Moat Homes Limited (202319236)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202319236

Moat Homes Limited

8 October 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 the landlord’s handling and response to the resident’s reports of:
1. Antisocial Behaviour (ASB) by a neighbour,
2. noise nuisance,
3. a neighbour smoking cannabis,
4. a neighbour erecting a trampoline near to her property.

Background

The resident purchased the property December 2020 on a shared ownership basis and completed staircasing to 100% in February 2023. The property is a 2-bed ground floor maisonette. She lives in the property with her partner. The landlord is a housing association. Her neighbour is a tenant of the landlord.

Summary of Events

Between 2021 and 2023, the resident reported issues 20 times with her neighbour. These reports included noise, a trampoline being erected, her neighbour smoking cannabis, and threats to stab or shoot the resident and her partner.
On 10 February 2021, the resident first reported the noise nuisance from her neighbour in the flat above. The resident explained her neighbours had moved in above her, a child was jumping at all hours including late at night and early morning which affected her sleep.
On 18 February 2021, the landlord advised the resident to contact the environmental health team. The landlord asked the resident if she had considered moving.
On 31 March 2021, the resident first reported to the landlord that her neighbour smoked cannabis and that the smell permeates into her flat.
On 12 May 2021, the landlord suggested to the resident it could send out a letter to all residents about cannabis being smoked. It is unclear if this was carried out.
On 22 February 2022 the landlord sent a letter to the neighbour advising that it had received reports that from late at night till early hours of the morning, there had been loud banging noises coming from the property. It asked for the neighbour to refrain from this as it was disturbing the residents around them.
On 13 March 2022, the resident reported to the landlord that she had called the police following an altercation with her neighbour. She alleged her neighbour threatened to stab and shoot her and her partner. The police attended but the resident asked the police not to visit her neighbour’s house. The police took no further action.
On 21 April 2022, the landlord logged the ASB report as the resident had reported her neighbour had threatened to stab her, excessive noise, and the smell of drug substances on 4 April 2022. She explained she had contacted the police and had been allocated a neighbourhood worker and environmental health reference. The landlord completed an action plan and agreed frequency of contact with the resident and made a request to the police for information. The police explained the resident did not wish to support the investigation, so the police closed the case. It had received no further reports.
On 24 June 2022, the landlord closed the resident’s ASB case as the nuisance had stopped.
On 18 July 2022, the resident first reported her neighbour had built a trampoline in the back alleyway in front of her garden.
On 19 July 2022, the landlord emailed the resident’s neighbour explaining that no personal items should be left outside and that it is breach of their tenancy. The landlord informed the resident it had sent an email to her neighbour about the trampoline. The landlord had asked for the trampoline to be removed immediately.
On 22 July 2022, the resident complained to the landlord, and it logged her complaint on the system. The complaint was about lapses in communication and call back requests not being fulfilled by the landlord.
On 29 July 2022, the landlord had confirmed to the resident that it had spoken to her neighbour regarding the trampoline and noise reports. The landlord told the resident, her neighbour had reassured it, they would remove the trampoline, and the children are in bed before 8pm.
On 1 August 2022, the resident advised the landlord that the neighbour had not removed the trampoline.
On 2 August 2022, the landlord confirmed in writing to the neighbour a date the trampoline needed to be removed by.
During August 2022 the landlord was in contact with both the resident and the neighbour regarding the trampoline and what actions it was taking. The trampoline was removed on the 21 August 2022.
The landlord wrote to the resident on 25 August 2022 with its stage 1 complaint response. The landlord said:
1. It apologised for the delay in providing its response.
2. It had sent her neighbour warning letters and visited them regarding the reports of noise and the trampoline.
3. It had given the resident general advice about reporting the noise and the cannabis smoking to the appropriate agencies, police, and environment health team.
4. It had organised its contractor to remove the trampoline, but the resident confirmed it had already been removed.
5. It explained the responses to her contacts were within 5 working days, but 2 response times were outside this timeframe. It apologised and advised the resident to use the customer service email instead of her contact’s direct email.
On 31 August 2022, the landlord received a call from the resident explaining that the trampoline had being put back up. The landlord contacted her neighbour on the same day to explain it would be instructing contractors to remove the trampoline.
On 14 October 2022, the landlord sent the resident a letter which explained her ASB case was closed, because she was seeking external advice. The landlord explained the resident could escalate her complaint to stage 2.
The resident raised a complaint with the landlord on 21 November 2022. She said:
1. She was unhappy with the landlord’s lack of action to address the noise, the trampoline, and cannabis smoking.
2. Explained she had been unable to sleep or rest in her property.
3. She hears from 7am until 12am (sometimes later) banging, jumping, and heavy thudding noises from the property above which vibrates the bedroom, ceiling, and floors of the property.
On 6 February 2023 the resident made another complaint to the landlord. She said:
1. She is dealing with the same issues with her neighbour which are not getting resolved and wants further support.
2. She had made multiple reports to the police with no changes in regard to the drug use.
3. She had been threatened to be shot and stabbed by her neighbour.
On 9 February 2023, the landlord acknowledged the resident’s complaint.
On 14 February 2023, the landlord spoke with the resident establishing that she was unhappy with the amount of noise, the smoking of cannabis, and the trampoline in the garden. She was unhappy with the landlord’s staff communication style. The landlord said it would consider whether to reopen the resident’s old ASB case and find out why this case was closed.
On 22 February 2023, the landlord provided its stage 1 response, it provided a summary of the complaint. The landlord said:
1. The environmental health team advised the noise reports did not meet the statutory noise nuisance threshold. It was unable to take any tenancy action in this situation. It was actively trying to work with her neighbour, continuing visits to the property and considering soundproofing.
2. It concluded that criminal activity should always be reported to the police. It stated that it was very limited in the action it could take without police reports and would not have the power to enforce any tenancy action in these situations.
The resident was dissatisfied with the landlord’s response and escalated the complaint to stage 2.
On 3 March 2023, it acknowledged the resident request for a stage 2 response.
On 24 March 2023 the landlord provided its stage 2 response. In the summary the landlord:
1. Did not uphold the resident’s complaint.
2. Explained that members of staff have different communication styles and will take learning from this feedback.
3. Was actively dealing with the resident’s reports by sending a warning letter and actively engaging in conversations with her neighbour.
4. Apologised for the noise disturbance that continued to affect the enjoyment of her home.
5. Concluded there had been a change in the level of noise recently. It was in regular contact with environmental health team to arrange a joint visit to explore which rooms in the neighbouring property are responsible for the noise transference and what changes can be made such as floor covering.
6. Spoke to the Neighbourhood Services Manager who would be address cannabis and noise reports directly with her neighbours.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

The resident had referenced how the noise nuisance had impacted her mental and physical health, including her sleep. The Ombudsman does not doubt the resident’s comments. However, the Ombudsman cannot draw conclusions on the causation of, or liability for, impacts on health and wellbeing. This is because it is beyond our remit to determine if there is a direct link between the landlord’s actions or inaction and the resident’s health issues. Nonetheless, consideration had been given to the general distress and inconvenience which the situation may have caused the resident.
This Service will refer to the events from 2021 when the resident first reported the noise nuisance for historical context for the ASB. We will assess all the events from 2022 when the resident first made a complaint on 21 April 2022 until 24 March 2023 when the stage 2 response was issued.
The landlord’s ASB policy says it “recognises by taking prompt, appropriate and decisive action it is more likely to stop problems escalating.” Therefore, a landlord had two main duties when anti-social behaviour is reported. The first is to undertake a proportionate investigation to establish the nature and extent of the ASB. The second is to weigh in balance the evidence, and the respective parties’ rights to enjoy their home and decide what action it should take. It is not the role of the Ombudsman to establish whether ASB had actually occurred or to tackle the ASB itself. The Ombudsman’s role is to determine if the landlord conducted how it handled the reports and if this was in line with its policy, legislation, and best practice. The Ombudsman cannot tell the landlord to take action against neighbours.

ASB by the neighbour

The landlord operates an ASB policy which sets out ASB as “conduct that has caused or is likely to cause, harassment, alarm or distress to any person.” The policy is clear that where other agencies are involved in dealing with the ASB then it would adopt a multi-agency approach. It will share information in line with its privacy policy.
In March 2022, the resident reported to the landlord the altercation with her neighbour this was also reported to the police. The incident reported was serious and distressing for the resident. This behaviour would meet the landlord’s definition of ASB set out its policy. There is no record in the landlord’s notes of any response being made to the resident. This is not inline with the landlord’s policy, and it should have responded to the resident.
On 21 April 2022, the resident reported again to the landlord about the same altercation with her neighbour. The landlord completed an action plan and risk assessment with the resident. This was in line with its ASB policy and was appropriate.
On the same day, the landlord made a request for information to the police. The landlord had taken a proactive approach in contacting the police. This was in accordance with the landlord’s obligations set out in its ASB policy to liaise with partner organisations and was an appropriate initial response.
The police disclosed to the landlord that there was an incident, but the investigation had been closed as the resident did not wish to proceed. This did not excuse it from undertaking its own investigation into the allegation. The landlord showed no evidence of conducting its own investigation into the resident’s concerns about the neighbour’s behaviour. The landlord did not explain to the resident why it would not be able to take any further action. While it is relevant and good practice to take a multi-agency approach, the landlord is also able carryout its own investigation. Threatening behaviour can be criminal as well as a breach of tenancy. The landlord should be able to satisfy itself it has taken reasonable steps in its investigation to conclude it is unable to take any further action. It does not appear to have done so in this case.
The landlord acted reasonably in contacting the resident to see if there were any further incidents on 29 April 2022. It appropriately closed the case on 24 June 2022 as it had received no further reports and considered the ASB had stopped. The landlord closed its case in line with its policy.
In the landlord’s complaint’s response, it did not mention about the altercation and why it did not investigate. The Ombudsman finds there was maladministration in the landlord’s failure to sufficiently investigate the reports in line with its policy. Considering the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance, an award of £250 compensation has been made for the frustration, distress and inconvenience to the resident for not carrying out the investigation.

Noise nuisance

The ASB policy says it will only intervene when the behaviour has occurred more than once or is of particularly serious nature.
The ASB policy states noise not considered unreasonable is “noise generated from everyday living, for example walking across laminate flooring wearing shoes, children playing in the locality of their home as long as the ‘playing’ does not include behavior which would be considered nuisance behavior”.
From February 21 April 2022 until 24 March 2023 (the landlord’s final complaint response) the resident reported 27 separate incidents of noise nuisance. In support, the resident provided sound recordings and updates to the landlord.
The landlord’s policy says a resident can report behaviour which is causing a nuisance or annoyance, but the behaviour may not unreasonable. In this case the landlord should have defined this to the resident and applied an assessment to see if the behaviour was unreasonable. There was no evidence of it examining the times of day and frequency of the noise. The policy says it would treat noise where it is persistent, deliberate, or targeted as ASB. The landlord should make the resident aware not only of what action it can take, but also the limitations upon it and what it is not able to carry out and at what point further investigations may cease.
The landlord advised the resident to contact the environmental health team. The ASB policy says the landlord will work proactively with other organisations and share information. This should be done as a multi-agency approach, and the landlord should still be aware of its obligations when responding to noise reports. It should be aware of the environmental health team’s limitations on noise investigations, when signposting the resident for advice or referrals. There is limited evidence of communication between the environmental health team and the landlord.
In January 2022, the resident contacted the landlord again to report there was still a constant banging noise from early morning until late at night. The landlord apologised for its delay of 8 working days to contact the resident. It said it would send a letter to the neighbour about the noise nuisance. This is a reasonable action for the landlord to take. However, the landlord missed an opportunity to explain the difference between household noise (everyday noise such as the closing of doors, children noise and people talking and walking about in their homes) and ASB (noise nuisance). This would have managed the resident’s expectations and understanding of actions the landlord could carry out.
Given the history of the noise reports and the type of noise reported, the landlord missed a further opportunity to consider if further investigation into the noise transference was necessary. In the landlord’s stage 2 response it had mentioned taking mitigating measures, such as inspecting the neighboring property to see if it had suitable floor covering to minimize any impact from noise transference. The landlord should have considered noise mitigating measures earlier in the timeline.
In February 2022, the resident contacted the landlord to ask if a letter had been sent out. It would have been good practice to keep the resident update about actions it was taking. The landlord confirmed to the resident it had sent out a letter regarding the noise issue. The landlord directed the resident again to speak to the environmental health team. It is unclear why the landlord did not make its own enquiries. The landlord’s ASB policy says it will intervene when the behaviour has occurred more than once. The landlord’s lack of actions was not reasonable or fair to the resident. It would have been appropriate for the landlord to visit the neighbour and conduct its own investigations. The ASB policy provides a range of tools for the landlord to consider when dealing with reports. One of these is the offer of mediation. In this case there is no evidence that this was considered which was unreasonable.
Between March 2022 and April 2022, the resident made 4 reports about excessive noise coming from her neighbour’s property to the landlord. The landlord sent the neighbour a further letter in April 2022. It requested that the resident continued to send recordings and diary notes to it. The landlord did not explain the purpose of the recordings and diary notes and reasons why it wanted more recordings made. Doing so would have helped to mange the resident’s expectations. We have not seen any evidence of the landlord reviewing the recordings and diary sheets and responding to the resident. There was a lack of action taken by the landlord which was inappropriate.
Between April and May 2022, the environmental health team explained that they considered it was domestic noise and would not take any further action. The resident contacted the landlord to report the noise was getting worse. In response the landlord told the resident as the environmental health team were unable to assist, then it would not be able to investigate. The landlord’s policy says it will investigate all reports. The landlord has not complied with its own policy and this was unreasonable.
On 21 April 2022 the resident made a further report about the excessive noise and the landlord appropriately completed a risk assessment. This was in line with its policy which says it will conduct an initial risk assessment. It is not clear what action was taken by the landlord following the risk assessment.
The resident’s complaint dealt with long-standing issues of noise nuisance which had not been resolved and, by the resident’s account, had got worse on 17 May 2022. It is evident that this situation had been distressing for the resident.
The resident had raised concerns to the landlord that the communication with it had been poor. In its complaint response the landlord apologised that its response time for call backs had not been met. While the apology is appropriate, it is important in cases of ASB that residents are kept updated and call backs conducted timely. This would help resident’s feel their reports are being taken seriously.
The landlord explained that the resident should use the customer service email to ensure all emails are picked up. While this advice is reasonable in some circumstances, if the resident had been provided with a point of contact, then it would be expected that a resident uses this contact detail. It may have been appropriate for the landlord to explain the best method for contacting it early in the timeline, to prevent any avoidable frustration and inconvenience to the resident.
In July 2022, the landlord took appropriate action by contacting the neighbour about the noise report. In August 2022 the resident informed the landlord that the noise had increased, and that the environmental health team had opened an investigation into the noise. In response the landlord agreed to contact the environmental health team. The landlord’s multi agency approach at this point was appropriate and in line with its policy.
In the landlord’s stage 1 response on 23 August 2022 the landlord explained to the resident that it had taken appropriate action through visiting the neighbour and sending a warning letter. It is this Service’s opinion that the landlord should have taken further steps to satisfy itself and the resident, through further investigation to fully understand any causes of noise transference and any steps it could take in respect of this.
On 6 February 2023 the resident raised a complaint that she was still experiencing banging from her neighbour. The landlord took appropriate action by acknowledging her complaint and discussing her concerns.
On 24 March 2023 in the stage 2 response the landlord apologised to the resident that the noise disturbance was affecting her enjoyment of her home. It explained to the resident due to change in noise levels it was going to arrange a joint visit with the environmental health team to consider a way to reduce this. This was appropriate action by the landlord.
The Ombudsman finds there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of noise nuisance. While the landlord did respond to the resident’s reports, it placed too much reliance on the environmental health team to take action rather itself. It did not take a customer focused approach in manging the resident’s expectations in what actions it could or could not take.
Considering the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance, an award of £250 compensation has been made for the frustration, distress and inconvenience caused.

Neighbour smoking cannabis

On 10 January 2022, the resident reported to the landlord that her neighbour was smoking cannabis. After 8 workings days the landlord responded and told the resident to report it to the police. Signposting the resident to an agency which may also be able investigate the reports was reasonable. However, the landlord’s ASB policy says it can investigate drug related nuisance. It would have been appropriate for the landlord to have considered interviewing parties to understand if it could take any action.
In April 2022, the resident made 3 reports of her neighbour smoking cannabis. The landlord made enquires with other agencies about the issue. This was a reasonable action in line with its policy for adopting a multi agency approach. On 21 April 2022, the landlord undertook a risk assessment and an action plan regarding the matter with the resident. This was appropriate action in line with its policy.
In July 2022, the resident made 2 further reports that her neighbour was using cannabis again. The landlord wrote to the neighbour about the report and arranged a visit to the neighbour to discuss the matter. The landlord contacted the resident on a weekly basis to see if there had been any improvements. Its action was appropriate and in line with its ASB policy. The landlord took reasonable action while encouraging the resident to continue to make reports to both itself and the police to assist with the evidence gathering process.
In August 2022, the resident made 2 further reports to the landlord about the neighbour using cannabis. The landlord took reasonable action when it contacted the local PSCO to ask for a door knocking initiative to all properties in the development. The police and the landlord’s staff made attempts to witness the smell of cannabis, which were unsuccessful. This was an appropriate response to the reports but there was no evidence that this was explained to the resident at this time. The landlord’s concluded it was restricted in the type of action it could take due to lack of evidence.
In February 2023, the resident made another complaint to the landlord about making multiple reports regarding the neighbour smoking cannabis and that no action was being taken. It explained in its stage 1 response it would be unable to take tenancy action against the neighbour. It was reasonable for the landlord to respond to the resident and explain its position. The landlord did not explain to the resident what evidence it would need to take action against the neighbour. It could have continued to monitor the situation, working with the police and visit the neighbour again.
While the Ombudsman understands the resident’s frustration at the lack of progress and the impact the situation had on her. The Ombudsman’s role is to consider if the landlord took appropriate action in line with its policy, legislation, and good practice. In terms of the landlord’s involvement, this Service is satisfied that it had taken a range of actions in accordance with its ASB procedure, to investigate the resident’s reports and obtain supporting evidence. However, it did not communicate with the resident effectively, so the resident felt that she had not been taken seriously. We have found service failure of the landlord’s communication to the resident’s reports of a neighbour smoking cannabis.

Neighbour erecting a trampoline near to her property

In July 2022, the resident complained to the landlord that her neighbour put up a trampoline in the back alleyway in front of her garden, which was causing her a nuisance. The landlord promptly took appropriate action in emailing and visiting the neighbour to tell them to remove the trampoline and kept the resident informed of its actions. The landlord’s initial response to the reports was appropriate.
In August 2022, the resident explained that the trampoline had not been removed. The landlord promptly took action again by communicating with the neighbour. It stated if the trampoline was not removed it would remove the trampoline and provided a date that this would happen. This was a reasonable action by the landlord.
The landlord conducted another visit of the neighbour’s property when it became aware the trampoline had not been removed. The landlord contacted the resident with an update. The landlord’s actions were customer focused and showed an intent to resolve the situation.
The landlord was reasonable with its approach to the removal of the trampoline. It is understood that the resident was concerned with the length of time taken resolve the situation and this was likely to be compounded by the ASB she was experiencing. In the circumstances of this case the landlord appropriately balanced taking action to ensure the trampoline was removed and worked with the other party to resolve the situation.
The landlord received a call from the resident explaining that the trampoline had been put back up on 31 August 2022. The landlord immediately contacted the neighbour to explain it would be instructing its contractor to remove the trampoline. The landlord acted quickly on addressing her concerns.
While the Ombudsman accepts the resident’s evidence that the problem had persisted to a degree and notes that she had spent time and trouble pursuing the trampoline issue. The perceived lack of progress must have been frustrating for her, the evidence also showed that the landlords actions produced results, in that the situation had been resolved 31 August 2022 The landlord was, in the circumstances, entitled to conclude that its actions had an effect.
At the stage 2 response the landlord responded to the resident’s frustration in the time taken for the trampoline to be removed and its interventions were not effective.
When the resident raised her complaint that the landlord’s staff were too friendly in their communication, the landlord apologised for the staff’s communication style and said it would discuss it with the team. This was a reasonable approach to take and shows it listened to the resident’s concern.
The Ombudsman has found no maladministration by the landlord.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling and response to:
1. the resident’s reports of Antisocial Behaviour (ASB) by the neighbour
2. the resident’s reports of noise nuisance.
3. the resident’s reports of the neighbour smoking cannabis

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was no maladministration in the landlord’s handling and response to the resident’s reports of the neighbour erecting a trampoline near to her property

Orders

The Ombudsman orders the landlord, within 4 weeks of the date of this report to:
1. Pay the resident £600:
  1. £250 for the handling of the ASB.
  2. £250 for the handling of the noise report.
  3. £100 for the handling of the cannabis smoking
2. Apologise to the resident in writing, acknowledging the failings identified in the report.
3. Contact the resident to discuss any continued noise nuisance that she may be experiencing. It should agree an action plan and explain any possible actions it is able to take, along with any limitations in order to clearly set the resident’s expectations.
4. Provide evidence of compliance with the above to this to this Service.

Recommendations

As the resident had recently reported the continued use of cannabis by neighbors, it is recommended that the landlord confirm to the resident what action it can take, and what further information it may require.
The landlord is also recommended to confirm whether its own staff can attend the resident’s flat to witness cannabis use.
The landlord should consider how it could improve its communication with the resident by meeting with the resident to understand any loss of confidence the resident may have with it and how it can rebuild this.