Hyde Housing Association Limited (202312135)

A blue and grey text

Description automatically generated

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202312135

Hyde Housing Association Limited

21 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

The complaint is about:
1. The landlord’s investigation into complaints about the resident’s behaviour, and the associated decision to seek possession of the property.
2. The payment of £500 to the resident as agreed by a court undertaking.
3. The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of antisocial behaviour (ASB) from a neighbour.
4. The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of ASB in the block.
5. The landlord’s handling of the complaint and the level of compensation offered.

Jurisdiction

What the Ombudsman can and cannot consider is called the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction. This is governed by the Scheme. When a complaint is brought to this service, the Ombudsman must consider all the circumstances of the case, as there are sometimes reasons why a complaint will not be investigated.
Paragraph 42(c) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme states that: The Ombudsman may not consider complaints which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion were not brought to the attention of the member as a formal complaint within a reasonable period which would normally be within 12 months of the matters arising. This is because residents are expected to raise complaints with their landlords in a timely manner so that the landlord has a reasonable opportunity to consider the issues whilst they are still ‘live’, and while the evidence is available to reach an informed conclusion on the events that occurred.
The evidence provided to the Service shows that the resident reported on 9 December 2019, drug dealing and vandalism especially to the communal front door. The case was closed after he did not engage further, according to the landlord’s notes. On 30 July 2020, the resident stated he was concerned about gangs in the block chasing each other with machetes and knives and that his children could get hurt because of mistaken identity. On 3 August 2020, the landlord stated that he should call the police about incidents.
There is no evidence that the resident made further reports about ASB in the block or complained about the landlord’s handling of the matter until his formal complaint of March 2023. Therefore, the resident did not complain about the landlord’s handling of ASB within the block within 12 months of reporting the matter to the landlord. Consequently, in accordance with paragraph 42(c) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, this complaint is outside the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction to consider.

Background and summary of events

The resident has been an Assured Shorthold tenant of the landlord since October 2017. The property is a 3-bedroom, third floor flat. The resident lives in the property with his 4 children two of whom are now adults. The resident is housed under the Brent Coefficient. The Brent Coefficient is a subsidiary of the landlord (a company limited by guarantee), acting as a special purpose vehicle to deliver a Private Finance Initiative (PFI) project of affordable housing in the London Borough of Brent. Residents of the Brent Coefficient receive services from the landlord. For simplicity’s sake this report will just make reference to the landlord.
The resident has literacy issues. The tenancy agreement states that the resident, his family, relatives and friends must not do anything which interferes with the peace, comfort and convenience of other people living in the local area.
The landlord’s ASB Policy (April 2019 v2) states “We will consider legal action where there is sufficient evidence. Eviction will only be considered where other interventions have failed and will be used as a last resort. Eviction will also be used in very serious cases where it is needed to provide protection.”
The landlord’s ASB Procedure (April 2019 to October 2022) states:
1. “It is important to gather evidence as soon as possible as peoples’ memories fade and can become influenced by third parties, and physical evidence may deteriorate. The Case Officer should aim to collect the widest variety of evidence for the case which:
  1. Is appropriate and relevant;
  2. Is cost-effective; and
  3. Respects confidentiality”
2. “There are a number of different ways to gather evidence depending on details of the case including:
  1. Witness statements
  2. Information from other agencies
  3. Incident Diary sheets
  4. CCTV (covert/ overt)
  5. Expert witnesses
  6. Hearsay evidence
  7. Noise monitors”
3. “Witnesses who provide statements should be made aware at the time that there is an expectation that in doing so, they are willing to attend court and provide evidence in person.”
4. “Before considering court action, the quality of the evidence should be judged by Case Officer. The best form of evidence is witness statements provided by individuals who have witnessed the acts of ASB directly and are willing to attend court. Cases cannot be run on hearsay evidence alone and witnesses should be informed of this at the time of evidence gathering.”
With regards to legal action the procedure states:
1. “Where non-legal action is unsuccessful in resolving the problem or anyone involved is at risk e.g. violence or threat of violence; the case officer will consider initiating legal action.”
2. “When considering legal action the Case Officer must consult with Hyde’s legal services team and seek agreement from their Line Manager using the Legal Action Authorisation Form and if referring to Legal, use the correct Legal Referral form, providing clear and accurate details in a chronological order, attaching all the relevant documents.”
3. “The case officer may consider one or several of the following:
  1. Undertaking in Court
  2. Extending/ ending starter tenancy
  3. Demotion of Tenancy
  4. Part 1 Injunction
  5. Parenting Order
  6. Serving legal notice and seeking possession of property, including use of the Absolute Ground (refer to Absolute Ground for Possession Procedure)
  7. Eviction
  8. Other legal housing actions”
The landlord’s complaints policy states that it has a two-stage formal complaints process. Complaints may be raised informally in the first instance and a response should be provided within five working days. At stage one of its complaints process, the landlord should provide its complaint response within ten working days. if a resident remains dissatisfied, they can escalate their complaint to stage two of the landlord’s process. At stage two, the landlord should provide its response within 20 working days. If, at any stage, there is likely to be a delay, the landlord would be expected to contact the resident, explain the reason for the delay and provide a new response timeframe which should not exceed a further ten working days.
However, the landlord’s complaint procedure states that “this policy does not apply to customers of the following subsidiaries of Hyde:
1. Brent Co-Efficient. These properties are managed in accordance with the terms of the PFI contract.”

Summary of Events

Since 2017 neighbours in the flat below have made reports of noise nuisance and ASB, mainly from music, thumping noises and the playing of football. A file note dated 10 April 2019 noted that resident did not participate in mediation.
On 17 April 2020, the local authority’s Environmental Health Service served a noise abatement warning to the resident and on 21 May 2020 it served a noise abatement notice.
On 8 July 2020, the landlord advised the resident it would be making contact about signing an Antisocial Behaviour Agreement (ABA) letter due to noise from music, playing football in the home and banging of walls. The resident declined to sign. On 23 July 2020, the landlord issued a formal warning following a report of further noise.
Following further reports and a case review on 24 September 2020 the landlord wrote to the resident stating it would apply for an injunction to eliminate ongoing ASB.
During this period, the resident made counter allegations against the neighbours. On 26 May 2020, the resident raised an ASB case against the neighbour stating that they made false accusations to the police, they would bang on the ceiling when he was not making noise, they reported him to welfare services and made comments to his children. The landlord phoned the resident several times in July, but the call was not answered and there was no voicemail facility. In subsequent correspondence and phone calls in August 2020 to the resident and a family member, the landlord asked him to complete diary sheets and contact Environmental Health so it could speak to the neighbour. It advised he could provide the information verbally to the ASB team due to his literacy issues. On 12 October 2020, the landlord also closed the resident’s ASB case noting:
1. It addressed the allegations of banging on the ceiling on the 29 and 31 July 2020 and the allegations were denied.
2. It obtained a disclosure from the police who informed it that one visit was carried out on 3 May 2020. No offence and concerns were reported.
3. It had spoken with the social worker and was informed there were no concerns relating to the children. However, it was not told who reported the allegations because of data protection.
On 7 January 2021, the landlord completed an ASB Legal Action Authorisation form. It noted “Case relates to noise nuisance from [the resident’s] property, including loud music, parties, banging, shouting and children playing football late at night. Reports are that noise happens at various times of the day and night. Brent Council have served a noise abatement notice on [the resident] in relation to statutory nuisance. Audio recordings have been provided by [the neighbour] which have been reviewed and in some cases, excessive noise can be heard. Also spoken with another neighbour, who confirms excessive noise. [The resident] denies causing any nuisance and has refused to sign an ABA previously offered as well as being issued a formal warning. Counter allegations of harassment have been made by [the resident], which have been addressed and denied.” The form listed incidents from February 2017 to October 2020. The form contained a request to serve a Notice of Seeking Possession (NOSP) and obtain an injunction. A manager counter-signed the form on 19 January 2021.
On 15 February 2021, the resident phoned the landlord confirming receipt of a NOSP and denying allegations. He advised that he would be seeking legal advice as the reports were false. The resident stated that he already felt he was “tiptoeing” around his property and his children did not play football. He further stated that false reports had been made to the police and Social Services about him. The landlord agreed to contact the resident on 18 February 2021 to discuss his counter allegations. When the landlord phoned on 18 February 2021 the call rang out.
On 18 February 2021, the resident sent a letter to the landlord denying that he and his children had caused ASB and stating that in fact they were being harassed by the neighbours. He suggested the landlord call the police who had been called out on several occasions.
Following a court hearing on 8 March 2021 the resident signed an undertaking dated 19 March 2021 not to cause play music/television/radio at excessive volumes that could be heard outside the property between 11pm and 8am or at an 8 metres distance. He also undertook not to cause alarm, harassment or distress to other people.
On 20 April 2021, the landlord left a calling card at the resident’s address and sent a letter asking him to discuss his allegations and allegations about him as they had just missed calls.
On 16 July 2021 there was a court hearing. The court provided a date of June 2022. The landlord’s notes say that it would continue to collate evidence and address with the resident.
On 12 November 2021, Environmental Health wrote to the resident about loud bass heavy recordings on a noise app. It sent the noise recordings to the landlord and asked it to consider an appropriate tenancy management intervention.
On 21 January 2022 Environmental Health served a noise abatement notice after reviewing noise app recordings. It considered 28 recordings between 17 September 2021 and 15 January 2022.
On 2 February 2022, the landlord noted that the neighbours stated nothing had changed. They stated the nuisance consisted of loud music, banging thumping, many children in the property and the smell of cannabis. The landlord also spoke to the resident at this time who stated that the case against him was malicious and that he believed the neighbours were telling lies about him just to target him specifically. He stated he did not feel as if the ASB team thoroughly investigated the case before sending it to court.
A court hearing set for 16 June 2022 was vacated and relisted for 15-16 November 2022 due to court availability. In the interim, at the witness statement stage, the resident obtained legal aid and instructed the solicitors who went on to represent him.
On 5 October 2022, the resident provided a second statement for the court. In his statement he responded to 3 statements from the landlord’s staff and a statement from the neighbours. He also noted that he had obtained statements from 3 other neighbours in the block in defence which were supportive and stated that he did not make noise.
The case was settled before trial. On 25 November 2022, the court issued a consent order. The order noted that the resident denied that he had caused a nuisance, in particular a noise nuisance, and that the court made no findings of fact as to the same. By consent the court ordered that:
1. the undertaking of 19 March 2021 was discharged.
2. the landlord agreed to pay the resident £500 for carpets and rugs to improve sound insulation and the resident agreed to purchase them within 28 days.
3. the claim for possession was generally adjourned with liberty to restore before 14 September 2023
4. there was no order for costs save detailed assessment of the resident’s publicly funded costs.
On 27 March 2023, the resident’s solicitor complained to the landlord. It stated:
1. The landlord acted on the neighbours’ word and did not consider the resident’s version of events or gather independent evidence. In particular, it did not visit the resident, ask other residents in the block if they heard noise, did not make checks with the police who would have stated it had responded to 14 callouts from the neighbour between April 2017 and May 2020 without finding ASB; and did not make checks with social services which would have stated that the neighbours had made malicious allegations about the treatment of the resident’s children.
2. The neighbours’ allegations were motivated by racism, referring to an email from January 2021 in which the resident’s family were referred to as a “bunch of animals”.
3. Since the end of the case the neighbours had continued to thump on the ceiling.
4. There was ASB and criminal activity in the block, although the resident had not reported it to the police or the landlord as he did not think it would make a difference.
5. The resident wanted to be made a permanent tenant to pursue a mutual exchange.
As an outcome, the representative stated the resident wanted:
1. An apology.
2. Reassurance that the landlord would respond to any future complaint about his neighbour impartially.
3. The granting of a permanent tenancy so the resident could pursue a mutual exchange.
4. £500 for carpet / rugs as agreed in the possession proceedings.
5. Payment of £4,878.99 for private solicitor fees (prior the obtaining legal aid).
6. £1,000 for distress and inconvenience.
On 12 April 2023, the representative asked that the complaint be escalated to Stage 2 as she had not received a response by 11 April 2023. The landlord’s internal correspondence noted that the resident’s complaint had not been passed to the correct team to respond to therefore it would agree the escalation.
On 5 May 2023, the landlord sent the Stage 2 complaint response. It did not uphold the complaint stating:
1. It investigated all complaints of ASB with impartiality. It had taken action against the resident’s tenancy based on the evidence which met the civil standard of proof – balance of probability.
2. All complaints received in the ASB team were treated with impartiality and with proportionality. If the resident wanted to report ASB, he must do so to the ASB team directly.
3. The resident currently held a temporary tenancy as allocated by the council. He would not be considered for a transfer or a fixed term/permanent tenancy by the council until he was in credit by a month’s rent and was not in breach of his tenancy in any other way.
4. The resident was in receipt of Universal Credit- which was paid to him directly. His rent was £1,447.94; however, each month his payments had been making a shortfall of £77.87 leaving him in arrears.
5. Its legal team would send £500 to the resident’s legal representatives in line with the agreed undertaking. On receipt of the funds, it expected that the resident would purchase the rug and carpets within 28 days as stated in the claim. It had the right to complete an inspection of his home to see that this agreement has been adhered to.
6. There was no order made as to costs by the Judge. It would not meet the resident’s costs. The resident chose to engage solicitors and would have to meet the costs for himself.
7. Possession proceedings were taken due to the behaviour of the resident and the evidence it held in relation to breaches of tenancy. It would not be compensating him for the ASB case.
8. It would pay £25 for the delay in responding to the complaint.
On 5 June 2023, the resident’s representative referred his complaint to the Service. In summary she stated:
1. The landlord did not address the resident’s concerns about the quality of investigation work prior to initiating possession proceedings, specifically that the landlord did not seek to corroborate the neighbours’ reports, consider the resident’s version of events, or liaise with appropriate external agencies. He wished to complain about the system / process / procedure which allowed the landlord to proceed with a claim for possession against him based on the sole evidence of one neighbour.
2. The landlord did not respond to the resident’s concerns about racist motivations behind the complaints against him.
3. The landlord did not respond to the resident’s reports of ASB and harassment from a neighbour, or ongoing gang activity and ASB on the estate.
4. The resident still had not received £500 from the landlord as agreed in court.

Assessment and findings

The landlord’s investigation into complaints about the resident’s behaviour, and the associated decision to seek possession of the property

It is important to reiterate at the outset that it is not for this Service to determine what the resident and his household did and if the behaviour constituted ASB, as that was a judgement which fell to the landlord to determine. The Service also cannot determine what the outcome of possession proceedings would have been had it gone to trial. The resident considers the landlord proceeded with legal action without carrying out sufficient investigations and obtaining stronger and more corroborative evidence. He is unhappy that the landlord’s procedure allowed it to proceed with a claim for possession against him based on the sole evidence of one neighbour. The complaint assessment will therefore be limited to assessing to what extent the landlord followed its ASB procedure.
Upon receiving reports of alleged ASB the landlord first needs to gather evidence to establish whether the behaviour is unreasonable and constitutes ASB. The landlord’s ASB procedure states that there are a number of different ways to gather evidence. This includes witness statements, information from other agencies and incident diary sheets. The landlord recorded incidents made by the resident. It obtained evidence from another agency, Environmental Health, on the matter it was basing its legal action and obtained witness statements. In obtaining this evidence, it acted in line with this aspect of the policy.
The resident complained about the quality and depth of the investigations carried out by the landlord before proceeding with legal action. In particular he complained that the landlord did not obtain corroborative evidence. However, the landlord is not obliged to take all the steps listed by the resident in his complaint. Ultimately, the landlord has discretion to use its professional judgment and decide what evidence will have sufficient weight to in order to successfully pursue legal action, based on the balance of probabilities.
The landlord’s procedure states it should explore non-legal methods before pursuing legal action. There is evidence that the landlord contacted the resident on several occasions, pursued mediation and sent an ABA before referring the case to its legal team in January 2021. This was in accordance with the procedure.
The procedure further states that the Case Officer should seek agreement from their Line Manager when deciding to proceed with legal action and use the landlord’s Legal Action Authorisation Form. The landlord has provided evidence that this form was completed and signed. The form listed the evidence the landlord was relying on which included an abatement notice. The form stated that the landlord would seek to obtain an injunction. Therefore, there is evidence that the landlord followed its procedure and gave appropriate consideration to taking legal action against the resident.
However, the case was adjourned in July 2021 to June 2022 then November 2022. It was necessary for the landlord to review the resident’s ASB case. This is because it needed to ensure that with changing circumstances legal action would continue to be reasonable and proportionate. In fact, the landlord’s notes after the hearing in July 2021 recognised that the landlord should continue to gather evidence and contact the resident. There is evidence that it liaised with the Environmental Health team which confirmed it had sent another abatement notice.
However, there is no evidence that the landlord stayed in regular contact with the parties, monitored the situation or otherwise conducted a review of the resident’s case. This omission is particularly significant the landlord decided to pursue a possession claim against the resident as confirmed by the consent order of November 2022. This differs to the action it was previously pursuing, and the warning provided to the resident in which it advised that it would be seeking an injunction.
The primary purpose of a Registered Provider of Social Landlords is to provide housing to people in housing need, therefore eviction should be the last resort. Therefore, it is appropriate for landlord to keep a full audit trail of decisions to seek possession in order to demonstrate that this course of action is reasonable and proportionate. However, in this case there is no evidence that the landlord conducted a review of the resident’s case to justify its decision to pursue possession proceedings. Furthermore, there is no completed ASB Legal Action Authorisation form where it formally agreed possession proceedings as the legal action to take.
There is also no evidence that the landlord, aside from the court application, advised him that it would be seeking to gain a possession order. In fact, the landlord made little contact with the resident after the hearing of June 2021. It did not therefore make the resident aware in a timely way of any ongoing allegations about his and his household’s alleged actions, and the consequence. As such it did not give them fair opportunity to amend their behaviour prior to the court dates in 2022.
In October 2022, at the same time as the final court action, the Ombudsman issued a spotlight report on noise complaints. This recognised hard flooring can contribute to noise transference between properties and recommended that:
1. For existing tenancy agreements where hard flooring is only permitted with permission and/or with conditions (such as appropriate underlay or that permission will be rescinded if a noise report is made), if a noise report is made, those clauses should be inspected against and enforced.
2. For existing tenancies where carpets were removed and/or hard flooring is present, the landlord should signpost residents where appropriate to funding for carpets and rugs.
It would have been prudent for the landlord to have asked to inspect the resident’s property to ascertain his flooring type and condition prior to legal action. This is because the allegations about the resident concerned noise transference and the landlord could have considered steps to mitigate this. This may include repairs to broken or moving floorboards as well as floor coverings and pads under objects. The Ombudsman therefore recommends that the landlord reviews its approach to noise complaints to incorporate all recommendations within the spotlight report.

The payment of £500 to the resident as agreed by a court undertaking.

On 25 November 2022 by consent the court ordered that the landlord pay the resident £500 for rugs and carpets. The landlord’s complaints response of May 2023 did not dispute the payment had not been made. In June 2023, the representative advised payment still had not been made. The resident had the option to advise the court there had been a breach in the order. Regardless, having consented to make payment to resolve the case consensually it was unreasonable that the landlord still had not processed the payment after 6 months. As the rugs and carpet were intended to mitigate noise transference the resident’s uncertainty that further reports would be made against him was not reduced. As a result, his distress and inconvenience was unnecessarily prolonged.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of harassment from a neighbour.

Throughout the course of this case the resident denied the allegations and stated the reports about him were malicious. In 2020 the resident reported that the neighbour would bang on the ceiling when there was no noise. It was appropriate and in line with the ASB procedure that the landlord sought to obtain details of the noise through a log of incidents. This would enable it to assess the timings, nature and duration of incidents which in turn would inform what further action it could take. It was also reasonable that the landlord offered to take details down verbally given that the resident could not complete incident diary sheets. It is not evident that the resident provided specific details of incidents further to reiterating his general concerns about his neighbours. In the circumstances it was reasonable that the landlord closed his case in October 2020 and explained the reasons why.
After being served a NOSP the resident reiterated his concerns about the neighbour. It was appropriate that the landlord agreed to phone him back as this would enable it to take down details of any counter-allegations. It did not get through and there is no evidence that the resident sought to make further reports.
In summary, the resident is of the view that the neighbours’ reports about him are unreasonable, and consequently their actions are unreasonable, for instance banging on the ceiling. The landlord has taken steps to obtain details of particular incidents whereby it could raise counter-allegations to the neighbour. This was in line with the ASB procedure. Due to the limited details received, it was reasonable that it did not take further action.

The landlord’s handling of the complaint and the level of compensation offered

The resident initially submitted a formal complaint on 27 March 2023, but the landlord did not send a first stage response. The landlord has not provided its complaint procedure for Brent Coefficient tenants therefore it is not clear what timeframe was in place for the stage 1 response. Regardless, the failure to respond was clearly not in line with this Service’s Complaint Handling Code in effect at the time which stated that “landlords must respond to the complaint within 10 working days of the complaint being logged” and “landlords must address all points raised in the complaint and provide clear reasons for any decisions”.
The landlord escalated the complaint to stage 2 after the resident pursued a response to the complaint. This response was within 20 working days of the complaint escalation which meets the timeframe in the Code and in the corporate complaint procedure. As such, the response was sufficiently prompt. The landlord also addressed some queries raised by the resident within the complaint such as his tenancy status and his request for payments and compensation.
However, the landlord’s response to other aspects of the resident’s complaint was cursory, such as its response to his claim that it should have gathered more independent evidence. Its response that it held evidence of breach of tenancy, and it took action against him on the balance of probability were general statements of facts. It did not take into account the particular circumstances of the resident’s complaint, directly address the complaint raised or otherwise make clear why it pursued possession action to court. The landlord’s response to the resident’s report that the neighbour was banging on the ceiling and his request for impartiality was also cursory and blunt. It therefore did not demonstrate an appreciation of the resident’s perception of events.
The resident also suggested that the neighbour’s reports were racially motivated. The Service will not decide whether the landlord was in breach of its legal duties under the Equality Act, which is a decision for the courts alone. However, race is a protected characteristic, and we can consider how the landlord responded to the resident’s allegation about his neighbours’ motivation.
The landlord cannot speak for the neighbours and definitely say what their motivations were. Nonetheless, the resident was fundamentally putting forward that he was being treated less favourably because of a protected characteristic, therefore it was appropriate that the landlord respond. However, when responding to the complaint, the landlord did not address or even acknowledge the resident’s allegation. This included a failure to confirm that it had investigated the neighbours’ reports on their merits and had taken action against the resident solely on this basis. That it did not exacerbated the resident’s sense of unfairness. Given the context that the resident thought he was facing eviction due to the neighbour’s reports, it was particularly unreasonable that the landlord ignored this aspect of the resident’s complaint.
It would appear that in responding to the resident’s complaint the landlord focussed on the listed outcome sought by the resident. In doing so it failed to identify and fully investigate the substantive issues complained about. This also contributed to the cursory nature of the response.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was maladministration in respect of the landlord’s investigation into complaints about the resident’s behaviour, and the associated decision to seek possession of the property.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was maladministration by the landlord in respect of the payment of £500 to the resident as agreed by a court undertaking.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was no maladministration in respect of the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of ASB from a neighbour.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was maladministration in respect of the landlord’s handling of the complaint and the level of compensation offered.

Reasons

After the court case was adjourned to 2022, the landlord did not conduct a review or otherwise maintain an audit trail to demonstrate that its decision to seek a possession order instead of an injunction was reasonable and proportionate at the time. It also did not make the resident aware in a timely way of any ongoing allegations about his and his household’s alleged actions, and the consequence. It did not explore measures to mitigate noise transference.
It was unreasonable that the landlord still had not processed the payment agreed in the consent order after 6 months.
The landlord took steps to obtain details of particular incidents whereby it could raise counter-allegations to the neighbours. Due to the limited details received, it was reasonable that it did not take further action.
The landlord failed to respond to the complaint at Stage 1. Its later response to some issues raised was cursory. It also failed to respond to the resident’s allegation that the resident’s reports were racially motivated which exacerbated his sense of unfairness.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

The landlord is ordered within the next four weeks to:
1. Apologise to the resident for the failures identified in this report, taking into account this Service’s guidance on apologies.
2. Pay the resident compensation of £500:
  1. £350 for the distress and inconvenience caused by the failure to make him aware after the court hearing of June 2021 of any ongoing allegations about his and his household’s alleged actions, and its intention to seek a possession order.
  2. £100 for the resident’s time and trouble and distress and inconvenience arising from the landlord’s complaint handling failures. (If the landlord has already paid the £25 offered in the complaints procedure, it should pay £75).
  3. £50 for time and trouble arising from the delay to pay the £500 agreed in the consent order for carpet and rugs. It should also pay the £500 agreed in the consent order if it has not already done so.
In accordance with paragraph 54(g) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, within the next 12 weeks the landlord must carry out a review of its practice in relation to its system for reviewing cases where legal action is being sought on ASB grounds. The review should be conducted by a team independent of the service area responsible for the failings identified by this investigation and should include as a minimum (but is not limited to):
1. Consideration of its record keeping practices so that this is a full, clear and up to date audit trail of all actions and decisions.
2. Consideration of how often the case should be reviewed and by whom after a court date has been adjourned.
3. Consideration of the circumstances when the landlord will make further contact with the perpetrator and what information will be provided to them.
4. If it has not done so already, consider implementing a knowledge and information management strategy, in line with the Ombudsman’s Spotlight Report on Knowledge and Information Management.
In accordance with paragraph 54(g) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, within the next 12 weeks the landlord must carry out a review of its practice in relation to its system for managing and responding to complaints by Brent Coefficient tenants. The review should be conducted by a team independent of the service area responsible for the failings identified by this investigation and should include as a minimum (but is not limited to):
1. Consideration that the complaint procedure for Brent Co-efficient tenants is publicised and made widely available.
2. Consideration why the landlord failed to provide a Stage 1 response and how similar failings can be prevented in the future.
3. A review of the published statutory Complaint Handling Code (effective from 1 April 2024) alongside its current approach to complaints to ensure that any changes are implemented within its complaints policy and procedure for Brent Coeffecient tenants.
4. Consideration of its staff training needs, particularly in relation to identifying and responding to the issues raised within complaints.

Recommendation

The Ombudsman recommends that the landlord reviews its approach to noise complaints to incorporate all recommendations within the spotlight report on noise complaints.