Sanctuary Housing Association (202215994)

A blue and grey text

Description automatically generated

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202215994

Sanctuary Housing Association

31 January 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 complains about the landlord’s handling of her reports of noise nuisance and antisocial behaviour.

Background and summary of events

Background

The resident is an assured tenant of the landlord which is a housing association. The property is a 1 bedroom ground floor flat in a block of flats. The tenancy commenced in October 2019.
The landlord reports the resident suffers from mental health and learning vulnerabilities.

Landlord obligations

The landlord’s antisocial behaviour (ASB) housing and support procedure and ASB, Crime and Policing Act 2014 defines ASB as:
1. Conduct that has caused or is likely to cause, harassment, alarm or distress to any person.
2. Conduct capable of causing nuisance or annoyance to a person in relation to that persons occupation of residential premises.
3. Conduct capable of causing housing- related nuisance or annoyance to any person. This includes noise nuisance, which can be intermittent and must affect the comfort or quality of life of a reasonable person.
The landlord’s ASB housing and support procedure states:
1. It is bound by the statutory definition of noise nuisance and can only address noise nuisance that meets this definition. It recognises that low level noise disturbance can impact residents who have a disability and staff need to have regard to that.
2. When it received reports of ASB, it would assess the vulnerabilities of the victim, carry out an investigation and then attempt resolution through early intervention methods such as mediation, signposting, issuing warnings and acceptable behaviour contracts. After these actions, it will then consider the use of formal enforcement action such as legal action.

Summary of events

On 7 February 2022, the resident reported her neighbour for requesting access to the building as the neighbour had lost his key and buzzed her and other neighbours properties to get entrance to the building, causing noise nuisance. She also reported the neighbour for drinking alcohol and drug use. She also reported a separate issue with another neighbour’s dog barking.
On 12 February 2022, the landlord spoke with the neighbour about the dog barking and it confirmed it would update the resident on the matter on 14 February 2022.
Between 21 February and 25 February 2022:
1. The landlord emailed the resident and explained it had spoken to the first neighbour about the issues reported. The neighbour confirmed they agreed to mediation to resolve the dispute. The landlord also recorded it had advised the second neighbour to keep the dog under control between 7pm and 7am to minimise noise disturbance.
2. The resident reported the first neighbour had been rattling the main entrance door and was shouting to be let in.
3. The resident reported the first neighbour was acting erratically in the communal area, making loud banging noises and running around.
4. The resident reported the first neighbour had been stumbling outside and slurring their words, with a needle in their hand. On the same date, the police contacted the landlord to discuss this matter however, it was unclear if the resident contacted the police relating to that incident.
5. The landlord provided the resident with a permissions request form relating to installation of CCTV outside her property.
On 1 March 2022, the resident’s partner contacted the landlord to report further issues with dog barking. The landlord advised it was monitoring the situation but advised it had not received any other reports from other neighbours. It asked the resident to monitor and record future disturbances for future evidence.
On 29 April 2022, it closed the noise case as no further reports were received from the resident.
On 19 July 2022, the resident reported disturbance from her neighbour. The landlord agreed to contact her to discuss the matter. The records did not show the landlord contacted the resident to discuss the disturbance as agreed.
On 21 July 2022, the resident reported her neighbour was shouting and banging at her door covered in blood. The resident contacted the police. On 22 July 2022, the landlord discussed the reports with the resident and advised her to continue to log incidents. The landlord’s case file report noted an action plan was agreed to review this incident alongside previous incidents and discuss any steps it could take going forward. It also noted a risk assessment was due to be completed however, the landlord has not provided evidence of the risk assessment.
On 11 August 2022, the resident reported loud music coming from another neighbour’s property in a nearby apartment block.
On 12 August 2022, the resident requested an update from the landlord on the previously reported incident on 21 July 2022. On the same date, the landlord confirmed to the resident the neighbour was the victim of an attack which resulted in them requiring medical treatment. It also asked for further information from the resident relating to the noise complaint about a resident in a neighbouring block made on 11 August 2022. There is no record the resident responded to provide further information.
On 20 August 2022, the resident reported she was unhappy with the landlord’s handling of the noise disturbance. She believed the neighbour’s behaviour breached his tenancy agreement.
On 26 August 2022, the resident reported dogs barking in various neighbouring apartments.
On 5 September 2022, the landlord discussed mediation with the resident and her neighbour.
On 4 October 2022, the mediation meeting took place. The meeting notes confirmed both the resident and the neighbour agreed to contact the police where appropriate and both parties would use mediation for further incidents, rather than involve the landlord and be required to provide evidence. It was also noted some of the reported incidents by the resident were unclear as to which neighbour was causing the noise. The neighbour which attended the mediation asked the resident to be clearer on her future reports, as some of the incidents she reported were not related to actions carried out by them. The resident agreed to be specific about who she believed the perpetrator was in future reports to the landlord.
On 12 October 2022, the landlord conducted a home visit at the resident’s property. The resident explained there was previous issues relating to children during the summer holidays however, these incidents had reduced since they returned to school. She also reported fly-tipping. The landlord agreed to send a letter to the neighbours regarding the issues reported by the resident. The landlord also noted the resident was sleeping in the living room and not her bedroom.
On 19 October 2022, the resident reported noise nuisance of banging and the neighbour had fallen down the stairs. On 20 October 2022, the landlord discussed the incident with the neighbour and it was denied. The landlord explained it gave further advice to complete diary sheets detailing further incidents and she was also informed to use the noise app to record noise disturbance. The landlord noted it had previously provided a link to download the noise app to the resident on 28 June 2021.
On 19 and 20 October 2022, the resident complained to the landlord. She explained:
1. She has suffered from noise issues from her neighbour for 2-3 years. It consisted of loud music and television noise, slamming of doors, stomping on the communal stairs and erratic behaviour under the influence of alcohol and drugs.
2. She has reported the noise to the landlord, local MP, local counsellor and the police, accompanied with evidence. However, she reported the matters were not taken seriously.
3. She has witnessed the neighbour attempting entry into her property via the patio doors and also drug dealing.
4. She entered mediation with the neighbour and an action plan was written up. However, this was not acted upon and the incidents continued.
5. She was installing CCTV and a garden solar light for security reasons due to the neighbour.
On 26 October 2022, the landlord acknowledged the resident’s stage 1 complaint.
On 29 October 2022, the resident reported she witnessed the neighbour purchasing drugs outside of her property.
On 29 and 30 October 2022, the resident reported further noise disturbance from her neighbour.
On 4 November 2022, the resident reported a neighbour was playing loud music, stomping on the stairs and slamming doors. She had a noise recording.
On 8 November 2022, the landlord provided its stage 1 response. It stated:
1. It previously investigated reports it received from the resident in July 2020, November 2020 and February 2021 relating to noise nuisance and drugs. The landlord stated it spoke with the neighbour and it was denied. Due to lack of evidence and no further reports from the resident, it could not take further action and closed the cases.
2. In February 2022, the resident reported her neighbour for requesting access to the building as he lost his key. It noted the resident reported the incident to the police but there was no further action taken. She also reported the neighbour for drinking alcohol and drug use, where he buzzed her property and other neighbours to gain entrance to the building, causing noise nuisance. It offered mediation to reach an appropriate resolution with her neighbour but the resident declined the offer. The neighbour also denied the allegations made. There was no corroborative evidence to allow it to take further action.
3. In July 2022, the resident reported the neighbour for shouting, arguing and banging. She also reported an incident where the neighbour was covered in blood and the resident contacted emergency services. The neighbour was spoken with however, no further action was necessary. It updated the resident following the incident.
4. On 11 October 2022, the resident engaged in mediation with the neighbour. On 12 October 2022, the local police advised the resident what to do if she experienced further disturbances, such as where to report and the evidence required.
5. On 19 October 2022, the resident reported noise nuisance of banging and the neighbour had fallen down the stairs. On 20 October 2022, the landlord discussed the incident with the neighbour and it was denied. The landlord explained it gave further advice to complete diary sheets detailing further incidents and she was also informed to use the noise app to record noise disturbance.
6. On 29 October 2022, the resident reported the neighbour buying drugs. However, there was insufficient evidence to support taking further action but it was noted on its records.
7. It recognised the resident participated in mediation with her neighbour and it was working with her, the neighbour and local organisations to resolve the matter. It explained it would continue to work to resolve the issues.
8. It did not uphold the complaint. However, the case would remain open and investigation would continue. It provided the resident with a permission form to complete regarding the installation of her CCTV and garden light to review the installation request.
On the same date, the resident requested the matter be escalated to stage 2. She explained she did not know what more she could do after reporting incidents and providing evidence to the landlord and other partner organisations. She felt her concerns were not taken seriously.
On 10 November 2022, the landlord acknowledged the resident’s escalation request. It aimed to respond by 8 December 2022.
On 16 November 2022, the landlord arranged an appointment to speak with the resident’s partner on 21 November 2022, which was to also involve a discussion with the neighbour causing noise nuisance and other resident’s within the block to discuss the noise reports the resident had made. However, the resident cancelled the appointment on 20 November 2022.
On 21 November 2022, the landlord sent a letter to each property within the resident’s block relating to nuisance and disturbances. It explained it was appealing for witnesses to antisocial behaviour (ASB) and noise nuisance and asked for evidence to be supplied to itself and the police.
On 8 December 2022, the landlord provided its stage 2 response. It stated:
1. It apologised for the delay in providing its initial stage 1 response.
2. It could not investigate matters more than 6 months old. It would therefore only respond to the resident’s complaint in relation to the events which were reported from February 2022.
3. It had reviewed the reports made by the resident from February 2022 until the date of the stage 2 response and provided descriptions of each event which is recorded within the summary of events above.
4. It was limited to take action unless it could be established there was ASB and drug dealing. If it could establish this, it would take appropriate enforcement action under the tenancy agreement. However, the police had been unable to substantiate drug supply to the neighbour’s property. It therefore did not have enough evidence to take further action.
5. It acted in line with its ASB policy to contact the resident to discuss reports of ASB/noise within its specified timescales following the initial reports by the resident on 14 February 2022 and 20 July 2022. It believed it acted appropriately in response to the resident’s reports.
6. It explained normal day to day living noise transference in apartment buildings was to be expected. Whilst the resident chose to sleep in her living room, it explained the bedroom was situated to be away from communal areas where noise transference would be reduced. Her living room was near to the neighbouring property which she had noise issues with and raised it may improve the issues if she slept in her bedroom. It would however take action if the noise was above expected day to day living noise. It noted the structure of the building could not be changed and it had no plans to fit sound proofing.
7. It partially upheld the resident’s complaint as it failed to acknowledge and respond to the resident’s stage 1 complaint within its policy timescales. It also noted on 2 occasions, it failed to contact the resident on the dates it agreed to do so.
8. It offered £100 compensation comprising of:

£50 for complaint handling failures
£50 for failing to contact the resident on agreed dates.

Events after internal complaint’s procedure

On 12 December 2022, the landlord attended the resident’s property to complete a risk assessment and discuss support needed.
On 16 December 2022, the landlord issued a noise abatement warning letter to the neighbour for loud music between 00:00 and 00:50 on 10 December 2022 following attendance of its out of hours team in response to reports.
On 28 February 2023, the landlord granted permission for the resident to install CCTV at her property.

Assessment and findings

When investigating a complaint, the Ombudsman considers its Dispute Resolution Principles. This is good practice guidance developed from the Ombudsman’s experience of resolving disputes for use by everyone involved in the complaints process. There are three principles driving effective dispute resolution:

a. be fair – treat people fairly and follow fair processes.

b. put things right,

c. learn from outcomes.

During its investigation, the Ombudsman has considered how the landlord has responded to the resident’s reports of noise. It is not the Ombudsman’s role to decide if the actions reported amount to ASB or statutory noise nuisance, but rather whether the landlord responded to and managed the resident’s reports appropriately and reasonably.
This Service has not seen evidence of a completed risk assessment by the landlord following the resident’s reports of noise nuisance and ASB. This is something the Ombudsman would expect to see in its records and the landlord sets this out in its ASB policy. This is relevant, particularly as the resident was recorded as suffering from mental health vulnerabilities.
While the outcome of its risk assessment may not have altered how the landlord handled the case overall, the landlord has not been able to show it had considered whether the resident may have needed any additional support. There is little indication in its communication with the resident that it took into account how the situation may have been affecting her. Additionally, it meant that the landlord missed opportunities to offer tailored support, assistance or signposting to the resident to support her through the life of the case. This was not appropriate and in the Ombudsman’s opinion, the landlord did not treat the resident reasonably.
The landlord worked in partnership with the police when managing reports of noise nuisance. The landlord explained to the resident it had been unable to take further action on the resident’s reports of noise as there was not enough supporting evidence. Whilst the landlord did follow up reports of noise by speaking with the neighbours responsible, when the neighbour denied matters, the landlord said it could not take further action. Whilst the landlord advised the resident to provide evidence by way of supporting diary records and noise recordings on 19 October 2022, to accompany her reports of noise and nuisance, the timing of this was inappropriate. The resident had been reporting incidents for several years prior to October 2022 and the landlord confirmed on several occasions since February 2022, the resident’s reports did not have sufficient evidence to allow it to take further action.
Whilst the landlord did previously provide the noise app to the resident in June 2021, this Service would expect to see evidence the landlord offered this service to the resident again when responding to her reports. This Service would also expect to see the landlord explained the type of evidence it required to take further action and to appropriately manage the case by requesting such evidence via diary sheets and noise recordings. The landlord acted unreasonably by failing to offer this support sooner and ultimately led to the resident reporting incidents without the necessary evidence to allow the landlord to take further action as part of its ASB policy. The landlord failed to provide the resident with a way of capturing evidence at the earliest opportunity and this led to a cycle of the resident supplying information that that landlord deemed as insufficient evidence, without managing the residents expectations and ensuring she had an understanding in regard to evidence required.
The landlord has provided evidence it sought to work with the police to address issues of drug dealing and noise nuisance at the resident’s address. Whilst it is appropriate for the landlord to work with its partner agencies, it still needs to take an active role to investigate the matters. To handle reports of ASB which have a criminal element or noise nuisance, landlords should adopt a proactive good neighbourhood management strategy, distinct to the ASB policy, with clear options for maintaining good neighbourhood relationships. Whilst it was positive to see the landlord had written to the residents at the apartment building to seek supporting witnesses on 21 November 2022, this action should have been taken sooner. It therefore missed an opportunity to collate supporting evidence with the residents earlier into its noise and nuisance investigations, which could have better informed its approach and led to a quicker resolution, rather than allowing the matters to continue.
This Service does recognise the landlord showed good practice to offer mediation to the resident on 21 February 2022, despite this being declined by the resident. It showed good practice again to offer mediation to the resident and her neighbour on 4 October 2022 which did take place. The mediation was positive and seemed to narrow some of the issues the resident had at the time. Whilst it was noted the issues did not stop, it was positive to see the landlord encouraged mediation which could build neighbour relationships in attempts to resolve the issues.
The landlord explained the fabric of the building may have been a reason for the noise transference. In the Ombudsman’s opinion, it would have been reasonable for the landlord to commission a survey to assess if anything could be done in terms of reducing the noise transference such as surveying the acoustics, insulation or support with carpet or underlay. The landlord did not take further investigatory actions to explore options to reduce the noise transference into the resident’s property. It therefore acted unreasonably in its handling of the resident’s reports of noise nuisance.
It is the Ombudsman’s view the landlord failed to complete a risk assessment, produce an action plan and appropriately manage the collation of evidence with the resident. No evidence has been seen to suggest that any reasonable adjustments were considered to support the resident through this time. The landlord could also have signposted the resident to support services.
Furthermore, the landlord did not take a proactive approach and take further investigations into whether the noise could be reduced if it blamed the cause on the fabric of the building. Whilst these actions may not have resolved the noise, the landlord failed to take appropriate steps in the handling of the reports of noise, which amounts to maladministration.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with Paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord regarding its handling of the resident’s reports of noise nuisance and antisocial behaviour.

Reasons

There is no evidence a risk assessment was completed following the reports of noise. Neither was it considered when the resident raised the impact the noise was having on her mental health. The landlord also did not support the resident or signpost her to support services. Furthermore, it did not consider further investigations to reduce the noise if it blamed the cause on the fabric of the building.

Orders and recommendations

Within four weeks of the date of this report, the landlord is ordered to:
1. Apologise to the resident for the failings identified in this report.
2. Pay the resident £300 for the distress and inconvenience caused by its handling of the reports of noise.
3. Contact the resident and confirm if there is ongoing reports of noise nuisance. If so then it should attend the resident’s property and complete a survey, providing any outcomes which can be implemented for reducing the noise transference between the properties.
4. Provide the resident with an action plan of the steps it will take to investigate and manage noise nuisance and ASB reports going forward.
5. Provide evidence of compliance with the above orders.

Recommendations

The landlord should review its handling of noise complaints in line with the Ombudsman’s report ‘Spotlight on: Noise Complaints’ published October 2022 and ensure this is reflected in its noise policy.