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

Poplar Housing And Regeneration Community Association Limited (202229979)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202229979

Poplar Housing And Regeneration Community Association Limited

6 December 2024


Our approach

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

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

The complaint

  1. The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of the resident’s:
    1. Reports of antisocial behaviour (ASB) from a neighbour.
    2. Associated complaint.

Background

  1. The resident is an assured tenant of the landlord with the tenancy beginning in June 2008. The property is a 2–bedroom third–floor flat.
  2. This case relates to the resident’s reports of late night noise, banging and intimidating behaviour from neighbours in the property above him. For the purpose of this report, they will be referred to as ‘the neighbour’.
  3. The resident complained to the landlord on 18 May 2021. He said that he had been reporting noise from the neighbour since 2019 and that the neighbour had previously threatened him with a knife. He also said that he had sent the landlord video evidence of the noise but did not receive a response.
  4. The landlord responded at stage 1 on 3 June 2021. It apologised for the lack of communication and said that it was aware of the knife incident. It continued that this was investigated at the time and the neighbour was “spoken to”. It explained that there had been no further reports, and the case was closed. The landlord said it accepted it should have communicated the case closure to the resident and again apologised for the lack of communication. It said it would issue a warning letter to the neighbour.
  5. The resident escalated his complaint to stage 2 on 24 September 2021 outlining the times he had contacted the landlord without a response. He said that he had suffered from “sleepless nights, stress and anxiety for years.”
  6. The case notes for 4 August 2022 said that there had been no further video evidence provided by the resident since 8 July 2022. On 29 August and 1 September 2022, the resident sent the landlord 8 recordings of the noise he said he was experiencing. The landlord’s case notes show this was reviewed on 21 September 2022. The notes stated that the banging was “very loud and during the early hours”, but it was not enough to suggest the noise was constant.
  7. The resident sent 5 video recordings to the landlord in September 2022 and a further 2 in December 2022. The case notes show the landlord prepared a case plan which included liaising with its housing aid department and taking the “necessary actions to stop this from getting out of hand.”
  8. On 5 January 2023, the resident provided video evidence of the noise he said he was experiencing. On 10 and 12 January 2023 the landlord case notes said that mediation had not worked, and that noise from late night DIY and music was evidenced. It said it would contact the neighbour in relation to this. On 25 January 2023, the landlord sent a warning letter to the neighbour saying that if the noise continued, tenancy enforcement action may be taken.
  9. On 13 March 2023, the resident provided further video evidence. The landlord’s case notes said the noise was occurring in the early hours, and there had been “some improvement” but the noise had not stopped. On 3 April 2023, following further reports from the resident, the landlord advised him that it did not investigate noise that was related to religious festivals. It said the noise the resident had provided interlined with Ramadan and no further action would be taken.
  10. On 5 April 2023, a case plan was prepared which included the landlord talking to the neighbour and the resident gathering evidence using the noise app. The landlord said it would monitor the case for 2 weeks and then decide if the case should be closed or if further investigation was needed. Between 7 and 22 April 2023 the resident sent 11 more video recordings.
  11. On 2 May 2023, this Service contacted the landlord following contact from the resident. The resident said that he had not received a stage 2 response. The following day the landlord sent a warning letter to the neighbour. This Service contacted the landlord on 18 August and 10 October 2023.
  12. The landlord sent its stage 2 response on 28 November 2023. It outlined the action it had taken and apologised, saying that the warning letters were no longer effective, and it should have escalated matters as the ASB continued. It said that it would be providing its staff with training in relation to ASB and handling complaints. It also offered the resident £200 compensation, made up of £100 for not escalating the complaint to stage 2 and £100 for missing the recordings the resident sent in via the noise app.
  13. After the resident’s complaint had exhausted the landlord’s internal complaint procedure (ICP), it took the following action between January and June 2024:
    1. Offered mediation to both parties.
    2. Referred the resident’s case to its community safety team.
    3. Installed a noise monitoring machine.
    4. Visited the neighbour to discuss the noise reports it received.
    5. Prepared an acceptable behaviour agreement, which was signed by the neighbour.
    6. Advised the resident it was closing the case as there had been “no further reports”.
  14. During recent contact with this Service, the resident advised that he had moved out of the property in October 2024.

Assessment and findings

Scope of the investigation

  1. Aspects of the resident’s complaint relate to the impact the situation had on his health and that of his family. Where the Ombudsman identifies failure on a landlord’s part, we can consider the resulting distress and inconvenience. This Service is unable to draw conclusions on the causation of, or liability for, impacts on the resident’s health and wellbeing. Such matters are best suited to investigation through the courts or a personal injury insurance claim.
  2. This Service acknowledges that this has been a difficult situation for the resident and recognises that the issues reported to the landlord have caused him significant distress. It is the Ombudsman’s role to assess the appropriateness and adequacy of the landlord’s actions in responding to reports of ASB, and the fairness and reasonableness of its response to the formal complaint. This does not include establishing whether a party is responsible for ASB. Therefore, our investigation will consider the actions of the landlord in the context of its relevant policies/procedures as well as what was fair in all the circumstances of the case.

 

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of ASB from a neighbour

  1. The landlord’s ASB policy says that:
    1. It will prepare an action plan within 1 week where cases relate to ASB, and within 1 month where cases relate to nuisance behaviour.
    2. It categorises abuse, bullying and intimidation (for example) as ASB. It categorises frequent noise, neighbour disputes, and shouting as nuisance behaviour.
    3. It will not investigate one-off celebrations, family– or faith-based events.
    4. It will close a case after 1 month if the evidence does not support action being taken and/or the issue has not reoccurred.
  2. The facts of this case have not been disputed and the landlord has accepted that it “could have done more” and “should have escalated matters”. Therefore, this report will concentrate on whether the landlord took sufficient steps to address its failings, by considering the Ombudsman’s Dispute Resolution Principles: be fair, put things right, and learn from outcomes.
  3. The resident raised a stage 1 complaint on 18 May 2021 in relation to how his ASB case had been handled. He said he had been reporting ASB since 2019, which involved a threat of violence and confrontation from the neighbour. The landlord should have carried out a risk assessment of the case at this point, if it had not already done so recently. Government guidance on “putting victims first” helps agencies identify and support high risk victims by providing tools to deal with antisocial individuals. In accordance with this guidance, it is best practice to complete a risk assessment to assess a resident’s vulnerability and risk of harm at the earliest opportunity following a report of ASB.
  4. However, there was no evidence provided to demonstrate a risk assessment was carried out. This was not appropriate given the resident had highlighted his concerns of threatening and confrontational behaviour from the neighbour. Furthermore, carrying out the risk assessment sooner would have allowed the landlord to consider what support the resident required at an early stage.
  5. The landlord provided a stage 1 response on 3 June 2021, saying it had investigated the violent incident at the time and the case was closed. It said it had since had trouble contacting the neighbour in relation to the resident’s reports. The lack of engagement from the neighbour further compounded the need to carry out a risk assessment.
  6. While the case closure was in line with the landlord’s ASB policy, which says it will close a case if there is no evidence of the issue reoccurring, there was no evidence to show the resident was made aware of the case closure. The landlord should have discussed any ongoing concerns with the resident to demonstrate it was taking the reports seriously and identify any additional support available to him. This Service acknowledges that the landlord accepted this failing and apologised to the resident. This was appropriate and resolution focused.
  7. It is good practice for landlords to have an ASB closure checklist to record what actions have been taken, to make sure every necessary action has taken place, before closing a case.
  8. The resident requested to escalate his complaint to stage 2 on 24 September 2021.There were then no further reports of ASB evidenced until nearly a year later in August 2022. It is unclear from the case notes if this was due to a lack of reports from the resident or lack of records produced by the landlord. For example, a case noted on 4 August 2022 said that there had been “no further video/clips sent in by the victim since 8 July 2022.” However, no case notes were provided for this period to evidence a report in July 2022. This calls the landlord’s record keeping into question.
  9. The landlord’s case notes show that between 29 August 2022 and 1 September 2022, the resident sent it 9 video recordings. The landlord has evidenced that it reviewed the videos on 21 September 2022. While it was appropriate for the landlord to review the evidence provided by the resident, it was not appropriate that it took 2 weeks to do so. The landlord should have been prompt in reviewing the evidence so that any necessary action taken was as close to the events as possible. This approach would provide a swift resolution for residents and ensure the events are fresh in the minds of any witnesses or perpetrators, following an investigation. If the landlord anticipated an unavoidable delay in reviewing the resident’s recordings, it would have been good practice for it to inform him of this in order to manage his expectations.
  10. On 22 September 2022, the resident reported to the landlord that the neighbour had punched him, and a police statement was taken. There is no evidence that the landlord carried out a risk assessment or liaised with the police following this event. This was another missed opportunity to identify any support for the resident, and to consider additional safety measures such as target hardening, and was not appropriate.
  11. The resident continued to report ASB in September and December 2022. On 13 December 2022, the landlord prepared a case/action plan which included reviewing video evidence sent by the resident, referring the resident to its housing aid department, and speaking with the neighbour. While these were appropriate steps to take, they should have been considered or implemented in the early stages of the resident’s reports. Failing to implement an action plan was contrary to the landlord’s ASB policy, which provides a timescale of 1 week or 1 month for a plan to be implemented depending on the type of ASB.
  12. Furthermore, by completing an action plan early on, the landlord could have managed the resident’s expectations as to whether there was any action it could take or not. This Service’s guidance on ASB expectations outline steps landlords should take in response to reports of ASB. This includes:
    1. Providing clear information on what evidence is required and how the evidence provided by the resident will be managed.
    2. Setting clear timelines for an investigation.
    3. Comprehensive record-keeping of reported incidents and any follow-up actions taken.
  13. On 9 January 2023, the resident contacted his local councillor saying he “lived in fear of intimidation”. This was also copied to the landlord. There is no evidence that this communication was adequately responded to, which was not appropriate and another missed opportunity to support the resident.
  14. Between January and May 2023, the landlord was proactive in its response to the resident’s reports of ASB. This is evidenced by it speaking with the neighbour, sending a warning letter, and updating its action plan. It is positive that the landlord took a more comprehensive approach at this point.
  15. The landlord sent its stage 2 response on 28 November 2023. It accepted that it became clear that the warnings were no longer effective, and that it should have escalated matters. It also apologised for “missing” some noise app recordings the resident had sent due to the case being closed. It outlined the training it would be implementing for its staff and offered the resident £100. These steps were resolution focused, but did not go far enough to put things right for the resident.
  16. In summary, the landlord has accepted it was aware of the lack of action it took when trying to resolve the resident’s complaint. The lack of action prolonged the length of time the resident was experiencing the ASB. Over the course of 2.5 years, the resident sent the landlord 32 recordings of the noise he was experiencing. He advised the landlord numerous times that he felt intimidated following 2 violent incidents and had sleepless nights due to the noise. Despite this, the landlord continued to take informal action, or at least failed to clearly explain to the resident the level of evidence it needed to progress matters. This meant it failed to promptly resolve the situation or to manage the resident’s expectations as to what action it could take. In addition, it failed to complete a risk assessment, which is the foundation of a victim centred approach, and by not doing so it failed to properly understand and assess the impact on the resident.
  17. Therefore, there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of ASB from the neighbour. As a result, £350 compensation has been awarded to the resident. This is in line with the landlord’s compensation policy based on length of time of the issue and the impact on the resident being “serious disturbance or distress”.

Complaint handling

  1. The landlord’s complaints policy allows 10 working days for a stage 1 complaint response, and 20 working days for a stage 2 response. It says that stage 1 and 2 complaints will be acknowledged within 2 working days.
  2. The resident raised a stage 1 complaint on 18 May 2021. The landlord has not evidenced that it acknowledged the complaint in line with its policy, which was not appropriate. It responded at stage 1 on 3 June 2021, which was 11 working days later. Although this was 1 day outside of its policy timescale of 10 working days, the length of the delay was minimal and would not have caused the resident any significant detriment.
  3. The resident requested to escalate his complaint on 24 September 2021. The landlord again failed to follow its policy by acknowledging the complaint within 2 working days, which was not appropriate.
  4. The resident contacted his local councillor on 9 January 2023. He copied the landlord into the correspondence. He expressed his dissatisfaction with how the landlord had dealt with his ASB case. The landlord again failed to raise a stage 2 complaint, which was contrary to its complaint policy.
  5. This Service contacted the landlord on 3 occasions on 2 May, 16 August, and 10 October 2023. Despite this, the landlord failed to issue its final response until 28 November 2023. This was 552 days later following the resident’s initial escalation request of 24 September 2021. This was significantly outside of its policy timescale and not appropriate.
  6. The landlord apologised for the delay at stage 2 and offered the resident £100 compensation. While this was resolution focused, it did not go far enough to reflect the impact the significant delay had on the resident. It also significantly delayed a resolution for the resident and as well as his access to this Service.
  7. In summary, the landlord failed to escalate the resident’s complaint for 2 years and 4 months. This was despite the resident contacting the local councillor and repeated intervention from this Service. This was evidently frustrating for the resident. Therefore, there was maladministration in the landlord’s response to the resident’s complaint, and £250 compensation has been awarded to him. This is in line with the landlord’s compensation policy in circumstances where “the landlord’s failures have caused frustration, time and moderate inconvenience and/or annoyance to the complainant”.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was maladministration in the landlord’s response to the resident’s:
    1. Report of ASB from a neighbour.
    2. Associated complaint.

Orders

  1. Within 6 weeks of the date of this determination (adjusted to allow for the Christmas period), the landlord is ordered to take the following action and provide the Ombudsman with evidence of compliance:
    1. Write to the resident to apologise for the service failures identified in this report, in line with this Service’s apologies guidance.
    2. Pay directly to the resident compensation totalling £600, made up of:
      1. £350 for the distress and inconvenience caused to her in relation to its response to her reports of anti-social behaviour (ASB).
      2. £250 in recognition of the distress and inconvenience experienced by the resident for the complaint handling delay.

This can be reduced by any amount already paid.

  1. Review its staff’s training needs regarding their application of its ASB policy, in order to ensure that the above failings do not happen again. In particular, it should highlight the need to take a victim centred approach, and ensure risk assessments and action plans are completed, monitored, and updated regularly.
  2. Arrange for all frontline staff involved in complaint handing to complete this Service’s free online dispute resolution training for landlords, if this has not been done recently.

Recommendations

  1. It is recommended that the landlord:
    1. Assesses its internal recording procedures against the recommendations of this Service’s spotlight report on Knowledge and Information Management (KIM). This should include the completion of this Service’s free online training in relation to KIM for landlords and relevant staff if this has not been done recently.
    2. Considers implementing an ASB case closure checklist.