London Borough of Hackney (202230456)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202230456

London Borough of Hackney

8 March 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 handling of the resident’s reports about antisocial behaviour (ASB).
2. The landlord’s handling of repairs to floorboards.
3. The landlord’s complaint handling and record keeping.

Background

The resident is a secure tenant of the landlord. The property is a flat. The resident has provided medical evidence showing that the landlord was informed that she had depression and anxiety.
The complaint concerns the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of ASB concerning a neighbour, who will hereafter be known as the ‘neighbour’. The neighbour lives directly below the resident. There had been difficulties between the resident and neighbour for several years prior to the resident’s complaint being brought to the Ombudsman. The resident has explained that there was a period of relief between 2016 and 2020, which she attributes to the neighbour being served with a community protection notice (CPN).
The resident raised a stage 1 complaint on 13 September 2022. The resident complained that the landlord:
1. Was not helping her to resolve issues with the neighbour, who had kept her awake every night since October 2021 with intermittent banging. This had affected her health, she was unable to work due to sleep deprivation, and she was forced to sleep outside her front door or at a friend’s house. The landlord had not acted upon concerns for her welfare raised by her doctor.
2. Had wrongly accused the resident of recording herself on its noise monitoring machine making the noises herself. The landlord had not properly investigated her concerns about this. It had since not provided her with a suitable noise recording device.
3. Had not fixed the floorboards in the property, which she believed had been damaged by the neighbour banging.
4. Had not provided the evidence upon which the landlord relied to substantiate its allegation that she was disturbing or harassing the neighbour.
The landlord issued the stage 1 response on 27 September 2022. The landlord said:
1. Its ASB investigations had been conducted in line with its ASB policy and its actions had been reasonable and proportionate.
2. The case had been discussed with partners at the local authority ASB action panel, which it attended on a monthly basis. Although it had been unable to substantiate the resident’s allegations about the neighbour, both parties had been issued with a Community Protection Warning (CPW).
3. It was unable to carry out an adequate inspection of the floorboards as resident had not moved her furniture. Notwithstanding this, it was “impossible” for the damage described to have been caused by the neighbour, as there was a space between their ceiling and floorboards.

d. It had video evidence of the resident causing a nuisance, annoyance, and harassment toward the neighbour. Expert analysis of the noise monitor recordings had determined noises coming from within the resident’s property. No deliberate acts of noise disturbance had been captured from the neighbour. It could not justify installing its noise monitoring machine but encouraged the resident to continue using its noise app.

The resident asked the landlord to escalate the complaint to stage 2 on 13 October 2022. She sent a follow up email on 26 October 2022. The resident said that the landlord had failed to resolve her complaint. In addition to the points already raised at stage 1, the resident:
1. Said that the landlord had not conducted a fair investigation at stage 1.
2. Disagreed that there was no failure of service. Specifically:
  1. Problems with the neighbour continued and there was a lack of investigation by the landlord.
  2. The landlord had not followed up with a witness, whose complaints and potential evidence had been dismissed.
  3. The landlord had not moved the neighbour despite a police recommendation because the neighbour was friends with staff working for its ASB team.
  4. Its noise app was inadequate, and the landlord had not reinstalled its noise monitoring machine or provided a suitable recording device as it had promised.
3. Said that disturbances captured on the noise monitoring machine on 28 November 2021 were from the neighbour, not her. The CPW issued on 19 May 2022 was based on lies. It had not investigated her concerns about misinformation given to the police. The landlord had still not provided any evidence showing that she had harassed the neighbour. She suggested there was no such evidence.
4. Said the landlord’s surveyor had confirmed that the floorboards had been damaged by the neighbour. She disagreed that there was any space or insulation between the properties and provided video evidenced to prove this. She felt that it was the landlord’s responsibility to investigate the damage, move her furniture, and complete necessary works. The resident pointed out that she had health issues.
The landlord issued its stage 2 response on 5 December 2022. The landlord said:
1. It had investigated the resident’s complaint in accordance with its complaint policy.
2. It was not aware that the police had suggested the neighbour be moved. It invited the resident to provide evidence of this. The resident was asked to substantiate her allegation that the neighbour was friends with staff working in its ASB team.
3. It had viewed the CCTV footage from the communal area to investigate the damage to the resident’s front door. This had been considered by the police and its ASB team. It could not clearly identify who had approached the resident’s door.
4. The neighbour had provided evidence to the landlord on 8 November 2021, showing the resident harassing the neighbour. The local authority noise team determined that sounds recorded by the resident on its noise monitoring machine on 28 November 2021, had originated from within the property and not from the neighbour below. A copy of the findings had been provided to the resident.
5. Since it was impossible to substantiate who the victim was, both parties had received a CPW on 19 May 2022. The resident was directed to contact the local authority community safety team if she required a full explanation as to why the CPW had been issued.
6. It was making enquiries with the member of staff who the resident claimed was investigating her concerns about the state of the floor, that staff lied to the police, and that the resident had harassed the neighbour. It said it would write to the resident separately once it had more information. The resident was asked to substantiate her allegation that the landlord lied to the police. It said that heads of service had been made aware of the allegation.
7. It could not share information or comment upon its interactions with other witnesses, as it did not have relevant permission to share this information.
8. It did not uphold the resident’s complaint about its handling of ASB from the neighbour. It could only take action if the resident’s allegations were substantiated. New information should be sent to its ASB team. It remained of the opinion that there was no value in installing another noise monitoring machine, but encouraged the resident to continue using its noise app. The neighbour had been warned not to bang his ceiling in retaliation and to follow the correct reporting procedures.
9. Said it had found no evidence that its surveyor felt the neighbour had damaged her floorboards. It offered to look into this further if the resident confirmed which surveyor had said that. It offered to reissue a works order to inspect and repair the floorboards if the resident was able to move the furniture.
10. The resident was invited to submit a personal injury claim via its insurance service, however it would not compensation for the resident terminating her own employment.

Post completion of the internal complaints policy.

The landlord provided a follow up response on 4 August 2023, to the outstanding matter from its stage 2 response (paragraph 7f of this report). It said its member of staff did investigate the matters raised after speaking with the resident. Their findings were as follows:
1. Noise recordings were reanalysed. No deliberate noise nuisance was substantiated, but sounds were recorded from inside the resident’s property.
2. Arrangements were made on 2 separate occasions to visit the property to obtain evidence. However, the resident did not move her furniture so it was unable to fully inspect the floorboards.
3. The landlord had evidence showing the resident approaching the neighbour’s front door and verbally abusing them. This evidence had been shared with the police and partner agencies at the ASB panel meeting.
4. It was aware that the resident was subject to a criminal investigation concerning her own actions towards the neighbour which was yet to be concluded.
5. The member of staff refuted any assertion that they had acted in a manner that had unduly influenced the case.
The resident brought the complaint to the Ombudsman because she was dissatisfied with the landlord’s complaint responses, the landlord had not resolved the ASB issue, it had not fixed the floorboards, and she felt a strong sense of injustice.

Jurisdiction

What we can and cannot consider is called the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction. This is governed by the Housing Ombudsman Scheme (the Scheme). When a complaint is brought to the Ombudsman, we must consider all the circumstances of the case as there are sometimes reasons why parts of a complaint will not be investigated.
Paragraph 42c of the Scheme states that the Ombudsman may not consider complaints which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion were not brought to the attention of the landlord in a reasonable period, which would normally be within 6 months of the matter arising. However, this investigation will focus on the period between 17 January 2021 to 5 December 2022. This being the period considered by the landlord as part of its complaint investigation, up until the point when the landlord’s complaint process completed. The report also references events beyond of this timeframe where this is relevant to the resolution of the substantive complaint.
Paragraph 42a of the Scheme states that the Ombudsman may not consider complaints, which in the Ombudsman’s opinion are made prior to having exhausted a landlord’s complaints procedure. The resident told the Ombudsman that she was dissatisfied with its handling of a property transfer. However, in accordance with paragraph 42a of the Scheme, this complaint falls outside the scope of this investigation.
This investigation is complicated by the number of teams and partners that have been involved in this case. Paragraph 42j of the Scheme states that the Ombudsman may not consider complaints which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion fall properly within the jurisdiction of another Ombudsman, regulator, or complaint-handling body. Paragraph 41d of the Scheme states that the Ombudsman cannot consider complaints which concern matters in respect of local housing authorities in England, which do not relate to their provision or management of social housing. Accordingly, complaints concerning the police, the police safer neighbourhood’s team, the local authority noise service, the local authority noise pollution team, and local authority community safety team fall outside the scope of this investigation.
This investigation will consider whether the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of ASB was in line with its legal and policy obligations, and whether its response was fair in all the circumstances of the case. However, it should be noted that the role of the Ombudsman is not to establish whether the ASB reported occurred or not.

Assessment and findings

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports about antisocial behaviour (ASB).

The landlord’s ASB policy states that its housing management service is responsible for dealing with ASB. Its ASB service will, if appropriate, investigate reports of noise nuisance if the threshold is met. This includes working closely with the local authority noise pollution team. The ASB policy also states that the landlord will:
1. Record and investigate all reports of ASB fairly. Where relevant it will issue an incident diary and give appropriate advice.
2. Where possible, take action to deal with the problem. This may include speaking to the perpetrator, agreeing an action plan, offering mediation, agreeing an acceptable behaviour contract, issuing a tenancy warning, pursuing tenancy enforcement, issuing a CPN, or seeking an injunction.
3. Support witnesses and people who suffer from ASB by dealing with reports quickly and effectively. It will out an officer in charge of the case, will keep residents updated, and will make referrals to support and advice services if appropriate.
The evidence shows that the resident began reporting ASB and noise nuisance about the neighbour in January 2021. It is unclear when the landlord opened an ASB case, but there is evidence that the landlord endeavoured to investigate and respond to the resident’s concerns about the neighbour between January 2021 and 12 September 2021. This included speaking to both parties, issuing a warning to the neighbour, reviewing noise recordings provided by the resident, reviewing CCTV evidence of damage caused to the resident’s front door, agreeing an action plan with the resident, raising a works order to inspect the floorboards, adding the resident to the out of hours noise call out list, and bringing the case to the ASB multi-agency panel meeting. The evidence shows that the case was reviewed thereafter on a monthly basis internally and at the ASB panel. The landlord’s interventions were in line with its ASB policy.
However, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, in view of the neighbour’s stance that they were not causing any disturbance, the landlord should have satisfied itself at an early stage, that there was no other reasonable explanation for the intermittent banging arising from the neighbour’s property. The Ombudsman notes that the local authority told the landlord in June 2021, that “this all comes down to the poor insulation of the building” and the landlord should look at ways of improving “installation” to reduce the impact on neighbouring properties. This suggests that there was a possible issue with sound transmission within the building, however there is no evidence that the landlord took this into consideration.
While the landlord was not required in law to make improvements to the sound insulation in the building, it could have carried out a controlled noise test between the properties. It could have offered advice to both parties about how each could play their part in reducing sound transmission between the properties. The local authority specifically recommended that the landlord consider whether the floors were carpeted, if there were soft closing hinges on doors, and suggested using anti-vibration pads for washing machines. The landlord missed an opportunity to explore this further with the parties, which may have brought about a timelier resolution.
The landlord might also have considered the merits of offering mediation during the earlier stages of the dispute, in accordance with its ASB policy. It is understood that the parties had engaged in meditation in the past. This would have given the parties a safe environment to air their concerns and be part of the solution. If mediation was considered, this was not evidenced.
The resident mentioned in her complaint that she was unhappy with the landlord’s investigation into damage caused to her front door, which she believed had been caused by her neighbour. It is not disputed that the landlord viewed the CCTV footage of an individual in the hallway around the same time as the door became damaged. But the landlord said it was unable to conclude the images were that of the neighbour. Although the resident later claimed that witnesses could have testified that the individual was the neighbour, there is no evidence this was suggested at the time of the incident. Based on the evidence available to it, and mindful that the police had also viewed the footage, it was reasonable for the landlord to conclude that no enforcement action could be taken.
However, as this was not the first time the resident’s door had been damaged, the landlord endeavoured to reposition its CCTV cameras so they covered the resident’s property. It is unfortunate that the camera could not be fully repositioned to get a direct view of the front door, but the landlord was able to position it so it covered the resident’s balcony. The landlord told the resident that she could install her own CCTV camera if she wished to cover her front door. It is also understood that the landlord also replaced the resident’s front door, because she was concerned that its appearance would reduce her chances of securing a mutual exchange. The landlord’s actions demonstrate that it was being fair and that it was treating the resident’s concerns with the seriousness deserved.
It is unsurprising that the landlord denied the resident the opportunity to receive or review CCTV evidence from its own CCTV system, and the video evidence it later obtained of the resident allegedly harassing the neighbour. The landlord would not have had authority to share this evidence with the resident under data protection rules. However, the landlord was permitted to share the footage with the police under its information sharing protocol and for the purpose of preventing and detecting crime, which it did. The resident argues that the landlord misinterpreted the video and maintains that the video shows her pleading with the neighbour to stop banging. It is understandable that the resident was concerned about this footage being sent to the police, but it would have been for the police to decide what weight they placed upon the evidence sent to them.
Between 13 September 2021 and 5 December 2022, the resident’s reports of ASB about the neighbour were predominately noise related.
The landlord installed its noise monitoring machine in the resident’s property for a week in November 2021. After the resident told the landlord that the neighbour had gone quiet, the landlord allowed the resident to keep the monitor for a further week. Having installed its noise monitor, the landlord should have ensured that any recordings were analysed and the findings were communicated back to the resident in a timely manner. It was unfair that the landlord did not feedback to the resident until February 2022. While it is understood that there were technical issues playing back the recordings, in the Ombudsman’s opinion there was an evident lack of urgency on the landlord’s part. Since the landlord had not kept the resident informed, the resident was caused increased time and trouble chasing the landlord for updates.
The Ombudsman has noticed an absence of proactive and regular contact made with the resident to provide updates throughout the case, which was inconsistent with its ASB policy. In other evidence the landlord indicates that it was in regular contact with the resident. This could suggest an issue with the landlord’s record keeping, or that the landlord did not provide the Ombudsman with all of its contact notes.
The evidence suggests that it was difficult for the landlord to determine from the noise monitor recordings, who was the victim and who was the perpetrator. It was felt that the neighbour may have been reacting to noises arising from within the resident’s property. Additionally, video evidence had been provided by the neighbour around the same time, which indicated that the resident had harassed the neighbour. In response, the local authority enforcement team served both parties with a CPW.
Since CPWs give residents an opportunity to modify behaviour without any formal sanctions being taken, they are useful tools when tackling ASB. It is understandable that the resident felt a strong sense of injustice on receiving the warning, since this was issued 6 months after the alleged incident occurred and the resident believed she had not harassed the neighbour. Although it was not the landlord who led this action, this was supported by the landlord based on the evidence available to it at the time.
It is noted that the resident repeatedly requested a copy of the noise monitor analysis and recordings made of her neighbour, and an explanation of how it had arrived at its conclusions that she was banging on her own floor. The landlord told the resident to submit a subject access data request, which was a reasonable response. However, in other evidence seen by the Ombudsman, the landlord indicated that it had an intention to share the recordings. The landlord’s complaint response stated that it had sent the resident a copy of the noise monitoring findings, which the resident has refuted. It is not in dispute that the landlord provided the resident with copies of recordings made using the noise app. Inconsistencies in the landlord’s approach to the provision of noise evidence would have left the resident confused and was likely to have contributed to her feelings of mistrust.
After the resident complained that noise nuisance had not stopped following issue of the CPWs, the landlord met the resident. It has not been possible to determine what was agreed during this meeting, as the landlord has not provided a record of its discussion with the resident. Again, this could indicate an issue with the landlord’s record keeping.
The Ombudsman notes that the landlord took steps to investigate the resident’s ongoing concerns about the neighbour damaging the floorboards. Although the landlord’s repair service made several appointments with the neighbour to inspect his ceiling, access was not established. While the neighbour denied banging on his ceiling, the resident was adamant that something was waking her up several times a night. To inform its investigation, the landlord needed to inspect both properties. The landlord should have taken some decisive action to gain access to the neighbour’s property when access was restricted.
Between July 2022 and 7 December 2022, the landlord continued to monitor the case internally and it contributed to monthly case discussions at the ASB panel. This showed that the landlord was keeping the case under review, in accordance with its ASB policy. The ASB panel’s view was that the only effective option would be for either the resident or neighbour to move. When this was discussed, the resident told the landlord that the neighbour should move. Ultimately, the landlord was unable to relocate either party without a court order, unless they did so voluntarily.
Although the resident sent the landlord more noise recordings in August 2022, no nuisance was captured. The resident told the Ombudsman that she was unable to make use of the local authority out of hours noise service because the local authority would not come out for one off noise nuisance. She said the landlord’s noise app was not fit for purpose, because it was unable to record one off incidents. In the end she stopped using the noise app. Although the resident claims that the landlord offered to provide her with an alternative noise recording device, the Ombudsman has seen no evidence that this was agreed. While the landlord may not have felt there was justification to reinstall its noise monitoring machine, its insistence on the resident’s use of the noise app was likely to have been of limited evidential value. The landlord should have considered if there was a more appropriate means of evidencing the reported noise.
As an alternative, the landlord could have issued diary sheets to the resident, to identify how often the behaviour was happening, how it was affecting the resident, and to identify patterns of behaviour. The resident states that the landlord never asked to complete any diary sheets. However, she downloaded some templates from another website, which she completed between 5 December 2021 and 18 December 2022. It has not been possible to determine from the evidence seen if these diaries were sent to the landlord or how the landlord responded.
It is of concern that the landlord has told the Ombudsman that no other residents had raised similar issues about the neighbour. However, the landlord has provided evidence which suggests that the landlord was in contact with other residents throughout the history of the case. It is not possible to determine the outcome of its dialogue with witnesses or how this evidence may have shaped the landlord’s investigations, based on the evidence seen.
When considering the impact of the ongoing dispute with the neighbour, the Ombudsman notes that the resident told the landlord repeatedly, from as early as July 2021, that she had lost her job due to lack of sleep. From 28 September 2021 onward, the resident told the landlord that she was being forced to stay at a neighbour’s house, or outside of her flat in a sleeping bag, or in a tent. The resident’s doctor wrote to the landlord 3 times between November 2021 and July 2022, with their concerns for the resident’s mental health and wellbeing. From the evidence seen, it is unclear what action the landlord took in response. The Ombudsman would have expected the landlord to have carried out a risk assessment and considered the resident’s ongoing support needs. Little evidence has been provided by the landlord to demonstrate that this happened, which is of concern. In the Ombudsman’s opinion, the resident was unlikely to have been provided with adequate support in line with its ASB policy. This was unreasonable in view of information that it had received.
The Ombudsman has seen evidence of the landlord’s ongoing case management following issue of its stage 2 response. This includes case monitoring, ongoing case discussions at the ASB panel, referrals for support from its resident support team, and it assisted the resident in joining its housing waiting list. After the resident expressed suicidal ideation, the landlord made a safeguarding referral, which was appropriate. It is understood that the landlord also initiated tenancy enforcement action against the resident and awaits the outcome of criminal proceedings (which have been ongoing for some considerable time) before deciding the next steps. Meanwhile, the resident has continued to intermittently report noise nuisance to the landlord. However, other than discussing the case at the ASB panel, it has not been possible to determine from the evidence seen how the landlord has been investigating the resident’s later reports, if at all.
The Ombudsman makes a final observation about the landlord’s ASB policy. The policy sets out a resident’s escalation rights in the event of continued dissatisfaction with its ASB handling. This includes the rights to a review under the community trigger and the resident’s right to escalate a formal complaint to the Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman (LGSCO). However, the policy does not refer to the resident’s right of escalation to the Housing Ombudsman. A recommendation is made later in respect of this.
In summary, while there is evidence that the landlord investigated the resident’s reports and counter reports of ASB and kept the case under regular review, there were limitations in the landlord’s investigation. The landlord should have considered providing the resident with support at an earlier stage. The landlord has not evidenced that it was proactively keeping the resident informed. When considered cumulatively, there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports about ASB.

The landlord’s handling of repairs to floorboards.

The landlord’s website states that normal repairs (where the fault or failure does not cause major inconvenience or damage to occupants) are usually attended to within 21 working days. The landlord repairs guide states that it is responsible for repairing or replacing damaged, loose, or rotten floorboards. It states that the landlord may ask the resident to lift floor coverings so repairs can be carried out. The resident will be responsible for putting floor coverings back down.
The resident first raised concerns about the floorboards on 31 August 2021, after she noticed “cracks” in several areas of the living room floor. She put this down to the neighbour banging on the ceiling. The landlord raised a works order on 6 September 2021, to inspect the floorboards on 16 September 2021. On inspection it could feel a couple of uneven floorboards and some protruding screws underneath the carpet. However, the landlord was unable to carry out a full inspection as the floor was carpeted. It is understandable that the resident might have been concerned about the integrity of the floorboards, however, the survey did not raise any immediate concerns about risk to the resident. At this time, the issue appeared to be localised to a couple of areas in the living room.
In the Ombudsman’s opinion it was reasonable for the landlord to try to inspect the neighbour’s ceiling for damage before insisting that the resident’s carpet be lifted. The landlord attempted to gain access to the neighbour’s property several times over the next 4 months. The landlord should have considered taking decisive action to secure access to the neighbour’s property when access was not achieved. Or, if the landlord no longer felt that this was necessary, it should have made arrangements to carry out a more comprehensive inspection of the resident’s floorboards. It was inappropriate that 6 months after the resident raised her initial concerns about the floorboards, she had to raise a new inspection request after noticing movement in the bedroom. However, the landlord acted promptly upon receiving the resident’s new concerns, by raising a works order on the same day.
Upon inspection on 23 April 2022, the landlord found no defects to the floorboards in the bedroom. It again noted a couple of floorboards in the living room that had moved and some protruding screws under the carpet. The landlord said that a repair would need to be carried out but the resident would need to remove her carpet prior to the appointment. This was in accordance with its repairs policy. It raised a works order 2 days later to carry out the necessary repairs.
According to the landlord’s repair notes, on arrival, the resident expressed a view that it was not her responsibility to lift the carpet. In response, the landlord’s repair team closed the works order.
The resident contacted the landlord again 3 weeks later, expressing dissatisfaction that the floorboards had still not been fixed. The resident said that the condition of the floorboards had further deteriorated. The resident suggested that the landlord should arrange a carpet fitter to remove the carpet and fix the floorboards. It was several weeks before the landlord raised a works order. Although it was not the landlord’s policy to lift the resident’s carpets, it made arrangements to return with a carpet fitter. The landlord’s use of discretion in this matter was encouraging.
The landlord attended the property to lift the carpet and inspect the flooring on or around 21 July 2022. The landlord asked the resident to move some furniture to enable the inspection, but the resident insisted that the landlord should do this. The landlord said that it was unable to move the resident’s furniture itself but it would return with a carpenter at a later date. This would have given the resident additional time to make necessary arrangements. The Ombudsman has not been provided with any medical evidence to indicate that the landlord should have made any further reasonable adjustments and moved the furniture.
When the landlord phoned the resident on 1 August 2022 to make the repair appointment with the resident, she indicated that there was no point fixing the floors while the neighbour continued banging on the ceiling. Furthermore, she was unwilling to move the furniture herself. In view of this, the landlord placed the works order on hold until further notice. There is no evidence that the landlord informed the resident of this at the time. This would have left the resident uncertain of the landlord’s position.
The Ombudsman notes that the resident raised concerns that floorboard repairs remained outstanding during the complaints process. In its complaint response, the landlord offered to reinstate the works order if the resident made arrangements to move her furniture. It is understood that the resident and landlord are at an impasse and that no works have been completed.
The landlord had a contractual obligation to keep the floorboards in an adequate state of repair. However, without the furniture being moved and the carpet being lifted, the landlord could not assess the condition of the floorboards. Therefore, the Ombudsman recommends that the landlord should take some decisive action to bring the matter to a satisfactory conclusion for both parties.
The Ombudsman would have found service failure in its handling of repairs to the floorboards, had it not been for the mitigating factors identified during the investigation. Therefore, the Ombudsman finds no maladministration in the landlord’s handling of repairs to floorboards.

The landlord’s complaint handling and record keeping

According to the landlord’s website, the landlord has a 2 stage complaints procedure. Stage 1 complaints are investigated by the relevant service, who will issue a full response within 10 working days. Stage 2 complaints are investigated by the landlord’s corporate complaint team, who will acknowledge the complaint within 3 working days of the escalation being accepted. A full response will be issued within 20 working days of receiving the complaint.
The resident submitted a complaint form on 28 March 2022, concerning the landlord’s handling of her reports of ASB about the neighbour. However, there is no evidence that the landlord responded. This was inappropriate and significantly delayed the resolution of the complaint for the resident.
After the resident raised a new stage 1 complaint in September 2022, the landlord provided its response within expected timescales. When the resident escalated the complaint to stage 2 on 13 October 2022, there was no acknowledgement of the complaint until 17 November 2022. The impact of any resultant delay to the resident would have been minor since the landlord issued its stage 2 response in a timely manner after acknowledging the complaint.
Under the Housing Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code, complaint responses must be sent to the resident when the answer to the complaint is known, not when the outstanding actions required to address the issue are completed. However, outstanding actions must still be tracked and actioned expeditiously with regular updates provided to the resident. Having committed in its stage 2 response, to obtaining an update from its member of staff and providing a response separately, the Ombudsman would have expected the landlord to have provided its supplementary response in a timely manner. Although it is positive that the landlord recognised that it had not updated the resident as promised, it was unreasonable that the landlord did not notice this for 8 months. This would have left the resident uncertain of how the matter had been left.
The Ombudsman notes that the resident complained of misconduct by the landlord’s staff. This included a lack of impartiality in its complaint handling at stage 1, its staff were friends with the neighbour, and the landlord had lied to the police, which had not been investigated.
In its stage 2 response, the landlord indicated that it had carried out its stage 1 investigation in accordance with its complaint policy, which from the Ombudsman’s own observations appears to be the case.
The landlord told the resident that it had raised her concerns about staff being friends with the neighbour, with its head of service. It encouraged the resident to provide evidence to support her allegations. The landlord’s response was appropriate in the circumstances.
However, the Ombudsman is unable to make judgement as to whether the landlord’s staff lied or misinformed other agencies. Although the Ombudsman has not seen the landlord’s information sharing protocol with the ASB panel, it would be usual for landlords to have such a protocol in place. Through this protocol, the landlord would be permitted to share any evidence that it had obtained with its partners. However, it would be for those partners to satisfy themselves of the quality of the evidence or information provided by the landlord before acting on that information themselves. However, in order to bring some closure for both parties, a recommendation is made later in respect of this.
While the Ombudsman was able to determine this case based on the evidence provided, there were noticeable gaps and omissions in the landlord’s records, as highlighted throughout this report. The Ombudsman would expect a landlord to keep a robust record of contact and evidence of its actions relating to each casefile, which can be provided to the Ombudsman upon request.
Landlords who fail to create and record information accurately, risk missing opportunities to identify its actions were wrong or inadequate and contribute to inadequate communication and redress. There were inadequacies in the landlord’s record keeping and information management.
When considered cumulatively, there was maladministration in the landlord’s complaint handling and record keeping.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was:
1. Maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports about ASB.
2. No maladministration in the landlord’s handling of repairs to floorboards.
3. Maladministration in the landlord’s complaint handling and record keeping.

Orders

Within 4 weeks of the date of this report, the landlord must write to the resident to apologise for the failings identified in this report.
Within 4 weeks of the date of this report, the landlord must pay compensation of £500 directly to the resident. This compensation has been determined in line with the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance and is broken down as follows:
1. £400 in recognition of the distress, and inconvenience caused to the resident, by failings identified in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports about antisocial behaviour.
2. £100 in recognition of the uncertainty caused to the resident by the landlord’s complaint handling.
Within 4 weeks of the date of this report, the landlord must:

Endeavour to meet with the resident, to discuss any outstanding issues with ASB. Where a meeting does take place, the landlord must:
1. Carry out a risk assessment and agree an action plan with the resident, making clear who will do what and by when. The landlord must consider the resident’s support needs and what additional support the resident may require, and act accordingly thereafter.
2. Agree with the resident how future noise evidence will be collected.
3. Consider if it is able and willing to share the noise analysis and recordings from November 2021 and inform the resident accordingly.
4. In view of the resident’s general dissatisfaction about other partners in this case, the landlord should ensure that the resident understands her right to invoke a community trigger case review and the thresholds that must be met.
Endeavour to inspect the neighbour’s property. At the inspection, the landlord must consider:
1. If there is physical evidence to suggest that the neighbour had been banging on the ceiling.
2. Whether there was any other explanation for the intermittent banging described by the resident.
3. The benefits of completing a controlled noise test between the 2 properties. Based on its observations, it should as a minimum, offer advice to both parties on minimising sound transmission between the properties.

The landlord must provide evidence to the Ombudsman that it has complied with the above orders, within 4 weeks of the date of this decision.

Recommendations

The landlord should consider conducting a review of the information that it previously provided to the ASB panel about the resident’s conduct. If the landlord considers that it has in anyway misinformed the ASB panel, or if evidence has since come to light that may change the landlord’s previous opinions, it should update the panel in writing. The landlord should provide a summary of its review findings to the resident.
The landlord should consider agreeing a new date with the resident, to lift the resident’s carpet and carry out a full inspection of the floorboards. In advance of the landlord’s inspection, the resident should make arrangements to move her furniture in advance of the landlord’s inspection. If the resident is unable to move the furniture and wants the landlord to make reasonable adjustments under its repair policy, the resident should discuss this with the landlord in advance. In this event, the landlord should consider any support that it can offer the resident with moving the furniture or signpost the resident accordingly.
The landlord should amend its ASB policy, to include the escalation details of the Housing Ombudsman.
The landlord should confirm its intention with regards to this recommendation, within 4 weeks of the date of the decision.