Richmond Housing Partnership Limited (202312796)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202312796

Richmond Housing Partnership Limited

21 August 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 resident’s complaint is about the landlord’s handling of her reports of antisocial behaviour (ASB).

Background

The resident is a tenant of the landlord under a 5 year fixed term tenancy agreement. This began on 17 July 2019. The property is a 1 bedroom ground floor flat. The landlord says it has no vulnerabilities recorded for the resident. However, she has stated she suffers from a heart condition.
On 16 October 2022, the resident reported to the landlord that neighbour A, who lives in the flat above hers, was kicking his floor ‘on a regular basis’. She said this was going on throughout the night and she had made a recording of it. The landlord opened an ASB case.
Between October 2022 and July 2023, the resident continued to reporting banging and kicking from neighbour A’s flat. She made other reports including that:
1. Police had attended the block several times to see neighbour A, including arresting him.
2. Neighbour A had banged on her front door and shouted abuse at her.
3. Neighbour A had posted notes through her letterbox which she felt were threatening.
4. Neighbour B, who also lived in the block, was creating tension and anxiety within the block which was causing neighbour A’s behaviour.
5. Neighbour B was playing his saxophone and listening to music at a high volume.
The landlord and the police visited the resident on 24 August 2023. The landlord recorded that the resident said she “has no concerns with [neighbour A] at the moment” but was worried about his mental health. The landlord reassured her that neighbour A was receiving appropriate support with his mental health. The resident said she was ‘finding it hard to deal with’ noise from neighbour B’s property and asked the landlord to take enforcement action against him. The landlord advised that the noise she had reported from neighbour B’s property did not amount to ASB so it could not take action against him. The landlord told the resident it would be closing the ASB case.
The Ombudsman contacted the landlord on the resident’s behalf on 27 September 2023. We asked the landlord to log a complaint about its handling of the ASB case.
The landlord provided its stage 1 complaint response on 31 October 2023. It said that the ASB case had been “very low level” and it had been unable to hear any noise on the recordings the resident had submitted to it. The landlord confirmed that it was working with neighbour A but was unable to share any details of this. It said that if the resident had concerns about his mental health, she should report these to social services.
The resident emailed the landlord on 20 December 2023. She wrote that “I am writing to ask to escalate my complaint further”. She expressed continued dissatisfaction with the landlord’s handling of the ASB case and sent further recordings which she said evidenced noise nuisance from neighbour A. On 18 January 2024, the landlord opened a new ASB case.
On 25 January 2024, the Ombudsman contacted the landlord asking it to respond to the resident’s complaint at stage 2 of its complaints process. On 4 February 2024, the resident asked the landlord to begin legal action against neighbour A and have a surveyor assess the structure and soundproofing of the block.
The landlord provided its stage 2 complaint response on 29 February 2024. It said that:
1. It was aware the resident had previously said she did not require any support from it, but its offer remained open if she changed her mind.
2. It was satisfied that it had handled her case in keeping with its ASB policy. However, it would carry out a review of any recent reports and contact other residents to see if they were experiencing noise nuisance from neighbour B’s flat.
3. The resident should continue to log any reports with it, and the council’s environmental health team, as necessary.
4. It was working with other agencies to support neighbour A but was unable to share details of this. It would ensure that it highlighted the impact of the noise upon the resident as part of this.
5. Due to the age of the building, it was unable to make any alterations to the fabric of it – such as soundproofing. Therefore, it would not arrange a surveyor’s inspection.
6. It offered her £100 compensation for failing to escalate her complaint when she had asked, and for the poor quality of its stage 1 complaint response.
The resident has informed this Service that neighbour A has since moved out and no longer lives in the block. His former flat was unoccupied at the time of this investigation.

Assessment and findings

Scope of the investigation

The Ombudsman is aware that the resident has reported ASB issues, involving both neighbour B and the previous occupant of neighbour A’s flat, dating back to at least 2019.
This investigation has focused on the landlord’s handling of the resident’s recent reports, from 16 October 2022 onwards, that were considered during the landlord’s complaint responses. This is because residents are expected to raise complaints with their landlords in a timely manner so that the landlord has a reasonable opportunity to consider the issues whilst they are still ‘live’, and while the evidence is available to reach an informed conclusion on the events that occurred.
It is important to clarify, it is not the role of the Ombudsman to determine whether ASB occurred or who was responsible for it. The purpose of this investigation is to assess the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports. This involves determining whether it acted fairly, reasonably and in keeping with its policy based upon the evidence available to it.

Handling of ASB

The landlord’s ASB policy says that prevention is an essential part of its approach to tackling ASB. It says prevention may include referral to mediation services, acceptable behaviour contacts (ABCs) and multiagency work.
The policy says that any action the landlord takes will be “based on the particular facts of the case and will be proportionate to the behaviour”. It says it “will consider the impact to the victim, the evidence presented and the conduct of the perpetrator” but “will not take action where there is insufficient evidence”.
“Perpetrators whose behaviour is affected by …mental ill health or disability will be referred to the appropriate support agencies” according to the policy. The landlord says it will “apply a multi-agency approach to assist those agencies in supporting the perpetrator…but will also consider other actions to resolve ASB”.
The landlord has an ‘ASB toolkit’ document. This sets out the actions it can take to address various forms of ASB. It says that for both noise nuisance and harassment it can discuss the reports with the alleged perpetrator, issue warning letters and ABCs, or enforce the tenancy agreement by taking legal action. For noise nuisance it says it can also offer mediation where appropriate.
The resident made her first reports, considered by this investigation, on 16 October 2022. She reported that neighbour A was kicking his floor daily, which was causing “excessive noise nuisance”. On 24 October 2022, the resident provided recordings of this noise. The landlord appropriately acknowledged these and said it would review them and contact neighbour A if it assessed the noise “to be above what is deemed acceptable domestically”.
On 16 November 2022, the landlord informed the resident that it had spoken to neighbour A. It said that he had apologised for any noise she was experiencing, said that this was not intentional and that he would be more mindful in future. This was a reasonable first intervention, in keeping with its ASB tool kit.
The landlord also told the resident that there was a repair issue with the floor in neighbour A’s flat which was contributing to noise. It said it would chase this up to ensure it was resolved. The landlord has not provided any evidence of when it completed this repair. However, an email from the resident on 23 March 2024 indicates that the flooring had been recently repaired and resulted in a notable reduction in noise transference. This represented an unreasonable delay in the landlord resolving a repair issue which it was aware was having a detrimental impact on the resident.
Throughout December 2022 and January 2023, the resident reported that the police attended neighbour A’s flat on multiple occasions due to concerns about his mental health. The landlord appropriately reassured the resident that it was working with the police and other agencies to ensure that neighbour A received necessary support. This was in keeping with its policy commitment to support perpetrators whose behaviour was linked to their mental health. However, as per its policy, this did not prevent the landlord from considering taking separate action to resolve the ASB.
The resident asserted to the landlord on multiple occasions that the cause of neighbour A’s decline in mental health was “aggressive tension and anxiety” creating a “toxic” atmosphere in the block. She said this was caused by either neighbour B, or a flat nearby to them, and was also affecting her and disturbing her sleep. She repeatedly urged the landlord to investigate this.
This was not a matter the landlord could reasonably be expected to investigate or gather evidence of. It was therefore appropriate for it to focus on supporting neighbour A and addressing the more direct impact of his behaviour which the resident was reporting. However, there is no evidence that the landlord explained this to the resident. Instead, its responses repeatedly failed to address her concerns about the tension and anxiety in the block and did not appropriately manage her expectations as to the scope of its investigation.
On 7 January 2023, the resident reported that neighbour A had banged on her front door and shouted and sworn at her. He repeated this behaviour on 8 January 2024. The resident said that police attended and spoke with neighbour A telling him to stay away from her door. As the police had already spoken to neighbour A it was reasonable for the landlord to monitor the situation rather than intervening at this point.
On 17 January 2024, the resident reported that neighbour A had put a note through her letterbox about noise nuisance from her flat. The landlord advised that it had spoken with the police about the issues and would be arranging a joint visit to neighbour A. This was an appropriate next step after previously speaking with him in November 2022. It reflected the escalation of neighbour A’s alleged behaviour and demonstrated a multi-agency approach in keeping with the landlord’s policy.
The landlord and the police attempted an unannounced visit to neighbour A on 2 February 2023 but were unable to gain access. On 6 February 2023, the landlord told the resident it would arrange an announced visit to neighbour A with the police. However, there is no evidence that it ever did so. This represented a missed opportunity for the landlord to discuss neighbour A’s alleged behaviour with him and make him aware that it amounted to ASB and a breach of tenancy. The landlord failed to consider other options such as a warning letter which could also have conveyed this at the earliest opportunity.
This also showed a lack of regard for the concern which the resident had expressed about neighbour A’s behaviour. She said that “things are escalating and I do not know what I can expect tomorrow from him” and described him as “targeting me relentlessly” and “threatening”. The landlord’s lack of action was not in keeping with its policy commitment to consider the impact on the victim.
On 1 March 2023, after the resident continued to report noise from neighbour A, the landlord told her it planned to install noise monitoring equipment in the block “to get a better picture of what is happening”. The landlord has provided no evidence that it ever installed this equipment and there are no further mentions of this within the ASB casefile. The landlord’s ASB toolkit also makes no mention of noise monitoring equipment as an option.
On several occasions, the landlord expressed that it was having difficulty hearing noise within recordings that the resident had submitted using its ‘noise app’. It would therefore have been reasonable for it to install noise monitoring equipment to attempt to gather higher quality recordings to prove or disprove the noise nuisance allegations.
On 31 May 2023, the landlord notified the resident via its noise app it had closed her noise nuisance case against neighbour A. In an email on the same date, the resident said that she felt this was “a right course of action” as the frequency of the noise had decreased. She said she could “live with” the current situation as long she was not being “bothered or accosted” by neighbour A directly.
The landlord’s ASB policy says that will close a case where “the reporter has informed us that the ASB has stopped”. The resident had not reported any noise nuisance by neighbour A since 27 February 2023 – only concerns for his welfare and further police attendances. It was therefore reasonable for the landlord to close the noise case in keeping with its policy.
The resident did ask the landlord to address the “tension” coming from neighbour B which was making it “almost impossible to live a peaceful life in this atmosphere”. This was in addition to previous reports she had made of loud music and a saxophone being played in neighbour B’s flat. On 22 June 2023, the landlord advised that based on the recordings she had provided “the level of noise or time of day would constitute statutory nuisance”. It said it had discussed the reports with another neighbour in the block who stated that neighbour B played music only during the day and they did not consider it a nuisance.
In its stage 2 complaint response, the landlord committed to contacting other resident’s living near to neighbour B to see if they were experiencing noise nuisance from his flat. It would have been appropriate for the landlord to consider doing this at this at an earlier stage in its investigations, rather than relying on the opinion of a single neighbour which it selected to ask. Whilst the Ombudsman notes that the landlord had not received any other complaints, the resident repeatedly referred to neighbour B as intimidating and aggressive. This may have prevented other residents from reporting issues to the landlord.
On 27 June 2023, the resident told the landlord she had received a further note from neighbour A. She sent a copy of this to the landlord and asked it to open a harassment case against him. The landlord responded the same day. It advised that the note was only neighbour A informing her that he had now downloaded the landlord’s noise app. It said there was no indication this was harassment, but that it had asked him not to send any further notes in this manner.
The landlord also offered to refer the resident to its mediation service to address the issues with both neighbours A and B. This was in keeping with its ASB toolkit’s suggestions for resolving noise nuisance. However, it was almost 8 months after the issues with neighbour A had begun. The benefits of mediation as an early intervention had been missed by this stage and it was apparent that relations between the resident and neighbour A were at a point where mediation would be unlikely to be successful.
On 29 June 2023, the resident reported that neighbour A had delivered a further 2 notes through her letterbox. She said she felt these were threatening and had reported it to the police. Despite the landlord having recently told neighbour A not to send the resident any further letters, it failed to respond to this report or follow this up with him.
On 17 July 2023, the resident sent the landlord further recordings which she said evidence banging and shouting by neighbour A. The landlord indicated it was “unable to hear anything clearly” in the recordings. It asked to visit the resident with the police to discuss her case.
The landlord visited the resident, accompanied by the police, on 24 August 2023. During this meeting, the resident advised that she had “no concerns” with neighbour A currently but wished the landlord to take action against neighbour B. The landlord said that the recordings she had provided of neighbour B did not constitute ASB, but reasonably agreed to speak with him about being mindful of the volume of noise during the day. The landlord’s ASB policy says that it will close a case when “there is no evidence to suggest that ASB is occurring”. It was reasonable to close the case at this time and there is no evidence the resident objected to this.
In its stage 1 complaint response the landlord described the ASB reported by the resident as ‘very low level’. This was inappropriate considering the impact she had described on her health and mental wellbeing including feeling unsafe and “on edge” in her own home. Whilst it may be helpful for landlords to categorise ASB internally based upon risk, type etc, using this language with complainants of ASB gives the impression of minimising their concerns and lacking empathy for their experiences.
In its stage 2 complaint response, the landlord advised that it was unable to alter the fabric of the building to try and improve soundproofing as the resident had requested. There is no legal obligation on landlords to improve soundproofing within their properties beyond the level specified by building regulations at the time of their construction. The landlord indicated that the age of the building would also not facilitate such improvements. The landlord’s position was therefore reasonable.
The landlord also stated that it was satisfied it had handled the resident’s case in keeping with its ASB policy. However, this investigation has highlighted failings in the landlord’s approach. The landlord failed to resolve the flooring repair in neighbour A’s flat in a timely manner, despite believing this was contributing to the noise issues. It also failed to install noise recording equipment after telling the resident that it would.
Whilst it was appropriate for the landlord to consider, and provide support with, neighbour A’s mental health, this did not prevent it from acting upon the resident’s ASB reports. The landlord has not evidenced that it made reasonable attempts to do so, or that it appropriately recognised the impact on the resident of his behaviour. The landlord’s ASB tool kit provides multiple options for early intervention and prevention, none of which it appears to have considered in this case. Due to this combination of failings, the Ombudsman makes a finding of maladministration.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord in its handling of the resident’s reports of ASB.

Orders

Within 4 weeks of the date of this determination, the Ombudsman orders the landlord to:
1. Pay the resident £300 compensation for the distress and inconvenience caused by its maladministration.
2. Apologise to the resident for the failings in its handling of her ASB reports highlighted by this report.
The landlord should provide evidence of compliance with these orders to this Service.

Recommendation

The Ombudsman recommends that the landlord considers installing carpet to the living areas of the flat above the resident’s as part of its void works to assist with reducing the transfer of noise.