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

Clarion Housing Association Limited (202234095)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202234095

Clarion Housing Association Limited

18 July 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 the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of antisocial behaviour (ASB) and noise nuisance from his neighbour.
  2. The landlord’s complaint handling has also been investigated.

Background

  1. The resident has an assured tenancy with the landlord for a 1-bedroom flat in a building owned by the landlord. The landlord has no recorded vulnerabilities for the resident. The neighbour, also a tenant of the landlord, and who the resident would later complain about, lives in a flat directly below the resident. The landlord has confirmed to the resident that the neighbour has several vulnerabilities. This includes carers being required to attend at the neighbour’s property.
  2. Between 5 November and 16 December 2021, the resident reported his neighbour and visitors were shouting and talking loudly often in the middle of the night. The landlord opened an ASB case on 10 December and advised the neighbour to keep noise down and ask any visitors causing a disturbance to leave. It gave an official warning to the neighbour on 23 December. This was due to a report from the resident on 15 December that the neighbour was shouting and singing until 4:00 am. The landlord told the neighbour to cease this behaviour, or it would take “enforcement action.”
  3. From 8 January to 8 June 2022 the resident made multiple further reports of noise from his neighbour. Through this period there is evidence of the following taking place:
    1. The landlord listened to recordings and took noise logs completed by the resident. The landlord also visited the resident and neighbour several times through this period to discuss the concerns raised. It supported the resident in using the noise app to make recordings.  It also attempted to obtain corroborating evidence from other neighbours but was unable to obtain this.
    2. The landlord mostly found noise recorded or logged did not meet its ASB threshold and it could take no further action. It told the resident the neighbour often shouted in the early hours due to “pain they were in” and “this could not be avoided.” However, on 18 May 2022, it warned the neighbour again following a report of 17 May where it found excessive noise. It supported and arranged mediation between the two parties and on 7 June 2022 a “good neighbour contract” was agreed between the resident and neighbour. This was to ensure “visitors did not make excessive noise after 10:00 pm.”
    3. The resident raised a community trigger with the local authority (LA). However, following further investigation the LA found the request did not “qualify for assessment.”
    4. On 14 June 2022 the landlord wrote to the resident stating it had closed the ASB case as there had been no reports from him the “past three weeks.” However, in June 2022 the landlord suffered a cyber-attack affecting its record-keeping systems. The resident continued to make recordings on the noise app from June 2022 onwards.
  4. On 16 November 2022 the resident reported whilst he was on holiday a visitor to the neighbour banged on his door. Another neighbour called the police, and the visitor was “taken away in handcuffs.” The landlord would open a new ASB case and later tell him on 21 December 2022 that it needed a crime reference number to support its investigation. The resident did not provide this, so the landlord closed the ASB case on 28 February 2023.
  5. The resident raised a complaint on 10 December 2022. The landlord responded at stage one of its complaint process on 4 January 2023. It told the resident the following:
    1. It opened an ASB case on 10 December 2021 and following investigation found the case did not meet its threshold for ASB. It said there was no corroborating evidence and recordings found only “limited” noise. It closed the case in June 2022 and told the resident it could open a new case if he provided further evidence.
    2. It had reviewed the recordings from the resident between September and November 2022. It found excessive noise on some occasions but believed the resident had recorded this outside due to the sound of the wind.  It had been delayed in considering the resident’s new report in November 2022 until December 2022 due to the impact of the cyber-attack. It found it was delayed in starting the investigation. It apologised and offered £50 compensation. It told the resident to continue to record on the noise app for review.
  6. The resident escalated his complaint on 24 January 2023 and the landlord responded at the final stage of its complaints process on 14 March. It told him the following:
    1. It found its stage 1 response was “fair, reasonable and accurate.” It confirmed it had offered mediation to the resident and neighbour and they had signed a “good neighbour agreement.”  It wanted to reassure the resident it took reports of ASB “very seriously.”
    2. It found following mediation on 17 February 2023 that noise was “not being caused deliberately” and did not meet its “ASB threshold”. It could not find “talking as ASB levels of noise.” It said in accordance with its policy it could only open ASB cases if they met the criteria. It clarified “noise complaints are not normally considered ASB” and “noise is an unavoidable part of life, especially if you live in flats.” It said it was “satisfied it followed the correct process.” It did not uphold his complaint and suggested he continue to use the noise app and report any incidents.
  7. The Ombudsman accepted the resident’s complaint for investigation on 4 July 2023. The resident stated he wished for a resolution and a plan for the noise issues. He said the landlord had offered him a mutual exchange property since its stage 2 response. He said he found this “morally unacceptable” to “offer his flat in the current situation”. He said he wanted compensation for the length of time he had suffered.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation.

  1. The resident stated that the noise nuisance issues from his neighbour and the building affecting his property have been ongoing since 2020. The Ombudsman appreciates that this may be a longstanding issue, however, it would not be effective for the Ombudsman to consider events dating to this time. The records may not be available, memories fade and staff members may have come and gone. As a general principle, the Ombudsman will consider complaints which are raised within a reasonable time of the events occurring. As the resident made his complaint to the landlord in December 2022 the Ombudsman would normally consider events from November 2021 onwards.
  2. The purpose of this investigation is not to establish if ASB occurred, or which party in the neighbouring dispute was responsible. It is for the Ombudsman to determine whether, in response to reports of ASB, the landlord acted in accordance with its relevant policies and procedures and if its actions were fair and reasonable in all the circumstances of the case.
  3. The resident said that his mental and physical health suffered because of how the landlord handled his reports of ASB and noise from his neighbour. Whilst we do not doubt the resident’s comments, the Ombudsman is unable to conclude the causation of, or liability for, impacts on health and wellbeing. The resident may be able to make a personal injury claim against the landlord if he considers that his health has been affected by its actions or inaction. This is a legal process, and the resident may wish to seek independent legal advice if he wants to pursue this option. However, we have considered the general distress and inconvenience that the resident experienced because of the landlord’s handling of the situation involving his property.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of antisocial behaviour (ASB) and noise nuisance from his neighbour.

  1. The landlord’s ASB Policy confirms it takes “ASB very seriously and aims to balance enforcement action and intervention with prevention.” It “adopts a supportive approach when dealing with victims, witnesses and alleged perpetrators.” It will be “flexible in its approach” and work with “internal and external partnerships to tackle ASB”. It “expects residents to report criminal activity to the police and expects the police to take action.
  2. The landlord recognises through its policy that “everyone has the right to their chosen lifestyle, providing this does not breach the terms and conditions of any tenancy agreement and/or affect the quality of life of others.” It does not consider reports due to “different lifestyles which are not intended to cause nuisance or annoyance” as ASB.
  3. The landlord categorises ASB under three categories. Category 1 (crime) where it will work with the police and take action to enforce tenancy conditions. Category 2 (noise) and Category 3 (other forms of ASB) where it will investigate in 5 working days when its ASB threshold is met. It will not conduct a full investigation on every report of ASB as “often noise is a one-off event.” Its threshold for noise requires “3 separate incidents in 7 days”, “5 separate incidents in 28 days” or “2 incidents by different households in 28 days.” It reserves the right to not investigate when its ASB threshold is not met.
  4. The resident reported noise from his neighbour on 5, 15, 23, 30 November and 2 December 2021. The landlord opened an ASB case on 10 December and began to investigate from this date. It is unclear if it took any action between 5 November and 9 December. It followed its policy correctly by investigating on 10 December as its “ASB threshold” had been met. This was because the resident had reported “5 separate incidents in 7 days” from 5 November up to 2 December. It should have started its investigation within 5 working days from 2 December, but instead took 6 working days to start this. This was only a minor divergence from its policy.
  5. As part of its ASB Policy the landlord is required to share an action plan with the victim. There is evidence it attempted to do this with the resident from 16 December 2021 but was unable to reach him. However, following this, it failed to take any other action to share this. The resident spoke with the LA on 25 March 2022 and the LA asked for a copy of the action plan. The resident informed the landlord of this on the same day. It is believed this prompted the landlord to share an action plan as it would go on to do this on 31 March 2022. It sent a copy to the resident and said its failure to do this up to this point was “an oversight”. It should have apologised to the resident about this at this time and acknowledged this failing in its stage 1 and 2 complaint responses. The failure to provide the resident with an action plan between 10 December 2021 and 31 March 2022 caused the resident uncertainty on its approach to the ASB case and how it would communicate with him.
  6. The Ombudsman has seen evidence of the landlord sending an automated response to each of the resident’s reports of noise between 10 December 2021 and 14 June 2022. It explained in each automated response it would contact him. The first evidence of it contacting the resident was on 10 January 2022. On this date, it provided incident log sheets to the resident. It appropriately explained he needed to complete these if it was to consider taking legal action against his neighbour. It would continue to provide these to the resident and communicate and visit with him up until 22 April 2022.
  7. On 20 January and 7 February 2022, the landlord told the resident that noise reports made were “not at a level to consider ASB”. This was reasonable; however, the landlord could have gone further in explaining why this was. It could have referenced the tenancy agreement or ASB Policy to reinforce its response to the resident at this point. In its complaint responses of 4 January 2023 and 14 March 2023, the landlord added further information on this point. It said the evidence was the neighbour “talking on the phone” and it also found the resident “leaned out of his window” to take recordings. This supported its outcome of finding no ASB. However, it should have also explained this to the resident in real-time and not just in its complaint response over 12 months later. This would have helped manage the resident’s expectations and give him a clear understanding of its approach.
  8. On 7 February 2022 the landlord also told the resident it was unable to obtain “corroborating evidence from witnesses”. The Ombudsman has seen evidence of and is satisfied that the landlord made attempts to obtain witness statements from other residents in the building up to 14 June 2022. It was ultimately unsuccessful in doing so due to either a lack of response or witnesses’ inability to confirm the resident’s version of events with witnesses.
  9. The landlord offered mediation to the resident and neighbour on 7 February 2022. However, it would not go on to make a referral until 17 May. It offered mediation in accordance with its ASB Policy. The referral had a positive impact in agreeing to a “good neighbour contract”. This seemed to reduce the number of reports the resident was making.
  10. On 25 March 2022 the LA stated it would install noise monitoring equipment at the resident’s property. It is uncertain if the landlord or resident prompted this request from the LA. The resident would later tell the landlord on 21 April the noise monitoring equipment was not working correctly. It is believed this was in relation to the LA’s attempt to install this around 25 March. The landlord took appropriate steps to overcome this by helping the resident install its ‘noise app’ on 22 April which it had introduced on 1 April. There is evidence of it reviewing recordings up to 14 June. Each time it did this on 4 May and 17 May it found internally there was no evidence of loud voices. As previously mentioned, it did not confirm its findings to the resident until its complaint responses.
  11. On 23 December 2021, 11 January 2022, 10 and 18 May 2022 the Ombudsman has seen evidence of the landlord taking robust and proportionate action with the neighbour. This was a result of occasions when the residents reports of the noise from the neighbour had progressed to singing or having a party late into the night. This was an appropriate action taken by the landlord and in accordance with its ASB Policy.
  12. The landlord closed the ASB case on 14 June 2022. It said the resident had “made no reports in the past 3 weeks”. This was inaccurate as the evidence shows the resident reported “constant loud noise” from his neighbour on 8 June. Therefore, the landlord’s action to close the case was not in accordance with its ASB Policy. It had misinformed the resident regarding this and not acknowledged his report of 8 June. This caused further inconvenience and distress to him. It also raises concerns about the quality of the landlord’s information management.
  13. The landlord wrote to the resident about the case closure on 14 June. It provided its contact details to make further reports. Its stage 1 complaint response confirmed the resident continued to use the noise app from this point. It stated it had not listened to the recordings as the ASB case was closed. Although the landlord had closed the ASB case in error, its letter to the resident on 14 June 2022 managed the resident’s expectations. It had told the resident to make further reports by telephone, giving him its phone number. However, the landlord should have been aware the resident was continuing to report through its noise app and should have acted accordingly. The landlord did however take the appropriate steps of reviewing all the recordings made by the resident finding they “did not meet the threshold for an ASB case.”
  14. On 18 December 2022 the landlord opened a new ASB case under “crime”. This was due to reports from the resident on 16 November 2022 regarding someone being known to the neighbour “banging on his door” whilst he was on holiday. A witness told the resident the person was taken away by police “in handcuffs” due to escalation of the situation by the resident’s door. Its ASB Policy makes it unclear how quickly it will respond to the resident on reports of “crime”. However, it states it will “work with the police to tackle criminal activity”. The landlord failed to respond to the report for 23 working days. This was inappropriate and its delay in acknowledging the reporting and raising a case caused the resident to feel it was not taking his concerns seriously. The landlord did acknowledge the above delay in its stage 1 complaint and apologised.
  15. Upon opening the ASB case the landlord took the appropriate step on 21 December 2022 of asking the resident for a crime reference number and consent to discuss his report with the police. This was in accordance with its ASB Policy to enable it to “collaborate with the police” and “allow (the police) to lead on an investigation”. It requested this information again on 13 January 2023. There is no evidence of the resident providing the crime reference number to the landlord or providing consent to discuss the case. The landlord closed the ASB case on 28 February 2023. This was appropriate as it had requested the information on two occasions and without this information was not able to meet its data protection obligations in conversing with the police. It was unable to progress the case so closing it with a warning was a proportional and transparent response.

Environmental Health

  1. On 10 December 2021 the resident told the landlord it had previously told him to report his noise complaint to Environmental Health at the LA. It is unclear when the landlord advised the resident or when the resident contacted the LA. The landlord’s advice was in accordance with its ASB Policy which states it will advise residents to “report excessive noise to their LA’s environmental health team.” However, the resident told the landlord of his “annoyance” as the LA had told him “they did not deal with that type of noise.” Upon receiving this information from the resident, the landlord took appropriate steps to check the LA’s policy on noise on 10 December. It found that “shouting” does not fall under what the LA can investigate.
  2. The landlord’s policy does not discern between what types of noise residents can report to the LA. The limitations in its policy in this regard make it difficult for the landlord to manage the resident’s expectations. This is shown as the resident was “annoyed” after the landlord directed him to the LA who declined to investigate his noise complaint. A recommendation will be made for the landlord to review its policy regarding signposting residents to the LA. This will be to ensure resident’s expectations are better managed.
  3. The landlord’s ASB Policy states it “recognises the importance of working collaboratively” with the LA to “support and encourage their role in enforcing the law.” From 10 December 2021 when it was aware the LA would not investigate “shouting” it dealt with any reports beyond this robustly, as previously stated. There was a minority of issues beyond shouting reported on 23 December 2021, 11 January 2022, 10 and 18 May 2022. Following the landlord’s intervention with the neighbour, there were large gaps between reoccurrences. As such there was less requirement for it to contact the LA to observe or record the sound to determine if there was a statutory noise nuisance.

Health

  1. The resident mentioned his health in most of his reports of noise. This was regarding “anxiety” and his ability to sleep. On 1 February 2022, the resident’s GP asked the landlord to review the case. They said the “noise was stopping the resident from sleeping”. It said he had a “history of low mood and anxiety” and this could be exacerbated by lack of sleep. They said he received “psychological and mental health support” in the past. The landlord’s ASB Policy does not provide any guidance about completing a risk assessment for a victim. It does suggest it should adjust its approach to handling its management of ASB if a victim is “vulnerable”. The Ombudsman can find no evidence at any point in the case of the landlord completing a risk assessment or any other means to determine if the resident was vulnerable. The contact from a GP should have prompted the landlord to do this. There is also no evidence throughout the case of the landlord offering support to the resident regarding his health or signposting him for support. In failing to do these things it failed in its commitment to equality. It did not “adopt a supportive approach” for victims as its policy dictates, failing to support the resident’s circumstances.
  2. In February 2024 under a separate case unrelated to the resident, reference 202214563, the Ombudsman asked the landlord to review its handling of ASB in the context of vulnerability. In that case, the landlord failed to appropriately address the resident’s vulnerability, whereas it failed to establish it in this case. It was asked to complete self-assessments on the Ombudsman’s spotlight reports on ‘knowledge and information management’ and on ‘attitudes, respect and rights: a relationship of equals.’ As such the landlord will not be ordered to review this again.
  3. On 20 January 2022 the landlord told the resident “shouts in the early hours were due to the pain (the neighbour) was in.” It said, “this could not be avoided and could not warrant action.” On 28 February 2023 the landlord told the resident the neighbour was “in poor health” and they “required carers in the early hours”. It said this “was not ASB and was normal household noise”. These examples appropriately explained the impact the neighbour’s health was having on the situation for the resident. Its clear explanation of the situation helped to manage the resident’s expectations and give him a clearer understanding of the situation.

Noise transference

  1. The resident asked about “soundproofing in his property” on 10 December 2021. The landlord responded on 20 January 2021 stating that the “building was built to regulation and cannot be adapted at the time.” This was an ineffective response as there is no evidence the landlord investigated this at this point. Furthermore, there is no evidence it investigated either the resident’s or neighbour’s properties to see if minor changes could be made. This could have included the recommendation of changing floor coverings, making alterations to the door, or using headphones as examples. Its failure to investigate or consider this meant it was unable to influence the noise reported by the resident which it later suggested was “normal living noise.” The landlord will be ordered to investigate if any adaptations could be made or recommended in either the neighbour’s or resident’s properties.
  2. The Ombudsman’s spotlight report on noise complaints states “although a lack of statutory noise levels does limit landlords’ options, particularly tenancy enforcement action, it does not absolve them of the requirement to explore other suitable resolution.” The resident reported experiencing noise transference, in sporadic periods, day and night over at least 12 months. This impact would have affected the resident living in a quiet and peaceful environment in his home and led to distress and inconvenience. It will be recommended for the landlord to self-assess against the spotlight report on noise complaints.

Thresholds

  1. In April 2024 under case reference 202126784 the Ombudsman asked the landlord to review its ASB Policy regarding ‘thresholds’. Its policy dictates it will not investigate reports of ASB unless certain parameters are met. These are outlined previously in this report. This case as with that case found that “thresholds impose unreasonably high baselines and will undoubtedly result in some cases which the landlord has a responsibility to investigate being overlooked.” Wider orders were raised on case 202126784 for the landlord to consider if thresholds stopped it from investigating cases it should. It also suggested if thresholds remained, they must not be arbitrary but based on good practice. The Ombudsman has seen evidence of the landlord taking steps to address its approach. No further orders will be made in relation to this.

Compensation

  1. In its stage 1 response the landlord offered the resident £50 compensation for the delay in responding to his report of 16 November 2022. This was in accordance with its Compensation Policy where it can pay £50 to £250 for “failure to meet service standards” where the “failure had no significant impact”. As the resident’s reports were historical events when he was outside the country the impact on him was minimal. Therefore, the landlord’s classification as “no significant impact” was appropriate.
  2. The landlord failed to offer further compensation in its stage 2 complaint response. It should have done so, to acknowledge the following further issues:
    1. From 10 December 2021, it failed to provide the resident with an action plan in accordance with its policy. As such it did not manage the resident’s expectations effectively.
    2. The landlord did not complete a risk assessment of the resident or otherwise at any point to investigate any vulnerability of the resident. As such it failed to understand how it could manage its approach in line with the resident’s individual needs. It also failed to consider offering support or signposting to the resident when he raised concerns about his health.
    3. Once it provided the resident with its noise app in April 2022 it failed to update the resident on its findings until its complaint responses in January and March 2023. It closed the initial ASB case and its reasoning for doing so contradicted the reports it had received from the resident. Following the ASB case closure the landlord failed to acknowledge the resident’s further reports through the noise app.
    4. The landlord failed to investigate noise transference between the resident and his neighbour’s property. It failed to consider whether it could make adjustments in either the residents or neighbour’s property to alleviate the reports of noise from the resident.
  3. In summary there was evidence the landlord was making attempts to resolve the noise complaint between the resident and his neighbour. It appropriately recorded the resident’s ASB cases in December 2021 and December 2022 but failed to correctly apply its policy. It failed to complete an action plan on the initial report and failed to communicate once the resident had the noise app. It was delayed in responding to the resident’s further report in December 2022. It was managing the reports of ASB with the neighbour, being mindful of their health and taking robust action when necessary. However, it failed to fully consider the impact on the resident’s health and did not support him sufficiently. It failed to think holistically and did not consider noise transference or alterations at either property to support reducing noise.
  4. In all the circumstances of the case, the Ombudsman finds there was maladministration of the landlord’s handling of noise nuisance and ASB from her neighbour. Compensation of £350 will be awarded to the resident as the landlord’s offer of £50 is not considered sufficient to reflect the overall detriment to the resident that resulted in the landlord’s failures. The amount detailed here includes the £50 already awarded by the landlord and reflects both the landlord’s acknowledged failures and those additional failures identified in this investigation. This is in accordance with the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance where there has been a failure with moderate impact on the resident.

Complaint handling

  1. At the time of the complaint the landlord had an Interim Complaints Policy in place. Its priority in its policy is to “deliver the highest quality service” and it is “important” for the resident to let it know when something is wrong so it can “deal with the matter as soon as possible.” Its principles include:
    1. Being fair and putting things right within a reasonable timeframe.
    2. Keeping residents informed and managing expectations.
    3. Following its policy and procedure and keeping full and accurate records of its actions, investigation of the complaint
    4. Use lessons learned from complaints to improve its service and prevent complaints.
  2. The policy confirms the landlord operates a two-stage complaints process. It will acknowledge and log stage 1 and stage 2 complaints in 10 working days. It will provide its stage 1 complaint response within 20 working days of logging the complaint.  It will provide its stage 2 complaint response within 40 working days of logging the complaint. If it is unable to resolve complaints in the above timescales it will contact the complainant and provide a new timescale for response and frequency of further contact.
  3. On 10 December 2021 the resident raised a complaint stating he had raised ASB “countless” times from January 2021. He said the service received from the landlord was inadequate and it had not communicated on how it would assist him with “noise pollution”. He also asked about soundproofing in his property. The landlord failed to acknowledge this complaint and would not go on to respond to his concerns. The landlord’s failure to respond to the resident’s initial complaint in line with its complaint’s procedure meant it missed an opportunity to address his concerns sooner. The landlord should have conducted a timely and appropriate investigation and response to the resident’s concerns.
  4. The resident raised a further complaint on 10 December 2022. The landlord acknowledged and logged the complaint on 15 December 2022 within its 5 working day timescale in its policy. It responded to the complaint on 4 January 2023. This was equivalent to 11 working days from logging the complaint. Its response was therefore within the 20-working day timescale in its policy.
  5. In his complaint of 4 January 2023, the resident said from June 2022 he had attempted to speak to the landlord but said “nobody comes back.” The landlord explained it had experienced a cyber-attack incident in June 2022. However, there is no evidence it investigated incoming correspondence from the resident at this time and if it failed to call back. This caused the issue to remain unresolved for the resident causing uncertainty and distress to him.
  6. The resident also said in his complaint he wanted “an update of his ASB case, as resolution.” The landlord appropriately addressed this as part of its response. It explained what action it had taken at different stages of the complaint. This included where it had closed the ASB case in June 2022 and in February 2023. It managed his expectations by explaining how to record any prospective noise from his neighbour for review. It provided a link which detailed how it classified reports of ASB.
  7. The resident escalated his complaint on 24 January 2023. The landlord took this over the phone and emailed him on the same day to say it had “passed this to its customer solutions team for review.” This was not an acknowledgement or it logging the complaint. It would later acknowledge and log the complaint on 14 February. This was the equivalent of 15 working days and exceeded the landlord’s 5 working day timescale in its policy. The landlord told the resident in its acknowledgement it would respond to the escalated complaint in 20 working days. This was not in accordance with its policy at the time which stated 40 working days. Both this and the delay in responding caused confusion and uncertainty to the resident.
  8. The landlord provided its stage 2 complaint response to the resident on 14 March 2023. From its acknowledgement of 14 February, this was the equivalent of 20 working days. It met the 20-working day response timescale it promised on 14 February and the 40 working days in its policy.
  9. In his escalated complaint the resident disputed what the landlord said constituted ASB. The landlord explained in its response the criteria for ASB in its policy and the resident’s tenancy agreement. The Ombudsman is satisfied across its stage 1 and 2 responses the landlord provided an appropriate response to the resident’s concerns in this context. The resident also asked for “an objective plan” on how the landlord would address reports from him in future. The landlord reiterated its stage 1 approach that the resident must continue to use the noise app and report any incidents to it. This was appropriate and in accordance with its ASB Policy. It needed further reports from the resident to determine if the reports met its ASB threshold and if it could investigate.
  10. The landlord’s stage 2 complaint response upheld its stage 1 investigation, which it considered “fair, reasonable and accurate.” It did not offer further compensation in its stage 2 response. However, it should have considered this for the further failures identified above, which include:
    1. Its failure to acknowledge or respond to the resident’s complaint of 10 December 2021.
    2. It failed to investigate or respond to the resident’s concerns that he had asked the landlord to contact him, but it had not done so.
    3. It was delayed in acknowledging and logging the resident’s escalated complaint. This prolonged the landlord’s response and resolution for the resident.
  11. A landlord’s complaint process enables it to learn from issues and identify trends so it can take preventative action and learn from this. The landlord failed to adhere to its own Complaints Policy in failing to consider the resident’s complaint of 10 December 2021. It did not adhere to its policy in failing to investigate the resident’s concerns about its communication. It also failed to acknowledge its delay in acknowledging the resident’s escalated complaint. A determination of service failure has therefore been determined. To reflect the resident’s distress and inconvenience due to the landlord’s failures, £150 compensation has been ordered. This is in line with the Ombudsman’s guidance in relation to cases where service failure has occurred over a protracted period with some impact on the resident throughout that period.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was maladministration in respect of the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of antisocial behaviour (ASB) and noise nuisance from his neighbour.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was service failure in respect of the landlord’s complaint handling.

Orders

  1. The landlord shall carry out the following orders and must provide evidence of compliance within 4 weeks of the date of this report:
  2. A senior staff member from the landlord to provide a written apology to the resident for the impact of the failings identified in this report.
    1. Pay the resident a total of £500 compensation. Compensation ordered by the Ombudsman should be paid directly to the resident and not offset against any arrears. The compensation comprises of:
      1. £350 for the distress and inconvenience caused to the resident by the landlord’s inappropriate handling of the resident’s reports of antisocial behaviour (ASB) and noise nuisance from his neighbour.
      2. £150 for the distress and inconvenience caused to the resident by the landlord’s inefficient complaint handling.
      3. The amounts above include the £50 already awarded to the resident by the landlord during its internal complaint procedure for the above issues.
  3. The landlord shall carry out the following order and must provide evidence of compliance within 8 weeks of the date of this report:
    1. If it has not already done so the landlord to complete a further inspection of the resident’s and other neighbouring properties to determine if it can make any adjustments or recommendations to limit the impact of any further noise transference between properties. It must share the outcome of this investigation and any anticipated timescale of any respective works with the resident and the Ombudsman.

Recommendations

  1. The landlord should review its ASB Policy regarding signposting residents to the local authority (LA). It should consider making changes to its policy to ensure the information reflects what the LA can investigate. It should also ensure staff members responsible for ASB cases are aware of what the LA can investigate.
  2. The landlord should self-assess against the Ombudsman’s Spotlight report on ‘Noise Complaints.’ It should consider the recommendations provided within the report.