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

Clarion Housing Association Limited (202303128)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202303128

Clarion Housing Association Limited

24 June 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 the resident’s reports of anti-social behaviour and noise disturbance.

Background and summary of events

  1. The resident has a joint assured shorthold fixed term tenancy that commenced on 20 December 2018. The property is described as a 2-bedroom semi-detached house.
  2. The reports of anti-social behaviour (ASB) and noise disturbance relate to the resident’s neighbour who lived at the neighbouring address until April 2024. The resident’s neighbour will be referred to as “Tenant A” within this report. The tenancy agreement for Tenant A has not been provided for this investigation. However, it has been assumed that the tenancy terms will be the same as for the resident.
  3. The landlord’s records show the resident reports of noise disturbance from Tenant A go back to December 2022. These are described as banging, a screaming child, loud TV and music. The resident also raised concerns about the number of people living in the property.
  4. On 11 May 2023, the resident complained to the landlord that it had failed to resolve his reports of noise disturbance. The resident stated that despite providing to the landlord records of the noise disturbance, it had stated that they were not acceptable. Also, though he had been threatened on 2 separate occasions by the resident, the landlord responded that it could not take action without a crime reference number.
  5. The landlord complaint responses on 31 May 2023 and 2 August 2023 stated that the reports of noise disturbance did not meet the threshold to be considered a statutory nuisance. It acknowledged that its initial response did not address the resident’s concerns about the alleged threats by Tenant A and apologised for this. However, it determined that it did not have sufficient evidence to take tenancy action regarding this. The landlord concluded by agreeing to obtain an independent expert’s opinion on the action it could take regarding the resident’s noise report and to test the noise transference between the 2 properties. In addition, it made a compensation award of £150 for the failure to consider the alleged threats within its stage 1 complaint response.

Events after the complaints process was exhausted.

  1. The landlord issued Tenant A with a final written warning on 20 September 2023 (with a condition caution) regarding a public order incident that occurred on 14 September 2023.
  2. On 26 October 2023, the resident received the outcome from a community trigger. This concluded that the noise recorded on the noise app and sound monitoring equipment did not meet the threshold to be considered a statutory nuisance. It determined that reasonable and proportionate actions had been taken in response to the resident’s reports.
  3. The resident remained dissatisfied and escalated the complaint to this Service.

Assessment and findings

Scope of complaint investigation

  1. The resident made complaints to the landlord in April 2023 and again in November 2023 about the noise disturbance and ASB. There is no evidence that the complaint made in April 2023 completed the landlord’s complaint procedure, therefore the landlord’s response to that complaint will not be considered in this report. Paragraph 42(a) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme states that the Ombudsman may not consider complaints which are made prior to having exhausted a landlord’s complaint procedure.
  2. With regard to the complaint made in November 2023, the landlord issued its final complaint response in December 2023. If the resident remains dissatisfied with the landlord’s complaint response, he can bring that complaint to this Service for consideration within the next 5 months.
  3. This investigation will consider events from November 2022 onwards (this being 6 months prior to the formal complaint registered in May 2023) up until the final landlord complaint response in August 2023. This is on the basis of what the Ombudsman considers to be a reasonable period to review prior to the complaint. This report may nevertheless include some historical events for the purposes of context.

Handling of anti-social behaviour and noise disturbance

  1. The resident has reported similar allegations continuously over a period of several months and provided a significant amount of diary logs and noise recordings as evidence to the landlord. Whilst the resident’s dissatisfaction with the landlord is duly noted, the report will not address each and every specific issue or incident. Rather, the Ombudsman has carefully considered all the available evidence and the report will take a view on the landlord’s overall handling of the matter.
  2. It is clear that the resident believed that the distress and inconvenience experienced by him and his family was exacerbated by the lack of firm action by the landlord to resolve the problem. The resident’s feelings are acknowledged and it is not disputed that dealing with such situations can be stressful. However, the Ombudsman’s role in such situations is to look at the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports and consider whether this was reasonable in all the circumstances of the case.
  3. The landlord’s ASB policy states that the definition of ASB is set out in Section 2(1) of the anti-social behaviour, crime and policing Act 2014. It goes on to outline the behaviours that it considers do not meet the threshold to be considered as ASB, such as everyday living situations. Examples given are children playing, babies crying and household noise.
  4. Looking at the available evidence, the resident made numerous reports of noise disturbance and ASB between December 2022 and July 2023. These reports related to Tenant A’s household, namely banging, shouting, screaming, playing loud music and the volume of the TV. The resident also complained about the occupancy of the property in terms of the number of residents.
  5. The landlord responded to the resident’s reports of noise disturbance in accordance with its ASB policy. Case reviews were carried out on 15 December 2022, 27 February 2023 and in March 2023 which all determined that on review of the noise recordings and diary sheets provided by the resident, the threshold for it to take action had not been met.
  6. The landlord’s submission to this Service shows the steps it took to investigate the reports that it had received. It visited Tenant A in January 2023 and in March 2023 to discuss the resident’s report of noise disturbance and ASB. At that visit, it observed the number of dogs owned by the resident. In addition, it attempted to obtain independent corroboration of the resident’s reports by contacting neighbouring properties. The landlord also recognised the limitation of other residents being affected in a similar way to the resident, due to the proximity of Tenant A’s property to neighbouring properties.
  7. In accordance with its ASB behaviour policy, in January 2023, the landlord offered shuttle mediation to the resident. This was reasonable as shuttle mediation is a tool available to landlords to resolve disputes such as these.
  8. The landlord reviewed the noise reports – both written and those on the noise app – submitted by the resident. There was also sound monitoring equipment installed in the resident’s property between 30 March 2023 to 5 April 2023. The review by the environment health service assessed the noise as not being persistent and not meeting the threshold to be considered a statutory nuisance. The lead authority for determining and abating a statutory nuisance is environmental health and it was therefore reasonable for the landlord to rely on its decision in this regard. Also, it was appropriate for the landlord to review the evidence in order to satisfy itself that the noise disturbance did not amount to ASB or nuisance.
  9. Following the visit to Tenant A’s property in March 2023, the landlord determined that it was satisfied that the number of people occupying Tenant A’s property was in accordance with the tenancy agreement. Also, the landlord noted that the resident had moved the location of the TV to limit the sound transference to the resident’s property. It did not record any concerns about the garden or the parking at the property (issues which the resident later raised).
  10. In addition, the landlord checked the floor covering in the property and determined that this was unlikely to be the cause of the banging sound reported by the resident. From what can be seen, neither the landlord or environmental health service could account for the sound described by the resident.
  11. The landlord agreed in its complaint response to investigate the cause of sound transference. Based on the evidence seen by this Service, it is unlikely that this was ever carried out as a similar recommendation was later made through the community trigger process. As Tenant A is no longer in occupation of their property, an order has not been made about this in this report.
  12. The landlord acted reasonably by interviewing Tenant A and issuing a tenancy warning letter in September 2023, setting out the terms of the tenancy, following the resident’s allegation of threats made to him. This was an appropriate action in line with its ASB policy to use non-legal sanctions and was therefore appropriate.
  13. The landlord has demonstrated that it responded to the resident’s concerns, explained the actions that it had taken and why it could not take further action. Where there are issues of potential criminal activity, such as allegations of threats to the resident, it was appropriate for the landlord to advise him that this should be reported to the police in the first instance.
  14. When an incident is reported to the police, the landlord is reliant upon them to investigate as an alleged crime first and it will wait for the outcome of the investigation before it can act (if necessary). However, once the matter had been concluded, and it was apparent that the police would not be taking any further action, the landlord would have been expected to update the resident and detail the next steps accordingly.
  15. Whilst there is limited evidence of the landlord’s engagement with the police, it did contact them in July 2023 to obtain information. From what can be seen, the police were handling harassment claims made by Tenant A and the resident and the police had suggested mediation to mend the fractured relationship between the 2 parties. In such circumstances, it is reasonable for the landlord to be guided by the police.
  16. The resident wanted the landlord to take stronger tenancy action against Tenant A. The landlord acted reasonably by explaining that despite the reports made by him, it had a lack of actionable evidence to support a tenancy breach and this therefore limited the action it could take. It was reasonable for the landlord to advise that it could not take tenancy action against Tenant A unless it has sufficient evidence to do so. A decision to take possession of a property can only be made through a court of law. Further, legal action such as eviction cannot usually be undertaken except as a last resort where all other efforts at resolution have failed and where a robust case has been built to present to the courts. Given the lack of evidence, it was reasonable that the landlord determined it did not have sufficient evidence to support taking legal proceedings against Tenant A.
  17. The actions taken by the landlord to address the issues raised by the resident were on the whole appropriate and proportionate to the reports received. It can be difficult to resolve complaints of noise disturbance as there needs to be strong evidence to show that this was originating from Tenant A’s property and was beyond usual household noise. From what can be seen, the landlord was not provided with sufficient evidence to confirm that this was the case.
  18. The reports and recordings complied by the resident and reviewed by the landlord were considered to be general household noise. It was reasonable in these circumstances for the landlord to conclude that the reports of noise disturbance did not amount to ASB that would warrant tenancy action against Tenant A.
  19. The landlord acknowledged in its complaint review that it did not answer the resident’s complaint in its entirety. It rectified this in its final complaint response by answering the resident’s concerns about the alleged threat made by Tenant A. In addition, it made a compensation award for its oversight of £150. The landlord’s compensation policy states that compensation awards of £50 to £250 are payable where it has not met its service standards and its failure has impacted the resident. This is also in line with this Service’s Remedies Guidance where compensation awards of £100 to £600 are payable to recognise service failures which have had a limited impact on a resident.
  20. Where there are admitted failings by a landlord, the Ombudsman’s role is to consider whether the redress offered put things right and resolved the resident’s complaint satisfactorily in the circumstances. In considering this, the Ombudsman assesses whether the landlord’s offer of redress was in line with our Dispute Resolution Principles: be fair, put things right and learn from outcomes.
  21. In this particular case, the landlord has recognised the resident’s frustration and has set out the action it can take in response to his reports of noise disturbance and ASB. The landlord submission to this Service shows that on receiving the resident’s reports, its communication set out that it could not investigate each report of ASB and set out the timeframes within which reports needed to be received before it would start an investigation. An order has not been made about this as the landlord told this Service in February 2024 that it is reviewing its ASB policy.
  22. Record keeping was highlighted in this Service’s special report into the landlord in October 2022, with recommendations made to improve this. Since then, this Service has issued sector guidance on Knowledge and Information Management (May 2023) against which the landlord has carried out a self-assessment. Therefore, a recommendation has not been made for the landlord to improve its record keeping.
  23. Ultimately, the resident’s reports of noise disturbance and ASB could not be independently substantiated. The landlord was limited in the action it could take against the alleged perpetrators of noise disturbance and ASB without strong supporting evidence to show the behaviour was serious and prolonged. This is not to say that the noise disturbance and ASB did not occur or was not a cause of great distress for the resident. It is simply that, despite its efforts to support the resident in gathering evidence of ASB, and despite other organisations, such as the police, being involved, the landlord was not in a position to take formal action against Tenant A due to a lack of supporting evidence.
  24. The landlord is not responsible for ensuring that ASB does not occur or for maintaining relationships between neighbours. However, the landlord is expected to take appropriate actions in response to resident’s concerns, which in this case it has done.
  25. The landlord made a compensation award for its service failure through the complaints process. The redress offered by the landlord is proportionate to the severity of the service failure likely caused to the resident.

Determination (decision)

  1. In accordance with paragraph 53(b) of the Scheme, the landlord has offered redress to the resident prior to investigation which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, resolves the resident’s complaint reports of anti-social behaviour and noise disturbance satisfactorily.

Recommendations

  1. If it has not already done so, the landlord is to pay the resident the compensation of £200 it offered in its final complaint response.
  2. If it has not already done so, the landlord is to send the resident a copy of its ASB policy.