Platform Housing Group Limited (202208346)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202208346

Platform Housing Group Limited

10 January 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 of anti-social behaviour (ASB) from a neighbour, particularly noise nuisance.
2. Whether the soundproofing was installed correctly.
3. The council’s handling of the Community Protection Notice (CPN) and installation of recording equipment.
4. The landlord’s handling of the resident’s formal complaint.

Jurisdiction

What we can and cannot consider is called the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction. This is governed by the Housing Ombudsman Scheme. When a complaint is brought to the Ombudsman, we must consider all the circumstances of the case as there are sometimes reasons why a complaint will not be investigated.
After carefully considering all the evidence, in accordance with paragraphs 42a and 42k of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the following aspects of the complaint are outside of the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction:
1. Whether the soundproofing was installed correctly. This is because the landlord has not had the opportunity to exhaust its complaints procedure on this matter. At the time of this investigation, the resident had opened a stage 1 complaint with the landlord. After the landlord has issued its final response, if the resident is still unhappy, she can bring this complaint to this Service.
2. The council’s handling of the Community Protection Notice (CPN) and installation of recording equipment. This is because complaints against councils fall within the jurisdiction of the Local Government and Social care Ombudsman (LGSCO). Although this Service acknowledges the resident’s frustration that we are unable to investigate this aspect of her complaint, we cannot make judgements on the actions of the Council’s specialist teams in relation to this case. The resident may want to contact the LGSCO who may be able to investigate her complaint against the council’s ASB and environmental health teams.

Background and summary of events

Background

The resident holds an assured tenancy that begun on 6 February 2020. The property is a 1 bedroom semi-detached bungalow. The resident has cancer which can lead to internal bleeds and causes fatigue. She also has post traumatic stress disorder (PTSD), which is directly related to near death experiences caused by the cancer. During the complaint, she had treatment for the cancer. She also attempted to undergo treatment from a clinical psychologist for the PTSD during the complaint. She had an appointed advocate who contacted the landlord on her behalf when she requested.
The landlord is a housing association. Its records show that it noted the resident had a “medical vulnerability”. It did not give any further detail on what this vulnerability was.

Policies and procedures

The landlord’s ASB procedure says that:
1. It records all ASB case notes on its system.
2. Complainants deemed at high risk of harm (including those it defines as vulnerable), are referred to a multi-agency meeting.
3. In noise complaint cases, it encourages complainants to contact environmental health. It may ask residents to use the ‘Noise App’, keep ASB diaries or send details of incidents.
4. It completes and issues action plans to the complainant and perpetrator. It considers the mental health issues of perpetrators and works with partner agencies to address ASB.
5. It uses early intervention remedies including verbal and written warnings and Acceptable Behaviour Contracts (ABCs). Community protection notices (CPN) can be issued in partnership with the Council. If early intervention does not work, it will pursue further action “if appropriate, necessary and proportionate”.
6. It notifies complainants before closing ASB cases.
Its complaints procedure has 3 stages, including an informal ‘quick resolution’ stage. If it is unable to meet its timescales, it updates the resident.
It will pay compensation where there is “failure of staff to take reasonable care”. This includes where staff fail to update details which results in detriment to the resident.
Its lettings policy says it lets its properties in a transparent manner. It applies an assessment process which includes considering the support needs of an applicant to determine whether a property is suitable.

Summary of events

Prior to the resident moving to the property on 6 February 2020, the previous tenants reported ASB in the form of noise nuisance from the neighbour, (hereby referred to as the perpetrator), in the next door attached bungalow. The ASB reports included loud banging, shouting, verbal abuse against the previous tenants, playing an instrument in the early morning and loud television. The perpetrators actions were noted by the landlord as being a direct result of his mental health. The landlord moved the previous tenants due to the ASB on 20 January 2020.
In June 2020, the resident made her first report to the landlord of noise nuisance from the perpetrator next door. The noise nuisance included slamming of doors and watching TV at a high volume late at night. The landlord logged an ASB case on 23 July 2020. It spoke with the perpetrator’s support worker and sent a warning letter. It closed the case on 17 November 2020.
Between 20 April 2021 and 15 July 2021, the resident reported further noise nuisance from the perpetrator. She suggested the landlord install door closers to stop the perpetrator slamming his doors. The landlord said that the perpetrator did not have a support worker anymore and that it would be up to him to install door closers.
After the landlord spoke to the perpetrator about his behaviour, the resident said his behaviour got worse. On 21 July 2021, she told the landlord that the noise was having a “detrimental impact” on her whilst she was dealing with ongoing health issues and related trauma. The landlord asked her to take recordings of the noise nuisance by downloading the ‘Noise App’ from its website or contact environmental health who could install recording equipment for her.
On 28 July 2021, the resident uploaded recordings she had taken from her own audio equipment to the landlord’s website. The landlord could not access the recordings, and over the month of August the resident tried to upload them to the landlord’s website without success. The landlord said as the perpetrator was breaching his tenancy and had ignored its warnings, it would take legal action.
On 7 September 2021, the resident requested contact from one of the landlord’s managers. In a letter the resident sent to the landlord on 15 September 2021, she enclosed a CD of her audio recordings and a log of incidents. She reminded the landlord of her vulnerabilities and the impact the ASB was having on her. She requested the landlord reconsider installing door closers in the perpetrator’s property.
The resident’s advocate then spoke with the landlord about door closers and the possibility of soundproofing in the perpetrator’s property. Between 3 November 2021 and 11 November 2021, the landlord said it would install door closers in the perpetrator’s property, but that it could not do this until January 2022 due to a backlog of repairs. It offered a transfer to the resident which she declined. The landlord made enquiries with supporting agencies about the perpetrator. It found out that the perpetrator had a support worker again and made contact with them.
On 1 December 2021, an advisor from The Citizen’s Advice Bureau contacted the landlord on behalf of the resident. It provided letters of support from her GP and cancer consultant who confirmed the impact of the noise on the resident’s health. The advisor asked for the door closer installation in the perpetrators property to be prioritised and for the landlord to consider soundproofing.
On 11 January 2022, the resident raised a complaint. She said:
1. She had requested door closers in the perpetrator’s property that had not been installed.
2. She had supplied several supporting letters from other agencies all stating how the noise was affecting her sleep, which was impacting on her mental and physical health.
3. The landlord had not answered several of her emails or calls.
4. The landlord had said it would visit the perpetrator in October 2021, but she had not been updated. She did not think that the landlord was doing everything it could to resolve things.
After speaking with the resident to discuss her complaint, the landlord issued its “quick resolution” complaint response on 14 January 2022. It said:
1. It had emailed the resident yesterday to advise it needed more time to answer her complaint.
2. It apologised for the lack of communication and updates about the ASB reports. It said it was working with external agencies to reach a resolution and that delays in their responding meant it could not get back to the resident.
3. The door closers would be fitted in the perpetrator’s property on 17 January 2022. It noted this was a significant length of time to wait since they were requested in October 2021.
4. It was still looking into whether it could soundproof the resident’s property. It could visit the resident next week if she would like.
5. It upheld the complaint as the communication was not at the level expected. It was doing everything it could to reach a resolution.
Between 17 January 2022 and 20 January 2022, the perpetrator refused for the landlord’s contractor to install door closers. After further reports of noise from the resident, the landlord said it would visit the perpetrator again. It advised her to call the police if the perpetrator shouted at her through his walls again. It arranged an internal meeting to discuss the case.
The Council ASB team issued the perpetrator with a CPN warning on 25 January 2021. The CPN warning said that:
1. He was not to engage in conduct that was likely to cause nuisance or distress for his neighbours.
2. He had to allow the landlord to install door closers.
Between 31 January 2022 and 8 February 2022:
1. The resident told the landlord that the council ASB team and the police told her to stay away from her property for her safety. She asked for a rent refund for 2 weeks on this basis.
2. The police told the landlord they had not told the resident to move out for her safety. They said they had advised her that moving out could give her a break from the situation.
3. The resident’s GP sent a letter to the landlord asking it to consider soundproofing. This was because the perpetrator’s behaviour was ‘forcing’ the resident to move out of her property.
On 11 February 2022, the landlord’s contractor said it could not fit the door closers in the perpetrators property as the doors were too light. The landlord asked the resident to return to her property as there was no immediate risk of harm to her. It asked her again to download the ‘Noise App’. The landlord raised another works order for the door closers to be fitted on 21 February 2022. The new works order did not mention the contractor’s comments about not being able to fit the door closers before. It also said it would revisit the perpetrator.
On 4 March 2022, the resident’s psychologist contacted the landlord. The psychologist said they could not treat the resident for her PTSD until the ASB from the perpetrator had been resolved. The ASB was having a “significant impact” on the resident’s mental and physical health and as a result she was unable to cook, clean or shower. The resident needed support to capture noise recordings from the perpetrator.
Between 11 March 2022 and 24 March 2022 the landlord visited the perpetrator and saw the door closers had not been fitted. It raised a repairs order for soft door closers to be fitted and for an inspection of the perpetrator’s fireplace. This was after the resident reported smoke coming through into her property. The council ASB team served the perpetrator with a CPN. This repeated the conditions of the original CPN warning.
On 1 April 2022, the resident contacted her councillor about the ASB. The councillor asked the council and the landlord to complete an urgent review into the resident’s case. The council ASB team said it would obtain sound recording equipment from its environmental health team.
An internal landlord staff email on 8 April 2022, discussed the ASB case. A staff member commented about the past behaviour of the perpetrator. They said that the resident “is very unwell and I was a bit aghast…that the property was even allocated to her in the first place with the history” of the perpetrator.
The same day the landlord issued its response to the councillor. It said:
1. The case had been long and difficult and it had liaised with the council, police and mental health services. It recognised that the action taken so far had not resolved the situation. It said that further appropriate action needed to be taken in a timely manner given the resident’s ill health.
2. It had identified “missed opportunities” in its review of the case for which it would apologise to the resident.
3. It had put together an action plan that included:
  1. Completing safeguarding referrals for the resident and perpetrator.
  2. Making urgent contact with the resident to better understand her health and support needs. It would also discuss a transfer with the resident.
  3. It would maintain weekly contact with the resident. It would also arrange to see or visit her.
  4. It would visit the perpetrator with his support worker on 14 April 2022 to discuss the ASB.
  5. It would book a multi-agency meeting as soon as possible to ensure a joined up approach.
  6. It would carry out fortnightly reviews of the case to make sure that it progressed.
The landlord called the resident later that day and offered her a transfer to another property. The resident declined the transfer and asked to speak to a manager. On 11 April 2022 and 14 April 2022, the manager attempted to call the resident but without success.
The resident raised a stage 1 complaint with the landlord on 24 April 2022. She said the complaint was about the way that the landlord had responded to her reports of ASB and noise nuisance caused by the perpetrator. She repeated the issues she had raised at the quick response stage, adding that:
1. The landlord had asked her twice to move instead of dealing with the perpetrator, which she did not think was appropriate.
2. That the only thing the landlord had done, was to get the council ASB team to serve a CPN.
3. The landlord had taken 4 attempts to fit the door closers in the perpetrator’s property. On the third appointment the landlord told her that the closers had been fitted which was not the case.
4. The landlord had ignored her emails and failed to provide her with updates about visiting the perpetrator.
5. She had been given conflicting advice about whether the landlord would install soundproofing. She did not feel this was her responsibility to install.
6. She had already given the landlord a CD containing hours of evidence of perpetrators noise. The landlord had not taken any action.
7. She had asked the landlord before signing the tenancy if there were any problems with the perpetrator and had been assured there were none.
On 5 May 2022, the landlord provided the councillor with an update on the case and support plan. It said:
1. It had made a safeguarding referral but the perpetrator had declined support. His support worker did not attend the joint visit it arranged. He was engaging with the landlord and had signed an ABC today which set out how it expected him to behave. The perpetrator had moved his television at the landlord’s request and said he was using headphones to watch it.
2. The door closers had now been fitted and it had updated the resident. During a visit to the perpetrator, the landlord had tested the doors and noted the doors could not slam with the closers in place. Its review of the repair had shown that its repairs contractor was not clear on what the landlord wanted it to install which is why the previous appointments had failed.
3. The resident had declined a transfer. Its manager had spoken with her on 19 April 2022, and she had requested that all contact go through the councillor. It wanted to keep communication open with the resident and offered dates for a meeting where the councillor could attend to support the resident.
4. It expected the resident to pay her rent as per the tenancy agreement even if she had not been living at the property recently. The police had told the landlord that they did not advise the resident to move out of the property for her safety, but suggested a break away would be helpful. As it was the resident’s choice to move out, it expected her to pay rent.
5. It had not received reports of the perpetrator causing ASB from any other neighbours. It needed the resident to return to the property and record the noise nuisance. The resident could do this by using the ‘Noise App’ or by contacting environmental health who had noise recording equipment.
6. It would try to bring the repairs appointment forward for the resident’s fireplace, but it had a large number of repairs waiting to be completed across all its stock.
On 18 May 2022, the landlord issued its stage 1 complaint response. It upheld the resident’s complaint about its handling of the residents reports of ASB. It repeated what it had told the councillor, adding that:
1. It thanked the resident for her patience as it had extended its response time to fully investigate her complaint. It said that to resolve the ASB was not in the scope of its complaint investigation.
2. It apologised for closing the residents first ASB complaint in November 2020 without notifying her.
3. It was aware there were issues with receiving the resident’s CD evidence. Its neighbourhood team had listened to the recordings and noted that the noise level was “clearly unacceptable.”
4. Due to a number of issues with incorrect materials and internal communications, the door closers were not fitted until 7 April 2022. It apologised for this. This had been raised with its senior management to ensure this did not happen again.
5. It agreed that the resident’s reports of ASB had not been managed in line with its expectations. It had delayed in responding to the resident’s initial reports and delayed in taking action to address the nuisance effectively. There had been a lack of proper note keeping that may have affected the management of the case.
6. The noise issues had now been addressed. It could not evidence current noise nuisance from the perpetrator so could not take further enforcement action against his tenancy. It said that soundproofing had not been proven to be effective when trying to combat noise nuisance, so it would not consider installing it.
7. It was speaking with the council’s environmental health team to see if they could install noise recording equipment. If this equipment recorded noise nuisance from the perpetrator, it would then be able to take further action. It was meeting with the council to further review the resident’s case.
8. It offered the resident £850 compensation for its delay in taking appropriate action to resolve the ASB, and the disruption and distress caused to the resident.
The landlord met virtually with the resident and her councillor on 30 May 2022. The day before the meeting the resident sent the landlord a detailed timeline of events, as well as details of her medical condition. At the meeting, the resident declined the offer of compensation and asked to escalate her complaint to stage 2.
Between 13 June 2022 and 27 June 2022, the landlord spoke with the resident and her councillor about the case. The things they discussed included:
1. The resident said that her treatment for her PTSD was now being withdrawn as a direct result of the landlord’s delays in resolving the ASB. She also said that as the landlord did not have its own sound recording equipment, this was further delaying things.
2. The perpetrator did not want to move and the landlord could not force him to. It would decide if the perpetrator had breached his tenancy based on the findings from the council environmental health team.
3. It was waiting for its repair contractor to book in a date to seal up the perpetrator’s fireplace. It was now considering soundproofing in the resident’s property and was waiting on a report from an external contractor.
4. Information including supporting letters from medical professionals had now been saved on the resident’s case file. It was sorry that its manager who attended the face to face meeting was not aware of these documents at the time.
5. It had invited agencies to a meeting on 23 June 2022 to discuss the perpetrator. Its action plan was under regular review and it was satisfied it was managing the actions. It was having weekly meetings with the council to review the case.
On 28 June 2022, the council environmental health team installed noise recording equipment into the resident’s property. 3 days later, the landlord told the resident that the fireplace had been sealed in the perpetrator’s property.
The council environmental health team provided its noise recording results to the landlord on 19 July 2022. The results showed 3 separate, 2 second incidents of noise at unsociable hours. The landlord discussed the evidence internally and decided that there was not enough evidence to take further action against the perpetrator.
Between 22 July 2022 and 22 August 2022, the resident’s psychologist told the landlord that it was taking the resident off their waiting list for PTSD treatment. This was because the ASB was still going on. Between April 2022 and September 2022, the resident received a number of repairs texts in error that related to the perpetrator’s property. The landlord then provided temporary accommodation for the resident whilst it carried out repairs to the fireplace in her property and started the soundproofing.
The landlord issued its stage 2 complaint response on 25 August 2022. This was the final stage of its complaint’s procedure. It said:
1. It had extended the timeframe for its response several times to resolve repairs to the fireplace and soundproofing which would help to resolve the ASB. It had made the resident aware this would happen.
2. It could not evidence that the resident had asked whether there were problems with the perpetrator before signing the tenancy. It should have taken its knowledge of the perpetrator into account as well as the residents health conditions, before offering her the tenancy. Any disclosure of information about the perpetrator and his ASB history would have been subject to data protection. It was sorry it had not made information available to the resident when she applied for the property.
3. The ASB case that the resident raised between June 2020 and July 2020, had been closed without making the resident aware in November 2020. However, as the resident did not report further ASB until April 2021, it suggests the action it took at the time was effective.
4. In regards to the resident’s ASB reports in 2021, it was sorry it gave an inaccurate timeline in its stage 1 complaint response. It did not respond to the resident’s emails, update her, or form an action plan as it should have. It had demonstrated poor record keeping and internal communication at this time. It did not take the resident’s health and the subsequent impact of the ASB on her into account. It should have responded more urgently to the residents reports of ASB as a result. It had not visited the perpetrator as it should have. It did not ask the resident to keep an ASB log or record the noise until July 2021. It did not escalate the resident’s case to a manager as she had requested.
5. Its communication about fitting the door closers was inadequate. It should have explained to the resident what type of closers could be fitted. It should have explained issues around forcing entry into the perpetrators home if he was uncooperative about having these installed. If it had done this, it would have better managed the resident’s expectations.
6. When the resident had issues uploading her sound recordings to its website in July 2021, it should have taken more action in trying to get this resolved. It had not received the CD recording that the resident had sent on 15 September 2021. It took until 15 October 2021 before it had a copy of the CD recordings. It was sorry for the distress this caused the resident and the time she had spent trying to get her recordings to the landlord.
7. It had not given enough advice to the resident about recording the noise from the perpetrator. Although it had told the resident about the ‘Noise App,’ it did not offer any support on how to use it. The council ASB team had pointed out that the resident was unable to use the ‘Noise App’ and had asked the council environmental health team to install their recording equipment instead.
8. It had not worked effectively with other agencies until April 2022. It had not responded to a request from a support agency involved with the perpetrator between November 2021 and January 2022. Its approach to multi-agency working before April 2022 had been ad-hoc, and it did not put an action plan in place. It was sorry for this as it would have impacted how effectively it had managed the ASB at the time.
9. The landlord said it had not explained its ASB policy or the remedies it could use when the resident reported ASB. It should have explained the legal processes and the evidence required to evict the perpetrator. It could not move or evict the perpetrator without a court order. This information could have helped to manage the resident’s expectations.
10. It had now agreed to install soundproofing in the resident’s property to support the resident in returning to her property. It would not normally do this and the cost to install this was £5000. The soundproofing would be completed by 1 September 2022. It was paying for accommodation chosen by the resident whilst works were carried out.
11. The landlord said it did not apply its complaints procedure as it should have. It dealt with the resident’s complaint in the first instance as a quick resolution. Due to the issues the resident had raised, it should have dealt with the complaint formally at stage 1. It was sorry for this.
12. It had now installed door closers to the perpetrator’s property. It had visited the perpetrator and explained the CPN. It was working with other agencies to monitor the CPN. It had sealed the perpetrators fireplace to stop smoke coming into the resident’s home. In addition to the soundproofing, it reinsulated the loft.
13. The council environmental health team’s recording equipment had found one instance of statutory noise nuisance which they believed was caused by an aircraft. The equipment had recorded three separate instances of noise at unsociable hours lasting between 5 and 10 seconds, but this was not above statutory levels. There was no excessive noise recorded. If the resident experienced further ASB from the perpetrator, it would seek to install noise recording equipment again. It said that soundproofing would not block out all noise from next door, and that the resident may still hear daily living noise.
14. It was unable to reimburse the resident for rent, council tax or utilities whilst she had moved out of her property due to the ASB. This was because her home was available for her use and she was obliged under contract to pay her rent. It had offered the resident a management move to resolve the impact the ASB was having on her, which she had declined.
15. The resident wanted a new housing officer after raising that her housing officer was not professional or respectful when managing her case. The landlord found no evidence of this, but acknowledged the lapse in communication and management of ASB which was not up to its standards. It offered the resident a different point of contact for 3 months with a view to handing back to the resident’s housing officer.
16. The landlord offered the resident £4000 compensation. This was for the distress and inconvenience the resident had experienced, as well as the time and trouble she took to progress her complaint.
17. It provided a list of lessons learnt and identified service improvements it would make which were:
  1. It had provided additional training on ASB case management for staff.
  2. A new ASB procedure was in place with a focus on case management, multi-agency working, risk assessment, communication, and action plans.
  3. It had improved its ASB case management system so that risk assessments were mandatory for staff, and case closure reasons had to be completed. It said this would improve record keeping.
  4. Face to face training with an expert in ASB would be delivered to its staff.
  5. Its managers had a new process for reviewing ASB cases.
  6. It would review where staff were using individual email accounts for speaking with residents as this was reducing visibility.
  7. It would look at introducing a new customer relationship management system to increase visibility of communications with residents for its staff. It would review its contact centre scripts so that residents are told how to escalate issues.
  8. It was improving its communications within its repairs service. It was undertaking work to improve the management of repairs appointments and its communication with residents about repairs appointments.
  9. It was working with other agencies to improve joint working practices.
  10. It was improving its lettings process to introduce sensitive lets which would take account of the history of surrounding and vacant properties.

After the landlord’s stage 2 response

The resident returned to her property on 1 September 2022. She told the landlord that its contractor had left her property in an unreasonable condition. The landlord emailed the resident on 8 September 2022. It offered compensation of £250, agreed to remedy the condition, and apologised.
On 4 September 2022, the resident contacted the police to report further noise nuisance from the perpetrator. The following day the resident contacted the landlord and asked the council ASB team to install further noise recording equipment and said it would visit the perpetrator to check the door closers and discuss the noise.
On 23 September 2022, the resident referred her complaint to this service. Her reasons were:
1. She did not believe door closers had been fitted to the perpetrator’s doors.
2. The soundproofing did not work. The ASB in relation to noise from the perpetrator, was still happening.
3. She had declined the landlord’s £4000 offer of compensation. She felt the landlord should also compensate her for rent and council tax for the time she moved out of her home due to the ASB.
4. Before signing the tenancy, the resident had asked if there were issues with the perpetrator. The landlord did not disclose the perpetrators history and she felt she had been misled.
5. She was unhappy with how the landlord had managed her complaint.

Assessment and findings

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of anti-social behaviour (ASB) from a neighbour, particularly noise nuisance

The landlord was aware of the recent ASB history of the perpetrator before the resident signed the tenancy. Comments from the housing officer on 8 April 2022, evidenced that they were aware of the resident’s ill health and the perpetrators history, and were concerned that she had been offered the property next door to him. Its lettings policy says that it should have considered the resident’s support needs when considering if the property was suitable. The landlord said it had failed to do this in its stage 3 response and apologised. It was reviewing its lettings process to consider sensitive lets in the future.
It is concerning that relevant members of the landlord’s staff did not seem to be aware of the resident’s health conditions, until reading a document submitted by the resident prior to meeting with her on 30 May 2022. The landlord said at the meeting that her health conditions were not recorded on its systems, therefore all of its staff were not aware of her illnesses. Health professionals and supporting agencies, had sent several letters about the resident and her health conditions months before the meeting. The landlord did not record this on its systems until after the meeting. As a result, the landlord may not have treated the resident’s reports of ASB with the seriousness required or acknowledged the impact it could have at the outset.
The landlord acknowledged its failure to record the resident’s supporting letters in its stage 1 complaint response. It also refers to a failure to record notes on its systems when managing the ASB. This is evidence of poor record keeping. As part of its learning outlined in its stage 2 response, the landlord said it had trained staff on recording information and not relying solely on individual work emails as this reduces visibility. It was looking to implement a customer relationship management system as a result.
The resident also received text messages about repairs that related to the perpetrator’s property. This is a further record keeping issue. The landlord made reference to this in its stage 2 response and said it would be looking at how it communicated repairs appointments to its residents. The resident was unaware that these appointments did not relate to her property and the landlord was equally confused when she attempted to cancel the appointments and it could find no record of them. This caused the resident further unnecessary stress and inconvenience.
The landlord’s communication with its repairs contractor was poor around the installation of door closers in the perpetrator’s property. The landlord told the resident after its third visit that the closers had been installed which was not the case. It took 4 visits from the contractor before the repair was completed. This was because the landlord had not been clear in its specification of the type of closer required. The landlord outlines its failings and the subsequent impact on the resident regarding this in its stage 1 response. Learning identified from its stage 2 response, said it will carry out a project to improve communications with its repairs contractor.
At the outset, the landlord did not escalate its actions to the resident’s reports in a timely manner. It raised the resident’s expectations when it said it would take legal action against the perpetrator in August 2021. It failed to explain the burden of proof or process for pursuing legal action against the perpetrator. The landlord identified this as a failing in its stage 2 response and apologised. It further recognised it did not work with other agencies as quickly as it should have. Although it was delayed in doing so, it did work with other agencies to try and resolve the ASB the resident had reported. As part of its learning, it said it carried out ASB case management training with its staff. However, the landlord’s actions appear to have overlooked the need to support the victim in this case. There is no evidence to suggest that it completed the safeguarding referral for the resident or urgently contacted her to assess her needs or regularly updated her as it had committed to do in its action plan from April 2022. The landlord should also have informed the resident about additional support that was available from organisations like Victim Support.
The landlord had listened to the resident’s noise recordings she supplied by CD previously and noted that the noise captured was not reasonable. It sought to capture its own evidence to build a case against the perpetrator. The landlord did not have its own noise recording equipment and relied on the council environmental health team to install their own. The landlord does use the ‘Noise App’, but this was not suitable for the resident’s needs. It was appropriate for it to rely on environmental health’s findings; however, the two-year delay that the resident experienced waiting for specialist recording equipment was unreasonable.
The resident was initially offered £850 compensation in its stage 1 response for distress and delays, which was in line with its compensation procedure. It then offered £4000 in its stage 2 response for its service failings, and the distress caused as a result to the resident. £4000 is a reasonable sum of compensation to offer, considering the severity of the failings and that the landlord also installed soundproofing when it was not obliged to do so.
It agreed to install soundproofing at a cost of £5000 in its stage 2 complaint response. Soundproofing is an improvement rather than a repair, so the landlord was not obliged to do this. It went above and beyond its obligations by installing the soundproofing.
Had the landlord continued to handle the ASB reports as it did at the outset of the resident’s ASB reports, the Ombudsman would have found severe maladministration. However, the landlord was able to evidence that once it was made aware of its failings, it worked closely with other agencies and implemented an action plan. It further listened to the resident and considered her personal circumstances by installing soundproofing. It offered to work with environmental health to install further sound recording equipment if the resident reported further ASB. This was in line with its ASB procedure. It recognised the impact on the resident in its stage 2 response as a result of its initial failings. Due to this, its subsequent actions lead to a finding of reasonable redress.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s formal complaint.

The landlord’s complaints procedure has 3 stages which includes an informal ‘quick resolution’ stage which is at the discretion of staff. The Ombudsman Complaint’s Handling Code is guidance landlords should follow when handling complaints. It says that landlords should log all complaints at stage 1. By having an informal discretionary stage, this prolongs the complaints process for residents. Its discretionary nature impacts on the fairness of its complaints handling process overall.
The landlord acknowledged within its stage 2 complaint response, that it should not have dealt with the resident’s complaint as a ‘quick resolution’. This was due to the complex nature of the complaint and the impact the ASB was having on the resident. It is good that it recognised its failing, but it should consider reviewing its complaints procedure to bring it in line with the Complaints Handling Code.
The landlord delayed its complaints responses but made the resident aware that it would be late. It gave reasons for the delays at each point which was in line with its procedure. The exception was within its stage 2 response, where it notified the resident twice of delays, but did not notify her a third time. When the resident raised this, it apologised and gave a new timeframe which was reasonable.
It issued its stage 3 response around 8 weeks after it had been logged. This was against a target of 20 working days. It extended its response time with the agreement of the resident as it wanted to ensure all works had been carried out, and it had resolved everything it could. It is reasonable that it did this with the resident’s approval. The landlord should be aware however, that the Complaints Handling Code says that it does not have to delay its complaint responses based on waiting for actions to be completed. It could have instead issued its response sooner with the actions that it was going to take and any proposed timeframes for completion.
The landlord’s stage 1 response identified failings with how it had managed the resident’s ASB reports. It did not acknowledge its record keeping failing when logging the resident’s initial report of ASB in 2021. This was picked up in its stage 2 response. It upheld the resident’s complaint and offered compensation for distress, disruption, and failure of staff to take reasonable care. This was in line with its compensation procedure.
Its stage 2 response was detailed and addressed the resident’s points of complaint by citing evidence and giving explanations for its failings. It apologised and presented a plan of service improvements which was linked directly to its learning from the resident’s complaint. It offered appropriate compensation, soundproofing, and paid for temporary accommodation of the resident’s own choosing which met her requirements.
Its explanation for not compensating the resident for loss of rent, council tax and utilities was reasonable as the resident’s tenancy agreement outlines her responsibility to pay for these.
The resident outlined her reasons for bringing her complaint to the Ombudsman. The landlord has provided evidence that shows it fitted soft door closers to the perpetrator’s property. It was not under any obligation to compensate the resident for time she had moved out of the property as per her tenancy agreement. It identified its failing when not advising the resident of issues with the perpetrator before she moved in and apologised. The landlord recognised it should not have dealt with the resident’s complaint at its ‘quick response’ stage and addressed record keeping failures in its stage 2 response that were not picked up in its stage 1 response.
The landlord failed but it put things right by offering compensation, identifying its failings, actioning appropriate learning from its complaints and apologising to the resident. As a result, there is a finding of reasonable redress for the landlord’s handling of the resident’s formal complaint.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 53 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was reasonable redress in respect of:
1. The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of anti-social behaviour (ASB) from a neighbour, particularly noise nuisance.
2. The landlord’s handling of the resident’s formal complaint.
in accordance with paragraphs 42a and 42k of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the following aspects of the complaint are outside of the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction:
1. Whether the soundproofing was installed correctly.
2. The council’s handling of the Community Protection Notice (CPN) and installation of recording equipment.

Reasons

The landlord demonstrated that once it was aware of its failings in handling the resident’s ASB reports, it acted appropriately and in line with its ASB procedure.
It responded to the resident’s complaints in detail, citing evidence, offering apology and identified its failings in its stage 2 complaint response. It identified and implemented learning based on its investigation into the complaint. Its compensation offer was appropriate, taking into account the detriment to the resident that its failings contributed towards. Its reasons for offering the compensation were in line with its compensation procedure.

Orders and recommendations

Recommendations

The landlord should consider reviewing the Ombudsman’s spotlight on Knowledge and Information Management (KIM) in regards to its record keeping.
If it has not done so already, the landlord should pay £4,000 compensation to the resident as outlined in its stage 2 response.
If it has not done so already, the landlord should implement the learning it identified as part of its stage 2 complaint response.
The landlord should consider conducting another inspection of the perpetrator’s property to check that the door closers are still in place. It should let the resident know the outcome of its inspection.
The landlord should consider offering a transfer to the resident.
The landlord should consider reviewing its complaints procedure particularly the informal ‘quick response’ stage, and update this in its next self assessment against the Complaints Handling Code.
The landlord should consider reviewing the Ombudsman’s Spotlight reports on knowledge and information management and noise complaints.
The landlord should consider reviewing its existing policies and processes for identifying and recording vulnerabilities. The landlord should assess against the BSI’s consumer vulnerability standard: ‘Requirements and guidelines for the design and delivery of inclusive service’ (BS ISO 22458).
Confirm in writing to the resident that, upon receipt of new evidence of noise nuisance, the landlord will liaise with the Environmental Health Team to consider if it is appropriate for noise recording equipment to be reinstalled.