City of Westminster Council (202224975)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202224975

Westminster City Council

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

The complaint is about the landlord’s:
1. response to the resident’s reports about:
  1. antisocial behaviour (ASB);
  2. repair issues following a leak;
2. complaints handling.

Background

The resident’s father is the named tenant at the property and is a secured tenant. The resident has lived at the property with her family since July 1994. The landlord is a local authority.
The property is a flat within a block of flats. Throughout the period of the complaint, the property above the resident’s property was occupied by her neighbour. The neighbour’s property is managed by a different landlord.
The resident has advised that she has been reporting issues with ASB in relation to her neighbour for seven years prior to her complaint. As of January 2021, she had an open ASB case with the landlord. She reported noise, including banging and aggressive shouting late at night, from her neighbour’s property. She also reported suspicious visitors, other than the neighbour, who may have been staying at the property.
The landlord advised that it would forward her concerns to the neighbour’s landlord. It also requested that the resident keep a log of incidents and use its noise app to record and submit recordings of the noise. It further offered the resident a referral to a victim support service at this time; however, this was declined by the resident.
Around this time, the resident also reported damage to her property caused by a leak from her neighbour’s property. It is evident that the landlord’s electrician attended the same day and disconnected the lights in the hallway and bathroom to make the property safe. It is not evident that any follow–up works were arranged at this time.
Throughout 2021, the resident continued to make and submit recordings and provide incident logs. It is evident that the local authority’s noise team attended the area on 30 April 2021 and 14 May 2021 in an attempt to witness the noise but did not detect any.
In May 2021, the resident sought an update regarding the damage to her property. At this time, the landlord raised works to reconnect the lights, which were completed on 11 June 2021. The landlord also noted an asbestos test was required in order to complete remedial works to the kitchen, bedroom, and hallway. However, this was not finalised until August 2021. The landlord subsequently raised the remaining remedial works on 6 August 2021.
In September 2021, the resident queried what action the landlord was planning to take given that the noise issues were persisting. She also queried if the neighbour’s landlord had considered soundproofing in the neighbour’s property. She chased a further update on 12 October 2021, at which point the landlord advised that the neighbour’s landlord had issued verbal and written warnings to the neighbour.
The resident queried what the warning entailed and what action would be taken if the warning wasn’t adhered to. She also noted that she had been providing ongoing recordings and reports, which she expected the landlord to act upon. The landlord agreed that it could hear some of the behaviour reported in the recordings but advised that the neighbour’s landlord required the corroboration of witness testimony from the local authority’s noise team prior to considering any further enforcement action.
In December 2021, the landlord offered the resident the opportunity to engage in mediation with the neighbour; however, she declined this offer. It advised that it continued to have multi-party meetings with the neighbour’s landlord and the police and reiterated on a number of occasions the need for the local authority’s noise team to attend. It also provided advice about how to request a community trigger.
On 7 February 2022, the resident raised a formal complaint about the ongoing ASB and repair issues. The landlord provided its stage one response on 3 March 2022, which included the following:
1. It noted the history of the ASB case and acknowledged the logs and recordings provided by the resident. It advised that, while it understood the noise had been distressing for the resident, it was unable to conclude the noise was above the level of “everyday living noise.”
2. It repeated the need for witness testimony from the local authority’s noise team and advised it had been in touch with them on the resident’s behalf. The team would reach out to arrange a date.
3. It advised that if the noise was corroborated, the local authority’s noise team would be able to consider a noise abatement notice. The neighbour’s landlord could then consider further enforcement action if this was not adhered to.
4. Regarding soundproofing, it confirmed the neighbour’s property had carpeting.
5. It noted it had arranged a further face–to–face meeting with the resident to discuss her concerns.
6. Regarding the repairs, it acknowledged there had been a delay. It noted works to the kitchen had been carried out in October 2021, but that redecoration works to the hallway and bedroom remained outstanding. It requested that the resident provide a suitable date for these to take place.
7. It offered £60 compensation in relation to the delayed works and the resultant distress and inconvenience. It offered a further £10 for the delay to its stage one response.
On 9 March 2022, the landlord provided an amended stage one response. It noted it had not addressed the delay to the asbestos inspection and offered a further £600 for this delay and the resultant distress and inconvenience.
The resident continued to report noise and submit recordings throughout February and early March 2022. She also noted that the noise app had lost some of the recordings submitted in 2021. The landlord requested more details, and it is evident that it made enquiries with the app developer to discover why this had happened.
The neighbour moved out of the property on 17 March 2022, and the landlord subsequently closed its ASB case. The resident remained dissatisfied with how the landlord had previously handled the case and so escalated her complaint on 31 December 2022. The landlord initially sought to respond by 28 February 2023; however, on this date, it advised that its response would be delayed.
The landlord provided its stage two response on 2 March 2023, which included the following:
1. It noted the resident mentioned concerns about ASB going back 7 years but advised that it would be unable to consider incidents older than 12 months prior to her initial complaint.
2. It repeated the actions it had taken regarding ASB and concluded that this part of the complaint was not upheld.
3. Regarding the repairs, it noted that the remaining repairs had been arranged for 16 May 2022, but that they had been put on hold due to the resident’s queries about the scope of the works. It had subsequently completed some works on 21 July 2022. At this time, it raised further works for a kitchen worktop, which were delayed until 30 November 2022.
4. It apologised for the delays to the works. It also offered £100 compensation for the delays and the resident’s time and trouble in chasing updates. Finally, it offered £20 for the delay to its stage two response. Across its responses, it offered a total of £790.
Following the period of the complaint, the resident has advised that further occupants of the neighbouring property have caused similar noise issues.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

Throughout the period of the complaint, the resident has raised concerns about how the issues she reported and the landlord’s subsequent service delivery may have impacted her and her family’s health.
The Ombudsman is unable to make a determination that the actions or omissions of a landlord have had a causal impact on a person’s health. Such a determination is more appropriate through an insurance claim or by a court. Should the resident wish to pursue a claim relating to the impact on her or her family’s health, she has the option to seek legal advice.
The Ombudsman has, however, taken into account any general distress and inconvenience that the landlord’s service delivery may have caused.
Additionally, the resident has raised concerns about the landlord’s disclosure of her personal data. Paragraph 42(j) of the Scheme states that the Ombudsman may not consider complaints which fall properly within the jurisdiction of another Ombudsman, regulator, or complaint-handling body. Complaints relating to data protection fall within the jurisdiction of the Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO). Should the resident wish to pursue this complaint, she has the option to refer it to the ICO.
In her formal complaint to the landlord and in her communications with this service, the resident has noted her concerns have been ongoing for over seven years. While the resident may have reported her concerns about ASB across this period, the Ombudsman does not consider this to be the same as making a formal complaint in accordance with the landlord’s internal complaints procedure. In its stage two response, the landlord noted that it would not consider concerns that occurred over 12 months prior to a formal complaint being made. This approach is shared by the Ombudsman as per Paragraph 42(c) of the Scheme. The period of this investigation has therefore been limited to the events up to 12 months prior to the resident’s formal complaint.

Policies and procedures

The landlord operates an ASB policy. The policy notes that the landlord should offer a referral to victim support when receiving reports of ASB. It should also advise the resident about the community trigger procedure when there have been at least three incidents in the past six months. The policy also notes the need for gathering evidence, such as recording and logging further incidents, speaking with other residents, and liaising with appropriate partner agencies. The policy further notes that the landlord will offer mediation where appropriate.
The landlord operates a responsive repairs policy. The policy notes that immediate repairs which present a safety risk will be made safe within 24 hours. It will then aim to complete non-urgent repairs within 28 working days.
The landlord operates a two-stage complaints policy. It will aim to acknowledge a complaint within two working days and provide a stage one response within 10 working days. It will aim to provide a stage two response within 20 working days of an escalation.

ASB

It is not the role of the Ombudsman to determine whether there has been ASB. Instead, it is the Ombudsman’s role to determine if the landlord’s actions were reasonable and proportionate in the circumstances and in line with its policies and best practice. Cases where there is a history of ASB over an extended period, such as this, are often the most challenging for a landlord to manage. In practice, the options available to a landlord to resolve a case do not extend to the resident’s preferred outcome, and it therefore becomes difficult to manage a resident’s expectations. In such instances, closely following the ASB procedure ensures that the landlord can progress the case to a resolution, even if that resolution is not the outcome requested by the resident.
It is not disputed that the perpetrator of the ASB is not a tenant of the landlord. Its options for resolving ASB or pursuing tenancy enforcement, therefore, are not as extensive as if the perpetrator were its own tenant. In such circumstances, the Ombudsman would expect the landlord to carry out a reasonable and proportionate investigation of the resident’s reports, including evidence gathering. It should then actively liaise with the perpetrator’s landlord to ensure they are able to take appropriate action. It should also keep the resident informed of its actions and any outcomes.
While it may be possible for the landlord to seek an injunction against the perpetrator itself, it is the Ombudsman’s understanding that there is a high threshold of evidence required to pursue legal action regarding ASB. The landlord’s ASB policy notes that it can request that a resident help gather evidence, such as incident logs and noise recordings. It also notes that the landlord can work with external agencies to tackle ASB. This can include utilising the local authority’s noise team to witness the noise.
In this case, the landlord appropriately opened an ASB case following the resident’s reports. As part of its investigation, the landlord requested that the resident both keep logs of the noise and other behaviours and use its noise app to gather recordings. It also spoke with surrounding residents about their experiences. This was appropriate and in line with its policy. However, while it is evident that it periodically reviewed these recordings and shared them with the neighbour’s landlord, it is clear from the resident’s communications that the landlord could have done more at this time to measure her expectations about how this evidence would be used. It is often the case that this evidence informs a landlord’s next steps rather than forms a basis for immediate enforcement action. The landlord could have done more in this instance to help the resident understand how the evidence would be used.
Based on the resident’s reports, the neighbour’s landlord appropriately issued verbal and written warnings to the neighbour. The landlord also kept the resident informed and advised her to continue to report further noise. This was in line with its policy; however, once again, there was a missed opportunity to fully explain to the resident what the options for escalation would be if the neighbour’s behaviour continued.
From the point of opening the case, it is evident that the landlord signposted the resident to organisations that could offer support. While the resident declined this offer, it was nevertheless appropriate and in line with the landlord’s policy. The landlord’s policy also notes it should inform the resident about the option for a community trigger where there have been at least three incidents in the past six months. The landlord informed the resident about this process in December 2021, which was more than six months after it opened the case in January 2021. While this was not strictly in line with its policy, it is evident that the landlord had offered support referrals throughout this period and was continuing to work with the neighbour’s landlord to solve the ASB.
In December 2021, the landlord also offered the opportunity for mediation. The Ombudsman considers mediation to be an appropriate option in these circumstances, allowing the parties to be made aware of each other’s concerns and be more amenable to altering patterns of behaviour. While the resident declined this offer, it was nevertheless appropriate that the landlord offered to facilitate this.
It is evident that the local authority’s noise team attended in April and May 2021 in an attempt to witness the behaviours reported by the resident but were unsuccessful. This was appropriate and in line with the landlord’s policy. While the resident had submitted supporting evidence such as logs and recordings, it is clear that the neighbour’s landlord required the local authority’s noise team to corroborate the reported behaviour before it would commit to further action. The landlord appropriately reiterated the need for this to be arranged throughout its correspondence with the resident and also liaised with this team directly in an attempt to set up a further visit. The Ombudsman notes there was a dispute over whether this team had reached out directly to the resident; however, it is nevertheless evident that the landlord appropriately advised the resident to reach out to the team.
The Ombudsman further notes the resident’s concerns that she was unable to know whether there would be noise on any particular day to witness. Given, however, that she was seeking further action from the neighbour’s landlord, it was nevertheless necessary to attempt a further witness date in order to have strong evidence on which to take action. The landlord’s insistence on this action was therefore reasonable in the circumstances.
The Ombudsman notes that the resident raised queries about the use of professional recording equipment, which the landlord did not address. While this lack of a response would have been frustrating, given that the landlord was seeking to exhaust other evidence gathering methods first, it was reasonable that it did not explore this option at the time.
The resident also raised queries about the noise app losing her recordings. While this would have been frustrating, it is evident that the recordings had already been taken into consideration by the neighbour’s landlord. It is also evident that the landlord made appropriate enquiries with the app developer to help resolve the issue and kept the resident informed about its actions.
In summary, the evidence shows that the landlord continuously monitored the evidence provided by the resident, shared this evidence with the neighbour’s landlord, and had multi-agency meetings with the police to tackle the reported ASB. It appropriately offered support, gathered supporting evidence, and attempted to arrange further evidence through the local authority’s noise team.
The Ombudsman recognises that the resident has experienced distress as a result of the ongoing ASB, which the landlord has also acknowledged. However, the landlord has taken reasonable and proportionate steps to investigate the ASB, which were in line with its policy. While it was unable to solve the ASB, it nevertheless sought to take the action that was within its means given that the perpetrator was not its tenant. Additionally, while the landlord’s communication could have been improved, and it could have done more to improve the resident’s understanding and measure her expectations, this did not fall below the threshold into service failure. A finding of no maladministration has therefore been made.
The Ombudsman notes that the perpetrator from the period of the complaint has now left their property, and so it was reasonable for the landlord to close that ASB case. The Ombudsman further notes that the resident has raised concerns about ASB from a new neighbour, and so a recommendation has been made below for the landlord to reach out to the resident to enquire if this remains an ongoing issue and to open a new ASB case if necessary.

Repairs

Following the resident’s initial reports of a leak, the landlord attended on the same date to ensure the electrics in the property were safe. This was appropriate and in line with its policy where there is an immediate safety risk.
Following this, however, the Ombudsman would expect the landlord to arrange any follow-on works within a reasonable timeframe. Given that the resident’s hallway and bathroom lights were disconnected, it should have raised works to ensure these were reconnected when safe to do so. It should also have raised any necessary remedial works. Additionally, it should have kept the resident informed about such works and should have provided an indicative timeframe for their completion. It is not evident, however, that the landlord raised any such follow-on works. This not only represents a failing in its record–keeping systems but also meant that the resident was left without adequate lighting for some five months. This would have caused considerable distress and inconvenience for the resident and also meant she had to expend time and trouble chasing updates.
Similarly, once it returned to connect the lights in June 2021, it identified further works, including the need for an asbestos test. However, once again, it failed to provide any indicative timeframe for this test or to otherwise keep her updated. While the works were subsequently completed until October 2021, this was beyond the target timeframe as per the landlord’s policy, without a reasonable explanation or adequate communication. This would have caused the resident further distress and inconvenience.
In its stage one response, the landlord appropriately acknowledged that there had been an unreasonable delay for which it apologised. It also appropriately provided updates about the remaining works. While it initially only offered £60 compensation, it recognised that this was not sufficient to reflect all of its failings and offered a further £600 to reflect its failings caused by the asbestos test delays.
While the remaining works were delayed, it is evident this was due to ongoing discussions around the scope of those works, which contributed to the delays. However, in its stage two response, the landlord nevertheless acknowledged that delays to the kitchen worktop installation were unreasonable and that its communication remained poor. While it is disappointing to note that it did not learn from the outcomes of its stage one response, it was nevertheless appropriate that it apologised and offered a further £100 compensation to reflect the impact of the delays and its poor communication.
In summary, there were repeated unreasonable delays to the works, evidence of poor record keeping, and repeated poor communication throughout the period of the complaint. However, the landlord recognised its failings and even revisited its responses to ensure it addressed the full scope of its failings. Its total offer of £760 in relation to this part of the complaint was in line with this service’s remedies guidance, which notes that compensation from £600 is appropriate where there has been maladministration that has a significant impact on the resident and which requires substantial redress. Given this offer along with its apologies, a finding of reasonable redress has been made in the circumstances.

Complaints handling

While the resident had made numerous reports of noise concerns, her concerns were not considered to be a formal complaint until 7 February 2022. The landlord’s complaints policy notes it should aim to provide a stage one response within 10 working days. This means it should have provided a stage one response by 21 February 2022. The landlord did not, however, provide its stage one response until 3 March 2022. It was therefore delayed by eight working days.
The Ombudsman understands that there can be reasonable delays to a formal response, such as the need for additional time to gather evidence in order to complete a full and thorough investigation. However, in such circumstances, this service’s Complaints Handling Code (the Code) requires that the landlord keep the resident informed of the delay, provide an explanation, and agree a new timeframe for the response. It is not evident that the landlord did this. This would have therefore caused the resident distress and concern that her complaint was not being responded to.
Similarly, the resident made an escalation request on 31 December 2022. The landlord appropriately acknowledged this and committed to provide a response by 28 February 2023. While this was 40 working days after the escalation, the landlord explained that it wanted to discuss the complaint with the resident prior to its response. Given the time of year and its attempts to ensure it fully understood her concerns, this time period was reasonable in the circumstances.
The landlord also appropriately kept the resident informed that it was unable to meet this deadline prior to the deadline passing. It kept her informed of a new deadline and provided its stage two response only two working days later. While this additional delay was inconvenient, the landlord’s communication was reasonable in the circumstances.
In its stage one response, the landlord did acknowledge that its response had been delayed, for which it apologised and offered £10 compensation. It offered a further apology and an additional £20 compensation for the delays at stage two. The landlord’s offer was in line with its compensation policy for instances of a ‘low impact’ service failure. While the delays would have been frustrating, they ultimately did not impact the overall outcome of the complaint. Based on the landlord’s offer of compensation along with its acknowledgement of the impact this had on the resident and its accompanying apologies, a finding of reasonable redress has been made for this element of the complaint.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was no maladministration by the landlord in respect of the complaints regarding its response to the resident’s reports about ASB.
In accordance with paragraph 53(b) of the Scheme, and in the Ombudsman’s opinion, there was reasonable redress offered by the landlord for its service failure in respect of its:
1. response to the resident’s reports about repair issues following a leak;
2. complaints handling.

Recommendations

Within four weeks of the date of this determination, the landlord is to reach out to the resident to enquire if she is experiencing any ongoing issues with ASB and to open a new ASB case if necessary.
The landlord should reiterate its offer of £760 for its poor service delivery in relation to the repairs if this is yet to have been accepted.
The landlord should reiterate its offer of £30 for its poor complaints handling if this is yet to have been accepted.