was a gap in the evidence between November 2022 and February 2023 and between February and 12 May 2023 when the resident made further reports and stated she had chased several occasions for an outcome. On 16 May 2023, the landlord reported there had been some “unexpected obstacles”. On 28 June 2023, she reported that she still had not received the £300 compensation although the landlord had said it had paid it on 16 June 2023.
The resident’s reports continued. In response to a further email, the landlord wrote on 29 June 2023 that N would move out ”in the near future” It is assumed that N moved out in early July 2023.

Assessment and findings

The resident’s reports of noise nuisance, harassment and ASB.

The landlord’s explanation that it was unable to apply to the court to issue possession proceedings was reasonable. The court would have a discretion whether to make a possession order, as there was no evidence that the landlord would have mandatory grounds for possession. The landlord had a duty under the Equality Act 2010 to consider whether N had a disability and, if so, its duties under that act. In any event, a court would take into account N’s circumstances, whether N had a protected characteristic under the Equality Act 2010, whether N’s conduct had a causal link with that characteristic, whether eviction would be discriminatory and whether, if so, any discrimination would be justified. In the circumstances, any proceedings, even if taken (including injunction proceedings) would be problematic and protracted and might not have produced an earlier result than would a move.
There was no evidence that the landlord preferred N or was bias against the resident. It was faced with a real difficulty. It was reasonable that it took advice from its specialist panel not to take any steps towards eviction. The only other solution was to move the resident or move N. It reasonably offered both as an option. It was then limited by identifying a property that was suitable for either party to move to, against a background of limited social housing stock.
The evidence indicated that the landlord started to consider eviction early on and to liaise with N and her specialist support network, in particular her CPN. While the CPN was unable to do so, it asked the CPN to contact the resident. The evidence also confirmed the landlord’s assertion that it had offered the downstairs property on a permanent basis before the “volume of complaints increased”. It was then reasonable to address the resident’s concerns and designate the property below her, once empty, as a “sensitive let”.
The Ombudsman recognises the impact of the ongoing issues on the resident for two and a half years and has every sympathy for her situation. She had described the situation as stressful and frightening. It affected her sleep and she reported she could not enjoy her home. Repairs were delayed and her use of the garden was also affected. She also endured racist and sexualised language which effected not only herself but her visitors including her young grandsons. However, while there was no evidence that the landlord discussed a move with N prior to June 2022, the Ombudsman considers that the landlord’s decision to resolve the case by way of a move was reasonable and the decision to treat the downstairs flat as a sensitive let also. There was no evidence that this applied to where the resident has moved to and the Ombudsman will make a recommendation in that regard.
However, given the circumstances as described, the Ombudsman is concerned about how the landlord handled its communication and how it approached the resident. The evidence indicated that the landlord, at least partially, treated the situation as a conflict between neighbours although there was no evidence that the resident instigated any conduct, but there was evidence that N “acted out”. While it recognised that the resident was getting “increasingly tormented by the situation”, there was, overall, a lack of empathy in the way the landlord treated the resident. It did not appear to understand the resident’s lived experience.
It was appropriate that the landlord should take care about what information it could share with the resident about N given its duties of confidentiality and its obligations under the Data Protection Act 2018. It was reasonable that the landlord explained that there was a limit to what it could share with the resident. It was not clear why it drew the line where it did. The resident was made aware N had mental health issues, if not in detail, and that that was the reason for not taking legal action. The main issue that the landlord did not share was that it was arranging a move for N but it did so eventually. The landlord could have considered more carefully how to update the resident on an agreed regular basis, while being mindful of its duties towards N.
The landlord did not manage the resident’s expectations in relation to communication or diarise regular updates, even if it was to reassure the resident. Many of the resident’s emails acted as her ASB diaries, which was understandable. The Ombudsman would not expect the landlord to have responded to each email but would expect the landlord to agree its frequency of response, to acknowledge receipt of the reports and answer questions, essentially to manage communication reasonably and appropriately. While it updated the resident from time to time, the updates tended to be reactive rather than proactive. Even after the landlord acknowledged that communication was poor, it did not appear to improve. Even its very discussion about communication and record keeping was not documented.
There was no evidence that the landlord opened an ASB case which would have provided some structure to its approach. It did not provide or suggest ASB diaries. The landlord did not carry out a home visit on the resident until October 2021. Despite her reports about the impact on her mental and physical health, it did not carry out a risk assessment. While the landlord eventually concluded that evidence was no longer an issue, as it was not building a case for court, there was no evidence that it liaised with the noise patrol team it had recommended or had made enquiries with the resident’s neighbours, or that it sought legal advice early on.
While it was entitled to conclude sound insulation would be too costly, there was no evidence that it considered the resident’s request for a security light. There was no evidence that it proactively gave advice to the resident about a move. It referred to “coping plans” to ASB but did not provide any practical approaches. It did not make any referrals or signpost the resident to relevant agencies. It declined providing noise monitoring equipment yet its policy suggested that the landlord consider suggesting a Noise App. Given the noise was N’s voice, this may have been nevertheless useful. There was no evidence that it explained what it could and could not do, such sound insulation, or evidence that it offered a visit to assess whether any steps could be taken to mitigate the sound. There was no evidence that it provided an entry phone or offered an explanation why it did not do so.
The eventual meeting and subsequent email in October 2022 expressed some appreciation of the resident’s experience, as did designating the downstairs flat, once empty, as a sensitive let. However, the accumulative effect was that the resident was left feeling that the landlord did not give her needs sufficient priority and did not appreciate her distress. The Ombudsman does not find the landlord did enough to recognise the severity of the resident’s reports, in particular given the racist and offensive language reported by the resident. This was in contrast to the landlord’s policy on hate offences and tenancy conditions. There was no evidence that it considered the resident’s rights to quiet enjoyment of her home, which is an implied, if not explicit, right under her tenancy agreement, or her rights under Article 8 of the Human Rights Act 1998, namely respect for her home, to live in her home without intrusion or interference.
The Ombudsman does not find the offer of £300 adequate given the additional failings identified and the length of time the issues persisted. However, the Ombudsman will not make an order for compensation to reflect loss of earnings. This is because this would entail legal consideration of legal liability and causation. The Ombudsman would have made a finding of maladministration however given the landlord partially recognised its failings, the Ombudsman finds service failure in relation to this aspect of the resident’s complaint.

The landlord’s complaint handling

The landlord acknowledged the significant delay to its complaint response from January 2022 to 16 March 2023, a period of 14 months. There was a further delay to the review response, from 17 March 2023 to 5 May 2023. It neither apologised nor offered compensation. The complaint handling was confusing. Having not responded to the resident’s initial complaint in January 2022, it then closed her subsequent complaint of February 2022 some 11 months later (in December 2022) yet referred to it in its Stage 2 response. Her complaints made in August 2022 were ignored entirely. The undated text provided by the landlord appeared to suggest it had logged a fresh complaint.
Its Stage 1 response, when it was finally provided, was dismissive, merely stating that the case had been resolved. It did not look at the delays and there was insufficient self-reflection. This neither reflected the landlord’s own complaints policy nor the resolution principals of the Ombudsman – treat people fairly and follow fair processes, put things right, and learn from outcomes.
This approach did not demonstrate, and nor would this have reassured the resident, that she was being taken seriously. Moreover, the lack of responses meant that the resident was put to the trouble of making several complaints. However, her repeated complaints still did not put the landlord on notice that it had failed to respond to her previous complaints.
The Stage 2 response was incomplete. It made a reference to repairs which was not clear. It promised that the NHO and its manager would follow it up, which would have been inappropriate in any event as a complaint should be reviewed by a senior member of management. There was no evidence that it did so but instead the landlord referred her back to the incomplete Stage 2 response. This also meant that there was no reflection on or investigation of what went wrong with the landlord’s communication. In the circumstances, the landlord’s missed a learning opportunity. It was, overall, an unsatisfactory, apart from its recognition that its communication had been poor.
Finally, the £300 compensation was paid very late, and only after the resident had had to chase it.
In all of the circumstances, the Ombudsman does not find the offer of £300 constituted reasonable redress.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with Paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure in relation to the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of noise nuisance, harassment, and anti–social behaviour (ASB).
In accordance with Paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in relation to the landlord’s complaint handling.

Reasons

The landlord’s decision to pursue rehousing rather than court proceedings was reasonable. However, its poor communication and treatment of the resident failed to demonstrate that it had empathy for her situation or approached the noise reports “imaginatively” as recommended by its own policy.
The complaint handling was delayed, dismissive, and disorganised. While it finally acknowledged its communication was poor, the process was frustrating and incurred the resident in additional trouble and frustration, rather than improving matters.

Orders.

The Ombudsman makes the following orders:
1. Within 4 weeks the landlord should pay the resident the sum of £950 including the £300 already offered consisting of:
  1. An additional £250 in addition to the £300 the landlord has offered in relation to its response to the resident’s reports of ASB.
  2. The sum of £400 in relation to its complaint handling.
2. Within 8 weeks, a member of the senior management team should review the findings of this report and set out what steps it has taken and will take to rectify the issues so that they do not recur, including necessary training. This should also include consideration of the Ombudsman’s Spotlight Report on Attitudes Respect and Rights 2024. ARRRoE-22012024-FINAL.pdf (housing-ombudsman.org.uk) Within the review it should provide guidance notes to the relevant teams about the specific lessons learnt with reference to this case as to good and poor practice. The landlord should provide a summary of the review and a copy of the guidance notes to the Ombudsman within 8 weeks.
The landlord should confirm compliance with the above orders to the Housing Ombudsman Service within 4 and 8 weeks of this report.

Recommendations

The Ombudsman makes the following recommendations:
1. The landlord should consider, if the layout is appropriate, making the immediate neighbouring properties to the resident’s current home a sensitive let.
The landlord should notify the Ombudsman of its intentions regarding these recommendations within four weeks of this report.