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

One Manchester Limited (202009682)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202009682

One Manchester Limited

7 May 2021


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:
    1. Subletting; and
    2. Noise nuisance.

Background and summary of events

  1. On 18 May 2020 the resident contacted the landlord in relation to events he had witnessed at the flat below his. He said that the flat was empty for stretches at a time but then for two or three evenings in a row there would be a group of up to six people there, in contravention of social distancing rules. The resident said he appreciated that the landlord was limited in what it could do at that time but asked if matters could be investigated after lockdown. The landlord responded that the matter would be added to the list for investigation and advised that tenants should call the police on the 101 number to report any breaches of lockdown rules.
  2. On 4 July 2020 the resident contacted the landlord again asking if it would have a word with the downstairs neighbours and ask them not to bang their doors. He said that for the last two weeks they have been banging their doors at night. He said that he had spoken to them and it goes quiet for a day and then starts up again. The landlord replied that it would speak to the neighbours but, due to annual leave, it would be the following week.
  3. The resident reported his suspicions that the downstairs flat was being sub-let. The landlord arranged to visit the resident on 5 August 2020 and said it would look at anything relevant in relation to sub-letting and that the Housing Officer would be knocking at the neighbour’s flat after visiting the resident.
  4. On 10 August 2020 the resident reported that he had heard ‘scrape sounding bangs’ two or three times recently and was concerned that the neighbours were damaging the property. He also attached a list of when there had been door banging.
  5. On 6 September 2020 the resident told the landlord that he felt he had no alternative but to leave his home due to noise from the woman who was believed to be sub-letting the downstairs flat. The landlord responded that whilst it continued its investigations into the sub-letting, it was passing on the noise issue to the Community Safety Team (CST).
  6. The CST rang the resident on 15 September 2020. The call note says that the resident described the noise as doors banging all day and into the early hours and also a scraping noise like a door scraping that might require its hinges adjusting. The resident said that the neighbour disappeared from the property whenever she thought that the landlord might want contact with her. CST said it would write to the neighbour and call back in one week to see if there had been any improvements. It also advised the resident to record any noise on his phone and to keep a diary.
  7. The ‘first report letter’ that the landlord sent to the neighbour on 15 September 2020 asked the neighbour to consider closing doors quietly, ensuring that doors fitted properly and that the hinges were oiled and to keep noise to a minimum at night. It said that further reports of noise may lead to ongoing investigations.
  8. The resident sent a list of continuing noise and on 22 September 2020 had a phone call with CST to say that the slamming and banging was still happening.  CST said it would discuss the case with the Housing Team as, if the sub-letting issue was dealt with, that would also resolve the noise issue. CST said that in the meantime it needed to listen to the banging noises and so would send the resident joining details for the noise app.
  9. On 24 September 2020 the resident sent the landlord his latest noise diary and said that he had tried to record three events on the noise app. The resident said that he had to go out the night before to get away from the banging and that it was making him ill. The landlord reviewed the noise recordings (of which there were two) and assessed them as being normal living noise. A file note describes them as being a faint single door close on each recording which was very quiet.
  10. On 28 September 2020 the landlord called the resident to discuss the recordings and its assessment that they were normal living noises. The resident then rang back to say that he would be posting his keys back as he was leaving. The landlord then emailed the resident to say that it could not take any further action based on the recordings, however, the sub-letting issue was still being investigated with a visit to the property intended for that week. The noise nuisance case was then closed by CST.
  11. On 8 October 2020 the resident emailed the landlord to say that the neighbour had started banging doors again. He said he was now certain that it was the woman in the flat that was causing the noise rather than the man who was believed to be the legal tenant.
  12. On 28 October 2020 the landlord posted Notice to Quit paperwork at the neighbour’s flat. The resident was informed that the locks would be changed if no response was received by 29 November 2020. The landlord asked if the resident wanted it to pass the noise issue to CST to deal with. The resident responded that he was able to try and relax now that things were moving and he could see an end in sight.
  13. The resident also then informed the landlord of an incident on 27 October 2020 where the police and ambulance had attended the neighbour’s flat. The landlord asked the police for any information it had that might help with its ongoing subletting case. The police stated that the tenant had rung the police and that they did not suspect subletting as the details of the person that had called matched the description of the legal tenant, including date of birth.
  14. The date is unclear but, in light of this information from the police, the landlord later informed the resident that it was unable to act with regards to changing the locks on the neighbouring flat as the rightful tenant was present when the police attended. The landlord said it would need to continue its investigation and speak to the tenant about the allegations that had been made. The landlord again asked the resident if he wanted the noise issue to be reported to CST. At this point the resident asked for a formal response to his complaint.
  15. The landlord acknowledged that it had received the resident’s complaint on 9 December 2020 and told him that it needed an extended period up to 6 January 2021 to respond.
  16. On 4 January 2021 the landlord provided its response under the first stage of its complaints procedure in which it had carried out a review of the contact between the resident and the Housing Officer, and with CST. The landlord upheld the part of the complaint about communication with the Housing Officer and about how the subletting investigation had been carried out. This was because there was a period of almost two months in June/July 2020 when the resident was not kept updated. Also, the Housing Officer said he was going to call on the neighbours on 5 August 2020 when in fact he only attempted to contact them by phone. Finally, the Housing Officer had failed to act on the resident’s offer to view his CCTV footage. The landlord apologised for these shortcomings and confirmed that it would continue to investigate the subletting issue and could issue a further Notice to Quit if necessary. The landlord did not agree that it had mislead the resident’s MP by giving the impression that it was preparing to carry out an eviction during November 2020. It said that it had told the MP on 2 November 2020 that a Notice to Quit had been issued but there was no promise that an eviction would take place. The landlord did not uphold the part of the complaint relating to the way that CST had dealt with the noise nuisance issue. It said it was satisfied that the CST officer had managed the case correctly and kept the resident up to date.
  17. Being dissatisfied with the landlord’s response, the resident brought his complaint to this Service. On 23 February 2021 he provided additional comments about the case, including that the landlord was breaking the law by allowing subletting and that the landlord had lied in its complaint response.

Assessment and findings

  1. Although the resident was also reporting issues of sub-letting and fly-tipping, he has clarified that his complaint is focused on the noise nuisance issue. However, there is a clear cross-over with the subletting issue as, if that resulted in the tenant being removed, it would also then resolve any noise issues.
  2. As the landlord has upheld the part of the resident’s complaint about the way it has so far dealt with the subletting issue, it is not in dispute that there was a lack of communication from the landlord in June/July 2020 and that there was a failure to respond to the offer from the resident to view his CCTV footage. The landlord has apologised for this. Based on the available evidence and giving consideration to the fact that events were happening during a pandemic, the Ombudsman considers that an apology was a reasonable way for the landlord to resolve this part of the resident’s complaint. Furthermore, the landlord has asked the manager of the relevant Housing Officer to speak to him about the importance of updating customers and of obtaining CCTV footage where available, to prevent a similar scenario happening again. This Service considers that this approach by the landlord, in response to the complaint, is reasonable and it reflects the Ombudsman’s own Dispute Resolution Principles of ‘learning from outcomes’.
  3. The resident says that the landlord has misled him and his MP because the Housing Officer said that the Notice to Quit would expire one month after being served whereas the complaint response explains that a Notice to Quit expires after 28 days. The correct timescale under the relevant legislation is 28 days. However, the Ombudsman is not persuaded that this slight disparity was a deliberate attempt to mislead.
  4. Similarly, the resident says the landlord has been further misleading because it said that the tenant would be evicted in November 2020, whereas they are still there now. The correspondence that the landlord had with the MP explains the process that has happened with the serving of the Notice to Quit. However, it does not say that an eviction would definitely follow. The landlord has explained that new information came to light via the police that indicated that the registered tenant was present at the flat on 27 October 2020. This created doubt as to whether the flat was indeed being sub-let, which has necessitated the need for further enquiries to establish the true situation.
  5. The resident has accused the landlord of breaking the law as the subletting of social housing is illegal. However, if anyone, it is the registered tenant who is subletting and the landlord is taking steps to manage the situation, including the issuing of a further Notice to Quit if that is what is required.
  6. The resident says that the landlord is lying in its complaint response because it says that the first it knew of the resident withholding his rent was when it was forwarded an email that he had sent to his MP, whereas he had already told the Housing Officer of this on 25 October 2020. Looking at the landlord’s complaint response, it does not say that the email sent via the MP was the first time it was hearing this information, therefore the Ombudsman cannot agree that the landlord was trying to deceive.
  7. The resident says that CST acknowledged it could hear slamming in the sound recordings and yet has said it is unable to investigate. The noises that were heard were assessed as being consistent with normal living noise. They were not of a volume that would constitute being a statutory noise nuisance. The landlord would need independent evidence before acting against the neighbour and the available noise recordings are insufficient for any action to the taken. Therefore, it was reasonable for CST to close the case on 28 September 2020. The Ombudsman notes that the landlord, in response to the resident saying that the noise had started up again on 28 October 2020, asked the resident if he wanted that information to be passed to CST. It is possible that CST could have re-opened the noise case had there been any new evidence to support that. Overall, the Ombudsman finds no fault with the landlord’s handling of the noise nuisance issue.

Determination (decision)

  1. In accordance with paragraph 55(b) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the landlord has identified and acknowledged service failings and made an apology which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, satisfactorily resolves the complaint about the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of sub-letting.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration with respect to the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of noise nuisance.

Reasons

  1. The apology provided by the landlord was a reasonable and proportionate response to the resident’s complaint about subletting.
  2. The landlord took the resident’s reports of noise nuisance seriously and undertook appropriate action to investigate. However, the necessary evidential standards were not reached and it was reasonable for the landlord to close the case.