Applications are open to join the next Housing Ombudsman Resident Panel – find out more Housing Ombudsman Resident Panel.

A2Dominion Housing Group Limited (202311808)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202311808

A2Dominion Housing Group Limited

26 November 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

  1. The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of antisocial behaviour (ASB) reports made against the resident.

Background

  1. The resident is an assured tenant of the landlord at the property, a top floor flat.
  2. Since 2018, the resident’s neighbour had made reports of noise related nuisance and related ASB being caused by the resident, her family and visitors to her property.
  3. On 13 September 2019 the resident signed an antisocial behaviour contract (ABC) agreement with her landlord. This stated that she would not cause or allow any member of her household or visitor, to cause ASB from her property.
  4. Between September 2019 and January 2022, the resident’s neighbours continued to make reports to the landlord that the resident, her family, and visitors to the property were causing noise nuisance and related ASB. The allegations of ASB included screaming, banging, and jumping on the floors which her neighbours below said was having a negative impact upon them. The landlord also received reports that the resident’s family and visitors were playing loud music late at night and into the early hours of the morning.

 

 

 

  1. During this same period, the landlord sent the resident warning letters which set out the allegations made by her neighbours. It carried out risk assessments as part of its investigation. The landlord also visited the resident’s property and advised her that she had been in breach of her tenancy agreement by installing vinyl/laminated flooring, without asking its permission. The landlord told the resident that she must replace the installed flooring with carpet.
  2. In March 2021 the landlord issued the resident with a notice of seeking possession (NOSP) which it said was due to the resident’s continued breaches of her tenancy agreement. It explained that its investigation had provided evidence that she had continued to cause or allow the noise related ASB to take place from her property.
  3. Between February 2022 and March 2023 the resident’s neighbours continued to make reports that the resident, her family, and her visitors to her property were causing noise nuisance and related ASB. During this time the landlord continued to investigate these allegations. This included gathering evidence and visiting the resident in her property. The landlord continued to send warning letters to the resident in which it detailed her neighbour’s allegations against her. The landlord also explained that it would use any further evidence it captured, as part of its legal action against the resident in which it was seeking possession of her property.
  4. In March 2023 the court did not grant the landlord possession of the resident’s property, and the case was dismissed. On 9 March 2023 the landlord told the resident that it had closed its ASB investigation following the court’s decision.
  5. On 11 March 2023 the resident raised a stage one complaint about how the landlord had handled the allegations made by her neighbours, about her being responsible for noise nuisance and related ASB. She said the landlord demonstrated no duty of care towards her during its investigation. The resident said she had attempted to cooperate with the landlord throughout the process. She had also made repeated requests for the landlord’s surveyor to inspect the sound proofing at her property, which she said was inadequate and a cause of the ASB. The resident said the landlord should have done more to avoid taking its investigation to the courts, including that alternatively, it should have transferred the resident or her neighbour to another property.

 

 

 

 

  1. The landlord provided its stage one complaint response on 5 April 2023. The landlord said it had a duty to investigate the complaints of ASB that had been reported to it, by her neighbour’s. It also explained that it had remained impartial throughout its investigation. The landlord said it had accepted the judgement of the court and that it sympathised that the resident felt distressed by the court process. The landlord advised the resident that it did not consider transferring a resident to another property as a resolution to tackling ASB. The resident said she was unhappy with the landlord’s response and requested it escalate her complaint.
  2. On 16 June 2023 the landlord provided its final response to the resident’s complaint. The landlord said it was sorry the resident felt that it had not considered the distress and inconvenience caused to her throughout its investigation and subsequent court hearing. The landlord explained it had acted in line with its own ASB policy and procedures whilst carrying out its investigation into her neighbours’ allegations. This included that it obtained legal advice, in which it presented the evidence of its investigation, that then ultimately led to the landlord taking legal action against the resident.
  3. The resident remained dissatisfied with the landlord’s final response to her complaints. She brought her complaints to the Ombudsman, stating her desired outcome was for the landlord to apologise, provide compensation and to assist her in transferring her to another property.

Assessment and findings

  1. When investigating a complaint, the Ombudsman applies its Dispute Resolution Principles. There are three principles driving effective dispute resolution: Be fair – treat people fairly and follow fair processes, put things right, and learn from outcomes.
  2. The Ombudsman must consider whether a failing on the part of the landlord occurred, and if so, whether this led to any adverse effect or detriment to the resident. If it is found that a failing did lead to an adverse effect, the investigation will consider whether the landlord has taken enough action to ‘put things right’ and ‘learn from outcomes.

Scope of Investigation

  1. It is outside our role to establish whether someone has committed ASB but rather we will assess the landlord’s handling of the ASB reports. We will consider whether the landlord’s response was fair and reasonable in view of all the circumstances, taking into account its legal obligations, its own internal policies and industry best practice.
  2. Paragraph 42.a. of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme states that we may not consider complaints which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion are made prior to having exhausted a landlord’s complaints procedure.
  3. The resident has advised the Ombudsman that she is currently dissatisfied with the following:
    1. The landlord continues to receive reports from her neighbours that she is causing noise related nuisance and ASB.
    2. In October 2024 the landlord refused to move her into temporary accommodation whilst its contractors complete works to her flooring.
  4. The Ombudsman will deal with the resident’s complaints from February 2022, until the landlord’s final complaint response on 1 June 2023. This is because the landlord needs to have the opportunity to consider the resident’s further complaints, as referred to above before the Ombudsman assesses them. If the resident remains dissatisfied with the landlord’s handling of the above, she can make a new complaint to the landlord about this. If the landlord is then unable to resolve matters to her satisfaction through its complaints process, she may be able to refer the complaint to this service for investigation at that stage, once she has received the landlord’s final response to these points.
  5. Section 42.c. of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme states that we may not consider complaints which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion were not brought to the landlord as a formal complaint within a reasonable period which would normally be within 12 months of the matters arising.
  6. The Ombudsman has taken into consideration that the resident has said that her neighbour’s have been making reports of ASB about her since 2018. The Ombudsman does not doubt what the resident has said. We also accept that these allegations will have had a strong negative impact on the resident’s wellbeing and mental health. However, as events become historic it can become more difficult for the landlord or the Ombudsman to assess what happened. Recollections fade over time and landlords are not obliged to keep detailed records of ASB reports indefinitely. Therefore, in line with the Scheme the Ombudsman will only consider the landlord’s handling of the reported ASB between February 2022 to its final complaint response provided on 1 June 2023. Any matters referenced in this report that are outside of this period are only referred to in order to provide context as part of the complaint. They do not form part of the Ombudsman’s assessment.

 

 

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

  1. The landlord’s antisocial behaviour (ASB) policy defines ASB as conduct which is capable of causing nuisance or annoyance to any person, and directly or indirectly relates to or affects the housing management function of the landlord; causes harassment, alarm, or distress; or consists of or involves using or threatening to use housing accommodation owned or managed by a relevant landlord for an unlawful purpose.
  2. The landlord’s ASB policy states that where possible it will use a range of non-legal and negotiated methods to resolve matters of ASB. It provides examples which are not limited but include mediation, warnings, acceptable behaviour contacts (ABC), and working with other third-party agencies.
  3. This policy also states that the landlord will take enforcement action where it considers the matter to be necessary and appropriate, and where the ASB persists. The landlord will issue a formal warning in writing to the alleged perpetrator if it considers taking legal action. It will then seek legal advice on what the most appropriate course of action and provides a list of examples that it may take, which includes seeking injunctions, community protection orders, and possession proceedings.
  4. The resident’s tenancy agreement with the landlord states that she will not make any improvements, alterations, or additions to the property without first getting the written permission of the landlord. This includes installing laminate and wooden flooring. If a resident does not seek the landlord’s permission, any works completed may be removed by the landlord with any costs incurred being charged to the resident.
  5. On 14 February 2022 the landlord sent an ASB warning letter to the resident. This said that her neighbour below had reported excessive noise by the resident, her family members, and visitors to the property. It described 3 separate incidents of noise nuisance which included loud banging noises until 3.30am, and loud music being played until 11.25pm. The landlord explained in its letter that although it had already commenced court proceedings, it continued to investigate and would collate the reports of ASB by her neighbours. This was a reasonable course of action because the landlord has a duty to investigate reports of ASB and it was right it advised the resident that it had continued to do so.

 

 

  1. On 23 June 2022 the landlord carried out a home visit to the resident’s property. It advised the resident that she had laid the carpet on top of the wooden flooring that she had previously altered in her property. Therefore, she had not replaced the wooden flooring as requested. The landlord advised the resident to replace the wooden flooring with underlay, and then by the carpet which would minimise the noise impacting the neighbours below. It was appropriate the landlord carried out the home visit as part of its investigation into the reports of ASB. It was also reasonable it asked for the flooring to be returned to carpet and underlay. The Ombudsman has seen correspondence that the resident had been informed 2 years before that she had not been given permission to install the wooden flooring. This was a breach of her tenancy agreement. Therefore it was reasonable and in line with her tenancy agreement, as set out above that the landlord said works to replace the flooring would be carried out at her own cost.
  2. Between September 2022 and December 2022 the landlord sent the resident 2 further warning letters detailing allegations made by her neighbours of excessive noise, coming from her property. It asked the resident to ensure the noise from her property was kept to a minimum between 11pm and 7am, to reduce the negative impact on her neighbours. This was a reasonable response by the landlord. This is because it has a responsibility to all of its residents that it takes appropriate and proportionate action to investigate ASB. Landlords have a responsibility to seek opportunities to minimise the impact of ASB on its residents. This includes through engagement with all parties, in order to seek to resolve the ASB. The Ombudsman considers the use of, and language used in the landlord’s warning letters over this period, were proportionate in the circumstances and were issued in line with its ASB policy, as set out above. As explained above, the Ombudsman is not commenting on whether the resident was committing ASB, we are assessing whether the landlord’s response to the allegations was appropriate in view of the available evidence.
  3. On 9 March 2023 the landlord wrote to the resident stating that following the court’s decision to dismiss its case to seek possession of her property, the landlord had closed its ASB investigation. The landlord explained that if it received any substantiated reports in the future that it may open another ASB case against her. The Ombudsman is not commenting on the decision by the court to dismiss the case brought by the landlord. However, it was an appropriate response by the landlord to write to the resident in order to update her that it had closed its ASB case against her, following the court’s decision.

 

 

  1. On 11 March 2023 the resident raised a complaint to the landlord, stating that it had not shown a duty of care towards her. She said that she had cooperated throughout its ASB investigation, and that the landlord failed to consider other options available to it before taking legal action against her. The Ombudsman understands that the resident’s experience of having to attend the court hearings in these circumstances have caused her distress and inconvenience. However, the evidence reviewed by the Ombudsman show that the landlord carried out a reasonable and proportionate investigation into her neighbours’ reports of ASB. Over the years of its investigation the landlord attempted to implement alternative, non-legal solutions in order to resolve the ASB issues being raised. These included warning letters, home visits and the use of ABC contracts. Therefore, the Ombudsman does not consider that the distress and inconvenience felt by the resident was due to errors or failings in the landlord’s handling of this case.
  2. The Ombudsman is aware that the resident attempted to engage in mediation and that it was the complainant who did not engage. The Ombudsman is not commenting on the actions of the resident’s neighbour. Mediation is voluntary and both the resident and neighbour had the right to refuse to participate if they wished to. However, it was reasonable that the landlord made attempts to use this method in its attempt to resolve the ASB and noise nuisance being raised.
  3. The landlord’s investigation into the allegations it received that the resident was responsible for the ASB coming from her property included the landlord obtaining legal advice. This was based on the evidence it had gathered that the resident, her family members, and visitors were causing noise nuisance related ASB. It was reasonable that following the landlord taking legal advice, that the landlord acted upon the legal advice it was given. The landlord also communicated its intentions about this process with the resident in its correspondence with her. The Ombudsman is not commenting on the legal advice the landlord was given. However overall, the Ombudsman considers the landlord’s actions, and level of communication including whilst it implemented the escalation of legal proceedings to have been appropriate, and in line with its ASB policy, and best practice.
  4. The resident told the landlord that she believed it could have transferred her to another property as an alternative to taking legal action against her. In the landlord’s stage one complaint response on 5 April 2023, it explained to the resident that it would not transfer a resident to another property as part of it seeking a resolution in tackling ASB. It directed the resident on how she could seek a mutual exchange.

 

 

  1. The Ombudsman is aware the resident has taken the landlord’s information and is currently looking to transfer to another property. The landlord’s response was appropriate in these circumstances. This is because it would not be considered a proportionate response to move an alleged perpetrator of ASB, as in these circumstances. It would also not be in line with its ASB policy as the landlord explained to the resident in its communication with her. It was also appropriate that the landlord explained to the resident how she could seek to apply for a transfer to another property.
  2. The resident has also suggested that the landlord move her neighbour as a solution to the dispute. The landlord could only move the neighbour if they wished to move and this would be dependent on the landlord finding a suitable property within its stock for them to move to. Neither the landlord nor the Ombudsman can share personal information about other residents without their consent. Therefore, we cannot comment on the neighbour’s housing situation any further or the reasons why the landlord has not moved the neighbour to resolve the ASB dispute.
  3. The landlord’s overall handling of the reports it received is considered to have been appropriate given regard to all the circumstances. Therefore, the Ombudsman makes a finding of no maladministration for the landlord’s handling of the antisocial behaviour (ASB) reports made against the resident. The landlord does not need to do anything further regarding this aspect of the complaint but it should continue to communicate with the resident appropriately regarding the more recent ASB reports it has received about her.

Determination (decision)

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was no maladministration by the landlord in respect of its handling of antisocial behaviour (ASB) reports made against the resident.