Great Places Housing Association (202228101)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202228101

Great Places Housing Association

29 February 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

1. The complaint is about;
   1. The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of noise nuisance.
   2. The landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns about staff conduct.

Background

2. The resident is a secure tenant of the landlord.
3. On 13 June 2022, the resident reported to the landlord that her neighbour’s dog had been barking for a few days. She contacted the landlord again on 30 June 2022 and advised that the barking was excessive. The landlord confirmed that it had addressed the issue with the neighbour. It also encouraged the resident to discuss the problem directly with her neighbour,
4. The resident contacted the landlord again on 8 August 2022 and advised that the barking had not improved. The landlord said that it did not witness a dog barking during 2 separate home visits, therefore it was the staff members opinion that the barking was not continuous or excessive. The resident explained that she had videos that proved that the barking was excessive and asked that the landlord viewed the footage. However, the landlord did not review the evidence.
5. On 1 September 2022, the resident raised a complaint with the landlord about its handling of her noise nuisance reports. On 6 September 2022, the resident added to her complaint as she said that a member of landlord staff had told her to ‘shut up’ during a telephone conversation. The landlord acknowledged the resident’s complaint and opened a noise nuisance case. It also provided the resident with a noise application to monitor the noise from the neighbour’s dog barking.
6. The landlord issued its stage one response on 20 September 2022. The landlord said that staff members responded appropriately to the resident’s reports of noise nuisance, and measures were in place to monitor the situation. The landlord also stated that it had discussed the resident’s complaint with the relevant staff member, who denied telling her to ‘shut up’. It apologised if the resident felt like staff had not listened to her complaint.
7. The resident remained dissatisfied and escalated her complaint. In the meantime, the landlord issued her neighbour with a written warning regarding noise nuisance after evidence gathered on the noise application confirmed that their dog was barking excessively.
8. On 28 October 2022, the landlord issued its stage two response. In its response, the landlord acknowledged that there was a delay in logging a formal case regarding the noise nuisance. However, the landlord was unable to uphold the resident’s complaint regarding the individual staff member due to conflicting accounts. In recognition of the delays and distress caused, the landlord offered the resident £30 compensation.
9. The resident remains dissatisfied as the compensation offered did not appropriately remedy the delays she experienced and the stress she endured while living with excessive dog noise. The resident also experienced significant stress and frustration chasing the landlord.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

10. It is recognised that the resident has continued to report noise nuisance following the landlord’s final response to her complaint. Nevertheless, this investigation has only focussed on the landlord’s handling of the noise nuisance issues reported up until the time of the landlord’s final complaint response. This is because the landlord would not have had the opportunity to explain to the resident (formally) the further steps it has taken to remedy the issue. Any further dissatisfaction with the landlord’s handling of matters after its stage two response will need to be raised directly with the landlord and progressed as a new formal complaint.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of noise nuisance.

11. Under the tenancy agreement, residents must not cause or do anything likely to cause a nuisance or annoyance to neighbours and other tenants. Examples of a nuisance is excessive dog barking. In accordance with the landlord’s ASB policy, the landlord may use sound monitoring equipment to investigate reports of noise nuisance.
12. When ASB is reported by a resident, a landlord has a duty to undertake a proportionate investigation to establish whether ASB is occurring, and if so the nature and extent of the ASB. To undertake a thorough investigation, the landlord is expected to engage with the resident and provide means by which the resident can accrue evidence. Likewise, a landlord has a duty to engage with the alleged perpetrator, in an effort to resolve the issues.
13. The resident reported that her neighbour’s dog was excessively barking in June 2022. The landlord confirmed that it had discussed the issue with her neighbour and also encouraged the resident to do so. This was appropriate advice given landlords actively encourage residents to communicate and resolve issues without formal intervention by the landlord. The landlord also confirmed that it would open a noise nuisance case against the neighbour and carry out a full investigation if the parties were unable to resolve the issue informally, which again was reasonable.
14. The resident reported excessive barking again in August 2022. The landlord advised that it had conducted a home visit at 8:00am and 4:30pm, and there was no evidence of a dog barking. As a result, the landlord concluded that the barking was not excessive or continuous. The resident raised that it was not fair to make that determination and advised that she had video evidence of the excessive barking which she wanted to share with the landlord. While positive that the landlord conducted the home visits, reaching a conclusion that there was no problem was presumptuous and inappropriate. If the landlord had made efforts to review video evidence that the resident had gathered, the resident may have felt that her lived experience was being recognised appropriately. However, the landlord failed to review the evidence, causing significant frustration to the resident. Reviewing the evidence also would have been a fair step in the landlord’s evidence-gathering process.
15. The landlord advised the resident to engage with other external agencies such as the RSPCA and the council to report the excessive dog barking. However, the issues reported by the resident constituted as a noise nuisance, thus a breach of the neighbour’s tenancy. Therefore, the landlord should have taken more responsibility to engage with the relevant agencies and conduct a more robust investigation. It put the onus on the resident to contact external agencies, which was inappropriate.
16. While the exact date is unclear, the landlord opened a noise nuisance case between 1-7 September 2022. A noise monitoring application was issued to the resident, which was appropriate and in accordance with the landlord’s ASB policy. The landlord subsequently issued the neighbour with a written warning as a result of the evidence gathered, which confirmed that their dog was barking excessively. This was reasonable action for the landlord to take, as well as continuing to monitor the problem via the application. Nevertheless, the issue was initially reported in June, therefore the issue should have been formally monitored sooner.
17. Overall, there were some failings in the landlord’s response to the resident’s noise nuisance reports, namely the delay in the landlord opening a noise nuisance case and in setting the resident up with the noise monitoring app. The frustration and loss of confidence experienced by the resident due to the landlord’s initial lack of action is also a failing of the landlord. Therefore, this Service has found service failure in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of noise nuisance.
18. In its complaint response, the landlord recognised the shortcomings in its handling of the case and acknowledged that it delayed opening a formal noise nuisance case. It offered the resident £30 compensation for its failing. It highlighted learning and advised that as a result of the complaint, the landlord had advised its staff to open formal cases following initial complaints on all cases, irrespective of whether the landlord is waiting for further information. The Ombudsman is satisfied that the landlord has taken steps to improve its service in this regard.
19. However, taking into consideration the delay, additional frustration and loss of confidence experienced by the resident, £30 compensation was not sufficient. To put things right, the landlord is ordered to pay the resident an additional £70 compensation, which reasonably reflects the detriment to the resident.

The landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns about staff conduct.

20. The Ombudsman’s role when investigating complaints is to assess the evidence that is available and reach a conclusion as to whether the landlord has complied with its duties and obligations in its response to the complaint. This investigation understands that the resident felt that the landlord acted inappropriately during a phone call as she was told to ‘shut up’ by a staff member. However, it is acknowledged that there are differing accounts of these events.
21. On that basis, the Ombudsman cannot make a finding as to what transpired at the time; however, the Ombudsman has assessed how the landlord investigated the matter and whether its response was appropriate in the circumstances.
22. Upon receiving reports of poor staff conduct, it is the landlord’s role to investigate the concerns raised by the resident and collect evidence from staff members and the resident to determine what events had taken place. In this instance, the landlord discussed the resident’s complaints with the relevant staff member and documented their version of events, which was appropriate.
23. The landlord explained in its complaint responses that the relevant staff member denied telling the resident to ‘shut up’. It went further and described the staff member as ‘very professional’ as well as stating that they have ‘good customer service skills’. The landlord also referred to witnessing the staff member deal with other challenging conversations with patience and respect. While not entirely inappropriate, the resident could have understandably felt frustrated by the landlord’s comments. This Service does not doubt the landlords positive references to the staff members character and behaviour, but it does not detract from the negative experience that the resident had, and the landlord’s comments were not helpful or necessary in the context of the resident’s complaint.
24. This Service is aware that the resident’s complaint centres around the staff members language during a phone conversation. However, this Service has also assessed the staff members email communication with the resident and whether its tone and approach were appropriate. Although the emails reviewed were not overtly impolite, it is not unreasonable to suggest that the tone could have been viewed as dismissive by the resident. The staff member did not show enough willingness to listen to the resident’s concerns and repeatedly reinforced the neighbour’s insistence that the dogs did not bark excessively. While this Service does not doubt that the staff member was relaying the neighbours account to the resident, it did not demonstrate that they were acting impartially or willing to consider the resident’s views. This undoubtably had a detrimental impact on the resident’s faith in the landlord.
25. While this does not constitute a service failure, a recommendation will be issued for the landlord to reiterate the importance of effective communication with residents to its staff members. The landlord may find it beneficial to review the Ombudsman’s spotlight report on “Attitudes, respect and rights”. The report highlights the importance of exercising sensitivity to residents and ensuring that individuals language and tone does not make resident’s feel like their lived experiences are being dismissed. If a resident feels like they are not being listened to due to receiving hostile responses from the landlord, this could erode their trust in the landlord, causing a relationship breakdown.
26. Overall, the landlord took appropriate steps to investigate the allegation that the staff member told the resident to ‘shut up’. Given that the staff member denied making the alleged comment, together with the lack of other evidence to corroborate the allegation, it was reasonable that the landlord acknowledged this aspect of the resident’s complaint but did not uphold it. By referring to the comment in its complaint responses, it also ensured that the resident’s version of events was kept on file.
27. Nevertheless, the findings in this investigation highlight learning opportunities for staff members to ensure the language and tone of its communication with all residents is respectful and demonstrates that it is listening to the issues and needs of its residents.

Determination

28. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure by the landlord in its handling of the resident’s reports of noise nuisance.
29. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration by the landlord in respect of its response to the resident’s concerns about staff conduct.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

30. The landlord is ordered to pay the resident £100 compensation within the next four weeks. This is made up of:
    1. £30 previously offered to the resident, if it has not already been paid.
    2. £70 for the identified failures in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of noise nuisance.
31. The landlord must provide evidence of compliance with the above orders to this Service.

Recommendations

32. The landlord should reiterate to its staff the importance of effective communication with its residents, emphasising the importance of staff being polite, respectful, and empathetic in their approach. The landlord may benefit from referring to this Service’s spotlight report on “Attitudes, respect and rights” and the recommendations contained within the report.