Eastlight Community Homes Limited (202341576)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202341576

Eastlight Community Homes Limited

8 April 2025

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 of reports of antisocial behaviour (ASB).
The Ombudsman has also investigated the landlord’s complaint handling.

Background

The resident lives in a first-floor flat, with her husband, under an assured tenancy agreement. The resident has described that the property as a maisonette and, at the time of the events complained about, she was only able to access the shed which is part of the property by walking through her downstairs neighbour’s (the neighbour’s) garden. The resident’s husband is a joint complainant for this case but both he and she are referred to as ‘the resident’ for clarity.
The resident complained to the landlord on 30 January 2024 about its handling of the ASB case it had opened about the neighbour.
The landlord issued its stage 1 complaint response on 21 February 2024. In this it:
1. said it had opened an ASB case in October 2023 but acknowledged the resident had been reporting concerns about the neighbour before this.
2. outlined that it had categorised the ASB case as noise nuisance, though it was aware that the resident disagreed with this. It said it had had regular communication with the resident about the ASB and the resident had submitted recordings via the noise app.
3. said it had decided not to take formal action against the neighbour on the basis of the evidence she had provided and had made a referral for mediation. It said it was still waiting on the neighbour’s acceptance of this.
4. said it understood that the resident was unhappy about how the ASB had been handled and it had agreed to:
  1. carry out unannounced visits to the property to see how the issues with the communal areas and neighbour’s garden were normally.
  2. review the resident’s previous evidence of the noise nuisance.
  3. create a regular contact arrangement to update the resident on the case.
  4. discuss the noise issues with the local authority as a possible statutory nuisance.
The resident told us she escalated her complaint around 10 April 2024. She advised the Ombudsman at the time that the ASB was ongoing and she considered the landlord was not following its policies and procedures.
The landlord issued its stage 2 complaint response on 2 May 2024. In this it:
1. accepted it had delayed creating a risk assessment for the resident’s ASB case. It said it had created a further risk assessment from its conversations with her and would continue to monitor this.
2. said it had carried out the actions agreed from its stage 1 response and had served the neighbour with a ‘good neighbour agreement’ on 25 March 2024.
3. said it was aware of the resident’s ongoing reports of noise nuisance from the neighbour. It told her it would need evidence of sustained incidents before it would consider taking further action against the neighbour.
4. said it would look at alternative solutions to allow the resident to get direct access to her shed without needing to access the neighbour’s garden.
5. stated it would continue with the actions agreed from its stage 1 response to monitor the ASB case. It asked the resident to report any further incidents as these arise.
The resident remained dissatisfied with the landlord’s response and said that the ASB was ongoing. She said that she wanted the landlord to review its handling of the ASB case and to acknowledge the impact the ASB had on her and her husband.

Assessment and findings

Scope

The resident told the Ombudsman that the ASB from the neighbour has been ongoing since the landlord’s stage 2 response, up to the date of this report.
The landlord confirmed to us that the resident had made a further complaint to it in November 2024 and this was currently at stage 1 of its complaint process. It said this was in relation to its handling of the ASB case following its previous response and for a financial loss the resident experienced from the landlord’s handling of alterations to the shed for the property
In line with paragraph 42.a. of the Scheme the landlord should have the opportunity to respond to this new complaint through its complaints procedure before we may investigate. This investigation therefore considers the resident’s complaint that exhausted the landlord’s complaint process on 2 May 2024.

The landlord’s records handling

The Ombudsman expects landlords to maintain a robust record of contacts, repairs, and services provided. This is because clear, accurate, and easily accessible records provide an audit trail and enhance landlords’ ability to identify and respond to problems when they arise.
It is the Ombudsman’s opinion that the landlord has failed to maintain adequate records, which has impacted our ability to carry out a thorough investigation, as highlighted at various points throughout this report. This was a failure by the landlord and contributed to the other failures identified in this report.

The landlord’s handling of reports of ASB

The landlord’s ASB policy, at the time of the events complained about, said that it would take a victim-centred approach to take reasonable and proportionate action on ASB quickly and decisively. The ASB policy categorised reported ASB depending on seriousness, these were:
1. category A – serious criminal behaviour.
2. category B – serious ASB. This included issues such as ‘verbal abuse’, ‘vandalism / property damage’ and ‘alcohol–related ASB’.
3. category C – nuisance disputes and behaviour. This included issues such as ‘noise nuisance’, ‘misuse of communal areas’, ‘youth nuisance’ and pets/animal nuisance’.
The landlord’s ASB policy also said it would not take action where a complaint concerned behaviour which “results from different lifestyles”, or which would not generally be considered to be unreasonable or ASB. It said for this type of report it would offer alternative solutions such as mediation. Examples which the landlord said it would not consider to be ASB included:
1. babies crying or children playing.
2. DIY noise.
3. general living noise.
4. one-off parties and similar events.
From the available records the evidence shows the landlord opened the ASB case on 23 October 2023. It recorded the reported ASB as being that the neighbour was:
1. blocking access to the resident’s shed and the communal areas by dumping rubbish.
2. creating a noise nuisance from playing loud music, slamming doors and using a punching bag.
3. leaving their dog unattended for a long period of time.
The landlord recorded the reported ASB as category C. It spoke to the resident on the same day to discuss the reported ASB and sent her diary sheets to record the issues she was experiencing. This was reasonable as it was consistent with its ASB policy.
The landlord recorded that it received the completed diary sheets from the resident on 14 November 2023. These referred to the noise created by the neighbour and nuisance caused by their dog, the resident did not tell the landlord about further incidents of the neighbour blocking access to her shed or the communal areas.
The landlord wrote to the resident on 16 November 2023 to acknowledge the diary sheets. In its email the landlord explained:
1. it was unclear whether the resident had discussed the issues with the neighbour and the impact this behaviour had on her. It recommended that the resident raise her concerns with the neighbour directly as a first step to resolve the issues.
2. it could only act against a perpetrator of ASB if it had evidence. It advised the resident about using the noise app to capture the level of noise nuisance and that she could submit this to the landlord as evidence. The landlord said it would review these and would speak to her neighbour if the noise levels were unacceptable.
3. it said, if there was evidence that the neighbour was creating a noise nuisance and this did not improve after it had spoken to them, it would recommend mediation as a solution.
This was reasonable as it was consistent with the landlord’s ASB policy. The landlord responded quickly and the approach it recommended was proportionate to the severity of the ASB reported. It also clearly explained how it would escalate the case if initial attempts to resolve the reported ASB were unsuccessful.
The resident sent in recordings of the noise from the neighbour over the following weeks. On 14 December 2023 the landlord spoke to the resident who said that:
1. there were ongoing issues with the neighbour in terms of noise and rubbish being left in the communal areas of the property.
2. they had previously attempted to speak to the neighbour about these issues but found them quite aggressive and did not feel comfortable raising it further.
3. they were happy for the landlord to contact the neighbour to discuss the allegations and they would be willing to take part in mediation.
The landlord contacted the neighbour on 14 December 2024. In this it:
1. outlined the nature of the alleged ASB.
2. said that it had reviewed the noise recordings and found the noise from their punchbag to be “very prominent and very persistent”.
3. asked to meet with them to discuss the allegations on 21 December 2023. It asked them to be respectful of the resident in the meantime and to keep the noise from their punchbag and music to a reasonable level.
The landlord’s actions here were reasonable. It acted in line with the approach it explained to the resident previously and responded quickly and proportionately in line with its ASB policy.
From the available records the landlord did not proceed with the planned meeting on 21 December 2023 due to staff illness. The resident sent several emails to the landlord over the Christmas period reporting ongoing noise nuisance from the neighbour in terms of loud music and DIY at unreasonable hours. Though we recognise that the delay in the meeting taking place was not in the landlord’s control, it would have been good customer service to have made the resident aware of its plan to meet with the neighbour which would have been in line with its ASB policy of taking a victim-centred approach to reported ASB. It did not do this, which was not reasonable.
The landlord contacted the neighbour on 17 January 2024 to discuss the alleged ASB. It recorded:
1. the neighbour believed they and the resident had resolved the issues as they had discussed things with her.
2. the neighbour said the complaints about rubbish in the communal area were old and they had dealt with these when the problems were raised.
3. the neighbour denied that they played loud music or did DIY at night and felt the resident’s complaint was unjustified. The landlord noted that the recent noise recordings provided by the resident reflected that there was not unreasonable noise from the neighbour’s property.
The landlord contacted the resident later on 17 January 2024. In this it:
1. said it had spoken to the neighbour and had arranged to look at the condition of their property the following week.
2. apologised if the resident considered it was trivialising her complaint. However, it explained it considered there was not evidence of ASB from the recordings she had submitted and it considered that this was general household noise.
3. said its recommendation remained that mediation was the next step and it would contact her about this after it had visited the neighbour’s property.
The landlord’s response was appropriate. It explained that how it had considered the recent noise app recordings to be general living noise. Its decision that this was not ASB and its recommendation to pursue mediation was consistent with its ASB policy.
The landlord visited the neighbour’s property on 24 January 2024. It recorded:
1. the communal area and area around the shed were clear.
2. The neighbour’s garden was well kept though some rubbish was present. It advised the neighbour to store any loose bin bags in their black bin to prevent rubbish spilling out.
3. as both parties had agreed to mediation the landlord did not intend to take further action.
This was reasonable. The landlord did what it told the resident it would do. Its decision to continue with mediation was consistent with its ASB policy as it considered there was no evidence of ASB by the neighbour from the visit.
At the time of the resident’s complaint on 30 January 2024 the landlord completed a risk assessment for the ASB case. Although there was no set timescale for completing a risk assessment in the landlord’s ASB policy, it was not reasonable for the landlord to have waited over 3 months to do this after opening the ASB case. Additionally as part of her response to the landlord on 17 January 2024, the resident claimed that the neighbour had vandalised her shed and been drunk and verbally aggressive towards a member of the landlord staff who came to fix this. There is no evidence that the resident had given the landlord information about this incident at the time. However, this could have been considered serious ASB in line with category B of the landlord’s policy and there is no evidence that the landlord reviewed the risk assessment at the time of this allegation.
On 31 January 2024 the resident contacted the landlord about the neighbour’s children climbing on the shed which she said she considered to be an invasion of her privacy. The landlord said it would speak to the neighbour and highlight that this could not happen again but explained to resident that its main concern was from a safety perspective. This was a reasonable response in line with the landlord’s ASB policy for an allegation of youth nuisance and the landlord clearly explained to the resident how it would address this.
Following 31 January 2024 until the stage 1 response of 21 February 2024 there was no evidence that the resident made reports of further ASB and the landlord contacted both parties about mediation. The landlord noted the neighbour did not respond to the consent form to begin the process. As set out in paragraph 5 of this report the landlord agreed with the resident to take additional action to resolve the ASB case in its stage 1 response.
On 28 February 2024 the landlord contacted the resident. It said:
1. it would arrange an unannounced visit to the property today.
2. it understood from the resident the noise nuisance had subsided from the neighbour and the main issue now was access to her shed and the neighbour’s children climbing on it. It said it would make a referral to move the shed and speak further to the neighbour about the alleged ASB.
3. from now on it would update the resident every other week about the ASB case. It told the resident any urgent problem with ASB could be raised with the police.
The landlord recorded from its unannounced visit that there was a large amount of rubbish in the communal areas and the neighbour’s garden. It attempted to discuss this with them but they did not answer the door. The landlord contacted the neighbour by email on 29 February 2024 and told them:
1. the resident had said the loud music had stopped which was a positive step.
2. they need to make sure their children do not climb on the shed as this is a shared facility and a safety issue.
3. from the photographs and visit there was a large amount of rubbish present as the resident had alleged. It said the neighbour should address this as it is unsightly.
4. it would visit the property again on 13 March 2024.
The landlord’s response was appropriate as it was consistent with what it had agreed to do to resolve the case in its stage 1 response. In line with its policy it took reasonable and proportionate action to move forward with the case given the evidence of ongoing ASB and the neighbour’s lack of engagement with mediation.
On 13 March 2024 the landlord attended the property. It recorded:
1. the communal areas were clear of rubbish and the neighbour’s garden looked “slightly better” than the last visit. However, it was still necessary to move rubbish bags out of the way to reach the resident’s shed.
2. the resident said the noise nuisance had restarted. The landlord advised her to continue sending in Noise App recordings as evidence of this.
The landlord issued the neighbour with a good neighbour agreement on 25 March 2024 which they signed. As part of this the neighbour agreed to:
1. not act in a manner that causes alarm or distress to the resident.
2. be respectful and not engage in negative communication with the resident.
3. to understand that the resident had a different lifestyle which they are allowed to live in a reasonable way (in relation to the alleged noise nuisances from the neighbour).
4. not to enter the resident’s property boundary for any reason without her agreement.
The landlord’s actions here were reasonable. It took reasonable and proportionate action in line with its ASB policy to escalate the case after the neighbour had not engaged with the proposed mediation and there were continuing allegations of ASB.
On 28 March 2024 the landlord recorded that it had reviewed the further noise app recordings provided by the resident. It stated there was not evidence of unreasonable noise that would be ASB as the neighbour was playing music during reasonable times of day and it was not sustained noise over a long period.
Due to a lack of adequate records though, there is no evidence of how the landlord handled the resident’s ASB case after 28 March 2024 until its stage 2 response on 2 May 2024. This was a failing as we cannot see the landlord:
1. told the resident it considered the alleged noise nuisance was not ASB in order to manage her expectations about how it would respond to this.
2. kept to its previous agreement to update the resident about her ASB case fortnightly.
3. responded to the resident’s concerns the neighbour was not acting in line with the signed good neighbour agreement.
In the landlord’s stage 2 complaint response it accepted that there had been a delay in completing a risk assessment for the resident’s ASB case. It apologised for this and confirmed it had created another risk assessment based on discussions with her. It also noted that the resident had enacted the community trigger and said it would participate fully with this and work with the local authority and police.
The landlord’s apology was reasonable to address the specific failing about the risk assessment as there is no evidence the delay in completing this affected the outcome of the ASB case. However, there is no evidence that the landlord acknowledged the other failings this investigation has identified and the distress and inconvenience this evidently caused the resident. As such, in line with our guidance on remedies, the Ombudsman has decided that there was a service failure by the landlord as its action was not fully proportionate to the failings identified.
In terms of an outcome the resident told us she wanted the landlord to review its handling of her case and acknowledge her expenses. The resident told us that her expenses were for loss of wages, as a result of loss of sleep from the noise nuisance, and needing to pay for the shed to be altered so she could access this. As set out in paragraph 10 of this report we have seen that the issue with making alterations to the shed was raised in the later complaint, which has not completed the landlord’s complaint process. Therefore we will not make an order for this in this investigation. In line with our guidance on remedies the Ombudsman also does not provide remedies for loss of wages. We have however made an order for the landlord to provide a financial remedy for the distress and inconvenience caused by its actions.
In summary there was a service failing by the landlord, in that it did not:
1. inform the resident of its plan to meet with the neighbour in December 2023 in line with its victim-centered approach to ASB.
2. complete a risk assessment for the ASB case for 3 months.
3. take action to update the resident and progress her ASB case between 28 March 2024 to 2 May 2024.

The landlord’s complaint handling

The landlord operates a 2–stage complaints process. Its complaints policy says that it will respond to a stage 1 complaint within 10 working days of logging the complaint. It will respond at stage 2 within 20 working days of the resident escalating the complaint.
The Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code) sets out the Ombudsman’s expectations for how landlords should handle complaints. The Code encourages landlords to adopt a positive complaint-handling culture that enables them to resolve disputes, improve the quality of the service they provide, and ensure that complaints provide an opportunity for learning and improvement.
From the records the resident emailed the landlord on 14 January 2024 to say she was unhappy with how her ASB case had been handled. She specified that she wanted the landlord to consider this as a formal complaint. She reiterated her complaint the following day.
The landlord did not open a formal complaint. It told the Ombudsman that it considered the resident’s request as a “service request to review the ASB case”. This was not appropriate. In line with the Code we expect the landlord to recognise the difference between a service request (where the resident requests a landlord to take action to put something right) and a complaint. Where a resident raises dissatisfaction with a service request a complaint should be raised and, in line with the Code, the landlord must accept the complaint unless it has a valid reason not to do so. In this case it was clear the resident was raising a complaint about the action the landlord had taken to put right her reports of ASB it should therefore have raised a complaint in line with the Code.
The resident complained again on 30 January 2024 about the landlord’s handling of the ASB and that it had ignored her previous complaints. The landlord acknowledged this complaint on the same day. This was appropriate in line with the timescales of its policy and the Code.
The landlord issued its stage 1 response on 24 February 2024, 19 working days after it acknowledged the stage 1 complaint. This was inappropriate as it was not consistent with the timescales of the landlord’s policy or the Code.
Due to a lack of adequate records we have not seen a copy of the resident’s request to escalate the complaint with the landlord or any communication it had with the resident about the stage 2 complaint before it issued its response. The landlord said in response to our request it believed the escalation request had been sent to a specific member of its staff who had since left the organisation and it could not provide us with a copy of the escalation request.
This was inappropriate. We would expect the landlord to have logged and retained such a key document. The Code says that landlords must keep a full record of the complaint, including the original complaint, all correspondence with the resident and relevant supporting documentation relating to the complaint.
From the available evidence and the resident’s communication with us the resident escalated her complaint around 10 April 2024 in relation to ongoing ASB and the neighbour not acting in line with the good neighbour agreement. The landlord issued its stage 2 response on 2 May 2024, 16 working days later. This would be appropriate in line with the Code. However, as we do not have a copy of the stage 2 escalation there were failings by the landlord compared to the Code as:
1. we cannot see that it defined the stage 2 complaint with the resident to understand why she was unhappy with its previous response and what outcome she was seeking.
2. we cannot say it addressed all points in the complaint definition, as there is no record of this.
3. though the information given in the stage 2 response about its handling of the ASB case was accurate from the other records, we cannot say whether or not it gave clear reasons for its decisions. This is because there is no record of which aspects of its handling of the ASB it understood that the resident was dissatisfied with.
The landlord acknowledged the delay in providing the stage 1 response and apologised for this. However, it did not acknowledge its other complaint handling failings or offer any other remedy to the resident. This was not appropriate given the likely frustration and inconvenience caused to the resident. In line with our guidance on remedies there was a failure which adversely affected the resident which the landlord has not put right. This meets the criteria for a finding of maladministration.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme there was service failure in the landlord’s handling of the reports of ASB.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme there was maladministration in the landlord’s complaint handling.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

The landlord must within 28 days of this determination:
1. issue the resident with a written apology. The landlord must recognise its failings identified in this report and the impact these had on the resident.
2. pay the resident a total of £200 in compensation comprised of:
  1. £100 for the resident’s distress and inconvenience caused by its handling of her ASB case.
  2. £100 in recognition of the time and trouble of pursuing a complaint and the frustration caused by the failures in the landlord’s complaint handling.
3. provide the Ombudsman with evidence of compliance with these orders. The compensation should be paid directly to the resident and not used to offset any monies she may owe the landlord.

Recommendation

The Ombudsman recommends that the landlord conduct a review of this case to identify learning and improve working practices. This should include consideration of:
1. how the complaint handling failings occurred and how the landlord will make improvements to reduce the likelihood of a reoccurrence.
2. any staff training that may improve its future response to similar cases.