Leeds Federated Housing Association Limited (202346159)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202346159

Leeds Federated Housing Association Limited

14 January 2025

Our approach

The Housing Ombudsman’s approach to investigating and determining complaints is to decide what is fair in all the circumstances of the case. This is set out in the Housing Act 1996 and the Housing Ombudsman Scheme (the Scheme). The Ombudsman considers the evidence and looks to see if there has been any ‘maladministration,’ for example whether the landlord has failed to keep to the law, followed proper procedure, followed good practice, or behaved in a reasonable and competent manner.

Both the resident and the landlord have submitted information to the Ombudsman, and this has been carefully considered. Their accounts of what has happened are summarised below. This report is not an exhaustive description of all the events that have occurred in relation to this case, but an outline of the key issues as a background to the investigation’s findings.

The complaint

1. The complaint is about the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of antisocial behaviour (ASB) in relation to noise nuisance.

Background

2. The resident is an assured tenant of a flat owned by the landlord. The landlord is aware she has vulnerabilities with her mental health.
3. The landlord’s records show that the resident reported hearing excessive noise from the neighbour in the flat directly above hers on various occasions between 13 January 2023 and 23 October 2023. She described the noise as usually consisting of coughing, banging, shouted swear words and shouts of “die, die.” She said she felt scared and intimidated, and the situation was affecting her mental health.
4. The resident made a formal complaint on 27 October 2023, stating that she was unhappy with how the landlord managed her reports of noise nuisance. The landlord issued its stage 1 complaint response on 10 November 2023. It said it would keep in regular contact with her neighbour and continue to encourage positive behaviour.
5. The resident reported further incidents of noise nuisance in January 2024. The landlord informed her on 8 January 2024 it would escalate her complaint to stage 2 of its process. It issued its stage 2 complaint response on 1 February 2024. It apologised for not opening an ASB case earlier and offered her £200 compensation for distress and inconvenience.
6. The resident made a second formal complaint on 23 July 2024, stating that the issue of noise nuisance from her neighbour was still ongoing. In response to this complaint, the landlord issued its stage 1 complaint response on 13 August 2024. It stated that the reported incidents did not meet the threshold for ASB but was household noise associated with living in a flat. It found no failing in how it managed her case.
7. The resident was unhappy with the landlord’s stage 1 response and asked it to escalate her complaint to stage 2 of its process on 20 August 2024. It reiterated its second stage 1 response in its second stage 2 response on 16 September 2024. It also apologised and offered her £100 for the delays in keeping her updated regarding soundproofing works.
8. The resident remained dissatisfied with the landlord’s final complaint response and referred her complaint to this Service.

Assessment and findings

Scope of the investigation

9. The resident felt that the landlord’s handling of her reports of noise nuisance impacted her mental health. This Service cannot say whether a person was injured, or a health condition made worse by a landlord’s actions or omissions. This would be better suited to the court. Should the resident wish to pursue matters of health further, she should seek legal advice. We have considered whether the landlord’s award of compensation was appropriate to recognise the distress and inconvenience caused to the resident.

The resident’s noise nuisance reports

10. The role of the Ombudsman is to consider complaints about how the landlord responded to reports of antisocial behaviour. It is not the Ombudsman’s role to decide if the actions of the resident’s neighbour amounted to antisocial behaviour, but rather, whether the landlord dealt with her reports appropriately and reasonably. The Ombudsman is unable to establish whether a party is responsible for anti-social behaviour so cannot tell the landlord to act against the neighbour.
11. When it receives any reports of ASB, the landlord would require evidence to fully investigate the reports made, conclude and, if required, take appropriate action. For the landlord to be able to take any enforcement action it would require evidence of any breaches of the tenancy agreement or its ASB policy.
12. The landlord has an ASB policy which states that ASB may include noise nuisance. However, it would not consider general household noise as ASB. It lists some actions it will take to prevent ongoing ASB including offering mediation, noise level agreements and referrals for third party support.
13. The landlord’s ASB policy lists actions it would complete when it receives an ASB report such as contacting the person making the report and agreeing an action plan, it would open an ASB case and record ASB reports in its case management system. It would actively monitor open cases of ASB including regular review dates and updating action plans. It would use the range of legal and non-legal remedies, tools, and powers to resolve ASB.
14. Its ASB policy states that the Community Trigger applies when someone has reported ASB 3 times in the past 6 months and feels unheard or that their reports received inadequate attention. It states it would facilitate its residents in requesting a community trigger in relevant situations.
15. The resident made her initial report of noise nuisance on 13 January 2023. She stated that the neighbour was banging in the flat. She made a second report on 31 January 2023, stating that the neighbour was shouting regularly, and that she wanted the landlord to intervene before the issue escalated. She made further reports of her neighbour shouting “die, die,” swearing and coughing around 9 times between 21 February 2023 and 18 July 2023. She said it was obvious the neighbour had mental health issues and should have been “checked out” before it allowed him to move into the flat. She said her mental health was suffering badly and asked the landlord to evict the neighbour.
16. The landlord contacted the resident promptly on receiving each report. It informed her that her neighbour was mentally unwell and had no recollection of shouting or making excessive noise. It said her neighbour was getting help from the mental health team. It explained that it could not evict her neighbour as there was no proof of ASB. It asked her to download the noise app and keep a noise diary to record further incidents.
17. The landlord’s communication with the resident was reasonable and its request for her to keep a noise diary was appropriate. However, in line with its ASB policy, it should have opened an ASB case, completed a risk assessment, informed her how it would manage her reports and agree frequency of contact and an action plan. The landlord failed to follow its ASB policy at this stage.
18. The landlord’s records showed no further reports from the resident in August 2023. On September 22, 2023, it contacted her for an update. She confirmed that the shouting had stopped but the neighbour was still coughing. The landlord showed concern for the resident by checking in on her to ensure the situation with the neighbour had improved.
19. The resident contacted the landlord on 23 and 26 October 2023, reporting that in addition to the coughing, the neighbour had started shouting “die, die” again and she felt that he was doing it on purpose. On 26 October 2023, it informed her that it would log the report but that as previously explained it did not class the neighbour’s actions as ASB as it did not believe he was coughing intentionally. It said this was household noise and it was not taking any further action. However, its records show that it did contact her neighbour’s mental health team to notify them of the new report which was appropriate in the circumstances.
20. The landlord’s advice was reasonable and in line with its ASB policy, as it did not have proof of ASB occurring, other than allegations. There was, therefore, nothing further that it could have done other than advise the resident to keep a record of any events which it consistently advised her to do by way of the noise app and diary. For a landlord to take formal action in respect of ASB, it requires corroborative evidence of the alleged behaviour to support formal action.
21. The resident made her first formal complaint on 27 October 2023, as she was upset that the landlord had not opened an ASB case for her and she felt the neighbours coughing and shouting was deliberate and targeted at her.
22. In the landlord’s stage 1 response of 10 November 2023, it stated that it discussed the issues the resident had experienced during its home visit of 9 November 2023. It stated that she confirmed that the situation had improved since it spoke to her neighbour about the reports. It said it would endeavour to be more proactive in using positive reinforcement with her neighbour by contacting him on a regular basis when he was quiet to encourage him to keep the behaviour going rather than by being reactive and only contacting him when she made a complaint. It said it had offered to put carpets in the neighbour’s bedroom to help absorb the noise.
23. The landlord’s response was reasonable, however, it should have addressed the issue of not opening an ASB case for the resident, as she was concerned it was not taking her reports seriously because it had not done this or followed its procedures for ASB reports. It should have opened an ASB case at this stage and informed her how it would manage any further reports. It would have been good practice for it to offer her support with downloading the noise app and to have provided her with diary sheets for her to record any evidence she had. This would have created uncertainty for the resident regarding how it would deal with any further ASB reports she made.
24. The resident informed the landlord on 8 January 2024 that the noise issue was still ongoing. She wanted to know if it would speak to the neighbour and said that her ideal outcome would be for it to move the neighbour elsewhere as the situation was affecting her mental health and her grandson. It informed her that it would escalate her complaint to stage 2 of its process.
25. The landlord’s records show it contacted the neighbour the same day it received the resident’s report. It arranged a date for a home visit to discuss ways of improving the situation and completed this visit on 16 January 2024. During the visit, it discussed the neighbour’s health, and he disclosed that he had been unwell with a diagnosed chest infection so could not help coughing. He was apologetic and did not recall shouting. It helped him to secure a GP appointment to discuss his mental health. It suggested putting carpets in his bedroom to reduce the noise traveling into the resident’s flat, but he was not keen on this. It said that it would contact him again in a couple of weeks and encouraged him to follow up on the actions it had discussed with him.
26. The landlord’s actions were appropriate in the circumstances of the case and demonstrated its ongoing approach to providing both the resident and her neighbour with ongoing support. It informed her of the outcome of its visit on 25 January 2024 and advised her that it was helping her neighbour to access adequate support. She further reported that he was still shouting “die, die”, which she felt was intentional. She agreed to download the noise app to try and record this.
27. The landlord contacted the neighbour on 26 January 2024, the day after the resident’s further report, and explained that it did not have any evidence of him making noises but that it had asked the resident to start recording these noises. It advised him that it had opened an ASB case so it could monitor the issue over the next weeks. It continued to act promptly in response to her reports and its records show that it was genuine in seeking ways to resolve the issue.
28. The landlord issued its stage 2 complaint response on 1 February 2024. It stated that the resident informed it that she had been reporting ASB since January 2023. It reviewed its internal system and although each of the events she reported were logged on its system, each event was recorded individually. It stated that it should have opened an ASB case to log, respond and action these incidents instead of recording them as individual events. It apologised that it had failed to do this and informed her that it had opened an ASB case to manage her reports going forward. It said it would monitor has case and had booked a home visit for 5 February 2024. It offered her £200 for the distress and inconvenience the situation had caused her and said it had learned lessons on how to record and manage future noise nuisance reports.
29. The landlord’s response and offer of compensation was appropriate and in line with this Service expectation for landlords to show learning from complaints and to put things right.
30. The landlord’s records show it visited both the resident and her neighbour on 5 February 2024. It suggested mediation to both parties. During its visit to her neighbour, it offered to install carpets in his bedroom if he agreed to this. He did not agree to this. He disclosed the medical intervention he was receiving. It informed him that it had not received further reports of noise and encouraged him to keep up the positive actions.
31. During the landlord’s visit to the resident, she informed it that things were quiet again, and the neighbour had not made any more noise. It showed her how to use the noise recording app and said it would continue to monitor the case for the next 2 weeks. It explained how it would manage her case and encouraged her to continue to log any further incidents. It updated her on the outcome of its visit to her neighbour and said it would keep her updated on any developments. Its actions were reasonable and in line with its ASB management policy.
32. The landlord completed a case review on 20 February 2024, in line with its ASB policy. It noted there had been no further incidents of the neighbour shouting “die, die, die,” since its last visit with him. It said the resident had not submitted tangible evidence to suggest that he was indeed making these noises. It informed her during its visit on 23 February 2024 that it had received the recordings had she sent but there was no evidence to support ASB and as such, it would continue to monitor the case.
33. The landlord’s record showed that it recorded and reviewed the resident’s noise entry reports and found no noise above acceptable levels. Its decision not to classify the noise reported as ASB was appropriate as its policy does not classify general household noise as ASB.
34. The landlord continued to monitor the case as it promised and it completed multiple home visits, case reviews and reviewed the recordings the resident sent it between 26 February 2024 and 16 July 2024. During that time, the neighbour agreed to mediation which the resident declined. He also agreed for it to install carpets in his bedroom as a soundproofing measure, which it did in June 2024. The resident was concerned that installing carpets only in the bedroom would not improve the situation. She wanted it to install soundproofing in the entire flat.
35. The landlord informed the resident on 16 July 2024, that it was planning to close the case as the noise she recorded was household noise rather than targeted ASB. It said it would continue to explore further sound proofing options.
36. The landlord closed the case correctly and in line with its ASB policy which states cases it will close cases where there is insufficient evidence or when a case review considers it no longer appropriate or necessary to continue with a case. Its records show it was persistent in asking the neighbour to allow it install carpets to reduce the noise. It was willing to explore other soundproofing options. This demonstrates further that even though it concluded the noise was not ASB, it still considered the impact the noise had on the resident and was exploring ways to improve the situation for her.
37. The resident raised a second formal complaint to the landlord on 23 July 2024. It spoke to her on the same day, and she confirmed that she was unhappy that she had been receiving less communication from it in the preceding weeks. She was upset about the lack of progress regarding soundproofing, and said the carpet it installed had not improved the situation. She said things had quietened down with her neighbour, but she was concerned that it might start up again. It informed her it would extend its response time to 20 working days to enable it sufficient time to speak with colleagues and review her current ASB case.
38. The landlord informed the resident on 2 August 2024 that she could access another ASB tool if she was unhappy with how it was handling her reports. It explained about the community trigger and gave details on how she could access it. Accepting her second formal complaint barely 5 months after its initial stage 2 complaint response, along with providing details about the community trigger, demonstrated that it took her reports seriously. It also showed that it wanted to assist her in exploring all avenues to achieve a satisfactory resolution to her concerns.
39. The landlord’s second stage 1 complaint response on 13 August 2024 stated it had visited both properties on several occasions to explore additional support options following the completion of a risk assessment. Its consideration of all the evidence confirmed that the reported incidents did not meet the threshold for ASB, and the noise was household noise associated with living in a flat.
40. The landlord also highlighted actions it had completed to manage the situation which included installing carpets in her neighbour’s bedroom to reduce noise transference. It said it was exploring the possibility of further soundproofing options, and it had scheduled a contractor to attend the neighbour’s flat on 19 August 2024. It had offered mediation to improve relations between her and her neighbour but she declined this offer. It explained that it had closed the case on 16 July 2024, which would explain why it had not contacted her further about her reports. It had contacted her to suggest a Local Authority ASB Case Review (previously known as a community trigger) and it was willing to explore other options to support her.
41. In response to the resident’s escalation request, the landlord’s stage 2 response on 16 September 2024 stated that the noise app worked well and that it had used it on previous occasions to monitor noise. It reiterated its position regarding not classifying the noise she reported as ASB and its willingness to participate in an ASB case review. It also encouraged her to consider mediation. It stated in addition to any mediation that took place, it would bring forward its neighbourhood plan for the scheme, which will involve speaking to all residents, and working together to address any issues raised.
42. Regarding the issue of sound proofing, the landlord stated that it installed carpets in the neighbours flat on 19 June 2024. The resident subsequently informed it that the carpets it installed did not make any difference to the noise she was hearing so it agreed to explore the possibility of installing further sound proofing. It said it struggled to find a specialist contractor to inspect her and her neighbours flat. However, it had now completed these inspections.
43. The landlord stated that the feedback from the contractor was that due to the neighbour’s flat having concrete floors, additional sound proofing was both impractical and excessive in cost, so any further work was unaffordable. It was exploring other options and would contact her when it received a quote from the contractor, but no works were guaranteed. It agreed that it should have informed her earlier about its decision regarding soundproofing. It offered her £100 for the inconvenience of having to wait for its decision about this.
44. The landlord’s complaint responses acknowledged its failings in not opening an ASB case when the resident first made her initial ASB report in 2023. It also admitted that it failed to provide timely information regarding soundproofing options. Where there are failings by a landlord, as is the case here, this Service will consider whether the redress offered by it (including an apology and compensation) put things right and resolved the resident’s complaint satisfactorily in the circumstances. In considering this, this Service considers whether the landlord’s offer of redress was in line with our dispute resolution principles to be fair, put things right and learn from outcomes.
45. As stated previously the landlord showed learning from its mistake regarding how it managed the resident’s initial noise nuisance report. It opened a new ASB case and followed the actions outlined in its ASB policy. Its apology and offer of £200 compensation were reasonable and in line with this Service remedies guidance. It also acknowledged the distress and inconvenience she would have experienced waiting to hear about what soundproofing it would complete. It was reasonable of it to acknowledge this distress and offer £100 compensation towards this. In total the landlord offered £300 compensation for the failings it identified. 
46. In the landlord’s recent communication with the resident on 18 December 2024, it stated that it understood that she was sensitive to noise from her neighbour’s flat and this was having a negative impact on her mental health. It requested her permission for it to refer her to an agency to provide her support. It offered to assist her in the mutual exchange process and to go on its internal transfer lists. It again offered mediation, and provided information on how she could contact the local authority to request an ASB case review. It said it had requested for noise monitoring equipment from the local authority and that the results from the noise monitoring equipment would help it determine whether the installation of further soundproofing was proportionate.
47. In her communication with the landlord and this Service, the resident has requested for her neighbour to be issued a warning or be evicted. Landlords would not be expected to evict tenants without proof that they have breached their tenancy agreements. This is undertaken through court process and not withing the remit of this Service. In this case, the landlord found no evidence that her neighbour breached his tenancy agreement. The reports did not meet the threshold for ASB. Furthermore, this Service would not ask a landlord to consider taking tenancy enforcement action against a resident on grounds of being mentally unwell as this would be unfair and discriminatory.
48. In conclusion, although the landlord did not initially manage the resident’s case in line with its ASB policy, it learned from its mistake and subsequently completed a robust ASB case review in line with its policy and offered appropriate compensation for its failings. Furthermore, throughout the case it showed empathy to the resident and made multiple attempts to improve the situation for her, its most recent communication referred to above further highlights this.

Determination

49. In accordance with paragraph 53.b. of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the landlord has made reasonable redress by offering redress to the resident prior to investigation which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, satisfactorily resolves its handling of the resident’s reports of noise nuisance.

Recommendations

50. The Ombudsman recommends that the landlord:
    1. Pays the resident the £300 compensation it previously offered if it has not done so. The finding of reasonable redress for its handling of the resident’s noise nuisance report is dependent on the payment of this sum.
    2. Keeps the resident updated regarding its conclusion on the consideration of sound proofing options.