Orbit Housing Association Limited (202309282)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202309282

Orbit Housing Association Limited

31 May 2024

Our approach

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

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

The complaint

The complaint concerns the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reporting of anti-social behaviour (ASB) from her neighbour.
This report has also considered the landlord’s complaints handling.

Background

The resident is an assured tenant and has lived in the property since July 2002. The property is a one–bedroom flat situated on the first floor. The resident has mental health concerns which the landlord is aware of.
On 28 December 2022 the landlord wrote to the resident concerning issues of “unwanted behaviours of some people in your local area”. The letter had followed on from an earlier telephone conversation with the resident. The landlord explained that it needed further information before it could undertake an investigation and it enclosed a log report form to be completed by the resident. It also sent an information leaflet about ASB.
The resident returned the completed log forms to the landlord on 2 February 2023. The landlord stated it had not received the initial forms which the resident explained she had returned on 6 January 2023. In addition to listing several instances of her neighbour “door slamming extremely hard” during the night between 21 December 2022 and 5 January 2023 the resident also referred to an incident which had occurred in February 2019 when her neighbour (A) had initially moved into the flat below her on the ground floor.
The landlord undertook a risk assessment on 8 February 2023 based on the resident’s log forms. It informed the resident on 13 February 2023 that it was unable to take the matter further as the reported noise nuisance of slamming doors was not sufficient evidence to open a case against A. It also informed the resident that part of the incidents which she had reported related to 2019 and not to the current time.
The landlord sent an email to the resident on 15 June 2023. The email thanked the resident “for logging an enquiry with ourselves”. The email set out the nature of the resident’s enquiry as “my understanding of your complaint is regarding the anti-social behaviour from your neighbour”. The email added that the landlord had contacted the tenancy management team in terms of the matter. The landlord has not provided this Service with a copy of the resident’s initial enquiry which was made on 14 June 2023.
The resident emailed the landlord on 30 June 2023 requesting a review. She added A had been “kicking the door at midnight” and that this was always at the same time in the same manner by him. She asked whether the landlord had accessed CCTV footage to show this. The resident stated that the landlord had not adhered to its own complaints policy as it did not:
1. Contact her every three to five days to update her on the progress of the complaint.
2. Respond to her complaint within 10 working days.
The landlord exchanged emails with the resident on the same day (30 June 2023). It explained that the issue had been passed over to the tenancy management team to contact her. The resident replied to say passing it to the tenancy management team was not an outcome and no one had replied to her on the matter.
The landlord continued to exchange emails with the resident on 3 July 2023. It explained the initial contact from the resident had been treated by it as an enquiry in keeping with its complaints policy. Following this the complaint would then move over to formal stage one before it could be escalated (as the resident had requested) to stage 2. The resident explained the initial complaint made on 14 June 2023 was the stage 1 complaint and not an enquiry. As a result she asked it to review the complaint. The landlord replied to say that the initial issue, whilst being a complaint, was raised as an enquiry and not a formal stage 1 complaint.
The landlord issued its stage 1 response on 15 August 2023. It set out its understanding of the complaint as:
1. The resident being unhappy with how it had addressed her previous reporting of ASB. It explained that it had reports from the resident going back to 2019. The most recent reporting concerned door slamming which had been referred by the landlord to its Community Safety and Anti-Fraud (CSAF) team who had determined that it did not constitute ASB.
2. The resident said that it had housed a tenant with a history of ASB next to her and she wanted to know why. The landlord explained that it was unable to disclose details of A’s application due to data protection. It however did add that there had been no concerns with A’s application.
3. The resident considered it had not followed its own complaints procedure. It accepted that it had not logged the resident’s complaint which it said was submitted on 29 June 2023 following the resident having contacted the Ombudsman. It offered £100 for this failing.
4. The resident stating it had not taken into account her vulnerability.
The resident emailed the landlord on 28 August 2023. She explained:
1. That she disputed the door slamming not being counted as ASB as she added this had occurred after midnight.
2. The issue had caused her anxiety and stress and was worsening her mental health.
3. The landlord had failed to acknowledge receipt of her complaints and instead it had treated them as enquiries.
4. She had received no communication from the CSAF team.
5. The landlord had failed to warn A to stop the noise nuisance and it had failed to rehouse A.
Following the landlord explaining that it had not yet completed its internal complaints procedure, the resident requested an escalation to stage 2 of the complaints process on 31 August 2023. The resident then sent some notes and further information which she wanted the landlord to consider. She confirmed, following the landlord enquiring about the matter, that she was not interested in mediation and that she did not wish to live next door to A.
The landlord issued its stage 2 response on 26 September 2023. It explained that, following conversations with the resident to understand more about her complaint and what she wanted by means of outcome, it understood that she was seeking for it to:
1. Acknowledge that it had failed to confirm receipt of her complaints.
2. Acknowledge that it had failed to provide findings or letters with regards to the resident’s reported ASB and harassment/intimidation from A.
3. Acknowledge that the door slamming which had been reported was ASB and not everyday living noise.
The landlord’s stage 2 response set out:
1. It had noted there were eight reports made by the resident between July 2019 (shortly after A had moved in) to June 2023 concerning the slamming of doors. This had been reviewed by its tenancy services and it confirmed that the correct policy and procedure had been followed by it.
2. It had located one incident of intimidation in November 2020. It accepted it had not provided the resident with either a case opening or a closing letter. It apologised for this and added an additional £200 on top of the £100 offered at stage 1.
3. It had made a recommendation for tenancy services to speak to A about the door slamming. It noted the resident was not keen on mediation however this was an option. It added any future report of ASB should be reported to police and to the landlord.
The resident emailed this Service on 28 September 2023. She explained that the landlord appeared to be using mental health as an excuse to allow ASB. The resident added that it was clear no one had spoken to the alleged perpetrator which showed a lack of accountability. The resident provided three further instance of noise nuisance from A between 24 and 27 September 2023. She said that she wanted the neighbour to be moved as he was banging doors in the night which was anti-social.
The resident emailed the landlord on 28 September 2023 providing details of the recent incidents from A between 24 and 27 September 2023.

Assessment and findings

Scope of Investigation

The resident referred to an incident in February 2019 when providing the completed log forms to the landlord in January 2023. Whilst the Ombudsman has noted the resident’s comments about A from that time, the Ombudsman is unable to investigate matters which were not brought to the attention of the landlord as a formal complaint, within a reasonable time of the matter occurring. Although the resident has said that the landlord has failed to treat her complaints as complaints but rather as enquiries, there is no evidence that the resident raised the issues which occurred with A in February 2019 as a formal complaint to the landlord in a reasonable time. Therefore the issue of the events in February 2019 is outside the scope of this investigation.
The resident has informed this Service that her preferred outcome is that the landlord moves A away from the property and rehouses him elsewhere. The Ombudsman cannot instruct a landlord to remove a tenant from the property and rehouse them as this is a decision for the landlord who is responsible for managing the tenancy to make. Instead this investigation will look at the actions of the landlord in relation to the resident’s reporting of the ASB and whether it handled the matter appropriately and in accordance with the relevant policies.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reporting of ASB from her neighbour.

Whilst the Ombudsman has provided a summary of events, this is not an exhaustive account of all of the communication between the resident and the landlord over the issue. It instead covers the communication which the Ombudsman considers is relevant to this investigation.
Following the resident having contacted the landlord in December 2022 concerning the ASB issues with A, the landlord acted appropriately in requesting further information about the noise nuisance experienced by the resident. It asked the resident to complete log forms which would assist it in determining patterns and trends, including how frequently the door slamming was occurring as well as identifying at what times this was happening. Whilst noting the resident’s reporting, it was appropriate at that time for the landlord not to take any action against A or for it to write to A about that matter until it had more detailed supporting information in the form of the resident’s log sheets.
The landlord acted reasonably in closing the matter down, pending the return of the completed log forms from the resident. The resident has explained that she had returned the completed forms to the landlord in January 2023 and when she contacted it at the end of the month it had no record of receiving them and it had therefore not progressed the matter. She then sent it another set of forms. Once the landlord had received the copies of the forms sent by the resident sent it did act on them.
The landlord has explained that, based on the completed log forms for the events in late 2022 and early 2023, it had undertaken a risk assessment which had identified the matter as a medium risk and it had passed the matter onto its CSAF team to investigate. This was in keeping with the landlord’s ASB policy. Having said this, the landlord’s ASB policy did set out what events it would generally consider to be considered as ASB which were in scope and those which it would not generally class as ASB and therefore out of scope. Listed under the second category of not being classed as ASB was “General Living Noise (doors banging, footsteps, etc)”. However the policy did state “in very exceptional circumstances, an out of scope matter may be treated as ASB, but to do so, would need to be authorised by the relevant Tenancy Services Team Manager”.
In passing the matter to its CSAF team, rather than simply dismissing the matter as door slamming and out of scope, the landlord acted reasonably. Following the referral and based on the information which the resident had provided, the landlord ultimately decided that the matter was not one for which it could open a ASB case. It explained by calling the resident that this was because the event being complained about was everyday living noise.
Although the landlord did not consider the events being complained about to be ASB but was rather general living noise, it has not provided any evidence that it had sent A any general correspondence remining him of his tenancy obligations or that he should be considerate of his neighbours. It would have been good practice to see if there was anything practical it could do to reduce the sound of the doors closing, such as using door stoppers or strips.
The landlord has recently explained to this Service that it does not have any noise monitoring equipment and that it would refer the resident to contact the local environmental health team to provide the equipment and it would then work with them to assess the noise nuisance. Whilst the landlord was not obligated to provide the resident with noise monitoring equipment, there is no indication that it had informed the resident as an alternative that she could record the noise nuisance she said she was experiencing on her own mobile phone. This was an appropriate option especially as the resident had explained that, whilst the matter had died down for a while, it had been going on for a considerable period of time. The use of recorded evidence could have helped the landlord to determine the extent of any noise nuisance being experienced and whether this would have met the criteria of being considered as ASB and therefore it could have further investigated the matter. This was a missed opportunity for the landlord.
The landlord has explained that it is unable to share any details of A’s application with the resident because of data protection. Whilst saying this, it did explain to the resident there had been no issue with the tenant’s housing application. The landlord’s approach was appropriate as due to data protection it would not be able to share any details which it held on one tenant with another individual. However whilst it did not specifically divulge any personal information relating to A and his application it did reassure the resident that there had been no concerns about his application before it had offered the tenancy in the property below the resident.
The landlord did offer the resident an option of mediation with A. Whilst the resident explained that she did not wish to pursue that approach the landlord acted reasonably in reiterating to her that this was an option available to her.
Overall the landlord acted appropriately and responded to the resident’s concerns raised about A. Whilst it did not advise the resident to record the noises which she had been experiencing from A, following the return of the resident’s log forms which highlighted the details of the slammed doors, it referred the matter to its CSAF team rather who had determined that the matter was not ASB but would rather be considered as everyday living noise. The landlord had also offered the resident the option of mediation with A.

The landlord’s complaints handling.

The resident has explained that the landlord did not act reasonably in treating her complaint as a complaint but rather treating it as an enquiry. Whilst she has stated that she had contacted the landlord on a few occasions about A prior to her contact in June 2023, the landlord has no records relating to any earlier contact from the resident, apart from in 2019 which was acknowledged in its stage 1 and stage 2 response. Whilst the Ombudsman has noted the comments of the resident over earlier contact with the landlord, the Ombudsman cannot conclude this was the case based on the available evidence.
The landlord explained that, if the issue could not be resolved at the initial enquiry stage, then there was an option formally to escalate the matter to stage 1 and following this to escalate it to stage 2. The landlord’s complaints policy sets out “where a customer tells us that they are unhappy with something about our service, there are times when the quickest and most effective way resolve this is informally outside of our formal complaints procedure. Where this is the case, we will discuss it with the customer, and will only ever resolve an issue informally with full and explicit agreement with the customer. If a customer remains unhappy, they can continue through our formal complaints process”. This was the approach that the landlord took. Whilst it would have been frustrating for the resident to have seen the landlord use the word “complaint” at the enquiry stage, this stage was still part of its complaints process. It would not have been appropriate for it to escalate the matter directly from the enquiry stage to stage 2 as had been requested by the resident on 30 June 2023. Instead it followed the correct approach in escalating the matter to stage 1 and then following the resident’s request for escalation to move it to stage 2.
The landlord’s complaints policy sets out that it would aim to provide its stage 1 response within 10 working days of acknowledging the resident’s complaint. It adds that if the matter was complex it could extend this by a further 10 working days. Whilst the landlord had noted on 30 June 2023 that the resident wished to pursue the complaint formally to stage 1 it did not issue the stage 1 response until 15 August 2023, after 32 working days. The landlord has not provided any evidence that it provided any updates to the resident nor did it provide any explanation for the delay. This was a failing by the landlord.
Following the issuing of the stage 1 response and the request for escalation by the resident, the landlord issued its stage 2 response after 18 working days, in keeping with its complaints policy.
The landlord has acknowledged a series of complaints handling failures at both stage 1 and stage 2. Whilst it had made an award of £100 at stage 1 this was increased by it to £300 at stage 2. The landlord’s offer of compensation does, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, constitute a reasonable offer of redress for the complaint handling failures in this case. This is because the amount offered is proportionate to the failings identified and the resulting impact on the resident.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reporting of ASB by her neighbour.
In accordance with paragraph 53b of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was reasonable redress offered in respect of the landlord’s complaints handling.

Recommendations

The landlord should pay the resident an amount of £300 in keeping with its stage 2 response. This is in respect of its complaints handling. If the landlord has already made this payment to the resident, it does not need to make any further payment.
The landlord should review its policy in relation to noise nuisance and ensure that wherever possible it should offer the resident the option of noise monitoring equipment or inform residents how to record the noises themselves and submit to it.
The landlord should consider any practical steps it could take for example using door stoppers in order to reduce the noise of the doors closing in A’s home.
The landlord should review the recommendations as set out in the Ombudsman’s noise spotlighting report, which can be found of the Ombudsman’s website (www.housing-ombudsman.org.uk) , in order to ensure that it takes a structured approach to cases where the issue appears to be day to day noise as opposed to ASB.