Camden Council (202003074)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202003074

Camden Council

14 March 2024

Our approach

The Housing Ombudsman’s approach to investigating and determining complaints is to decide what is fair in all the circumstances of the case. This is set out in the Housing Act 1996 and the Housing Ombudsman Scheme (the Scheme). The Ombudsman considers the evidence and looks to see if there has been any ‘maladministration’, for example, whether the landlord has failed to keep to the law, followed proper procedure, followed good practice, or behaved in a reasonable and competent manner.

Both the resident and the landlord have submitted information to the Ombudsman, and this has been carefully considered. Their accounts of what has happened are summarised below. This report is not an exhaustive description of all the events that have occurred in relation to this case, but an outline of the key issues as a background to the investigation’s findings.

The complaint

The complaint is about:
1. The landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of anti-social behaviour (ASB) and noise nuisance.
2. The landlord’s response to the resident’s complaint.

Background and summary of events

The resident holds a secure tenancy with the landlord. The property is a one bedroom flat on the second floor. The landlord’s records have noted that the resident suffers from a number of mental health conditions, including post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD).
The resident contacted the landlord on several occasions in 2020. He reported issues with four different neighbours, but two in particular were causing him the most concern. He said that one neighbour was loud and could be heard screaming and shouting. The other he reported had a “drug addict boyfriend” who brought his associates back to the communal stairwell to congregate. He alleged both flats had insufficient floor coverings, which contributed to the noise he was hearing.
On 29 November 2020 the resident contacted the landlord and said he felt that his reports were not being taken seriously. He believed the landlord was not acting impartially and reported he felt suicidal. The landlord issued a stage 1 response on 4 February 2021. It said it had taken appropriate actions to follow up on the information he had provided but the allegations he had made had been unsubstantiated. It offered to meet with him to discuss any support needs he might have.
The resident responded and said he was disappointed that the complaint response had not addressed the impact the situation had on him. The landlord contacted the resident to discuss his reasons for an escalation of the complaint and met with him on 22 March 2021. On 8 April 2021 the resident informed the landlord he had “no need to complain any further” and expressed he wanted to focus on moving. There was no further contact between both parties until September 2021. The resident made sporadic reports of noise nuisance thereafter.
On 9 September 2022 the resident said he wanted to make a complaint about the same neighbour. He said the lack of adequate flooring meant he was disturbed by children playing. The landlord issued a final response on 20 October 2022. It acknowledged that the situation had caused the resident distress, but said he had not reported issues of noise nuisance for a considerable period of time. It was satisfied the stage 1 response was appropriate to the issues he had reported at the time, and reassured him it wanted to continue to work with him to address any concerns he had. It said a meeting would take place with his housing officer and the police “soon”.
The resident responded and said he was disappointed with the outcome and action should have been taken against his neighbours in 2021. In recent contact with the Ombudsman, the resident has said that he remains disturbed by noise coming from his next door neighbour as a result of inadequate flooring.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

It is noted that the resident has reported ASB and noise nuisance from several neighbours since 2015. It may help to explain the scope of an Ombudsman investigation can be time-limited in relation to when a complaint was brought to the landlord’s attention. This assessment is therefore focussed on the landlord’s response to the resident’s formal complaint, which is broadly reflected in the above timeline.

The landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of anti-social behaviour (ASB) and noise nuisance.

It is acknowledged that the situation has been distressing for the resident. It may help to explain that the role of the Ombudsman is to consider complaints about how the landlord responded to reports of ASB and noise. It is not the Ombudsman’s role to decide if the actions of the resident’s neighbours amounted to ASB, but rather, whether the landlord dealt with the resident’s reports appropriately and reasonably.
The landlord did not provide copies of a specific ASB policy. Since we unable to find similar documents online, the landlord’s “Tenants’ Guide” and “noise nuisance guidelines” were used for the purposes of this assessment. The Tenants’ Guide contains a section on ASB and nuisance. It sets out the following options available to the landlord to prevent ASB: verbal or written warnings, written agreements, mediation and legal action. The document explains that the landlord will work with the police in some cases as required. Both documents highlight the importance of residents keeping a record of incidents for the landlord to investigate.
Between February and June 2020 the resident reported concerns about the behaviour of several of his neighbours on approximately four occasions. He explained he could hear loud music, shouting of expletives and alleged that one neighbour had been smoking cannabis. The landlord’s “noise and nuisance guideline” refers to acting quickly to prevent issues escalating. In this case, there is no evidence that the landlord responded to the resident’s concerns until 12 June 2020.
The landlord’s records do not demonstrate that it tried to contact the resident to obtain more detail about his reports. Instead, the landlord responded to the resident via email and explained that it had spoken to one of the neighbours and she denied that she had been using expletives. This did not demonstrate that the landlord had sought to fully understand all of the resident’s concerns and there is no evidence that it gave him further advice about what he should do about his other reports. Contrary to its noise nuisance guidelines, it did not advise him to keep any record of further incidents via diary sheets or the noise app.
The resident made a further report about his neighbour on 17 June 2020 and said that her partner was encouraging “drug addict friends” to congregate outside the block. The landlord responded promptly to the resident’s allegations and raised the matter with its community safety team (CST). It also spoke to the neighbour and other residents in the vicinity. This swift action was appropriate and the resident was updated of the outcome two days later. The landlord explained to the resident that no evidence had been found to substantiate his claims, but acknowledged that his neighbour had a “loud personality”. It offered him mediation which was reasonable and proportionate, given there was a lack of evidence that any breach of tenancy had taken place at the time.
Between September and November 2020 the resident informed the landlord and the police he continued to experience noise, and had witnessed youths congregating on the estate on approximately four occasions. The police responded to the resident on 25 November 2020 and said it had increased patrols and was taking his concerns seriously. However there is no evidence that the landlord responded directly to the resident itself, which left the resident feeling as though it was “deliberately not responding” to him.
The landlord failed to design a robust action plan with the resident at an earlier opportunity. An action plan could have assisted the landlord in managing the resident’s expectations and assured him of what action it intended to take in partnership with the police. It could have also provided the resident with clearer expectations as to the level of detail the landlord required to investigate his concerns further. By not setting expectations, the resident continued to report ASB and noise nuisance to the landlord, but did not provide it with any specific dates or times that incidents had occurred.
It is accepted that without more detailed information or supporting third party evidence to corroborate the resident’s version of events, the landlord was limited as to what further action it could take against his neighbour. The landlord did not make this clear to the resident until it issued its stage 1 complaint response on 4 February 2021. Its failure to manage the resident’s expectations from the outset of his reports, contributed to his feelings of frustration and distress.
Aspects of the resident’s complaint relate to his belief that his neighbour was related to a member of the landlord’s staff, and as a result it was not acting appropriately on his reports. No evidence was seen which demonstrated that the individuals he named were involved in the resident’s case. It is reasonable to conclude that the landlord had allocated staff appropriately to the handling of his case, and there is no evidence that it acted with relationship bias. His allegation was acknowledged and responded to appropriately within the stage 1 response, and he was given the opportunity to discuss any further concerns he had in a subsequent meeting.
Records show the meeting took place on 22 March 2021. Minutes of the meeting were not provided by the landlord, but email communication from the resident showed that he felt the meeting was “constructive” and “helped restore faith”. He later confirmed on 8 April 2021 that he did not want to pursue the complaint further. It is reasonable to conclude that the landlord’s interventions after the stage 1 response helped rebuild its relationship with the resident.
No further concerns were raised by the resident for approximately 5 months. From September 2021 the resident made reports about his neighbour’s children running on lino, which he believed had been laid on top of concrete in his neighbour’s property. It was reasonable for the landlord not to have considered children running as ASB, but for it to have investigated what type of flooring his neighbour had, so considerations could be given to possible improvements in sound transmission.
The landlord was delayed in responding to the resident on this point and did not provide him with an update until November 2021, causing him evident frustration. It concluded that, having visited the neighbour, there was adequate flooring. It was reasonable for the landlord not to have pursued further action against the neighbour based on its investigations at the time. However the landlord was not assertive in explaining clearly to the resident that the noise it had investigated amounted to daily living noise which could reasonably be expected living in flats. No evidence was seen that it revisited move options available to the resident if the property type was impacting his threshold for noise until its final response on 20 October 2022.
As a result, the resident continued to complain about noise nuisance from two different flats sporadically throughout 2022. This included that he was being disturbed by renovations being undertaken by a leaseholder. The landlord offered to visit during the to conduct a “sound test” which was reasonable and signposted him to the environmental health office (EHO) for the disturbances he was experiencing at night, which was appropriate.
Although a lack of statutory noise levels for both the renovations and the flooring limited the landlord’s options, it did not absolve it of the requirement to explore other suitable resolutions. The Ombudsman’s Spotlight on Noise Complaints explains that where this is the case, then landlords should adopt a proactive good neighbourhood management policy, distinct from its ASB policy, with clear options for maintaining good neighbour relationships. This should include mediation. In this case, the landlord missed further opportunities to revisit whether the resident would reconsider mediation with the neighbours who were disturbing him.
Despite being aware of the resident’s mental health conditions and diagnosis of PTSD, it failed to adopt a robust victim-centred approach. Records show the resident expressed to the landlord the situation made him feel suicidal and said it had not recognised the impact the noise had on him over a number of years. Contrary to the ASB, crime and policing act 2014 and in line with best practice, there is no evidence that the landlord carried out a risk assessment matrix (RAM) to identify whether there was more it could do to support him.
The landlord’s “Tenancy Conditions” document states that residents must keep all floors covered with carpet and a good quality underlay, or with a “suitable other floor covering” that has similar noise reducing qualities. It goes on to state that residents must not put down laminate or other artificial floor coverings without permission. After he raised further concerns on 9 September 2022, the landlord revisited the issues with flooring with the neighbour and updated the resident that it had sent a warning letter. Internal records show that it explored the what adequate flooring options were available with the neighbour which was reasonable.
However after the landlord’s final complaint response, the resident continued to report the same issues into 2023 and it was unclear whether it intended to pursue the matter further. Whilst the landlord was not at liberty to disclose the full extent of its discussions with the resident’s neighbour, it failed to manage his long term expectations causing him prolonged frustration and distress.
Aspects of the resident’s complaint relate to his dissatisfaction that the landlord did not offer him the opportunity to have an ASB case review (formerly the community trigger), despite him requesting one a number of times. The landlord’s website explains that it will consider holding an ASB case review if the resident has reported the same ASB to the landlord three times in the past 6 months. It explains that once a resident requests a review, the application will be assessed and they can expect to receive a response “as soon as possible”.
In this case, there is no evidence that the landlord responded to the resident’s request. Whilst it is accepted that the resident’s reports largely related to daily living noise which would not have met the threshold for an ASB investigation, there is no evidence that the landlord acknowledged the request or explained to him clearly whether it considered the threshold to have been met. This was unreasonable and left the resident feeling “ignored”.
Overall, there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of ASB and noise nuisance. Whilst it is accepted that there were considerable periods of time the resident stopped reporting issues, the landlord failed to manage his expectations from the outset, through use of a robust action plan. When the resident expressed that the situation was having a detrimental effect on his mental wellbeing, it did not conduct a RAM or signpost him to appropriate support. Furthermore, there is no evidence that the landlord responded to the resident’s request for an ASB case review.

The landlord’s response to the resident’s complaint.

It is evident that the resident was unhappy with the landlord’s handling of his ASB noise reports from correspondence he sent on 29 November 2020. When receiving a complaint that references noise, it is important that the landlord distinguish whether the resident is complaining about the noise itself, or the handling of the landlord’s noise case. The danger of not recognising the difference can lead to a delay of formally investigating the matter as a complaint, as was seen in the handling of this case.
In accordance with the landlord’s complaint policy, the resident could have expected a response within 10 working days. However, the landlord’s was considerably delayed in writing to the resident and a stage 1 response did not follow for approximately 42 working days. The delay was unreasonable and the landlord failed to apologise for the time and trouble he had experienced.
Contrary to best practice highlighted in the Housing Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code), there is no evidence that the landlord contacted the resident prior to issuing its complaint response to get a full understanding of all that he was dissatisfied with. Whilst its response was comprehensive, it did not, as the resident later highlighted, comment on the impact the situation had on his wellbeing. It also failed to recognise the delays in responding to his complaint had caused him unnecessary distress and inconvenience.
Aspects of the resident’s contact with this Service relate to his feeling that he had difficulty escalating his complaint. The landlord’s complaint policy at the time had a specific timescale which it would consider a request for an escalation to stage 2 of its process. Whilst the stage 1 advised the resident it would consider escalating the matter if he was dissatisfied, it failed to advise him that he had 28 calendar days to do so in accordance with its policy. This later lead to confusion as to whether the resident was requesting an escalation of his complaint, or whether he was contacting the landlord to report further incidents of ASB.
It is accepted that the landlord believed that the resident did not want to pursue his complaint further, based on the correspondence he had sent it on 8 April 2021. Thereafter it responded resident’s communication as further reports of ASB and noise nuisance, rather than an escalation of his complaint. This was a fair assumption to make, given also that there were considerable periods of time with no contact.
After the Ombudsman intervened on 13 October 2022, the landlord responded to the resident within an appropriate timeframe. It’s final response better acknowledged the distress and inconvenience caused to the resident over a long period of time, and updated him of what actions it had taken to address his most recent concerns.
In determining whether there has been service failure, the Ombudsman’s role is to consider whether the redress offered by the landlord put things right and resolved the resident’s complaint satisfactorily in the circumstances. In considering this, we take into account whether the landlord’s offer of redress was in line with the Ombudsman’s Dispute Resolution Principles “Be fair, put things right and learn from outcomes”.
The landlord’s final complaint response found no fault in the way it had handled his complaint. However there were initial failures in responding to the resident at stage 1 that went unacknowledged. Its complaints team failed to contact the resident directly at both stages of his complaint. By failing to do so it did not gain a full understanding of what he was dissatisfied with and relied upon the information it had been given from the housing team, which did not demonstrate fairness. It did not provide the resident an affirmative date for when a further meeting would take place to discuss his concerns, only that it would happen “soon”. By failing to see the resident’s concerns through to conclusion, it did not go far enough to put matters right.
Overall, whilst the landlord’s final response was comprehensive, it failed to recognise that there had been an ongoing failure to establish whether the resident was complaining about the landlord’s service, or the ASB itself. Its complaints team missed opportunities to engage with the resident directly at an earlier opportunity to establish this, causing the resident avoidable frustration. It took no learning from its handling of the resident’s complaint to identify positive changes in its future service delivery.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was maladministration in respect of the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of anti-social behaviour (ASB) and noise nuisance.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was maladministration in respect of the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint.

Orders

The landlord is ordered to apologise to the resident for the failures noted in this report, within 4 weeks.
The landlord is ordered to pay the resident £350 in compensation. The amount is to be paid directly to the resident and not offset against any arrears, within four weeks. The amount is comprised of:
1. £250 for the distress and inconvenience caused to the resident by the landlord’s handling of ASB and noise nuisance.
2. £100 for the time and trouble caused to the resident by the landlord’s complaint handling.
The landlord is ordered to contact the resident to discuss his most recent noise concerns. The landlord to update the resident and the Ombudsman of its intentions with regards to further investigation, within four weeks.
Within six weeks of the date of this report, the landlord is ordered to carry out a review of this case to identify and improve its working practices. The review must include but is not limited to:
1. A review of its staff guidance, to assist with identifying the difference between a report of ASB or noise, and a complaint about the landlord’s handling of an ASB or noise case.
2. A review of its policies for dealing with ASB and noise nuisance, with particular focus on the use of RAM and action plans.
3. Consideration to designing and publishing a good neighbourhood management strategy, as highlighted within the Housing Ombudsman’s Spotlight on Noise Complaints
4. A full review of its training and information available to staff specifically around managing resident’s expectations with regards to noise nuisance. Include recognition of how vulnerabilities such as PTSD can impact the resident’s experience of noise.
5. A review of the landlord’s complaint process with due regard to the new Housing Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code, which will be as statutory requirement from 1 April 2024.