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

Karbon Homes Limited inc Byker Community Trust (202213965)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202213965

Karbon Homes Limited

23 April 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:
    1. The landlord’s handling of the resident’s request to investigate issues of noise transference at the property.
    2. The landlord’s decision to issue the resident with a tenancy warning.
    3. The landlord’s associated complaint handling.

Background

  1. The resident has been an assured tenant of the landlord since 2005. The property is a one bedroom, ground floor flat. A previous investigation into the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of noise transference was investigated and determined by the Ombudsman on 6 April 2022 under reference 20210041.
  2. On 16 August 2022 the resident told the landlord there had been a murder in the local area due to a dispute about noise. He said the landlord would be responsible if there were to be any escalation with his neighbour. The landlord discussed the matter with the police and he was issued with a tenancy warning on 24 August 2022.
  3. On 1 September 2022 the resident said that the landlord had not acted responsibly in relation to his concerns and had not investigated the noise transference thoroughly. He disputed the legality of the written warning, which he felt he should not have been sent as he had not been charged with any offence.
  4. The landlord responded to the resident at stage 1 of its complaint process on 11 November 2022. It explained that the matter of noise transference had already been investigated and was closed, but it would be willing to investigate any new reports, including any anti-social behaviour (ASB) involving his neighbour. It said it had reviewed the correspondence he had sent in August and deemed the warning he had been given to be proportionate. It did however recognise that there had been a failure to address his concerns as a formal complaint at an earlier opportunity and offered him £25 in compensation. 
  5. On 19 November 2022 the resident told the landlord he was disappointed with its response. He said it had failed to protect him from “severe ASB” and it had no grounds for sending him a tenancy warning. He said the complaint handler had acted unprofessionally by not sending him a copy of the complaint letter by post, and he felt the £25 it had offered him was insufficient.
  6. The landlord provided a final response on 30 November 2022. It explained what was he was reporting was “normal living noise” between flats, and reiterated that it would only investigate new reports unrelated to the same issue of noise transference. It reiterated the warning he had been sent had been issued in line with its ASB policy. It apologised for not sending the resident a copy of the complaint by post, which it deemed to be an oversight rather than unprofessional conduct. It said the £25 it had offered was appropriate and in line with its compensation policy.
  7. In contact with the Ombudsman, the resident said that he was dissatisfied the landlord was unwilling to investigate intermittent thudding noises from his neighbour and he wanted the warning against him retracted.

Assessment and findings

Jurisidction

  1. What the Ombudsman can and cannot consider is called the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction. This is governed by the Scheme. When a complaint is brought to this service, the Ombudsman must consider all the circumstances of the case, as there are sometimes reasons why a complaint will not be investigated.
  2. Paragraph 42(l) of the Scheme states that the Ombudsman will not investigate complaints which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, seek to raise again matters which the Housing Ombudsman, or any other Ombudsman has already decided upon.
  3. The resident has been reporting issues of noise transference in his flat for a protracted period, spanning a number of years. There have been a number of investigations and formal complaints made about the issue historically, as well as complaints made about landlord staff handling the issue. A previous investigation into the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of noise transference was investigated and determined by the Ombudsman on 6 April 2022 under reference 20210041 and found no maladministration of the landlord’s response to his concerns.
  4. The resident has since provided no new evidence, but has repeatedly expressed his general dissatisfaction that no further action had been taken by the landlord to investigate the noise transference.
  5. The Ombudsman is unable to consider the resident’s complaint, because his complaint seeks to raise again matters already investigated and decided upon. Therefore in accordance with paragraph 42(l) of the Housing Ombudsman’s Scheme, the resident’s complaint about the landlord’s handling of his request to investigate issues of noise transference at the property is outside of jurisdiction.

The landlord’s decision to issue the resident with a tenancy warning.

  1. The resident has a responsibility under the terms of his tenancy agreement to not threaten or use menacing or abusive behaviour towards any of the landlord’s staff, or anyone living in the locality of his home. In this case, the resident’s correspondence dated 16 August 2022 mentioned murder linked to a noise dispute. It is understandable why this particular contact from the resident caused the landlord alarm, as he had made a comment that it would be held responsible for any escalation of events with his own neighbour. Given that the landlord felt alarmed by the comments the resident had made, it was reasonable for it to consider his actions under the landlord’s ASB policy.
  2. Key to the ASB, Crime and Policing Act 2014 is effective multi-agency partnership working; the landlord’s ASB policy supports this. Following receipt of the resident’s contact, the landlord contacted the police promptly to discuss ongoing concerns about the resident’s contact. In addition to discussing the behaviour with the resident, an agreement was made that the police contacted the resident’s GP to follow up on welfare concerns, with an update to be provided in the following days. This was appropriate and proportionate action to take, and demonstrated effective partnership working.
  3. The police updated the landlord with the outcome of their discussions with the neighbour promptly. They advised the landlord that although the incident had not been recorded as a crime, the resident had been asked to refrain from making such comments in the future. The landlord was also updated that the GP had been in contact with the resident to discuss welfare concerns. Although the police had not charged the resident with any offence, the landlord still had an obligation to consider whether there was a breach of tenancy, and whether further action needed to be taken against the resident.
  4. The landlord’s ASB policy places an emphasis on prevention and early intervention to support perpetrators to amend their behaviour. Its policy states that it will consider a range of non-legal interventions to address issues, including warning letters. Its accompanying procedure explains that any warning letters sent to residents must include the details of the allegation being made and the relevant tenancy agreement clause the issue relates to. In this case, the landlord wrote to the resident in a timely manner and provided him with a sufficient explanation as to why his behaviour had constituted a breach of tenancy agreement.
  5. In raising his complaint, the resident said he felt the landlord had no legal grounds to issue him with a warning and felt it was issued in an attempt to “intimidate and agitate” him. There is no evidence that this is the case. The landlord held appropriate discussions with partnership agencies before issuing the warning, which was reasonable and proportionate. Its decision to inform him how his behaviour was impacting his tenancy was also appropriate.
  6. In responding to the resident’s complaint, the landlord reiterated it was the resident’s responsibility to adhere to his tenancy agreement which was appropriate. It managed the resident’s expectations by reiterating why the notice had been served, however it could have gone further to explain that no further legal action would be taken if the resident amended his behaviour in the future. A recommendation has been made for the landlord to ensure this is made clear to residents issued with tenancy warnings.
  7. Overall, there was no maladministration in the landlord’s decision to issue the resident with a tenancy warning. The tenancy warning was issued in accordance with the landlord’s ASB policy and was a proportionate action to try to engage with the resident to change his behaviour.

The landlord’s associated complaint handling.

  1. The landlord’s complaint policy states that it considers a complaint as “an expression of dissatisfaction, however made, about the standard of service, actions or lack of action by the organisation, its own staff, or those acting on its behalf, affecting an individual resident or group of residents”. This is consistent with the Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code). In this case, the resident’s correspondence dated 1 September 2022 was a clear expression that he was unhappy with the way the landlord had handled both his reports of noise transference and the warning that had been given to him.
  2. Although records show that the landlord responded to the resident, it did so informally rather than taking his complaint through the formal process which was unreasonable. As a result, he contacted the Ombudsman who had to intervene and ask the landlord to respond formally to him by 4 November 2022.
  3. The landlord was slightly delayed in responding within this timeframe, and a stage 1 response was not issued until 11 November 2022. It accepted that there had been a service failure with regards to its complaint handling, and it had failed to recognise his contact as a complaint at an earlier opportunity. It compensated him £25 which was reasonable and in line with its compensation and goodwill payments policy.
  4. In escalating his complaint, the resident said that the complaint handler had acted “unprofessionally” by sending a copy of the response by email rather than post. Email had been the predominant method in which the resident had been communicating with it up until that point. As there was no record that the resident had asked for communication to be posted to him, it was reasonable for the landlord to have assumed he would receive the correspondence in the same way. To put matters right, the landlord apologised to the resident for the oversight and offered to update his contact preferences as he wished, which was appropriate.
  5. Aspects of the resident’s complaint relate to his dissatisfaction that the landlord will not further investigate his reports of noise transference as a complaint. The Code explains that there may be circumstances in which a matter will not be considered as a complaint. This includes if the matter has been previously investigated under the landlord’s complaint policy, as is the scenario in this case. In addressing the resident’s complaint, the landlord has set out expectations clearly and explained to the resident on several occasions why it will not revisit matters it and the Ombudsman have already considered.
  6. The landlord’s response on the matter has been fair and consistent, and it has shown empathy in trying to manage the resident’s expectations. Whilst it has explained why it will not respond to his repeated concerns about the same issue of noise transference, it has assured him it investigate any new emerging concerns, which is appropriate.
  7. In relation to the failures identified, the Ombudsman’s role is to consider whether the redress offered by the landlord put things right and resolved the resident’s complaint satisfactorily in the circumstances. In considering this the Ombudsman takes into account whether the landlord’s offer of redress was in line with the Ombudsman’s Dispute Resolution Principles: Be Fair, Put Things Right and Learn from Outcomes as well as our own guidance on remedies.
  8. Overall, the landlord has accepted that there had been a failure to register the resident’s complaint at an earlier opportunity, resulting in a delay providing him a formal response. To put matters right, the landlord apologised and appropriately compensated the resident for the service failure. Furthermore it took steps to address how he would prefer to receive correspondence from it in the future. Its acknowledgement of its failures have been balanced and reasonable, resulting in a finding of reasonable redress. 

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 53(b) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme the landlord has made an offer of redress in relation to its handling of the associated complaint prior to investigation which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion resolves the complaint satisfactorily.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration in respect of the landlord’s decision to issue the resident with a tenancy warning.
  3. In accordance with paragraph 42(l) of the Housing Ombudsman’s Scheme, the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of noise transference are outside of the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction.

Recommendation

  1. It is recommended that the landlord amends its wording on the tenancy warning to include assurance that no further legal action will be taken should the behaviour improve.