Great Places Housing Association (202123304)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202123304

Great Places Housing Group Limited

29 February 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 handling of the resident’s reports of antisocial behaviour.
2. The landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint.

Background

The resident lived in a one bedroom flat and was a tenant of the landlord. The tenancy began on 30 August 2019. The resident has moved from the accommodation and is no longer a tenant of the landlord. The tenancy ceased on 5 March 2023.
Section three of the tenancy agreement states tenants must not cause, permit or encourage major vehicle repairs on or in the vicinity of the premises. Any motor vehicles parked in the parking areas must be in good repair and be subject to a current vehicle excise duty payment and must not be allowed to drip oil or petrol onto the parking areas. The tenant may only park as many personal domestic vehicles as are permitted under the local parking arrangements for the premises.
Section three also states the tenant must obtain prior written permission from the landlord before carrying out any improvements or alterations to the premises. If the tenant breaches this clause or the terms of any permission then the tenant will be obliged to remove any improvements or alterations in question and / or return the premises to their previous condition, or else pay the landlord’s costs of doing so.
Section four of the tenancy agreement states the tenant or members of his/her household or invited visitors must not cause or allow any noise which might cause a nuisance or annoyance to neighbours.
Section four of the tenancy agreement also states the tenant must not cause or do anything likely to cause a nuisance or annoyance to neighbours or other tenants of the landlord. Examples of nuisance included but were not limited to: loud music; arguing and door slamming; misusing CCTV or other monitoring or surveillance equipment; damaging (or threatening to damage) property belonging to someone else.
The landlord’s customer feedback policy states the landlord has a two stage complaints process. At stage one the complaint will be acknowledged, and the stage one response will be issued within 10 working days.
If the resident is unhappy with the stage one response, the complaint can be escalated to stage two. The request to escalate to stage two must clearly outline the reasons why the complaint had not been fully considered and to include any supporting evidence. The landlord will respond at stage two within 20 working days.
The landlords customer feedback policy states a complaint submitted six months or more after the issue occurred is not considered a complaint.
The landlord’s anti social behaviour policy states at early intervention stage the landlord will:
1. Assess the information provided to it when responding to a report of anti social behaviour, and offer advice and support to help individuals and communities find solutions independently.
2. Use a combination of professional judgement and it’s anti social behaviour risk assessment framework to adopt a harm based approach where appropriate.
3. Seek a multi-agency approach when dealing with reported issues and will work with partner agencies such as the police, probation, social services, education and youth services.
4. Actively encourage engagement between parties in it’s approach to mediation, aiming to resolve issues before they escalate.
5. Use tenancy agreement clauses which allow it to deal with unacceptable behaviour. Starter Tenancies would be used as a preventative tool in line with it’s starter tenancy policy.
6. Where specific vulnerabilities are identified, it will endeavour to provide a tailored approach to those suffering and those perpetrating.
At the enforcement stage the landlord has the following options available to it:
1. Injunctions (including: undertakings, exclusions and positive requirements).
2. Possession proceedings.
3. Absolute possession powers.
4. Demotion of tenancies.
It will work with partner agencies on other potential solutions including:
1. Noise Abatement Notices.
2. Closure of premises in partnership with the police and Local Authority.
3. Criminal Behaviour Orders (CBOs).
4. Dispersal Orders.
5. Parenting Orders.

Summary of events

Scope of the investigation

It is acknowledged that the resident made reports of anti social behaviour to the landlord after the tenancy began in August 2019. The landlord had been in contact with the resident regarding these reports in an attempt to resolve the situation. The resident did write to his MP regarding his anti social behaviour reports in 2020. This Service however has not seen evidence of a formal complaint regarding the landlord’s handling of the anti social behaviour reports to be considered under it’s complaint process being made to the landlord until November 2021.
Under paragraph 42(c) of the Scheme, the Ombudsman would not usually consider complaints that were not brought to a member landlord’s attention within six months of the matters arising. Therefore this investigation will not be considering all the events that have occurred since 2019. This investigation has however used its discretion and will consider the events that have occurred since the resident was assisted in downloading a noise monitoring application in November 2020 as this application formed a substantive part of the noise element of the resident’s anti social behaviour complaints.
On 11 November 2020 the landlord visited the resident regarding his ongoing reports of anti social behaviour from his neighbour. During the visit the landlord assisted the resident in downloading the Council’s noise monitoring application to be used when the resident heard noise from his neighbour. The landlord’s records state the resident was provided diary booklets on 16 November 2020.
During that visit the landlord took photographs of the neighbours car that had been repeatedly reported to the landlord by the resident since February 2020 as being worked on as a scrap car and taking up additional car parking spaces at the scheme.
On 1 December 2020 the landlord emailed the resident stating it had not received any noise app recordings from the resident. The email requested for the resident to commit to record any excessive noise through the noise app and submit it to the Council. The landlord advised if no contact was received from the Council of noise recordings being submitted within the next 14 days it would close the case.
On 10 December 2020 the Council confirmed that some noise recordings submitted by the resident were at an unacceptable level and it had issued a letter to the resident asking for more recordings to be submitted.
On the same day the landlord was informed by the police that the neighbour had stated he would be moving the car to another location over the upcoming weeks.
On 11 January 2021 the Council advised the landlord it had received further noise recordings that were deemed to be unacceptable and it had sent diary sheets to the resident to complete with each reported noise incident. The Council advised the resident was not recording several incidents within one episode of noise. The landlord advised the resident to send multiple recordings during a period of noise to evidence the length of time the noise was continuing.
On 18 January 2021 the resident informed the landlord the neighbours car had not been removed.
On 27 January 2021 the resident advised he had not received any diary sheets. The landlord responded the same day and advised the resident it spoke with the Council who said the sheets had been sent by first class post but it would issue more diary sheets. The landlord told the resident the Councils environmental health service was now leading on the noise complaints. It asked the resident to let it deal with the neighbours car as there was currently a national lockdown that required people to stay at home.
On 29 January 2021 the landlord wrote to the neighbour regarding the car stating it was aware an engine had been placed in another neighbours parking space which had not been removed. It had asked the neighbour to respond within seven days about the car engine being removed.
On 2 February 2021 the landlord informed the resident it was waiting for a response from environmental health once it had analysed the recent noise recordings the resident had submitted.
The resident responded the same day and told the landlord he had submitted a full sheet of complaints and about 30 noise recordings. The resident told the landlord the neighbour put on music as soon as he got home from work. On the previous weekend the noise was unbearable and was up to number ten on the noise app.
The landlord responded to the resident and asked if he had contacted environmental health about the noise reported. The landlord said it understood the resident’s frustration but for it to proceed it needed the noise recordings and diary sheets to be submitted. The landlord stated it was aware the noise complaints had been reported for over one year but during that time it had asked for the noise to be reported through the app and the first submitted noise was in November 2020. The landlord stated it needed proof as it was not receiving any complaints from other residents.
On 4 February 2021 the landlord spoke to the resident and explained that he had advised music was being played into the early hours of the morning but none of his noise recordings showed this. The landlord also advised the resident the site had been visited on a regular basis and music had not been witnessed. The landlord told the resident he needed to be truthful about the noise as the next step would be for environmental health to install noise monitoring equipment so it would pick up a true picture of when and how long the noise was an issue. The landlord advised the noise complaints had been ongoing for a long time and the noise was not being reported by any other neighbour. The landlord advised it would not be doing anything until it was advised by environmental health and the noise needed to be analysed and deemed unacceptable.
On 17 February 2021 the landlord updated the resident following a meeting it had with environmental health, the police and other housing providers. The landlord stated:
1. Environmental health had advised that it had received the resident’s noise complaints through the noise app but despite trying to contact him several times and sending two lots of log sheets out to him, they had still not received the log sheets at the point of that meeting.
2. Environmental health advised that when the resident was recording the noise he had told them he was standing in his hallway to do it. It was aware the resident had said the neighbour played the music in the bedroom therefore capturing the noise in the hallway would provide a louder reading. Environmental health had advised that it needed the noise to be recorded from the resident’s lounge or bedroom to give them a true understanding of how the noise was affecting his everyday living. The resident was asked that he record from those areas in the future.
3. The resident had complained about the neighbours car still being in the car park and the engine in a residents parking bay. It had discussed this several times previously and was dealing with the issue. As there was currently a lockdown, it was not essential that the neighbour moved the car at that moment in time. It had asked that the neighbour didn’t do any mechanical work on the car and during it’s regular visits that had been adhered to. The car engine being in another residents parking bay should not have been causing the resident any issues. It had taken regular photos and the resident’s parking bay was always clear for him to park in.
4. The police officer the resident had spoken to had called the landlord to advise it of his conversation. The police advised the resident that they would not be going out to witness any noise, that it was for environmental health and not the police.
5. Environmental health were leading on his noise complaint and had advised the resident how it could move forward. That was that the resident record the noise, complete the log sheets, sign them and return them. Environmental health had advised the next steps was to install noise monitoring equipment into his property, but it would not do that unless they receive the log sheets. The landlord had advised the resident several times that it was not receiving any other complaints regarding noise and had not witnessed it during it’s time at the scheme, therefore, it was imperative for him to do what was being asked in order to proceed.
On 19 February 2021 the landlord wrote to the resident and stated environmental health had confirmed that they had received his log sheets however they did not match with the noise he had submitted on the app. He was advised to continue to record the noise but to ensure that when writing his log sheets, that the times of the noise match with the recordings he was submitting.
On 22 February 2021 the resident telephoned the landlord and reported loud noise until the early hours and that he had about one and half hours sleep. The resident said there was music from 9:50pm and banging and hammering.
The landlord responded on 25 February 2021 and advised the resident it had received an update from environmental health who wanted to install noise monitoring equipment. The landlord asked that the resident contact environmental health to arrange an appointment for the equipment to be installed.
On 3 March 2021 the landlord wrote to the resident and said it had been advised that noise monitoring equipment had been installed at the resident’s property. The landlord also informed the resident it had a property available at another scheme. The landlord noted it would not normally offer an internal transfer and would normally advise a tenant to apply through the waiting list but due to the ongoing issues it would consider the resident for the property.
On 10 March 2021 the environmental health service collected the noise monitoring equipment from the resident’s property. On arrival the environmental health officer witnessed loud music from the neighbour which continued until they had left. The environmental health service decided to issue a community protection warning to the neighbour. Environmental health asked the landlord if the warning could be jointly served to explain the seriousness of the matter and how it could affect the tenancy. The landlord agreed to jointly attend.
On 13 March 2021 the resident reported to the landlord that he had returned home to find an electrical box fitted to the wall above his windows. The resident stated to the landlord that he was kept up by his neighbour drilling and banging and it was only when he returned home from work that he saw the electrical box above his window and mess from the drilling over his windows.
The environmental health service with the landlord issued the community protection warning to the neighbour on 19 March 2021.
On 9 April 2021 the resident informed the landlord he had submitted noise examples to the environmental health service, and it had installed noise monitoring equipment again. The landlord informed the resident it was still important for him to continue to record the noise through the app and to complete the log sheets as the next steps would be to issue a community protection notice (CPN). The landlord informed the resident it would speak to environmental health about adding the car issues to the CPN but it had also contacted its legal team for advice on the next steps as the neighbour had been told not to work on the car but had now fitted his own electrical socket outside the back of the property. It had passed that to the repairs team to investigate.
The landlord emailed the resident with an update on 29 April 2021. The landlord informed the resident it had it’s monthly meeting with the environmental health service and the police. It said environmental health had received the resident’s recordings but had not received any diary sheets from the resident and the last recording was from 18 April 2021. Based on what had been submitted to it, no further action was going to be taken.
The landlord told the resident that if there was more noise from the neighbour then he would need to record and submit the noise along with a completed log sheet to environmental health. The landlord stated the car report was being dealt with and it was working with the neighbour to get a solution. On its most recent visit it had not seen any evidence of it affecting the resident’s property or parking space. The landlord reoffered mediation between the resident and neighbour.
The resident emailed the landlord 16 May 2021 and said he had a visit from environmental health regarding his noise complaints who said it was surprised the scrap car was still in the car park and the outside electrical socket was in situ.
The landlord provided an update to the resident on 18 May 2021. The landlord said during a late night inspection of the scheme by environmental health it found it to be quiet but stressed the importance of providing noise recordings and diary sheets as it could not take any action without evidence. The landlord told the resident it was still working on the car and alterations to the property reports and it was working with the neighbour to try and reach a resolution. It would provide a further update to the resident in the next seven days.
On the same day the landlord’s records state it created an action plan which included to arrange for an electrical inspection to take place on 20 May 2021 at the neighbours property due to the nature of alterations at the property. It also stated it would speak to the neighbour about removing the car or a tortes would be issued.
On 21 May 2021 the resident reported to the landlord that the neighbour had been hoovering from 11pm to 4am which had kept him awake.
On 26 May 2021 the resident told the landlord that he was not happy the neighbour still had his car outside and being allowed to play loud music. The resident said he would like for this to be taken higher. The landlord advised the resident his reports were not being ignored and it was working with the Council to resolve it.
The landlords records show that on 27 May 2021 it noted:
1. The resident had made over 90 noise complaints and the Council were working with him regarding the noise.
2. Other tenants had complained about the noise from the neighbour over the previous 20 months.
3. The neighbour had assaulted two people.
4. The neighbour had a scrap car parked in the car park which together with car body parts took up two and a half parking spaces.
5. The neighbour intimidated other neighbours and when he was working on the car and the neighbours on the lower floor could not have their windows open or open their curtains.
6. The electrical socket had been reported but nothing had been done.
On 1 June 2021 the resident reported to the landlord that the neighbour had been jet washing the car for over an hour and the car park had been flooded. The resident said the neighbour had blocked other parking spaces with equipment. The resident advised the socket the neighbour was using should be removed.
The landlord responded the next day and stated the electrical socket had been inspected and it was dealing with the matter. It could not provide further details due to GDPR but asked the resident gave it time to deal with the issues. The landlord said it had contacted the environmental health service for an update regarding the noise reports and it would recontact the resident once it had an update.
On 4 June 2021 the resident reported to the landlord that water was leaking from the neighbours flat and left water damage to bedroom walls and had dried out. The resident stated it may have happened when a power washer was used in the car park. A repair was logged.
On 10 June 2021 the landlord was informed the environmental health service had closed its case. It was closing the case as it had received a lot of recordings over the previous six months but there was insufficient evidence the noise was at an unacceptable level. The Council stated the resident was informed all the recordings were examined and since the neighbour had been issued with a community protection warning there was no evidence of excessive noise. The resident was told the community protection warning would remain in place but the case would not be reopened unless there were exceptional circumstances.
On the same day the landlord advised the resident it would also be closing the noise element of his reports but the vehicle element would remain open. A copy of the closure letter was not provided to this Service. The resident advised the landlord the water leak he had reported could have been caused by the neighbour running a hose from his flat and spending hours cleaning the car in the car park.
The landlord’s records stated the resident asked if it could remove the neighbour’s music equipment but it said it could not as there had been no breach of the tenancy. The resident said he felt the noise app did not work. An officer from the Council explained how the app worked and that noise monitoring equipment had also been installed three times and was unable to pick up excessive noise.
The landlord informed the resident the property that it had previously offered to him had been allocated to another resident. The resident stated he would not be moving. The landlord advised the property had been offered with the best intentions and a move was an option for him in the future if he decided he wished to move.
On 22 June 2021 the resident reported to the landlord that the neighbour had taken up three car park spaces while working on the car.
The resident emailed the landlord on 24 June 2021 to make a further report of the neighbour playing loud music and stated this had been happening for the previous two weeks. The resident said he could take no more of the noise and requested the landlord assist him in moving to an alternative property. The landlord responded to the resident and ask for a convenient time for it to call him to make an appointment.
On 28 June 2021 the resident emailed the landlord and asked the landlord to clarify who had inspected the outside socket and who had signed it off. The resident told the landlord he was becoming concerned about the neighbour wiring electrical circuits and the water that was coming through his ceiling.
On 7 July 2021 the resident made a further report of loud music from his neighbour to the landlord. The landlord’s records state it tried to call the resident later that day but there was no answer so left a voice message. The landlord noted the resident returned the call and said that despite meeting with the landlord and the Council a month ago the neighbour continued to play loud music and at unacceptable levels all hours of the night. The resident said it happened as soon as he returned from work.
On 8 July 2021 the landlord informed the resident an electrician had inspected the socket and certified it safe to use. The resident said that his car park space was next to where the car was located resulting in him being unable to park properly. The landlord discussed rehousing options with the resident who said he was on home choice and the landlord advised him to consider house exchanges to widen his options.
The resident reported loud music from his neighbour to the landlord on 12 July 2021. The resident stated music had been played between 11am and 10pm the previous Saturday. The resident said the landlord had not done anything since he reported the noise and asked for the landlord to call him to discuss his options to move.
The landlord returned the resident’s call on 19 July 2021 and was told by the resident the loud music started the previous Friday at 10am and continued until 1:40am the following morning.
On 22 July 2021 the landlord closed the noise case citing it, and environmental health had exhausted all options including the installation of noise monitoring equipment over the previous seven months, noise app recordings and scheme inspections, which resulted in no evidence of excessive noise.
On the same day the resident informed the landlord if the music continued from the neighbour, he would switch off the neighbour’s electric. The landlord responded and reiterated that environmental health could reopen the case under extreme circumstances and the landlord was following the same process. If the resident felt it was extreme then to contact environmental health with the information. The landlord said it had been to the scheme several times and had not witnessed any noise and not had noise complaints from other neighbours.
On 3 August 2021 the landlord spoke to the resident as he had reported the neighbour had two large ends for a car arrive and was taking up another car park space. The resident also said that the neighbour had played his music so loud it could be heard at the end of the carpark. The landlord asked if there were any other witnesses which he confirmed there was but was unsure if they had made reports. The landlord told the resident that unless other residents came forward it would be difficult for it to proceed.
On 4 August 2021 the resident reported to the landlord the neighbour was taking up at least three spaces on the carpark doing jobs on the car he was working on. The resident asked the landlord why was it allowing the neighbour to work on the scrap car. The resident said loud music was blasting more than last time. The landlord responded the next day and thanked the resident for his update and advised that it had attended a monthly multi agency meeting and no further reports had been received from environmental health or the police since the last meeting.
On 13 August 2021 the landlord’s records show a further email was received from the resident regarding noise from the neighbour. The landlord responded and said that as previously advised he needed to report the music to environmental health if he felt the noise had worsened as that had been the agency dealing with the noise case.
On 23 August 2021 the resident made a further report of noise from the neighbour to the landlord.
The resident called the landlord on 27 August 2021 to say no one had contacted him regarding his ongoing music issue. The resident said he had recently returned home and could hear the music clearly in the street. The resident was asked by the landlord if he had reported it to environmental health. The resident said he did not think the app was still working or his case live with them but said he would try the app over the upcoming weekend. The landlord advised the resident to contact environmental health. The resident said he had placed a couple of bids for other properties as he could no longer live in his property with his neighbour.
The landlord’s records show that on 16 September 2021 it received a phone call from the resident reporting loud music from his neighbour. The landlord noted it could hear very loud noise in the background. The landlord requested an officer contact the resident. Between the 16 September 2021 and 21 September 2021, the landlord’s records state it tried to call the resident but was unable to make contact. The landlord emailed the resident on 22 September 2021 and asked the resident to report using the noise app and send them to environmental health in the future to ensure a proper evaluation of the evidence could be made.
On 11 October 2021 the resident reported his neighbour had played loud music over the weekend and had resorted to slamming doors. The resident was asked by the landlord if he had recorded the music on the noise app. The resident had said he had not as had done so previously and nothing had been done.
The landlord asked the resident when he last used the app and the resident said around April 2021. The landlord told the resident if he was not using the tools available to prove his case to environmental health it would assume it had gone quiet and not provide evidence for the landlord. The resident agreed to use the app.
On 4 November 2021 the resident emailed the landlord and stated that after two years of complaints about his neighbour he wanted a final response from the landlord so he could approach this Service. The resident asked for a final letter to be sent to him. The resident also asked the landlord for a copy of its complaint’s procedure and protocols.
The landlord considered the resident’s email from 4 November 2021 as a complaint and issued an acknowledgement letter to him on 9 November 2021. The landlord stated it would issue its stage one response within 10 working days
On 10 November 2021 the resident sent the landlord a letter from his GP which stated the ongoing issues at the his property had been affecting the his health. The letter requested if anything could be done to alleviate the situation and stated the resident requested he would need a ground floor flat.
On 11 November 2021 the landlord wrote to the resident and said it had contacted the environmental health service and was advised they had not received any reports from the resident. The resident was informed that although the case had been closed by environmental health he could still provide the evidence of noise under a new complaint if he felt things had sufficiently changed.
On 12 November 2021 the resident wrote to the landlord and said that as the landlord had said it had responded to all of his complaints, there were was no other complaints about the neighbour and the case with the Council and the landlord was now closed, asked the landlord:
1. Why was there a need for local agency monthly meetings.
2. Why after a few months of him trying to contact an officer from the Council had he not had a response if he was part of the monthly meetings.
3. Why was a manager of the landlord not aware that the noise complaint was closed.
4. Why would it say there had been no other complaints about the neighbour when there clearly had been other complaints.
5. He would wait for the landlords response.
The landlord issued its stage one response on 22 November 2021. The landlord stated:
1. It had investigated the resident’s complaint and established the resident had reported anti social behaviour from his neighbour since 2019.
2. Due to GDPR it was unable to confirm if reports of anti social behaviour had been made by other neighbours or if any actions had been taken against any of his neighbours in response to his anti social behaviour reports. It could however assure the resident it took any complaints of anti social behaviour seriously and would investigate in line with it’s policies.
3. It was aware the Council and police were also involved as it worked in partnership with other agencies to resolve anti social behaviour cases. It had attended monthly multi agency meetings to discuss any cases active in the area and the issues at the resident’s scheme had been discussed.
4. A case was opened with the Council but closed due to insufficient evidence. The resident had been advised on a number of occasions to report any noise complaints directly to environmental health at the Council as they had a noise monitoring application that could be used. It provided a weblink to the resident.
5. It was aware of some issues being reported to the police who attended and it would continue to work in partnership with the police but it was unable to intervene in police matters.
6. It had offered mediation previously and understood the resident did not want that to happen. The offer of mediation was still available.
7. Noise monitoring equipment was installed around 2 March 2021. That information would have been used along with reports from the app to help the Council with its case which it understood to be currently closed.
8. It understood the Council had made unannounced visits to the scheme and at various times to try and monitor the issues taking place.
9. It had one other similar scheme in the area as the resident had requested a possible relocation as per the doctor’s letter he provided. When a ground floor flat became available the resident was advised of this but refused the offer. He had been provided with rehousing advice and it would be happy to provide that again if he required any further guidance.
10. The resident was advised to continue to report noise to the Council via the noise monitoring application, the landlord was happy to arrange mediation and it would offer rehousing advice again if required.
On 26 November 2021 the resident responded to the landlord’s stage one response. The resident said he did not understand why after two years of him making anti social behaviour reports the landlord was happy with its stage one response. The resident requested the complaint be escalated to stage two. The resident stated:
1. He had contacted the council about reinstating the noise app and had no response.
2. Mediation was not an option due to the neighbours erratic behaviour as advised by the police.
3. He did not want to rent from the landlord again as the lack of consideration by the landlord added to his ill health.
On 25 January 2022 the landlord emailed the resident and stated it had been contacted by this Service and told that it had not responded to the resident’s stage two escalation request. The landlord said it had checked it’s records and could not find any escalation request from the resident since it issued the stage one response. The landlord asked the resident to confirm the reasons why he was unhappy with the stage one response, and it would review the request to escalate the complaint.
The landlord was contacted by this Service on 6 April 2022 asking for an update on the status of the resident’s complaint and request made in January 2022 for the resident to be contacted. The resident confirmed the landlord had emailed him on 1 April 2022 acknowledging the complaint.
On 17 May 2022 this Service wrote to the landlord and informed it the resident had stated he had not had a response to the stage two escalation request. The landlord was informed the resident had sent a copy of his escalation email to this Service. This Service provided the landlord with the reasons the resident had provided for his escalation request. This Service informed the landlord it had previously written to it on 6 April 2022 and asked it to provide a stage two written response. The landlord was asked to provide a written stage two response by 16 June 2022.
On 19 May 2022 the landlord wrote to this Service and stated it had tried to contact the resident but had no response from him since it issued the stage one response. The landlord stated that without knowing the reason for the resident’s unhappiness with the stage one response it would be unable to take the complaint to stage two.
This Service wrote again to the landlord 23 May 2022 and asked the landlord to escalate the complaint to stage two as previously requested.
The landlord responded to this Service on 27 May 2022 and stated it had attempted to contact the resident and had not had a response. The landlord said that while it appreciated this Service had seen sight of an email from November 2021, it had not been able to locate it on its system. It had since emailed the resident asking for clarification why he was unhappy and were yet to hear from him.
The landlord was contacted by this Service on 24 November 2022 and 2 December 2022. The landlord on both occasions was asked to provide a written stage two response to the resident and in the letter dated 2 December 2022 was asked to provide proof of its attempts to contact the resident to try and resolve the outstanding complaint issues and progress the complaint.
On 6 December 2022 the landlord wrote to the resident. The landlord stated:
1. It had been contacted by this Service on 2 December 2022 and to be assured that it had reviewed the stage one complaint.
2. It was confident it had applied the correct process in relation to the resident’s complaint and was confident it had followed the correct customer feedback policy in relation to the way his complaint had been investigated and responded to.
3. It had received contact from this Service on 25 January 2022 and it emailed the resident on 25 January 2022 asking for further details why he was unhappy with it’s stage one response.
4. This Service had contacted it on 6 April 2022 and it advised it had not received any contact from the resident and it attempted to make contact with him once more.
5. This Service contacted it on 19 May 2022 and it advised again it had not had any contact from him and therefore was unable to progress the complaint.
6. Without contact from the resident with the reasons he was unhappy with the stage one response it was unable to escalate the complaint. As it was unable to discuss the complaint further with the resident it would not be looking to escalate the complaint to stage two. It had followed its policies and procedures with regards to the complaint and the resident had the option to refer to this Service.
On 16 February 2023 the resident informed this Service he had been offered accommodation from another housing association.
The tenancy ended on 5 March 2023.

Assessment and findings

Scope of the Investigation.

The resident has suggested that as a result of the landlord’s management of the anti social behaviour, his health had deteriorated and he lost his employment. While this may be the case, it is beyond the expertise of this Service to reasonably determine a causal link between the landlord’s actions (or lack of) and the deterioration of the resident’s health. This Service has therefore made no comments in relation to this.
This Service is unable to draw conclusions on the causation of, or liability for, any impact on health or wellbeing. Personal injury or loss of earnings claims must, ultimately, be decided by the courts, as they can consider medical evidence and make legally binding findings. However, this Service will consider the general distress and inconvenience the situation may have caused the resident.
The resident stated to this Service he had complained about the suitability of alternative accommodation offered to him. This did not form part of the residents complaint considered by the landlord and therefore will not be part of this investigation.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of antisocial behaviour.

It is this Service’s role to assess the appropriateness and adequacy of the landlord’s actions in responding to reports of anti social behaviour and the fairness and reasonableness of its response to the formal complaint. This does not include establishing whether a party is responsible for anti social behaviour; our investigation is limited to the consideration of the actions of the landlord in the context of its relevant policies/procedures as well as what was fair in all the circumstances of the case.
There is no doubt that the resident was making regular reports to the landlord regarding noise from his neighbour. The reports were consistent in both frequency and the type of noise being reported, mainly loud music. The landlord in it’s response to the resident was to request he report the noise to the Council and to use the noise monitoring application provided by the Council. The Council then requested to be the lead on the noise complaints. While it is considered good practice for a landlord to work with other agencies in its evidence gathering, the landlord ultimately is responsible for ensuring it keeps appropriate evidence and records of it’s meetings with the other agencies and can demonstrate why it ultimately took any decisions.
Although the landlord’s antisocial behavioural policy states it will work with other agencies in evidence gathering, the policy did not state all noise related anti social behavioural reports would only be handled by the Council. There was very little evidence of correspondence between the Council and the landlord regarding the noise reports other than some notes from monthly agency meetings.
Landlords collect evidence for potential breaches of tenancy and actions under their anti social behaviour policies whereas environmental health would be working to prove that the noise had breached statutory noise nuisance levels. There was no evidence of any examination or consideration of the noise records by the landlord or the reasoning for the landlords decision to close the case other then it was because the Council had closed it’s case.
The landlord’s anti social behaviour policy states it may use sound monitoring equipment to investigate reports of noise nuisance. There was no evidence this was offered by the landlord itself once it was aware the Council had closed it’s case in June 2021 and the resident made new reports of noise, instead the resident was consistently asked to report noise complaints to the Council who had already stated it would only reopen the case under extreme circumstances.
The landlord has not evidenced that it took any substantive action itself to investigate the reports of noise by the resident for the period of time covered in this investigation. Especially after the Council had closed its case.
The landlord has not evidenced that it took a strong enough approach to the residents anti social behaviour reports. Although it’s anti social behaviour policy states it would work in partnership with other agencies there was instead an over reliance on requesting the resident contacted the environmental health service to provide it with evidence before it would act.
The tenancy agreement is clear that a resident is not to use the car park area for work on motor vehicles. The evidence provided shows the landlord was aware of reports from the resident that the neighbour was using the car park to make repairs to a motor vehicle and may have been using additional car parking spaces.
Although the landlord stated it was aware of the reported issue and it asked the resident on multiple occasions to allow it to resolve the situation, there is no evidence provided by the landlord that shows what investigations it undertook, what evidence it had gathered and how it decided if there was any breach of the tenancy by the neighbour.
The landlord informed the resident that following his reports of an outside electrical socket being installed above his window by the neighbour it had carried out the appropriate inspections. There was however no evidence of what electrical inspection took place regarding the electrical socket, who conducted the inspection or relevant sign off paperwork provided to this Service.
The landlord was aware of the electrical socket in March 2021 but the inspection did not take place until July 2021. Given the risk posed by a resident installing an electrical socket to the building, the landlord did not act appropriately to quickly inspect and ensure there was no safety risk posed by the new socket.
There were also no records that show if the landlord considered if the neighbour was in breach of section four of the tenancy agreement in making alterations to the premises without permission and if any further action should be taken. Especially, given the socket may have been used by the neighbour to continue work on the motor vehicle that was already generating anti social behaviour reports.
The evidence provided also shows the landlord had received complaints from other residents but it has not evidenced it considered these complaints collectively to investigate and establish what action it could or would take. This appears to be in contrast with it informing the resident it had not received any complaints from other residents.
Although the landlord in its case notes states what it had done in relation to the resident’s anti social behaviour reports. The landlord has not evidenced the majority of these actions taking place. The landlord has failed to provide any evidence of it’s correspondence with the Council or the police in relation to the anti social behaviour reported and it has failed to evidence how it has internally reached decisions to the issues reported and whether to issue warning letters, to start any proceedings or close the cases. There were also no copies of any letters issued to the neighbour provided to this Service.
It is the view of this Service that the landlord may well have handled the resident’s reports of anti social behaviour in line with its policy. However, the gaps and omissions in the landlord’s evidence provided to this Service have hampered this Service’s ability to assess this, or the landlord’s rationale behind its decisions. Good record keeping is a vital element of a landlord’s function across all service areas. The landlord’s inability to evidence several of its key actions and decisions, show it conducted any risk assessments or created action plans for the anti social behaviour reports was therefore unreasonable. This Service therefore cannot establish that the landlord had taken all reasonable steps to investigate the resident’s reports of anti social behaviour.
The resident made it clear to the landlord he was seeking to move from the property. Eventually the resident did move to an other property not owned by the landlord. It is a significant decision for a resident to make the decision to move properties due to the anti social behaviour reported. It is important for the landlord to ensure it evidences the actions it has taken to provide reassurance that it had done everything it could to avoid a resident having to seek alternative accommodation. In this case the landlord has not evidenced this. This is maladministration by the landlord and the landlord should pay the resident £750 for its handling of his reports of anti social behaviour.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint

The landlord issued the stage one response following the resident’s email in November 2021. The landlords record show the resident called the landlord on 26 May 2021 stating that he felt his neighbour was getting away with it, he was suffering ill health and asked for it to be taken higher. This could have been considered that the resident was making a formal complaint. The landlord has not however shown it considered if this was to be formally logged as a complaint or evidenced how it responded to the residents request for it to be taken higher.
In the landlord’s stage one response it explained how it had handled the noise complaints made by the resident, that the Council, who had been investigating the reports of noise had closed the case and the resident was advised to make new reports to the Council. The response only stated there was insufficient evidence to the noise reports but failed to provide the resident with an explanation of its findings or why the evidence was insufficient.
The email the landlord considered to be the resident’s complaint clearly stated the resident was unhappy with the response from the landlord to two years of his anti social behaviour reports. Therefore the landlord should have considered all aspects of the resident’s anti social behaviour reports and not just the noise reports.
The stage one response however failed to acknowledge or respond to the resident’s other reports of anti social behaviour including the electrical works and car reports. From the evidence provided the landlord did not appear to contact the resident regarding his complaint between the complaint being logged and the response being issued. If there was any doubt by the landlord it should have spoken to the resident to clarify what the resident was making the complaint about.
While it is not aways necessary to speak to the resident regarding the complaint made it is good practice for the landlord to do this as it will ensure it correctly understands and responds to all elements of the residents complaint.
It is clear from the evidence provided that the resident did request for his complaint to be escalated on 26 November 2021. The landlord has stated it had no record of this request being received.
The landlord therefore has not evidenced it has kept appropriate records of its contact with the resident and in particular the complaints the resident had made. The landlord is required to ensure any correspondence it receives is correctly recorded and logged. It should then deal with the correspondence appropriately and inline with it’s processes and procedures to ensure no correspondence is either missed or not responded to.
Following contact from this Service the landlord said it had tried to contact the resident to establish his escalation reasons. The landlord has evidenced it attempted this on 25 January 2022. There is no evidence that shows the resident responded to the landlords request.
There is no further evidence of attempts by the landlord to contact the resident either by phone, email, or letter. The landlord has not shown therefore that it took all reasonable steps to make contact with the resident in relation to his request to escalate the complaint.
This Service’s Complaint Handling Code (the code) states that landlords should not unreasonably refuse to escalate a complaint through all stages of the complaints procedure and must have clear and valid reasons for taking that course of action. Where a landlord decides not to escalate a complaint it should provide an explanation to the resident. It should make clear that its previous response was its final response to the complaint and provide information on referral to this Service.
The resident’s complaint was made on 4 November 2021. The landlord responded at stage one within the timescales of its complaints policy on 21 November 2021. After the resident’s escalation request on 26 November 2021, it failed to issue a letter detailing why it had not escalated the complaint to stage two until 6 December 2022. This was 258 working days after the stage two escalation request had been made and 219 working days after it first tried to contact the resident following being informed by this Service of the escalation request.
The length of time for the landlord to issue the letter regarding stage two to the resident is not considered appropriate given the escalation request was made in November 2021 and it was also contacted by this Service in January 2022. Therefore, the failure to address all aspects of the anti social behaviour reported in the stage one response, failure to provide a detailed response of its findings and its handling of the request for escalation of the complaint was maladministration and it should pay the resident £250 for its handling of his complaint.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of antisocial behaviour
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint.

Reasons

The landlord allowed the Council to lead on the noise reports made by the resident but it has failed to evidence it’s interactions with the Council or how it determined any actions it took regarding the noise reports. It failed to evidence it took appropriate steps to investigate and take action regarding the multiple reports about the neighbours use of the car park to work on a motor vehicle, the installation of the electrical socket by the neighbour and if these were breaches of the tenancy.
The landlord failed to address all aspects of the resident’s anti social behaviour reports in the stage one response and it did not provide a detailed explanation of its findings to the noise reports. It failed to keep adequate records of the resident’s request to escalate the complaint to stage two and it has failed to evidence it took enough proactive action to contact the resident following his request to escalate the complaint resulting in a significant delay in the final response being issued.

Orders

Within four weeks of the date of this report the landlord is to:
1. Pay the resident £750 for it’s handling of the resident’s reports of antisocial behaviour.
2. Pay the resident £250 for it’s handling of the resident’s complaint.

Recommendations

The landlord to review this Service’s Knowledge and Information Management spotlight report and assesses itself against it’s record keeping practices.
The landlord reviews this Services spotlight report on noise complaints, reviews it’s anti social behaviour processes and take steps to ensure all action plans, risk assessments, letters issued and any other evidence from it’s investigations are recorded and copies are recorded on the case file.