London Borough of Croydon (202201712)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202201712

London Borough of Croydon

21 June 2023

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

This complaint is about:
1. The resident’s transfer request and the Council’s assessment of the resident’s housing need and banding.
2. The resident’s request for a designated disabled parking bay.
3. The landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of ASB and noise disturbance by his neighbours.
4. The landlord’s handling of allegations of ASB made against the resident.
5. The landlord’s handling of the resident’s concerns about the suitability of his property.

Jurisdiction

What we can and cannot consider is called the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction. This is governed by the Housing Ombudsman Scheme. When a complaint is brought to the Ombudsman, we must consider all the circumstances of the case as there are sometimes reasons why a complaint will not be investigated.
Paragraph 42(k) of the Scheme states that The Ombudsman may not consider complaints which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion fall properly within the jurisdiction of another Ombudsman, regulator or complaint-handling body.
After carefully considering all the evidence, in accordance with paragraph 42(k) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the following aspects of the complaint are outside of the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction:
1. The resident’s transfer request and the Council’s assessment of the resident’s housing need and banding.
2. The resident’s request for a designated disabled parking bay.
This is because:
1. This Service investigates complaints about councils’ actions in their role as a social landlord, rather than in their role as local authorities.
2. The Council allocates properties through a choice-based lettings scheme, open to all those who are eligible for the housing register. The Council assesses applications and housing need, and awards a band according to circumstances. The Council’s responsibilities with regards to housing applications and transfers fall under its statutory responsibilities as a local authority not as a social landlord.
3. Allocation and enforcement of disabled parking bays also fall under the Council’s statutory responsibilities as a local authority not as a social landlord.
4. As these aspects of the resident’s complaint relate to the Councils’ statutory responsibilities as a local authority not as a social landlord they fall within the jurisdiction of the Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman.
If he has not done so already, the resident may wish to contact the Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman (LGSCO) to discuss these elements of his complaint.

Background and summary of events

Background

The resident has been a secure tenant of the landlord, which is a Council, for approximately 30 years. The property is a 1-bedroom, first floor flat situated in a low-rise block of flats. The block has a communal landing in front of the flats and the resident has his own personal balcony to the rear of the flat. There is a communal stair leading to each individual flat. In correspondence that resident’s representative has advised that the resident has significant back issues, including nerve and disk damage. The landlord has confirmed that in its records note that the resident is registered disabled.
The resident has been represented throughout their complaint by their solicitor.

Scope

There is a history of ASB regarding the resident and his neighbours which the resident has said dates back several years. However, this assessment will focus on events that occurred between 15 January 2021 until the landlord’s final response to the resident’s formal complaint on 11 April 2022. This is because the Ombudsman expects complaints to be raised within a reasonable period of time, usually six months from the matter occurring, 15 January 2021 being 9 months prior to a formal complaint being logged with the landlord on 10 December 2021.
This Service acknowledges that the resident has concerns about the impact of his neighbours’ behaviour on his mental health and wellbeing. However, the Ombudsman cannot draw conclusions on the causation of, or liability for, impacts on physical or mental health as assessment of fairness in such cases requires a level of expertise that the this Service is unable to provide.
This Service can also not determine whether the landlord has breached is obligations under the Care Act 2014 and the Equality Act 2010, as these are legal terms which are better suited to a court to decide. However, this report has considered whether the landlord responded fairly and appropriately to the resident’s concerns. This service is aware that the resident is being supported by his solicitor and so he may wish to discuss with them whether there is any legal recourse available to him.

Summary of events

On 15 January 2021, the landlord wrote to the resident’s upstairs neighbour referring to previous allegations of excessive household noise, children playing until late into the night, stomping and jumping, dragging furniture and of children screaming. The landlord said that it had, that morning, received another complaint alleging disturbance from their property and appealed to the neighbour to increase the supervision of their children by ensuring the above activities were minimised.
The landlord followed this email with another, to the same neighbour on the same day, advising that allegations had been made by the resident of them using threatening behaviour, assault, noise nuisance and banging. The neighbour was warned that allegations of threats and assaults were a serious breach of their tenancy. The landlord asked that the neighbour email them with their recollections of events.
On 19 January 2021, the landlord emailed the council’s Health Wellbeing and Adult Service and the ASB Enforcement Officer, confirming that it had just received a call from the Police advising that the resident would not substantiate what happened on 15 January 2021 and so the police were going to visit the neighbour to hear their version of events. The landlord said that it had informed the police of the steps it had taken and that mediation had been refused.
In an email of 20 January 2021, the ASB enforcement officer said that the ASB the resident was complaining about was not ASB but domestic noise. The Police had attended the property, did an observation whilst in the resident’s flat and reported back that from their observation it was domestic noise. Also, the noise from upstairs did not go on all night as the children went to bed.
On 9 February 2021 a multi-agency meeting was held with the resident and his representative, the resident’s tenancy officer and ASB Enforcement Officer, Adult Social Care, Housing Register and Parking Design teams, and the police. This meeting was to discuss the resident’s wellbeing and the steps that could be taken to resolve his ongoing concerns. It was agreed by all those present that his current property was no longer suitable due to his mobility.
On 25 February 2021, the Police emailed the landlord to advise that its investigations had concluded with regards to incident between the resident and his upstairs neighbour of 15 January 2021. The resident’s allegation of common assault was dropped as there was no independent witness available and as such no corroborating evidence to confirm that the actual assault that took place. However, the upstairs neighbour had an independent witness for the allegation of racial abuse by the resident. A statement had been taken from the independent witness; however the upstairs neighbour was unwilling to provide a statement, saying that he wanted the resident to leave him and his family alone. As such the police said that there was no further investigation and both crime reports had been closed.
On 24 March 2021, the resident’s representative contacted the landlord saying that they had not received any updates following the meeting on 9 February 2021.
On 13 April 2021, the landlord emailed the upstairs neighbour to advise them of further allegations of persistent noise from their property.
On 26 April 2021, the landlord emailed the resident’s representative to advise that it had consulted surveyors about fitting a lift or any adaptation in the block where the resident lived and was advised that this would not be possible due to the design and layout of the block. The resident’s transfer application had been approved and its allocations team were actively searching for a more suitable property. The landlord also noted that properties in the areas selected by the resident seldom came up and there would be a long waiting list.
On 3 June 2021, the landlord wrote to the resident’s representative. With regards to the suitability of the resident’s current housing, the landlord apologised to the resident if his perception was that it had not managed his disability in the correct way. It went on to explain that it had considered all the possibilities in his current property but that its surveyor had stated that due to the concrete floor construction it was not feasible to open the floors up, as this could affect the integrity of the building. The landlord went on to say that in order to speed up the process the resident may wish to further widen his areas of choice and consider sheltered housing as an option as there were no families in those blocks and there are also ground floor flats. With regards to the resident’s concerns about ASB, the landlord said that:
1. Its tenancy officer had contacted the upstairs neighbour and discussed the resident’s allegations with them. It was treating this as a domestic/household noise involving children’s activities and acknowledged that there could have been an increase in the alleged noise nuisance due to the recently lifted lockdown.
2. The upstairs neighbour continued to make counter allegation of racial abuse and confrontational gestures by the resident, which was mentioned at the last case conference. It had also been alleged that the resident smoked cannabis and that the smell penetrated into the neighbouring property.
3. That it worked with the Police and Mediation Team, mediation was offered on this occasion, and whilst the neighbour agreed to take part, the resident declined.
On 4 July 2021, the resident’s representative emailed the landlord to report further noise disturbance from the upstairs property. In response the landlord said that it would investigate these latest allegations and that its actions would include: a warning letter or email to the neighbour, liaising with local Police safer neighbourhood team, visiting the neighbour. The landlord said that it would contact the representative with their findings once these actions had been completed.
On 5 July 2021, the landlord emailed the upstairs neighbour to advise that further reports had been received of door slamming, running and jumping and rooms being used as a playground. The landlord advised the upstairs neighbours to exercise parental control and to be mindful of not slamming their doors so as not to disturb the resident. The landlord confirmed to the representative the same day that that another warning letter had been sent.
On 13 September 2021 the landlord emailed the upstairs neighbour reminding them of their tenancy terms and conditions and asking that they supply and fit rugs on the laminated flooring in their property so as to reduce that noise nuisance complaints from their neighbours.
On 30 September 2021, the landlord received an allegation that the resident was storing petrol in his flat and that he had abused his upstairs neighbour and had made racist remarks. Between 5 and 8 November 2021 further reports were made of the resident keeping petrol and of his starting aircraft engines in his flat.
On 8 November 2021, the landlord wrote to the resident to advise that they had received allegations that he:
1. Was storing petrol in his flat and using the petrol to fill up his model aircraft in his flat.
2. Had poured water down the stairs which caused back and hip injury to another resident in the block.
3. Had altercations with another tenant in the block, had shouted abuse at children and made racist remarks.
4. And his partner smoked drugs on the landlord outside his flat, especially at weekends and that the smell was ‘‘notorious’’ and caused alarm and distress to other.
5. Goes out in the evenings sometimes for six hours at a time and leaves his music blaring. On one occasion, he was reported as returning at 23.15 and the music was finally turned off at 23.30.
The landlord said that the above were in breach of the resident’s conditions of tenancy and were not acceptable. It went on to explain that, whilst the investigation continued, the resident and members of his household, and his visitors, must cease and desist from all of the above. The landlord also explained that it had issued diary sheets to all of the resident’s neighbours to record evidence of disturbance from his property, and that they had involved the Police, Area Enforcement Officer and Public Safety team who may visit the resident at his home at some point.
On 10 November 2021, the resident’s representative wrote to the landlord regarding the correspondence sent to the resident on 8 November 2021. The representative asked for further details of the allegations made against the resident and noted that no investigation had been undertaken regarding the resident’s allegations, including noise and the hardwood flooring in the flat above. In reference to the involvement of the Police, Area Enforcement Officer and Public Safety team the representative asked if any interviews had been organised and what further action the landlord was considering taking regarding the allegations made.
The landlord responded on 18 November 2021, advising that the upstairs neighbour had been advised to lay rugs on the flooring in order to reduce any noise impact to all the neighbouring properties. In further email later that day the landlord confirmed that the upstairs neighbour had done this. It apologised if the resident had found the involvement of the Police Safer Neighbourhood team intimidating, explaining that they would always be invited to intervene in cases which were considered of high risk. The landlord said that they would be happy to meet with the resident to discuss this further, and in a later email of the same day advised that the investigation into the allegations made about the resident would continue, although they were unable to advise how long that would take.
On 10 December 2021, the resident’s representative submitted a formal complaint to the landlord. The representative said that the landlord had continuously ignored the resident’s reports, made unfounded accusations against him and failed to make any adjustments to the property or suitably rehouse him. The representative also said that:
1. The resident had faced ongoing issues with antisocial behaviour from some neighbours in his property and the landlord had refused to investigate hard wooden flooring in place at his neighbours flat above. The resident suffered from hypersensitivity due to the stroke he experienced, and as such the noise, which was continuously made throughout the night, meant that he had had to frequently sleep in his car. This had been reported to the landlord, but no concrete action was ever taken to address this. As a result, the upstairs neighbours continuously bang on the hardwood flooring throughout the night, which the representative said had resulted in the resident being hospitalised on several occasions. The landlord had taken no further action to investigate these complaints or hold the responsible neighbours accountable, even following an assault on the resident by a neighbour on 15 January 2021
2. The resident had received an email on 8 November 2021 notifying him that his neighbour’s had made several allegations against him. It was noted that this was in breach of the client’s tenancy and that the police had been notified of these incidents. No actions appeared to be taken since then, and the police had indicated that they were not aware of any investigations on their part.
3. The above issues resulted in the resident sustaining severe mental and physical health deterioration. He had frequent adverse experiences with the neighbours, causing him to feel vulnerable and helpless, as the landlord did not appear to be willing to investigate his complaints. He was unable to sleep most nights due to noise disturbance from the neighbours and had recently been prescribed sleeping pills. He had also now been diagnosed with PTSD, for which he was currently receiving treatment.
4. The representative said that all these issues had been consistently recorded in the resident’s care assessments. However, the landlord had declined to take any constructive steps, resulting in a severe decline in the resident’s physical and mental health and a further deterioration in the relationship with some of his neighbours.
On 14 January 2022, the representative chased the landlord for its stage one response.
The landlord issued its stage one response on 14 February 2022, attaching a copy of its earlier correspondence of 3 June 2021. The landlord acknowledged that more issues had been reported since June 2021 and this was an ongoing neighbour dispute which had now escalated. Moving forward the landlord said it would be working with its ASB Team to seek to resolve the matter. The landlord apologised that the resident felt that it had not dealt with his case appropriately. However, it said that it was satisfied that its tenancy officer responded in a timely manner to the resident and had carried out their duties in accordance with its procedure. The counter allegations made against the resident were part of an ongoing investigation and the resident would be invited to the landlord’s offices for a formal interview to discuss this. It could not give a commitment that it would remove the hardwood flooring at the neighbouring property but would discuss alternative flooring with them.
The landlord received a further allegation of ASB perpetrated by the resident were received the same day, 14 February 2022. The following day the landlord contacted the upstairs neighbour regarding a complaint that had been received from a resident in their block that they or a member of their household had been a victim of racial abuse and harassment. The tenancy officer said that they wished to investigate this allegation and would appreciate it if the neighbour could email them details of the alleged incident. The tenancy officer also advised that all matters relating to racial abuse and harassment should be reported to the Police.
On 18 February 2022, the landlord wrote to the resident to propose an inspection of his property on 22 February 2022 between 9:00 and 10:30am, and that this would be a joint visit with another officer.
On 4 March 2022 the resident’s representative contacted the landlord to express the resident’s dissatisfaction with its stage one response.
1. With regards to the resident’s reports of ASB and noise disturbance by his neighbours, the representative said as well as the long history of anti-social behaviour against the resident, additional concerns had been raised in their formal complaint of 10 December 2021 and in further emails throughout January and February 2022.
2. The representative said that the landlord had made no commitment to remove the hardwood flooring in the upstairs neighbour’s property, when the landlord’s policy clearly stated that hardwood flooring would not be allowed in flats due to noise transfer. The noise coming from this flat was significantly adversely affecting the resident, requiring him to sleep in his car and causing substantial stress; as such, serious actions need to be taken to get this removed as soon as possible.
3. On 9 February 2022, the resident’s neighbours had intimidated and insulted him, leaving him distraught and experiencing a panic attack, which lead to him collapsing and injuring his head. The police attended and the resident was assured that they would contact the landlord regarding this deteriorating situation. The representative said that it was concerning that it appeared that no further investigation had been taken into the issues raised, that the landlord had said that it was only just now starting to work with its ASB team and that no actions had been taken by the landlord to ensure the resident’s safety and wellbeing.
4. The representative also said that a referral was made to the Council’s Safeguarding Team on 28 January 2022 and Safeguarding Team on 7 February 2022 and that they had been assured that the concerns had been forwarded to the landlord, however, nothing further had been heard.
5. With regards to the allegations of ASB made against the resident, the representative said that these were unfounded, threatening and should be resolved as soon as possible. The landlord had said that the resident would be invited to its offices for a formal interview to discuss these. The allegations against the resident were made on 18 November 2021, and serious threats of enforcement action were made against him, causing substantial stress to him.
6. With regards to the suitability of the property, the representative said that no further response had been provided regarding the unsuitability of the resident’s property for someone with his disabilities.
On 21 March 2022, the landlord received a further report regarding the resident and another neighbour involving a parking space. The report noted that the Police had been called.
On 25 March 2022, the resident met with the landlord to discuss the recent allegations made by and about him. In later correspondence the resident’s representative said that it was agreed that mediation should be pursued between the resident and his neighbours, with the exception of the neighbour where violence had been used against the resident in the past. The resident was asked to sign an undertaking that he would stop engaging in the conduct described in the allegations against him, which the resident refused to do as he believed the allegations to be unsubstantiated and malicious.
On 4 April 2022, the landlord contacted the Police following the report it had received on 21 March 2022. The same day the landlord also wrote to the upstairs neighbour following reports it had received of them throwing baby wipes out of their windows, which had landed on the resident’s balcony.
On 5 April 2022, a Community Mediation Referral form was completed by the landlord for the resident and three of his neighbours.
The landlord issued its final response on 11 April 2022. The landlord apologised for the delay in providing its response. With regards to the resident’s reports of the upstairs neighbour deliberately banging on hardwood flooring at unreasonable hours of the night, and the resident’s request that the hardwood flooring be removed. The landlord said that:
1. A Digital Audio Tape (DAT) recorder was installed in the resident’s property for three weeks to capture evidence of any deliberate or unintentional nuisance. The DAT recorder did not capture any noise nuisance from the property above, and that overall, there was little evidence to support an instruction to remove the upstairs resident’s flooring.
2. Noises that arise from people going about their normal, day-to-day activities in a reasonable manner would not warrant enforcement action, but it would work with residents to identify options that may help alleviate the situation. The resident’s tenancy officer visited neighbour and it was agreed that the neighbour would lay a rug on the laminated flooring to reduce domestic noise from impacting neighbours. A follow-up visit was carried out which confirmed that the agreed action was completed.
3. It would continue to monitor the situation and, as requested, the resident was now on the waiting list to receive another DAT machine to ascertain whether there were any changes to its previous findings.
4. Its Tenancy and ASB teams did not feel the threshold had been met to carry out any further enforcement action on the upstairs neighbour, therefore, adopting a problem-solving approach rather than a punitive one was essential in trying to bring this dispute to a close.
With regards to the interactions the resident had had with his neighbours, the landlord acknowledged that the resident had advised that these had caused him to feel vulnerable and helpless, and that he did not feel that the landlord had taken action to ensure his safety and wellbeing. The landlord referenced the following incidents:
1. 15 January 2021 – an alleged assault by a neighbour. This was reported to the police and as there was no corroborating evidence to support the resident’s allegations the Police investigation was closed.
2. 9 February 2022 – a further incident with his neighbours. This was still under investigation by both its Tenancy and ASB teams who would continue to work with the Police to ascertain the next course of action.
3. To consider next steps of enforcement, it must be in receipt of documented evidence to support these steps, which does include the findings from any police investigation.
With regards to the reports made about the resident, the landlord said that:
1. Reports had been made about the resident, by several neighbours, which include him acting in an antisocial manner, using racist language, hurling verbal abuse, slamming doors, and smoking cannabis.
2. Given that allegations had been made by several parties, it had given all those concerned the opportunity to enter into voluntary written agreements, which encourage individuals to recognise how their actions may impact others, and to take responsibility for improving conduct in the future. The resident had refused to sign his undertaking agreement as he felt the complaints raised against him were unsubstantiated.
3. The resident’s tenancy officer had referred the dispute between the resident and his neighbours to a mediation service, which the resident had advised he did not want to engage in as he felt that the dispute was at an irreparable stage.
4. Since the meeting held on 25 March 2022 between the resident and his tenancy officer, to discuss this case further, allegations and counter-allegations had continued between parties. For this reason, the landlord said that it would strongly recommend that the resident reconsider signing his undertaking so that all households were clear on what was expected of them moving forwards.
With regards to the suitability of the resident’s property, a multi-agency meeting was held on 9 February 2021 to discuss the resident’s wellbeing and the steps that could be taken to resolve his ongoing concerns. The meeting was attended by the resident and his representative, the landlord’s Tenancy and ASB team, Adult Social Care, Housing Register and Parking Design teams, and the police.
1. It was agreed by all those present, that the resident’s current property was no longer suitable due to his mobility.
2. The consensus was that the best way forward was for the resident to move to a more suitable property, and the Community Neurorehabilitation team advised that they would write a supporting report for the resident to be moved based on medical grounds.
3. It was explained to the resident that he would qualify for Sheltered Housing which would increase the number of options available to him, and generally, would be less noisy as these types of accommodation do not house families and small children. This offer was refused by the resident as he had lived in his current property for a number of years and that the resolution of the ASB would considerably reduce his stress levels, lack of sleep and mobility issues.
The resident’s representative referred the complaint to this service on 12 April 2022. In their referral, the representative said that the landlord had continuously ignored the resident’s reports about the actions of his neighbours, made unfounded accusations against him and failed to make any adjustments to the property or to suitably rehouse him.

Assessment and findings

Relevant agreements, policies and procedures

The resident’s tenancy terms and conditions state that:
1. The landlord does not tolerate anti-social behaviour and that it will investigate all complaints of anti-social behaviour and take all complaints seriously. It will take such action as it deems appropriate in each case.
2. The resident or any member of their household or any visitor to the property must not keep dangerous or inflammable goods, material or substances, in or on the premises apart from those required for general household use.
The landlord’s ASB policy provides a list of the types of issues which can give rise to ASB concerns. These include noise nuisance, Verbal abuse / harassment / intimidation / threatening behaviour and hate related incidents (harassment based on race, sexual orientation, gender, disability, religion or age). The policy goes on to state that officers will decide what the appropriate actions should be based on the information / evidence they have when their initial investigation is complete. The ASB policy goes on to state that the landlord will:
1. Contactcomplainants regularly to update them on the progress it is making with their case. The regularity of such contact will be determined by the investigating case officer depending on the seriousness of the problem(s) reported.
2. Where necessary, set up a ‘Referral Meeting’ (case conference) between the ASB Enforcement Team together with any involved internal or external partners.
3. Consider taking the following actions in managing ASB complaints:
  1. Mediation, offered through the local community mediation service.
  2. Issue informal warnings, which usually take the form of a meeting where incidents of ASB are discussed.
  3. Informal Warning Letters may be issued to explain the problem behaviour, provide advice and request that it stops. If the behaviour continues a Formal Warning Letter may be issued specifying the behaviour of concern and to warn of the legal action(s) that will be taken unless the behaviour stops.
  4. Acceptable Behaviour Contracts (ABCs) which will be signed by the perpetrator in the presence of a council officer, the Police and / or other partner working with the person(s) being asked to sign.
  5. Using surveillance, such as a Digital Noise Recorder to record acts of ASB particularly those relating to unsocial or noisy neighbours.

Assessment

Having considered the information supplied to this investigation, this Service acknowledges that the incidents reported by the resident have caused, and continue to cause, him distress in his property. However, it is important to note that it is not this Service’s role to determine whether ASB occurred or, if it did, who was responsible. What the Ombudsman can assess is how a landlord has dealt with the reports it has received and whether it had followed proper procedure, followed good practice, and behaved reasonably, taking account of the circumstances of the case.
ASB case management is a crucial aspect of a landlord’s service delivery. Effective use of an ASB procedure enables the landlord to identify appropriate steps to resolve potential areas of conflict, improve landlord/tenant relationships and improve the experience of tenants residing in their homes. ASB cases are often the most challenging for a landlord as, in practice, options available or chosen by a landlord to resolve a case may not result in a resident’s preferred outcome, and it can become difficult to manage expectations.
When considering the landlord’s handling of the matter, the Ombudsman is guided by the landlord’s policies and procedures and our own Dispute Resolution Principles, which are, ‘be fair – treat people fairly and follow fair process; put things right and learn from outcomes’.

The landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of ASB and noise disturbance by his neighbours:

During the 15-month period covered by this report, between 15 January 2021 and the landlord’s final response of 11 April 2022, the resident reported at least 5 incidents of ASB by his neighbours. These included:
1. 2 reports on or around 15 January 2021, the first of which related to allegations of excessive household noise, the second of threatening behaviour and assault, both by the upstairs neighbour.
2. On or around 13 April 2021, allegations of persistent noise from upstairs property.
3. On 4 July 2021, allegations of further noise disturbance from the upstairs property.
4. On 9 February 2022, allegations that two other neighbours had intimidated and insulted him.
In general, the landlord’s actions with regards to its investigation and actions taken during the period covered by this report were reasonable. This is because, it liaised with the Police, attended a multi-agency meeting with the resident and his representative and relevant third parties, discussed the allegations with the relevant neighbours, issued the alleged perpetrators with warning letters, offered mediation and sought to reduce the level noise from the upstairs property by asking that they put down rugs on the laminated floor.
It is acknowledged that the resident sought for the landlord to make the upstairs neighbour remove the laminate flooring in their property, however, given that the DAT recording and the reported observations of the Police, did not provide evidence to support the removal of the flooring, it was reasonable for the landlord to not instruct the neighbour to do so at that time. It is also noted that in its final response the landlord said that it would continue to monitor the situation and that the resident was on the waiting list to receive another DAT machine to ascertain whether there are any changes to its previous findings.
Given the evidence available to it, it was reasonable for the landlord to take no further action against the upstairs neighbour as both it and the police considered the reported noise to be domestic noise and the Police advised the landlord that the allegation of common assault was dropped as there was no independent witness available, and as such no corroborating evidence.
With regards to the alleged intimidation and insults by two other neighbours on 9 February 2022, the first evidence seen by this service of this being reported to the landlord was in the escalation request sent to the landlord by the representative on 4 March 2022. It is noted that in that correspondence the representative told the landlord that it was the resident’s understanding that the Police who attended the incident on 9 February 2022 would contact the landlord. Whilst this service has seen no evidence of the Police reporting this incident to the landlord, having been advised by the resident’s representative, it would have been reasonable for the landlord to have taken steps to investigate the allegations by speaking to the resident, contacting the police and if appropriate the alleged perpetrators, however this service has seen no evidence that it did so.
Overall, the landlord took a number of actions in response to the resident’s reports were reasonable, however there were sufficient failures in its response to warrants a finding of maladministration, particularly in relation to its communication with the resident. Regular, clear and accurate communication is vital to keep residents updated and manage their expectations. Even when there is no progress to report, an update to that effect will reassure a resident that they have not been forgotten. In this case this service has seen:
1. No evidence of the landlord discussing the resident’s concerns directly with him outside of the multi-agency meeting on 9 February 2021 and its meeting with him and his representative on 25 March 2022.
2. Little evidence of the landlord regularly updating the resident on the progress it was making with his case. Whilst the landlord’s ASB policy states that the such contact will be determined by the investigating case officer depending on the seriousness of the problem reported, that there is very little evidence of any such contact, outside of responding to the concerns about its handling of his reports raised by the resident’s representative, is not reasonable. It is therefore understandable that the resident would feel that the landlord was not doing anything and that his concerns were not being taken seriously, even though that was not the case.
In addition, given the reported vulnerability of the resident and the nature of the allegations made, the landlord would have been expected to have promptly carried out an assessment and taken steps to minimise any potential risk. However, this service has seen no evidence of the landlord doing so.
There was also an unreasonable delay in the landlord asking the upstairs neighbour to supply and fit rugs on the laminated flooring in their property, it not doing so until 13 September 2021. In addition, given that the evidence seen by this service is that the DAT machine referred to in the landlord’s was installed in his property on 19 August 2019 and remained in the property until 9 September 2019, 18 months prior to the landlord’s final response to this complaint, it would have been appropriate for the landlord to have acknowledged that this had been a long time for the resident to have to wait and to have provided him with some reassurance that it would pursue this in order to have the equipment installed at the earliest opportunity, which it did not do.
In order to be fair to the resident and to make things right, the landlord has been ordered to offer an apology and to pay £300 compensation to him for the inconvenience and distress caused to him as a result of these failures. This is in line with this service’s remedies guidance for situations such as this, where there has been maladministration by the landlord which adversely affected the resident but where there has been no permanent impact.
The landlord has also been ordered to consider what steps it can take to ensure that the DAT equipment, referred to in its final response, is installed at the earliest opportunity.

The landlord’s handling of allegations of ASB made against the resident.

Between 15 January 2021 and the landlord’s final response of 11 April 2022, the landlord received approximately 6 allegations of ASB made against the resident, these included shouting abuse at the upstairs neighbour’s children and making racist remarks to the neighbour, smoking drugs, storing petrol and starting aircraft engines in his flat, and leaving music ‘blaring’ when he left his property.
Given the nature of the allegations made against the resident the landlord would have been expected to have promptly carried out an assessment and taken steps to minimise any potential risk. However, the landlord failed to evidence that it did so in a timely manner. This is especially the case in relation to the report that the resident was storing petrol in his flat where there was a delay of three months in the landlord carrying out an inspection of the resident’s property, which it did not seek to do until 22 February 2022, and after its stage one response.
The landlord would also have been expected to have discussed the allegations with the resident in a timely manner and to have sought to establish his view on the matters reported. This is because landlords are expected to provide resident with a reasonable opportunity to respond to the allegations, which it should then give due consideration to before making an informed decision about how best to proceed. It was therefore not appropriate that the first time the landlord made the resident aware of the allegations made against him was in its letter of 8 November 2021.
It is noted that the landlord did offer the resident the opportunity to discuss the allegations with him shortly after its letter of 8 November 2021. However, this was not offered until after the landlord had been contacted by the resident’s representative following the resident reporting his distress and receiving the landlord’s letter to them. It is unclear from the evidence why there was a three-month delay before the meeting went ahead on 25 March 2022.
During that meeting the landlord put forward a reasonable proposal that the resident sign an undertaking to stop engaging in the activities that had been alleged, but this was refused on the basis that the resident believed the allegations to be unsubstantiated and malicious. It is noted that similar undertakings were also provided to the resident’s neighbours regarding their behaviour. The landlord also made a referral to community mediation on 5 April 2022, which again the resident declined. Whilst it is noted that the resident did not recognise the allegations made these were reasonable steps for the landlord to seek to take in order to prevent any further occurrences.
Whilst in general the landlord reasonably handled the reports of ASB made about the resident, there were a number of areas where its response fell short of what would be expected in the circumstances, again mainly in relation to its communication with the resident, and as a result a further finding of maladministration has been made.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s concerns about the suitability of his property.

When a resident has a long-term disability which affects their day-to-day living, the landlord must make reasonable adjustments if the resident asks for them. What is considered reasonable can depend on what is practical and affordable.
The reasonable adjustments duty only covers certain changes to the property. The duty doesn’t require the landlord to alter or remove ‘physical features’, for example structural changes, removing walls, widening doorways or installing permanent ramps.
Given the known vulnerability of the resident, the landlord would be expected to demonstrate that it had taken reasonable steps to both ensure that it understood his needs and to explore the possibility of providing the required adaptations to the resident’s property. If the landlord refuses a resident’s request it must provide a good reason for not doing so and to explain this to the resident.
It is evident that the landlord had taken the resident’s concerns seriously, took steps to understand the resident’s needs and explored the possibility of providing the required adaptations to the resident’s property.
This is done by attending the multi-agency meeting on 9 February 2021, at which it was agreed that the resident’s property was no longer suitable for his needs. It consulted surveyors about fitting a lift or any adaptation in the block where the resident lived and was advised that this would not be possible due to the design and layout of the block. The resident’s transfer application had been approved and the landlord’s allocations team were actively searching for a more suitable property. It also managed the resident’s expectations by advising that properties in the areas selected by the resident seldom came up and there would be a long waiting list, and offered the resident the option of sheltered accommodation where there would be no families.
These were all fair and reasonable steps for the landlord to take. However, there were again failings with regards to its communication with the resident and his representative, which have resulted in a finding of service failure with regards to this aspect of the resident’s complaint. This is because, it did not update the resident or his representative following the meeting on 9 February 2021, as evidenced by the representative having to chase it for an update on 24 March 2021, 31 working days later, and then failed to provide the requested update until 26 April 2021, a further 23 working days later.
Given the repeated communication failures by the landlord identified in this report, a further order has been made that the landlord review the findings in this case to consider what learning it can take from this case and what steps it can take to ensure that going forward it communicates appropriately with residents whilst it is investigating their reports of ASB.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord in respect of its response to the resident’s reports of ASB and noise disturbance by his neighbours.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord in respect of its handling of allegations of ASB made against the resident.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure by the landlord in respect of its handling of the resident’s concerns about the suitability of his property.

Reasons

Whilst, in general, the landlord took reasonable steps with regards to each of the matters considered in this report, in each case there were failings made, most especially in respect of its communication with the resident. Whilst these failings may not have changed the overall outcome, they did resultin unnecessary distress and inconvenience to the resident and in him feeling that his concerns had not been taken seriously, that the landlord was not doing anything to address his concerns and that the landlord had not treated him fairly.

Orders

That within 28 calendar days of this report, the landlord is ordered to:
1. Apologise to the resident for the failures identified in this report.
2. Pay the resident a total of £650 compensation, made up of:
  1. £300 for the failures identified in this report with regards to his reports of ASB by his neighbours.
  2. £300 for the failures identified in this report with regards to its handling of reports of ASB made about him by his neighbours.
  3. £50 for the delay in the landlord providing the resident with an update following the multi-agency meeting on 9 February 2021.
3. Consider what steps it can take to ensure that the DAT equipment, referred to in its final response, is installed at the earliest opportunity.
4. Consider what learning it can take from this case and what steps it can take to ensure that going forward it communicates appropriately with residents whilst it is investigating their reports of ASB.
5. Confirm to this service that it has complied with the above orders.