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

Salix Homes Limited (202320242)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202320242

Salix Homes Limited

12 June 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. This complaint is about the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of noise nuisance and tenancy breaches.

Background

  1. The resident is a secure tenant of the landlord. The property is a 4-bed end terrace house. The landlord told the Ombudsman it has no recorded vulnerabilities for the resident. However, the Ombudsman notes the resident has referred to living with anxiety, depression, and PTSD.
  2. The resident sent the landlord a complaint on 27 November 2022. He said it had not dealt with noise nuisance or unauthorised dog breeding from a neighbour’s property, despite having previously issued a warning. For ease of reference, the neighbour in question will be referred to as ‘neighbour A’ throughout this determination. The resident said other neighbours were disturbed by constant barking but were afraid to say anything, and that the landlord had not responded to the diary sheets he had sent 4 weeks before.
  3. The landlord issued a stage 1 response on 23 December 2022. It said the resident had provided a month’s worth of diary sheets, but that more evidence would have been needed to progress the case. It said it was satisfied the case opened on 14 July 2022 had been progressed appropriately, but accepted the antisocial behaviour officer had not contacted the resident as often as they should have done.
  4. The resident escalated his complaint on or around 5 January 2023. He said he had never been aware that more diaries were needed, as he had received no response from the landlord within a month of sending the diary sheets in. He said he felt it was trying to shift the blame onto him, and should have been more proactive in progressing the case.
  5. The landlord issued a stage 2 response on 25 January 2023. It said it accepted it had not followed its antisocial behaviour policy, and that had it communicated appropriately and explained the need for diary sheets at the outset, the resident would have understood the evidence gathering that was needed. It apologised for its failings and told him the local authority’s dog warden had an ongoing investigation regarding neighbour A which was aimed at strengthening the landlord’s case against them. It also confirmed it would be carrying out a full review of the evidence with its solicitors to assess what action it could take based on the evidence it had.
  6. The resident contacted the Ombudsman on 11 September 2023. He said the noise and tenancy breaches were still ongoing, and the landlord had done nothing to resolve the situation. He said it was affecting his mental health, and his GP had to increase his prescription for antidepressants as a result. The Ombudsman then contacted the landlord for details of the complaint responses, and asked it to respond to the complaint if it had not done so already.
  7. The landlord issued a second stage 1 response on 3 October 2023. It said it had been encouraging the resident to maintain incident diaries, installed noise monitoring equipment, carried out a letter drop in search of supporting evidence, arranged interviews, and had neighbour A sign an acceptable behaviour contract in May 2023. It said the case would have little prospect of success at court without adequate evidence of a persistent and ongoing problem, and its options were limited as a result. It did not uphold the complaint.
  8. The resident escalated the complaint on 16 October 2023. He said he felt the landlord was being deliberately obstructive, and it was difficult to get any response to reports of antisocial behaviour. He said he had initially completed diaries, but stopped doing so when his faith in the landlord had vanished. He disputed that it had installed noise monitoring equipment, and said he had purchased his own as the waiting list for the equipment was so long. He said the landlord had not responded to questions, had provided conflicting information, and he believed it was colluding with neighbour A.
  9. The landlord issued a second stage 2 response on 6 November 2023. It said it had received no reports of tenancy breaches since neighbour A signed the acceptable behaviour contract in May 2023, and therefore was not looking into further issues at that time. It repeated information from the stage 1 response, and said the resident should let it know if neighbour A started breeding dogs again.
  10. The resident referred his complaints to the Ombudsman on 22 November 2023. He said the landlord repeatedly promised action it then failed to take, including regular contact and noise monitoring equipment. He said he had stopped engaging with the landlord in August 2023 after he became disillusioned with it.

Assessment and findings

Scope of the investigation

  1. Paragraph 42(a) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme says the Ombudsman will not investigate complaints which have not yet exhausted the landlord’s internal complaints process. The resident raised a series of further issues with his landlord when escalating his second complaint which did not form part of the original second complaint. Those issues have not completed the landlord’s internal complaints process, and as such cannot be considered as part of the investigation.
  2. Paragraph 42(c) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme says the Ombudsman will not investigate complaints which were not brought to the landlord’s attention as a formal complaint within a reasonable period of time (usually 12 months). The resident told the Ombudsman that the noise issues had been ongoing since 2016. The Ombudsman notes from the landlord’s records that it opened antisocial behaviour cases in April 2020, March 2021, and August 2021, all of which were closed with the resident’s agreement after the noise reduced. The landlord then opened a new case in July 2022, following new reports of dog barking.
  3. The resident’s complaint was made in November 2022, and the previous antisocial behaviour cases took place more than 12 months before that complaint. As such, the Ombudsman can only consider the landlord’s actions from 14 July 2022, when the most recent case was opened, up to the date of the resident’s second complaint.
  4. The resident has also referred to the effect the noise had on his mental health. The Ombudsman is unable to draw conclusions on the causation of, or liability for, any impact on health and wellbeing. However, the Ombudsman will consider any general distress and inconvenience the situation may have caused the resident.

Policies and procedures

  1. The landlord’s tenancy management procedure says it will deal with reports of pet nuisance under its antisocial behaviour policy. It says possible actions would include referral to environmental health and the dog warden.
  2. The landlord’s antisocial behaviour policy and procedure set out the steps the landlord will take in response to reports of antisocial behaviour. Those steps include the following:
    1. It will open an antisocial behaviour case and record the details of the report. As part of this, it will carry out a risk assessment and arrange to interview the relevant parties.
    2. For noise complaints, it should acknowledge the report within 1 working day, interview the complainant within 5 working days, and interview the alleged perpetrator within 5 working days.
    3. At the initial interview, it will draw up an action plan setting out what the landlord and complainant will do to resolve the antisocial behaviour. It will also explain the process, and what can realistically be achieved, to the complainant.
    4. After interviewing the alleged perpetrator, the landlord will gather evidence. This should include asking the complainant to complete diary sheets, and can include the use of noise recording equipment.
    5. It will maintain regular contact with the complainant to update them on the case.
    6. Non-legal options to resolve the antisocial behaviour may include tenancy warnings and acceptable behaviour contracts. If an alleged perpetrator breaches an acceptable behaviour contract, the landlord will consider legal action. However, the policy specifies that legal action cannot proceed if only anonymous evidence is available to support the case.
    7. It will close the case if no further incidents have occurred, the complainant no longer wishes to engage in the process, there is insufficient evidence to proceed, or legal action has started.

Noise nuisance and tenancy breaches

  1. The purpose of this investigation is not to establish if noise nuisance or antisocial behaviour have occurred, or if neighbour A breached their tenancy agreement, as that is not within the Ombudsman’s remit. However, the Ombudsman can assess whether or not the landlord responded appropriately and reasonably to the resident’s reports, taking into account all the circumstances of the case.
  2. When a landlord receives reports of noise nuisance, it is required to investigate those reports. This may include speaking to any witnesses, reviewing incident diaries, and liaising with other agencies where appropriate. After reviewing the evidence gathered, the landlord would then determine the most appropriate action on a case-by-case basis. In practice, the options available to a landlord to resolve a case of noise nuisance can be extremely limited, particularly if the majority of the noise is during the day, and may not extend to the resident’s preferred outcome. It is therefore important to consider whether the landlord has acted in line with its policies and good industry practice when responding to any reports.
  3. When the resident reported noise from dogs barking in 14 July 2022, the landlord responded by opening an antisocial behaviour case. However, it then failed to take any action until 12 August 2022. This was not in line with either its antisocial behaviour policy or good industry practice. The landlord has not provided any explanation for this delay. In the absence of any such explanation, the Ombudsman can only conclude that the delay was both avoidable and unreasonable.
  4. The landlord spoke to the resident on 12 August 2022. He said the barking was persistent, and sometimes continued from 5am until midnight. The landlord told him that there were a number of dogs in the area, and that it would need to know the dogs causing the noise were from neighbour A’s house rather than another property. It asked him to complete diary sheets and confirmed it would ask other residents if they had witnessed the persistent barking. The resident said he left the call feeling that his reports were not being taken seriously, as the antisocial behaviour officer seemed too overstretched by other cases.
  5. The various steps the landlord set out at this stage were reasonable and in line with standard industry practice. However, it has provided no evidence of taking any further action until 8 September 2022, which was almost 4 weeks later. It is unclear whether the landlord took no action, or took action but did not record it. In either case, the landlord has not shown that it acted reasonably at that stage.
  6. The landlord’s antisocial behaviour file says it visited a number of nearby properties on 8 September 2022 to try and gather evidence. Its notes say that all of the residents who answered the door reported that they did not experience issues with barking, that any barking was in response to people walking past and stopped after 10 minutes or so, barking was never an issue at night, and none of them wanted to make a complaint. The Ombudsman notes that the resident disputes the accounts provided. However, as set out above, it is not the Ombudsman’s role to determine whether or not there was noise nuisance, only whether the landlord acted appropriately given the evidence available to it.
  7. The landlord updated the resident on the neighbour interviews on 22 September 2022. It was reasonable to update the resident following that investigation. However, the landlord’s evidence shows it had not contacted the resident for a number of weeks by that stage. This was not the regular contact required under its policy. During that discussion, the landlord and resident agreed that the resident would complete diary sheets. He returned those completed diary sheets on 27 October 2022.
  8. It was reasonable for the landlord to ask the resident to complete diary sheets, as it needed to ascertain the level, times, and frequency of the noise, as well as the impact on him, to assess what action, if any, it could take. However, it has not demonstrated that it acted reasonably after that request. It should have acknowledged and reviewed the diary sheets when it received them on 27 October 2022, told the resident whether or not it could take any action at that stage, and explained whether it needed any further evidence from him. It has provided no evidence which shows it did so. Instead, the evidence provided shows that it took no further action until the resident raised a complaint. It has provided no explanation for why it took no action during that time, meaning the delays were both unreasonable and avoidable.
  9. Following the resident’s complaint on 27 November 2022, the landlord began taking significantly more action regarding the reports. Between 30 November and 14 December 2022, it liaised with the local authority’s dog warden, carried out an unannounced joint visit to neighbour A’s property, sent a follow up letter to them, and liaised with the local authority regarding next steps following the visit. These were all reasonable and appropriate steps for the landlord to take. However, it is of concern that it appears to have taken a complaint for the landlord to take those steps. 
  10. On 6 January 2023, the landlord updated the resident on the joint visit. It said it had arranged a follow-up visit, sent a warning letter to neighbour A, and would arrange for noise monitoring equipment to be fitted in the resident’s property. It asked him to complete diary sheets in the meantime, and explained why the diary sheets were important. It also emailed a number of residents from near neighbour A’s property asking if any of them had heard the reported barking. These were all reasonable and appropriate steps, and demonstrate that the landlord appeared to learn from the resident’s first complaint.
  11. On 11 January 2023, the resident said there had been no barking since the landlord visited neighbour A’s property. He said he did not therefore think noise monitoring equipment or further diaries were necessary, but he would request the equipment if the noise started again. Given that the resident had declined noise recording equipment, it was reasonable that the landlord did not take any further steps regarding the equipment at that stage.
  12. On 20 January 2023, the landlord told the resident it would be carrying out a joint visit at neighbour A’s property the following week, and that the dog warden had started its own enforcement process. It asked him to submit diary sheets and any other evidence he had. It was reasonable for the landlord to update the resident, and to continue to seek evidence to support any potential enforcement action. The landlord visited neighbour A’s property on 23 January 2023, saw evidence of dog breeding, and told neighbour A they were not allowed to run a business from the property without its consent.
  13. On 25 January 2023, the landlord confirmed in its initial stage 2 response that it would be carrying out a full review of the evidence with its solicitors to determine whether it could proceed with legal action based on the evidence it had. Following a further visit to neighbour A’s property shortly after, it told the resident it would be considering enforcement action against neighbour A as a result of the breeding business, and then passed its file to its solicitors for advice.
  14. Taking legal enforcement action against one of its tenants is the most robust action a landlord can take, so the landlord’s decision to pursue an injunction or possible eviction against neighbour A demonstrates that it took the resident’s reports seriously. However, a court will not grant an injunction or possession order without strong corroborative evidence, and tenancy enforcement requires a court order. It was therefore reasonable that the landlord asked its solicitors for advice.
  15. The landlord prepared a detailed witness statement in anticipation of bringing court proceedings, and it sent the statement and relevant evidence to its solicitors for advice on 21 February 2023. When the resident began reporting noise from neighbour A again at the start of April 2023, the landlord acknowledged the reports, forwarded them to its solicitors, visited neighbour A, and gave a verbal warning regarding the noise. Those were all reasonable steps to take, which demonstrate that it was trying to resolve the issues with barking and reported tenancy breaches.
  16. The landlord received the requested advice from its solicitors in May 2023. The solicitors advised that it was very unlikely that the landlord would be able to obtain either an injunction or a possession order against neighbour A based on the available evidence, and that its advice might change if neighbour A breached an acceptable behaviour contract, and there was also direct evidence that the noise was from their dogs rather than other dogs in the area. The Ombudsman would not expect a landlord to issue an application for an injunction or a possession claim when it had received legal advice that there was insufficient evidence to persuade the court to grant either order, so the landlord acted reasonably in not making an application to court at this stage.
  17. The landlord has not explained why it took more than 2 months to receive the advice, and has not provided any evidence of chasing a response from its solicitors. However, given the contents of the advice, the Ombudsman has seen no evidence to show that chasing the advice would have resulted in a different outcome.
  18. Once it received the advice, the landlord appropriately updated the resident and arranged for neighbour A to sign an acceptable behaviour contract, in line with the advice received. The evidence provided shows there was a delay of a few weeks in contacting the resident at this stage, despite the landlord having promised to contact him sooner. However, as the resident had confirmed that the noise had largely subsided again following the further warning in December 2022, the Ombudsman has seen no evidence that the delay caused specific detriment to the resident.
  19. Around 4 weeks later, the resident reported that the barking had become a nuisance again, and said it was a breach of the acceptable behaviour contract as it lasted longer than an hour a day. The landlord asked him to complete incident logs for each occasion with as much detail as possible, so it could assess the reports. It also explained it would look to build a case for legal action, confirmed it would arrange a letter drop, and asked the resident if it could install noise monitoring equipment, as its own equipment was calibrated to provide evidence for court. The resident agreed to the equipment being installed, and confirmed he would keep incident diaries.
  20. When the resident then contacted the landlord on 12 July 2023, he asked why the case was not going to court, and why the landlord could not give evidence on his behalf. The landlord explained that it could not give evidence for him in court, and could only provide a witness statement with anonymous evidence, which would significantly weaken the case. It was reasonable for the landlord to explain the process that needed to be followed and why the evidence it had so far was not sufficient for court action.
  21. Around this time, the landlord also carried out a letter drop to properties in the area, asking for evidence. It received a single response from a resident in the area (‘neighbour B’). The landlord did not initially take any action in response, and incorrectly told the resident that nobody had responded, leading to the resident having to take the time to correct the landlord. The landlord only contacted neighbour B when the resident provided evidence that neighbour B had already contacted the landlord. It was unreasonable that the landlord did not contact neighbour B until almost a month after it received and acknowledged their response to the letter drop.
  22. When the landlord contacted neighbour B, neighbour B declined to complete diary sheets, after initially confirming they would do so. This meant the landlord did not have any further direct evidence of noise nuisance or tenancy breaches with which to build its case for court, and the options available to it remained limited. However, the landlord has not shown it considered installing noise recording equipment in neighbour B’s property, despite neighbour B indicating they would agree to the use of that equipment. This was unreasonable.
  23. At the end of August 2023, the resident told the landlord he felt demoralised by the process, and that it should accept his word rather than asking for more evidence. He said he had bought his own noise recording equipment and provided recordings, as it had not installed the promised equipment. Around a week later, the landlord contacted the resident. It noted he had said he would no longer provide diary sheets or recordings. It explained that evidence was crucial to allow it to take any action, that it had no evidence that the issue was ongoing after 14 July 2023, and that there were no witnesses willing to give evidence.
  24. The landlord explained it was unable to pursue legal action when there had been no reports in the previous 6 weeks, and asked the resident to get in touch again if he was willing to provide further evidence. It was reasonable for the landlord to manage the resident’s expectations, to explain why further evidence was needed, and to explain the reason it was unable to pursue legal action at that stage.
  25. Following its discussion with the resident, the landlord closed the case due to the lack of new reports. While the Ombudsman notes the resident’s comments that he stopped providing evidence due to a lack of faith in the landlord, this meant that the landlord had no evidence of recent reports to enable it to continue taking any action. Its antisocial behaviour policy allows it to close the case in those circumstances, and it was reasonable for it to do so in the absence of new reports.
  26. The resident told the Ombudsman that the landlord had done nothing to resolve the situation. While the Ombudsman understands the resident’s frustration with the situation, the end result not being the resident’s preferred outcome does not mean the landlord took no action. The landlord has demonstrated that it attempted to gather evidence through various means, carried out home visits, issued multiple warnings to neighbour A, and sought legal advice with a view to pursuing court action. When it was not able to take further action, it explained that to the resident, and attempted to manage the resident’s expectations as to what it could achieve. These were all reasonable and appropriate steps.
  27. However, there were multiple shortcomings in the way the landlord handled the reports. Prior to the resident’s initial complaint, the landlord’s handling of the reports was wholly inadequate. It initially failed to respond to reports for a month, then set out the steps it would take before failing to take any action for another month. It then failed to take any action when the resident returned diary sheets, and only became more active in responding to the reports after the resident made a complaint.
  28. While the landlord’s handling of the reports improved significantly after that complaint, there were then further shortcomings in its handling of the reports. For example, it promised noise recording equipment, but then failed to install it as it said it had insufficient equipment available. It has not shown it took any steps to source alternative equipment, or to signpost the resident to environmental health to see if they could assist with noise recording equipment. It also failed to contact neighbour B for almost a month after they responded to the landlord’s letter drop, and incorrectly told the resident there had been no response to the letter drop, creating distrust as the resident was aware there had been a response. Its failings in this case amount to maladministration. The Ombudsman has therefore considered what the landlord needs to do to put things right.
  29. In this case, the landlord caused a number of avoidable delays, and the resident had to repeatedly chase the landlord for a response or updates. It also failed to arrange the promised noise recording equipment, leaving the resident feeling as though his reports were still not taken seriously. The Ombudsman has not seen any evidence which suggests that the overall outcome would have been different had the landlord taken steps to gather evidence from other residents sooner, as the evidence it did receive when it took the relevant steps was insufficient for it to take the case further. The Ombudsman is also unable to speculate on whether or not installing the promised noise recording equipment or referring the resident to environmental health would have led to sufficient evidence to proceed with legal action.
  30. However, the Ombudsman considers that, in addition to an apology for the failings identified in this report, the landlord should pay the resident compensation for the distress and inconvenience caused by the way it handled the reports.
  31. It is apparent that the reported noise has caused the resident a significant amount of distress, and that the resident felt that nothing was being done to help him. The landlord is not responsible for the actions of neighbours, and is only responsible for its own actions surrounding the reports. As such, the Ombudsman would not expect a landlord to compensate a resident for the actions of their neighbours, but for distress and inconvenience directly caused by any failings in how it handled the resident’s concerns.
  32. Taking into account all of the circumstances of the case, the Ombudsman considers that the landlord should pay the resident £450 compensation for the distress and inconvenience caused by the failings identified in this determination. This is in line with the Ombudsman’s published remedies guidance for failures which adversely affect a resident, and where a landlord has not acknowledged its failings or done enough to put things right.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there has been maladministration with regard to the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of noise nuisance and tenancy breaches.

Orders

  1. Within 4 weeks of the date of this determination, the landlord is ordered to:
    1. Issue a written apology to the resident for the failings identified in this report.
    2. Pay the resident £450 compensation for the distress and inconvenience caused by the failings identified in this report.
    3. Arrange refresher training for all staff who handle reports of antisocial behaviour, noise nuisance or tenancy breaches to prevent a recurrence of the failings identified in this report.
  2. The landlord is to write to the Ombudsman to provide evidence of compliance with the above orders within 4 weeks of the date of this determination.