Eastlight Community Homes Limited (202340713)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202340713

Eastlight Community Homes Limited

17 October 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 handling of the resident’s reports that her neighbour was:
1. causing noise nuisance.
2. smoking cannabis.

Background

The resident is an assured tenant of the landlord. She has lived in her new build ground floor maisonette since June 2023. The resident has reported that she has epilepsy and arthritis. She also has reported that she has depression and anxiety.
The resident contacted the landlord on 9 October 2023 about antisocial behaviour (ASB). It noted that the resident reported:
1. her neighbour (Mr D) was smoking cannabis. He was smoking in the car park, in the late evening. This was disturbing her sleep as he was going in and out of the front door, which made a noise.
2. his partner (Ms B) was staying with him and was also noisy. The resident had approached her about the noise. Since then, it had become worse and she considered that the noise which was being made was intentional.
Over the following days the landlord:
1. opened a case and categorised the ASB as noise nuisance and cannabis odour. It also completed a risk assessment with the resident.
2. told the resident that it would need diary evidence to take action against her neighbour. It provided her with diary sheets and information about the Noise App.
3. explained to the resident that it would contact her in 2 weeks time.
4. offered the resident mediation.
5. signposted the resident to support services.
Around the same time, the resident explained to the landlord that she had epilepsy, arthritis and was severely depressed and anxious. She told it that she needed “decent sleep”, which she was unable to get with the ongoing issues. The resident added that the situation was affecting her health.
On 19 October 2023 the landlord carried out a non-prearranged visit to Mr D. Following the visit, it updated the case as follows:
1. there was no sign or smell of drug activity.
2. The doors did not slam, but made a noise when closing. The flat front doors were “spaced out”. The front door was heavy and would require some effort to open and close.
3. the flooring was laminate which would cause echoing. There was little furniture to absorb any sound. Walking across the floor would be heard. Sound would be heard in the resident’s flat but would be classed as living noise.
4. it had received diary sheets from the resident, and these had been reviewed.
On 24 October 2023 a member of landlord staff visited the resident. They recorded that:
1. the resident said that she was being woken up in the mornings as a result of the noise emanating from Mr D’s property. The resident considered that Mr D was making noise deliberately, like dropping items on the floor to “annoy” her. In response, they had told the resident that Mr D and Ms S may have been getting up to work.
2. the resident said that she wanted Mr D to have rugs and carpets as his home had laminate flooring. The member of staff had explained that it was unable to make him have soft furnishings.
3. the resident played the recordings that she said demonstrated the sounds of banging from Mr D’s flat. The member of staff had advised that it sounded like living noise and was not excessive. However, they would seek a second opinion with a colleague.
4. they advised the resident that the landlord had cold called Mr D at the time and did not smell cannabis, nor seen any evidence of use. The resident had told the member of staff that she had not smelt cannabis for over a week.
On 1 November 2022 the landlord visited the resident again. It noted:
1. the landlord’s second officer confirmed that recordings provided by the resident indicated living noise.
2. the resident said she wanted peace and quiet and consented to mediation.
3. it told the resident that she could contact the local authority for a third opinion.
During November 2022 the resident reported that Mr D was “blaring the TV”. She also reported that she could smell cannabis again, and asked the landlord to visit. The landlord declined, advising that it was a police matter. It confirmed it would work with the police, as necessary. Meanwhile, the landlord referred both parties for mediation
There are no further notes about the resident’s reports of noise disturbance or cannabis smoke in the landlord’s records until 10 January 2024. At this time the landlord sought an update. The resident said that there was an incident on 1 January 2024, where Mr D and Ms B had an argument. Mr D’s door was “constantly banging” and she had smelt cannabis a couple of times, but was told that it was a police issue. It is unclear whether the landlord responded.
On 25 January 2024 the landlord called the resident for an update on the case. It told the resident that:
1. It had listened to the Noise App and could not hear the noise as described by the resident.
2. It would contact the local authority on her behalf to see if it would provide noise equipment for her.
3. It acknowledged that she had mentioned that it should extend Mr D’s probationary period. It could not take action such as extending Mr D’s tenancy without evidence.
4. an element of living noise would to be expected.
On 29 January 2024 the resident reported smelling cannabis again to the landlord. She also advised that her neighbour had been playing music at loud volumes again. There is no evidence to suggest that the landlord responded to the resident.
On 31 January 2024 the landlord closed the case after completing a review. It emailed the resident its decision and said:
1. it had reviewed a selection of the Noise App clips and had been unable to hear the noise that was being reported. The local authority had declined its request to install noise recording equipment.
2. the case had been referred to mediation, however, Mr D was not willing to participate. It was a voluntary referral and residents were within their rights to refuse.
3. It had previously visited Mr D regarding cannabis use, however none was identified at the time of the visits.
4. The resident could refer the case to a formal case review conducted by the local authority.
The resident subsequently made a formal complaint. The date the complaint was made is unknown. However, it is noted that she had expressed dissatisfaction with the landlord’s response to her reports of ASB from October 2023. The noise nuisance was ongoing and she felt let down by the landlord.
During February 2024 the resident continued to report that Mr D was smoking cannabis. It is unclear if the landlord responded.
On 29 February 2024, the landlord issued its stage 1 complaint response. It said:
1. it apologised for its lack of communication and support.
2. it had reviewed the resident’s evidence, such as diary sheets and noise clips. It was unable to discern the noise from the provided clips.
3. it had addressed the resident’s concerns about cannabis use and other disturbances with Mr D. However, the use needed to be witnessed by the police and/or it. It found no evidence when it visited.
4. it was unable to take any action against Mr D because it had to adhere to the available evidence and legal frameworks governing tenancy agreements.
5. It would visit the resident to discuss her ongoing concerns and explore any additional actions that it could take and to assess the “situation” firsthand.
6. It wished to refer the resident to its tenancy support line, where she could find help with any issues affecting her.
The resident escalated her complaint. The date of her request is unknown. However, she said:
1. the landlord failed to address that she had called it several times and visited the office. It still did not return her phone call. She had been “ignored” on “numerous” occasions.
2. the police told her that the landlord should be dealing with the cannabis issue. It should not have closed her case.
3. she wanted Mr D’s probationary period for his tenancy extended as he was breaking the law and not acting in line with his obligations under the tenancy agreement.
4. her health was “suffering”. If she went into work, smelling of cannabis she could lose her job.
On 14 March 2024 the landlord visited the resident’s block. During its attendance, it confirmed that the smell of cannabis could be detected. It asked the resident to report any further instances. It also advised that it was taking action, but was unable to divulge any specific details.
On 19 March 2024 the landlord issued its stage 2 complaint response. It said:
1. it failed to respond to the resident’s call back requests and to keep her updated. It had now put processes in place that if a member of the team was unavailable or out of the business, their caseload would be picked up by other team members.
2. It had re-opened the case after detecting cannabis use when visiting the block.
3. It was unable to discuss and confirm what action it would take against Mr D. This was due to General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR). However, action was being taken.
4. It upheld the resident’s complaint and apologised for its failings.
On the same day the resident referred her complaint to this Service. She remained dissatisfied with the landlord’s response because:
1. she considered that the landlord’s apology came from the customer relations team and not the tenancy enforcement team.
2. the landlord’s communication issues were still ongoing. She had recently been trying to discuss her case with the landlord and it had not returned her calls.
3. she could not tell whether the landlord had taken appropriate action against Mr D as it could not tell her anything about what was happening.
4. the cannabis was smoke was affecting her health.

Legislation, policies and procedures

Under the Environmental Protection Act 1990, an issue would be considered a statutory nuisance if it was either:
1. unreasonably and substantially interfering with the use or enjoyment of a home or other premises.
2. caused an injure to health or be likely to injure health.
The landlord’s ASB policy stated it would take a victim-centred approach and work in partnership with other local services to ensure a holistic approach to addressing ASB.
The tenancy agreement states residents should:
1. not cause or allow members of their household or visitors to cause a nuisance, disturbance or annoyance to neighbours.
2. keep noise at a reasonable level at all times. Not to have flooring types such as laminate in flats on the first floor and above unless there is reasonable insulation and our prior consent has been obtained for their installation.
3. not use, condone, permit, their home to be used for the taking of and/or the supply of drugs and any other substances prohibited by the law.

Assessment and findings

Scope

When considering complaints about ASB, it is not the role of the Ombudsman to reach a determination on whether the incidents have taken place as reported. Rather our role is to determine whether the landlord has taken reasonable and appropriate steps, in line with its policies and procedures, to investigate the reports and take proportionate action, where necessary.
The resident has explained that the noise and the cannabis smoke have affected her health. The Ombudsman does not doubt the resident’s comments. However, this Service is unable to draw conclusions on the causation of, or liability for, impacts on health and wellbeing. Matters of personal injury or damage to health, their investigation and compensation, are not part of the complaints process, and are more appropriately addressed by way of the courts or the landlord’s liability insurer as a personal injury claim.
Where the Ombudsman identifies failure on a landlord’s part, we will however consider the resulting distress and inconvenience on the resident.

Noise nuisance

On 9 October 2023 the resident reported that Mr D’s door slammed each time he left the building. She also said that Ms B was making noise in the flat and since she approached her about it, the noise had become worse. The landlord, amongst other actions:
1. completed a risk assessment.
2. asked the resident to complete diary sheets/use the Noise App and explained that it only could take action against perpetrators if it had evidence.
3. offered the resident mediation and signposted her to support services.
4. discussed the reports it had received with Mr D.
The landlord also explained in the following days that it would review the resident’s diary sheets at the end of that month. The landlord’s initial responses and actions were reasonable and appropriate at this time. The actions were also in accordance with the landlord’s policy. It was positive that the landlord offered the resident mediation early in the process. This showed that it was providing the resident with options that might have helped to maintain a good relationship with her neighbour. It also signposted her to support services as well which was appropriate.
In October 2023 the landlord inspected Mr D’s home. This was reasonable and appropriate. It noted that Mr D’s front door did not slam shut but made a noise when it closed. While the landlord had identified that a sound was being made, there is no evidence that it took any steps to resolve the matter. It would have been reasonable for the landlord to have investigated whether the noise could have been reduced. This could have included adjusting or adding a door closure. This may have gone some way to reduce the noise. There is no evidence to suggest that it did.
The resident had also reported being able to hear footsteps. When the landlord visited the property, it noted that Mr D had laminate/vinyl flooring. It was recorded that this was the original flooring that was in situ when the building was handed over to it by the builders. When responding to the resident, it advised that residents were not obligated to lay carpets. No action was taken as a result.
The tenancy agreement we have been provided with states that residents should not have flooring such as laminate in flats on the first floor and above unless there is reasonable insulation. In its internal correspondence the landlord confirmed that the building met “acoustic” building regulations. That the landlord was investigating whether the building was reasonably insulated was positive and demonstrated that it was taking a wider approach in its investigation to resolve the resident’s concerns.
However, while the building may have met regulations, the resident was experiencing issues with noise transference and it is unclear why the landlord did not assist in finding a solution. Our October 2022 Noise Complaint Spotlight report stated that installation of hardwood or laminate flooring, was problematic, particularly in cases where the flooring installation occurred in the flat above. That the landlord stated that walking across Mr D’s floor would have been heard by the resident, should be considered as a lesson learnt. Therefore we recommend as part of lessons learnt that the landlord considers installing carpets instead of vinyl in its first floor flats and above at void stage and in new builds. This may go some way to reduce noise that was experienced by the resident in this case.
Our report also stated that where there is hard flooring, landlords should signpost residents where appropriate for funding for carpets and rugs. It is unclear whether the landlord discussed placing rugs on the floor with Mr D at this time. The evidence suggests that the landlord and Mr D discussed placing rugs on the floors. It noted that Mr D had concerns about the cost of purchasing rugs and soft furnishings. We acknowledge that Mr D would not be obligated to install carpet or purchase rugs. However, given the circumstances, it would have been reasonable for the landlord to have signposted him to any available funding for them. This may have supported Mr D to reduce the noise that was disturbing the resident. There is no evidence that it did so and this was a shortcoming in the landlord’s handling of the matter.
The landlord also visited the resident in October 2023 to listen to her recordings. It explained that what had been recorded sounded like living noise and that it was “not excessive”. It said that it would visit again to provide a second opinion about the recordings. This was reasonable in the circumstances.
On 1 November 2023 the landlord visited the resident again so another officer could listen to the recordings. The second officer concurred that the noise was living noise and was not excessive. The landlord explained to the resident that every day noise, such as residents dropping items or getting up to go to work was “living noise”. It was unable to take enforcement action against Mr D in such circumstances. However, it informed the resident that she could contact the local authority for further investigation. This was appropriate.
The following day the resident reported that Mr D was “blaring” the TV and had asked the landlord to call her. While it is unclear, the available evidence suggests that it did not call the resident back at this time. It is unclear why no call was made, but this was a failing by the landlord.
The available evidence suggests that there were no further noise complaint reports made by the resident until 21 November 2023. On this day, the resident told the landlord that Mr D was “slamming things” for hours. The landlord responded and explained that for noise disturbances to constitute as ASB it had to consider, what was the cause of the noise, the frequency and the intensity of the noise. This was reasonable.
At this time mediation had been agreed by both Mr D and the resident. Therefore the landlord advised the resident to discuss her concerns at mediation. This was reasonable. However, this was still an active case and the resident had reported a further incident. Therefore it would have been appropriate for the landlord to have reassured the resident that it had recorded the incident appropriately.
On 30 November 2023 the landlord noted that it had reviewed the resident’s noise recordings and it did not constitute noise nuisance. There is no evidence to suggest that it informed the resident of its findings at this time. This was a missed opportunity to ensure that the resident was kept informed.
The evidence suggests that there were no further reports of noise disturbance from the resident in December 2023.
In early January 2024 the resident said that Mr D was constantly banging the door. It is unclear whether the landlord responded to this particular report. However, on 25 January 2024 the landlord told the resident that it had listened to the noise recordings and could not hear the noise that the resident had described. It said that it would contact the local authority to request that it install noise equipment for the resident. The resident explained that she wanted the landlord to take action against Mr D. It explained to the resident that without evidence it could not take action against Mr D’s tenancy .This was reasonable and appropriate.
On 29 January 2024 the resident told the landlord that Mr D was blaring music over the weekend. She explained the following day that the main noise was that Mr D’s door slammed and the dropped things on the floor which caused noise. The landlord advised the resident that a certain amount of living noise was to be expected. This was somewhat reasonable. However, it missed another opportunity to assess whether any action could be taken to reduce the noise transference.
At the end of January 2024 the landlord closed the case following a review. It emailed the resident and explained that it was unable to hear the noise that she had reported. The local authority had declined to install equipment as it considered it was “unlikely to pick up any noise that the Noise App did not”. It said that there was not enough evidence to take any formal action. However, the resident could request a formal review of the case by the local authority. It is noted that Mr D no longer agreed to mediation, therefore it did not go ahead as planned.
Given the circumstances, the landlord’s overall response at this time was reasonable. However, while it may have lacked evidence to continue with the ASB case, as mentioned previously, there were other options it did not take that may have helped reduce the noise that the resident was experiencing.
Overall the landlord’s actions and responses to the resident were reasonable and appropriate. However, at times it did not respond to the resident’s contact. It also missed opportunities to investigate alternative options to reduce noise transference as previously stated. This caused the resident time, trouble and distress. While the landlord’s apology for its failings went some way to put matters right, given the circumstances, it did not go far enough. Therefore there was service failure in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of noise nuisance.
It is noted that the resident has reported that the issues are ongoing. This has been taken into account when we have made our orders.

Cannabis smoke

In early October 2023 the resident reported that Mr D was smoking cannabis. The landlord opened a case and issued the resident diary sheets. It explained that it would review the case on 23 October 2023, once it received any completed diary sheets. It said this was so the resident had enough time to gather evidence. This was reasonable.
On 19 October 2023 the landlord carried out a non-prearranged visit to Mr D at the time the resident had said that Mr D would start smoking. This was appropriate. It demonstrated that it was taking steps to investigate the matter in accordance with the resident’s reports. It noted that it did not smell cannabis or notice any associated paraphernalia at this visit.
The landlord visited the resident on 24 October 2023. The notes from the visit show that the resident had advised that she had not smelt cannabis for “over a week”. No further action was taken by the landlord at the time. This was appropriate in the circumstances.
The evidence suggests that the resident next reported that Mr D was smoking cannabis on 28 November 2023. She said that she had to keep washing her sheets because of the smell. She told the landlord that she had smelt it frequently over the previous week, and asked it to re-attend so it could inspect further. In response the landlord told the resident that she should report the issues to the police rather than to it. It said it did not have powers to pursue criminal activity. It said once the police had witnessed it, it would take appropriate action.
In accordance with their obligations under their respective tenancy agreements, residents are expected to ensure that their actions do not cause a nuisance or annoyance to others. They also agree not to use drugs within their homes. Therefore, while the use of illegal drugs is a criminal matter, landlords are able to and should investigate matters such as smoking cannabis under their own powers and remit as a landlord. While partnership work is vital in these circumstances, landlords should not rely on the police to carry out such investigations before investigating the matter themselves. The resident had explained how the cannabis smoke was affecting her day to day living. She had also previously told the landlord she had epilepsy, depression and anxiety. Therefore the landlord’s response that it would only take action once the police had witnessed the smoking at this time was unreasonable. It would have been appropriate for it to have investigated the matter focusing on a victim-centred approach as per its ASB policy. That it did not was a failing.
The landlord’s stance in relation to dealing with reports of drug use was also confusing. The landlord had already carried out a visit about the matter in October 2023. To subsequently advise that it was a police matter would have caused the resident confusion.
The resident reported that she continued to smell cannabis smoke in January 2024. The evidence available suggests that the landlord did not respond. This meant that it missed another opportunity to reasonably investigate the matter, or to provide the resident with further guidance about what she should do.
On 31 January 2024 the landlord closed the case. It told the resident that it visited Mr D and did not identify any cannabis use at “the time of the visits.” The landlord’s records show that it only visited once, and this was before the resident reported further reports of the cannabis use on 28 November 2024. It is therefore unclear why the landlord had suggested that multiple visits had taken place. If the landlord had visited Mr D on more than one occasion, it would have been appropriate for it to document this. It is also unclear whether the landlord spoke with any other neighbours or residents in the nearby area. In the circumstances, it would have been reasonable for the landlord to do so, to ascertain whether anyone else had noticed the smell of cannabis. That the landlord did not take such steps was a missed opportunity. It follows that the evidence does not demonstrate that the landlord took proportionate action to investigate the resident’s reports. This was a failing.
The resident continued to report that she could smell cannabis in February 2024. It is unclear whether the landlord responded. The landlord’s lack of response and action may have suggested to the resident that it was not taking her concerns seriously. This would have caused her further distress and inconvenience. She subsequently raised a complaint that the landlord had not responded to her ASB reports.
In its stage 1 complaint response, the landlord reiterated that it had found no evidence of cannabis smoke when it visited. However, it would have been reasonable for the landlord to set out the dates on which visits had been carried out. This would have demonstrated transparency in its handling of the matter. It was positive that it said that it would visit the resident again to discuss her ongoing concerns. However, it is unclear whether it did so.
The resident escalated her complaint and told the landlord that it should be dealing with her reports of cannabis smoke. Subsequently, on 14 March 2024 the landlord told the resident that it had visited her building and smelt cannabis coming from Mr D’s flat. It said that it was taking action. There is also evidence that it was also working with the local police community support officers (PCSOs) at this time. In its stage 2 complaint response the landlord explained that it had reopened the case. This was appropriate and demonstrated that it was taking steps to continue investigating the matter.
The landlord also acknowledged within its complaint response that it had not responded to the resident at times, when it should have. It explained that it had taken action in relation to Mr D, however, it was unable to share details owing to GDPR. Not knowing what action the landlord had taken would understandably have caused the resident frustration. It was appropriate that the landlord did not divulge sensitive information. However, it is unclear why the landlord did not provide the resident with general information about the steps it had taken and what she should do in the event that she smelt further cannabis use. Providing the resident with such information may have provided her with some reassurance that the issue would not be left unresolved.
Overall, the landlord’s initial steps to investigate the resident’s reports were prompt and proportionate. However, it failed to investigate the subsequent reports appropriately. It was also inappropriate that it sought to discharge its responsibilities to the police. It also failed to consider other ways that it could investigate the resident’s reports, such as speaking with occupants of nearby flats. It was only when the resident made a complaint that it started to take meaningful steps to investigate the matter. This meant it took no action on the resident’s reports for approximately 4 months. That was a failing that caused the resident time, trouble and distress. Therefore there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports that her neighbour was smoking cannabis.
It is noted that the resident has reported that the issues are ongoing. This has been taken into account when we have made our orders.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of noise disturbance.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of her neighbour smoking cannabis.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

Within 4 weeks of the date of this determination, the landlord should do the following:
1. apologise to the resident for the failings highlighted by this investigation.
2. pay the resident £440 compensation. Comprised of:
  1. £90 for the distress and inconvenience caused by its handling of the resident’s reports of noise disturbance.
  2. £350 for the distress and inconvenience caused by its handling of the resident’s reports of her neighbour smoking cannabis.
3. contact the resident to discuss any concerns that she may have regarding the matters highlighted in this case. In doing so, where relevant, it should implement an action plan that includes an agreed method and frequency of contact with the resident. Where appropriate, it should consider whether mediation should be reoffered to both parties.
4. remind staff that they should investigate reports of cannabis use within the landlord’s remit. Partnership work should also be considered at an early stage in cases.

Recommendations

The Ombudsman recommends that the landlord should:
1. as part of lessons learnt that the landlord should considers installing carpets instead of vinyl in its first floor flats and above at void stage, including new builds.
2. If not already, consider implementing a proactive good neighbourhood management policy, distinct from its ASB policy, with a clear suite of options for maintaining good neighbourhood relationships and a matrix for assessing which option is the most appropriate.
3. self-assess against our October 2022 spotlight on noise complaints.
4. consider implementing a specific procedure in relation to cannabis nuisance. It should ensure that it takes a harm–centred approach. Focusing on early investigation and partnership work.