Southern Housing (202108019)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202108019

Southern Housing

29 November 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 is about the landlord’s response to the resident’s:
1. Request to replace the windows and back door.
2. Reports of antisocial behaviour.
The Ombudsman has also considered the landlord’s complaint handling.

Background

The resident is a leaseholder of the landlord which is a housing association. The start date of the lease is unknown. The property is a one bedroom ground floor flat. The landlord has no vulnerabilities recorded for the resident.
The landlord’s records show that by 22 September 2023 the resident had sublet her property.

Request to replace windows and back door.

On 29 January 2021 the landlord wrote to the resident to confirm that its planned works had agreed to inspect the property with a view to replacing the windows. The landlord’s records dated 14 April show that it tried to install scaffolding to carry out the works but that the resident had declined to provide access. In an email to the landlord dated 23 January 2022 the resident asked to discuss replacement of the windows and back door. In March the landlord wrote to the resident to confirm that they would be upgraded as part of planned works.
The landlord provided a further update in September 2022 to confirm the works were out to tender and explained the process. On 5 December the landlord served the resident with a Section 20 notice of intention regarding window replacement. On 11 February 2023 it served a Section 20 notice of proposals setting out the estimated cost of works. In July the resident emailed the landlord to say she had not received the Section 20 notice.
In September 2023 the resident emailed the landlord to request permission to install windows and doors herself because they were in a state of “disrepair.” In November the landlord emailed the resident to advise that the terms of the lease meant only the landlord was authorised to carry out such works. On 18 February 2024 the resident emailed the landlord to say she had still not received the Section 20 notice and was therefore not able to provide access to allow works to go ahead. On 31 July the resident emailed the landlord to say she had not received any further communication.

Reports of antisocial behaviour.

During January 2021 the resident submitted reports of noise nuisance caused by the resident above including loud music, banging and stamping. In February the resident contacted the landlord to report concerns that the neighbour above had fitted laminate flooring which was exacerbating the noise issue. The resident left the property in February due to the ongoing noise. In November she emailed the landlord to say that during a visit to the property she had witnessed loud music and said she wanted to be able to return home.
During March 2022 the resident requested that the landlord carry out a ‘drop test’ and make a referral to mediation for both parties. These matters remained outstanding in September 2022. The resident continued to make reports of noise nuisance, including submissions of recordings through the ‘noise app’.
In March 2023 the landlord opened an ASB case and subsequently issued the resident’s neighbour with a warning letter. On 19 June the neighbour signed a good neighbour contract “not to play music at excessive levels.” A professional witness attended the property during June and August 2023. The resident continued to report ongoing incidents of loud music from the property above during 2024. During March 2024 the landlord carried out a sound proofing survey.
On 7 March 2022 the resident emailed the landlord to raise a formal complaint about its inaction. She said that requests she had raised in relation to laminate flooring above, the drop test, mediation and the windows and doors all remained outstanding.
The landlord issued a stage 1 complaint response on 22 March 2022, as follows:
1. There was no tenancy clause which prohibited the resident’s neighbour from installing laminate flooring. However, it would arrange to visit the neighbour to discuss sound transference issues. In the meantime it asked the resident to submit recordings via the noise app for it to review.
2. It would visit her neighbour to investigate and assess the impact of the noise by carrying out what the resident referred to as a drop test. It advised that noise transference as part of day to day living was not classed as Antisocial Behaviour (ASB).
3. It would also arrange mediation by 1 April.
4. The windows would be upgraded as part of planned works.
5. It could not support the resident’s request for compensation.
On 5 August 2022 the resident called this Service to ask for assistance with the complaints process. On 15 August we wrote to the landlord to ask that it provide a complaint response by 30 August.
The landlord issued a second stage 1 complaint response on 15 September 2022, the main points being:
1. It had communicated with the resident’s neighbour regarding her concerns.
2. It proposed to carry out a human noise test and check flooring in both properties on 22 September.
3. It had completed a risk matrix with the resident and subsequently opened an ASB case to investigate further. It would contact the resident once the case was opened. It asked the resident to keep a diary of events and use the noise app in the meantime.
4. It noted that the resident had said she would engage in mediation with her neighbour.
5. The property was on the current year plan for window and door replacement which was out to tender. It had spoken to the resident on 17 August to explain the process.
6. It aimed to complete installation of the new door and windows by 31 March 2023.
On 20 September 2022 the resident emailed the landlord, copied to this Service, to set out her disappointment with the timescale for the works to the windows and door. On 1 January 2023 the resident sent a further email to the landlord, also copied to this Service, to report a further incident of loud music. On 9 January we wrote to the landlord to request that it escalate the complaint to stage 2 and provide a response by 16 January.
On 6 April 2023 the landlord provided its stage 2 complaint response, the main points being:
1. It apologised for the delay in escalating the complaint which it said was due to an internal miscommunication about how it was to progress. It recognised that the resident had to escalate her complaint to this Service as result and offered £200 compensation
2. It had investigated the resident’s reports of ASB. The human noise test determined that carpet was fitted and that noise levels were normal for conversion style property.
3. It acknowledged that the resident was most concerned about “persistent loud music.” It had opened an ASB case and carried out a visit on 30 March 2023 to discuss the allegations.
4. The noise recordings supported the resident’s allegations and it therefore intended to issue the resident’s neighbour with a warning for breach of tenancy.
5. It asked the resident to continue to keep a diary and submit noise app recordings.
6. It had arranged for a professional witness to visit on 21 April.
7. It acknowledged that the resident had previously requested to be referred to mediation which it would arrange.
8. It would continue to update the resident every 2 weeks while the ASB case remained open, if it decided to close it would explain its reasoning in advance.
9. It apologised it had not replaced the windows by the target date of 31 March 2023. It had contacted the resident on 27 March to discuss arrangements for access for the scaffolding after which works could commence.
10. It apologised for the delay and stressed the importance of following the correct Section 20 process. It offered to reduce its normal management fee from 15 to 10%. This would appear in the year end accounts for 2023 to 2024.
11. It would provide a further update by 14 April 2023.
During a telephone call to this Service on 6 June 2023 the resident reported that the ASB was ongoing. She did not think that the landlord had offered enough compensation for the distress caused. The complaint became one we could consider on 22 April 2024.

Events post internal complaints process.

On 8 February 2024 the resident emailed the landlord to make a further complaint because the ASB was ongoing and she had not received the Section 20 Notice.
The landlord issued its stage 1 complaint response on 1 March 2024, as follows:
1. Formal consultation on the windows started in 2022. Notice of intent was issued in December 2022 and notice of estimated costs in January 2023. It enclosed copies of both.
2. The window contractor had contacted the resident on “numerous occasions” since July 2023 to arrange access but the resident had declined.
3. The resident later asked to install her own windows however, the landlord was unable to permit her to do so. It contacted the resident again in November to request access however the resident had not had the opportunity to talk to her tenants.
4. It had demonstrated that it had followed the Section 20 consultation process and asked the resident to provide access. It advised that not doing so was a breach of the terms of the lease.
5. The resident had reported several incidents of ASB over the past few years, mainly relating to noise nuisance. During that time it had asked for evidence and when this had been provided it had contacted the neighbour.
6. A home visit had been carried out and it had arranged for a professional witness to attend. Formal action was taken against her neighbour who agreed to stop playing loud music. It had provided regular updates to the resident. The case was closed in September as both parties agreed to attend mediation.
7. The professional witness reported that noise could be due to poor sound insulation. It intended to carry out an assessment by 22 March and would update the resident.
8. It did not uphold the complaint as the Section 20 was completed and it had taken action regarding the reports of ASB.
On 14 March 2024 the resident emailed the landlord to report that her neighbour’s loud music had disturbed her tenants. She asked to escalate her complaint to stage 2.
On 3 June 2024 the landlord provided its stage 2 complaint response, as follows:
1. It had investigated the resident’s reports of ASB in line with its ASB policy and procedure. It had taken appropriate tenancy action, arranged for a professional witness and mediation. It asked the resident to report any further issues with noise.
2. Having carried out a sound proofing survey it had contacted the resident on 3 April to explain the report and confirmed the same in a subsequent email.
3. In its email to the resident it had said it was waiting for advice from the contracts manager to explore any additional measures that might improve the situation. It would provide a further update by 17 June.
4. It apologised that the Section 20 notice was not enclosed with the stage 1 response and said it would include it with that response. It upheld the resident’s complaint because of its omission and offered £25 compensation.
In an email to this Service dated 22 November 2024 the landlord advised that:
1. In April 2024 its surveyor confirmed he was going to obtain a quote for “acoustic underlay beneath the carpet on the treads, or hard finish with a suitably specified, and installed, resilient layer underneath.”
2. As of August 2024 there were still access issues to carry out works to the windows. On 31 October the landlord updated the resident that the works were on hold due to an ongoing procurement process.
3. It did not install noise equipment into the property because the resident was logging reports via the noise app.

Assessment and findings

Landlord’s obligations, policies and procedures.

Section 20 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 requires landlords to consult where the cost of major works will exceed the sum of £250 for any one leaseholder. As a minimum, consultation should take place at the:
1. Pre-tender stage through notice of intention.
2. Tender stage through notification of the landlord’s proposals (estimates).
The noise app website says it is designed for users to record noise nuisance via their apple or smartphone or device. It provides a “very efficient means of taking good quality recordings of noise issues such as loud music.”
The landlord’s ASB policy says:
1. It will take a victim-centred and robust approach to tackling ASB, including prevention and early intervention.
2. It may use monitoring equipment to assist in its investigation.
3. Each report of ASB will be categorised as either low, medium or high risk. This will depend on the nature and severity of the ASB reported and the impact it is having on the complainant and their household’s wellbeing. Any known risks or vulnerabilities will also impact how the report is categorised.
4. Complainants will have an assigned case handler who will keep in regular contact with them.
5. By addressing ASB early, it is more likely to be able to stop problems escalating in most cases. Early interventions it may take include:
  1. Interviewing the perpetrator.
  2. Verbal and written warnings.
  3. Making referrals for support.
  4. Mediation.
  5. Good Neighbour Agreements.
6. It will take swift enforcement action where other approaches have been tried and failed.
7. It will use risk assessments to establish any vulnerabilities the complainant and/or the perpetrator may have and the impact the ASB is having on the complainant’s (including their household’s) well-being.
8. Before closing a case it will contact the complainant beforehand to explain why it intends to close the case.
Its complaints policy says:
1. It will issue stage 1 complaint responses within 10 working days.
2. If a resident remains dissatisfied with the landlord’s response they can request to escalate their complaint within 20 working days of its formal response.
3. It will issue stage 2 complaint responses within 20 working days.
Its compensation policy says that a discretionary payment can be made to recognise inconvenience or loss caused by a failure of service. It will consider each case individually and calculate compensation according to the circumstances.

Scope of the investigation.

The evidence shows that the resident raised concerns about noise from her neighbour above and about the condition of her windows as early as 2019. This investigation has focussed on events in the year prior to the resident’s first formal stage 1 complaint response. 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 while they are still ‘live’, and while the evidence is available to reach an informed conclusion on the events that occurred.
The Ombudsman’s approach set out in the Housing Ombudsman Scheme is that a complaint must have exhausted the landlord’s internal complaints process to be investigated (duly made). When considering the scope of a complaint we consider the final complaint response brought to us by the resident and the resident’s complaint to our Service having received their final response. Where a landlord has issued follow-on complaint responses after its final response addressing further failures relating to the same issue as of the complaint then it is usually fair to consider and assess these and the time period they cover as part of the investigation.

The complaint is about the landlord’s response to the resident’s request to replace the windows and back door.

On 29 January 2021 the landlord emailed the resident to confirmed that it would inspect the property with a view to replacing the windows. It said it would provide a date as soon as possible and would provide a further email within 10 working days. An entry on the landlord’s repair logs dated 14 April 2021 notes the resident had declined to provide access to erect scaffolding to install windows because she had not stayed there since February. It requested that a letter be issued to the resident.
This investigation has not seen any evidence setting out events between 29 January and 14 April. This is a record keeping failure which means this investigation is unable to make a determination on this point.
On 23 January 2022 the resident emailed the landlord to request a meeting to discuss various matters, including the windows. On 8 February the landlord emailed the resident to confirm that as agreed during a recent telephone discussion it was seeking an update on the situation with the windows.
On 20 February 2022 the resident emailed the landlord to advise that she wished to install her own windows. There is no evidence that the landlord provided a response causing the resident inconvenience when she emailed to chase on 6 March. The landlord’s stage 1 complaint response of 22 March provided an update on its own intentions. However, it failed to provide a response to the resident’s request to install her own windows.
On 31 July 2022 the resident emailed the landlord to seek an update on the installation of windows. The landlord’s stage 1 complaint response of 15 September confirmed it had discussed the process with the resident and confirmed it was aiming for installation by 31 March 2023. This investigation has not seen a file note of the discussion which is a record keeping failure.
The resident emailed the landlord on 20 September 2022 to express her concern over the timescale. She felt the target date was too far away given the disrepair of the windows and door. It was reasonable that the landlord would undertake large scale works of that nature as part of planned works. However, there is no evidence that the landlord provided a response or that it considered inspecting the windows and door to satisfy itself that there were no repairs needed in the interim. That it did not do so was a failure.
The landlord’s inaction caused the resident inconvenience, time and trouble when she emailed the landlord again on 17 October 2022 to ask it to bring the date forward. There is no evidence that the landlord provided a response which was inappropriate.
The landlord has provided this Service with copies of a section 20 notice, dated 5 December 2022, setting out its intention to carry out planned works and a section 20 notice, dated 31 January 2023 of proposals which set out the estimates for the work. Both were addressed to the resident at the property and were appropriately in line with its legal obligations.
On 13 March 2023 the resident emailed the landlord to chase an update on the windows because she had not received any further communication. Given the landlords intention to complete works by 31 March its lack of communication was inappropriate because it caused uncertainty for the resident. It would have been appropriate for it to have provided an update to the resident as soon as it became aware it was unable to meet the deadline. This would have been appropriate to manage the resident’s expectations.
It provided an update in its stage 2 complaint response of 6 April 2023. It appropriately apologised for the delay but failed to acknowledge its lack of communication with the resident. This was inappropriate because its ineffective communication had compounded the resident’s distress. The landlord offered to reduce its management fee as financial redress. However, it failed to clearly set out what this amounted to in monetary terms.
On 29 July 2023 the resident emailed the landlord to agree access but said she had not received a copy of the section 20 notice. The landlord replied on the same day to say it would provide a copy. However, this investigation has not seen evidence that it did so which is a record keeping failure. The evidence shows that the resident and landlord exchanged emails during August and September to try to progress works.
On 14 September 2023 the resident asked again for permission to install the windows herself. The landlord did not reply until almost 2 months later, on 15 November. It confirmed its intention to proceed with the works itself having followed the section 20 process. It asked for the contact details for her tenants so it could liaise with them about access. For the second time, the landlord failed to give a clear response to the resident’s request for permission to install her own windows causing her frustration.
The landlord emailed the resident again on 30 November 2023 to say it had not received a reply to its email of 1 November. It confirmed that the terms of the lease meant only the landlord was authorised to replace the windows. It set out the resident’s legal obligation to provide access for the works. While this was a reasonable response, it came 21 months after the resident first asked the question about installing windows herself which an unreasonable delay.
On 9 December 2023 the resident emailed the landlord to say it had previously given verbal permission for her to fit her own windows. She had received a quote and was in the process of securing a deposit. She said she had not received a copy of the section 20 notices. This investigation does not doubt the resident’s account. However, there is no independent evidence to corroborate events. Therefore, it is not possible for this investigation to make a determination on this point.
On 31 January 2024 the landlord emailed the resident to confirm their recent conversation in which she said it could liaise with her directly to for access rather than contact her tenants. It reiterated that only it was able to replace the windows. It also agreed to provide the resident with section 20 details by the end of the week. However, there is no evidence that it did so which is a record keeping failure.
In the resident’s email to the landlord of 2 February 2024 the resident said the landlord had not provided her with a valid reason as to why she could not install her own windows. However, the landlord’s email of 30 November 2023 appropriately set out the reasons for its decision.
During February 2024 the landlord and resident exchanged emails to try to arrange access to survey the windows. The landlord’s stage 1 complaint response of 1 March 2024 referred to the section 20 notices served in December 2022 and January 2023. It set out the difficulties it had experienced gaining access to the property to be able to proceed with works. It reminded the resident of her obligations to do so under the terms of the lease which was reasonable in the circumstances.
In its stage 2 complaint response dated 3 June 2024 the landlord apologised that the resident’s copy of the section 20 notice was not enclosed with its stage 1 response and said it would be included with this response. It appropriately apologised and offered £25 by way of compensation.
The landlord’s failures amount to maladministration because they had an adverse effect on the resident. The landlord has been ordered to pay the resident £150 which is line with the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance where there was no permanent impact. The landlord may deduct the £25 it has offered if this has already been paid.

The complaint is about the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of antisocial behaviour.

On 8 January 2021 the landlord wrote to the resident enclosing diary sheets and provided information on how she could gather evidence of ASB, including use of the noise app. Throughout the month the resident emailed the landlord to report incidents including those on 2, 8, 19 January. The reports described loud music and stamping around which was impacting on her ability to sleep. There is no evidence that the landlord reviewed the evidence to assess whether an ASB case should be opened and categorised in line with its ASB policy. That it did not do so was a failure.
When the landlord emailed the resident on 4 February 2021 it asked her to provide evidence of the reports. The resident replied on the same day to say that she had submitted recordings via the noise app as previously advised. The landlord replied to say it would review the recordings and contact the resident regarding its findings. On 9 February the landlord emailed the resident to say it could not find the recordings submitted by the resident. It once again provided information to the resident on how to provide evidence of ASB.
On 13 February 2021 the resident emailed the landlord to confirm she had submitted recordings via the noise app between 6 January to 5 February. She said she had left the property on 5 February because the noise (banging, stamping and loud music) was unbearable. She raised concerns that laminate flooring had been installed in the property above.
There is no evidence that the landlord contacted the resident to discuss what had gone wrong. This would have been appropriate both to be able to apologise to the resident and to ensure the problem did not occur again.
The landlord replied on 15 February 2021 to say that it would investigate the issue of laminate flooring and would consider installing noise monitoring equipment. However, it could not do so until COVID-19 restrictions were removed. In the meantime the resident should continue to submit recordings via the noise app.
It is accepted that the landlord’s response was limited due to COVID-19 restrictions. However, it failed to consider opening an ASB case and carrying out a risk assessment in line with its ASB policy to investigate the complaint.
The landlord’s file note dated 19 February 2021 noted that the resident was unhappy with its response to her reports of ASB. There was then a gap in reports from the resident because she left the property due to the noise. There is no evidence that the landlord considered this as part of its response which was inappropriate. On 22 November the resident emailed the landlord to say she had witnessed an incident of loud music when she had visited the property. She also raised the issue of laminate flooring again and said she wanted to be able to return home.
On 8 February 2022 the resident emailed the landlord to ask that it carry out a drop test. There is no evidence that the landlord provided a response which caused the resident inconvenience when she chased on 20 February. Again, there is no evidence that the landlord provided a response.
This caused further time and trouble to the resident who emailed the landlord’s chief executive on 6 March to chase her request to be referred to mediation, to investigate the flooring issue and for the landlord to carry out a drop test. She sent a further email saying the same on 7 March.
The landlord’s stage 1 complaint response dated 22 March 2022 set out an action plan to the resident’s ongoing reports of ASB. While this was a positive step there was again no evidence that the landlord had opened an ASB case in line with its ASB policy.
The landlord’s file note dated 24 March 2022 confirmed that it had spoken to the resident’s neighbour. While this was a positive development this was over a year after reports were first made in January 2021. Following its conversation with her neighbour the landlord reported that there was only laminate flooring in the bedrooms and not in the rooms above the resident. The resident’s neighbour had agreed to participate in mediation and to a drop test being carried out.
On 7 April 2022 the landlord emailed the resident to try to arrange to visit to carry out the drop test. It also confirmed it would refer both parties to mediation. It is unclear why the referral for mediation had not already been made. However, the resident emailed on 11 April to say she was not staying at the property and was not using it as a base to work from home either.
On 1 May 2022 the resident emailed the landlord to request that it carry out a drop test on the same day a contractor was due to attend on 26 May. The landlord acknowledged the resident’s email and said it would provide a further update by 11 May. On 9 May it sent a further email to say its homeownership team would respond.
There is no evidence that the landlord responded causing the resident time and trouble when she sent a further email on 15 May to chase its response regarding the drop test. The landlord’s file note dated 24 May stated that a “complaint visit” was required. A further file note dated 25 May requested that a letter be sent to the resident’s neighbour. It is unclear whether a visit was carried out and if so to whom. Furthermore, this investigation has not been provided with a copy of the letter to the neighbour. These are record keeping failures.
An internal email dated 21 July 2022 noted that the resident’s neighbour had declined to participate in mediation. On 5 August the resident emailed the landlord to report ongoing issues with loud music and again raised dissatisfaction around the use of laminate flooring above.
The landlord’s stage 1 complaint response of 15 September 2022 said a drop test had been arranged for 22 September. Although this was 6 months after it committed to do so, the landlord is mitigated to some extent by the fact the resident was not living at the property for a period during that time.
It confirmed it had opened an ASB case and in line with its ASB policy had completed a risk assessment matrix with the resident. It said it would be in touch once it had opened the case. During October and November 2022 the resident made further reports of ASB including loud music and banging. There is no evidence that the landlord responded to the ongoing reports to set out its intended response. Furthermore, there is no evidence that the complaint was categorised in line with the landlord’s ASB policy or that the case handler kept in regular contact with the resident.
The resident made further reports of ASB, including 1 January 2023. On 19 January the landlord emailed the resident to confirm it had reviewed the recordings she had submitted and would pass them onto the neighbourhood team. There is no evidence that the team provided a response which caused the resident inconvenience when she emailed this Service on 11 February to express her dissatisfaction at the landlord’s inaction.
The landlord’s file note dated 14 March 2023 said that the resident had provided 5 recordings during which loud music could clearly be heard. A request was made to contact the resident’s neighbour to discuss music being heard outside the property.
The note goes on to say that a risk assessment had also been completed and that it intended to open an ASB case “due to severity of noise, length of time this has been going on and fact resident won’t engage in.” This investigation has not seen evidence that the complaint was categorised in line with its ASB policy. On 20 March 2023 the landlord appropriately wrote to the resident confirm an ASB case had been opened and set out its action plan.
The landlord’s ASB policy says that it will consider the possibility of installing monitoring equipment to assist its investigations. The resident submitted reports of loud music between 2021 and 2023. The evidence shows the landlord was satisfied there had been incidents of noise nuisance caused by loud music.
In its email to this Service of 22 November 2024 the landlord said it did not install noise monitoring equipment because the resident was using the noise app. The noise app provides residents with a method of submitting recordings to their landlord. However, it does not provide an objective measurement regarding decibel levels. Given the circumstances of the case it was inappropriate that the landlord did not use the evidence provided through the noise app to consider installing noise equipment. This would have been an appropriate means of ensuring its ongoing response was proportionate to the nuisance caused.
The fact that the landlord intended to open a case meant that the case opened in September 2022 had been closed prior to that date. However, there is no evidence that the landlord contacted the resident to discuss closing the case as set out in its ASB policy.
The landlord’s stage 2 complaint response of 6 April 2023 confirmed that checks regarding the drop test and flooring had been carried out. This investigation has not seen a copy of a file note of the visits which is a record keeping failure.
The resident continued to report noise nuisance including on 24 April 2023 when she reported loud music and on 2 May when she reported “shouting, yelling stamping.” There is no evidence that the landlord responded to these reports and no evidence that it provided updates on the progress of her case every 2 weeks as promised in its stage 2 complaint response of 6 April.
The landlord’s file notes dated 7 and 11 May 2023 requested that a warning letter be issued to the resident’s neighbour. It is unclear whether these were the same or different requests. Furthermore, this investigation has not been provided with a copy of the warning letter which is a record keeping failure.
The landlord’s evidence shows that the resident’s neighbour signed a good neighbour contract on 19 June 2023 “not to play music at excessive levels.” This was a positive step which was in line with its ASB policy. However, the landlord’s decision making is unclear because there are no file notes setting out the reason for this action and/or a file note of its communication with the neighbour to arrange for her to sign the contract. This is a record keeping failure.
The resident continued to report incidents of loud music, banging and stamping from the property above. In line with its ASB policy the landlord arranged for a professional witness to attend the resident’s property. When they attended on 27 July 2023 they did not witness any excessive noise or music. During their visit on 5 August they could hear running, banging, jumping above adding that “the entire flat shook at the impact.” On 7 September the witness reported hearing a child “continually running and jumping over most rooms.” They said the “jumping was excessive at times and would make the entire flat shake.”
There is no evidence that the landlord reviewed the reports provided by the resident or the professional witness to determine how it should progress the resident’s ASB case. This caused frustration and inconvenience to the resident who chased the landlord on 5 September to seek an update. She expressed concern about the lack of communication. There is no evidence that the landlord provided a response which compounded her distress and undermined the landlord/resident relationship.
On 28 January 2024 the resident emailed the landlord to report an incident of loud music. She said her tenants were considering moving out of the property because of the ASB. The landlord’s file note dated 31 January requested an email be sent to the resident to set out how to raise an ASB case.
This means that the previous ASB case had been closed, as confirmed in its stage 1 response of 1 March 2024, but again there is no evidence that the landlord contacted the resident to agree its closure. Therefore the landlord failed to adhere to its ASB policy and to its action plan set out in its stage 2 complaint response of 6 April 2023.
On 7 February 2024 the landlord emailed the resident and confirmed it was reviewing her ASB reports. However, it did not provide a further update until its stage 1 complaint response of 1 March 2024. The landlord failed to identify the failures in its response to the resident’s reports of ASB and did not uphold the complaint.
The resident continued to report issues with loud music, for example in her email to the landlord of 24 March and 2 April 2024. However, the landlord’s response was focused on sound proofing and sound transference. It failed to consider whether the neighbour was continuing to breach the terms of her tenancy agreement by playing loud music and whether the other noise was so extreme it may fall into ASB rather than everyday sound transference. Not doing so was a failure because it impacted on its response to the ongoing reports.
A sound proofing survey carried out on 21 March 2024 concluded that the levels of sound proofing met minimum standards but made some suggestions that may improve sound transference. In its stage 2 complaint response of 3 June the landlord said it was seeking further advice on this matter. The landlord’s response to this Service of 22 November confirmed the issue was outstanding.
The landlord’s failures amount to maladministration because they had an adverse effect on the resident. The landlord has been ordered to pay the resident £300 which is in line with the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance where there was no permanent impact.

Record keeping.

The Ombudsman would expect a landlord to keep a robust record of contacts and events, yet the evidence has not been comprehensive in this case. It is vital that landlords keep clear, accurate and easily accessible records to provide an audit trail. If we investigate a complaint, we will ask for the landlord’s records. If there is disputed evidence and no audit trail, we may not be able to conclude that an action took place or that the landlord followed its own policies and procedures.

The Ombudsman has also considered the landlord’s complaint handling.

The landlord issued its first stage 1 complaint on 22 March 2022. There is no evidence that the resident requested to escalate her complaint within 20 days. The landlord therefore acted in line with its complaints policy when it raised a fresh stage 1 complaint following contact from this Service on 15 August.
We asked the landlord to provide a response by 31 August 2022. It extended the deadline to 8 September and appropriately updated the resident. However, the landlord failed to reply as promised. It notified the resident on the day the response was due that the deadline had been extended again to 16 September. This was inappropriate because it was an apology for not doing something rather than proactively managing the resident’s expectations.
The Housing Ombudsman’s complaint handling code (the Code) requires stage 1 complaint responses to set out the complaint stage and decision on the complaint. The landlord’s stage 1 response issued on 15 September 2022 did not set out this information which was a failure.
This Service wrote to the landlord on the resident’s behalf on 9 January 2023 to request to escalate the complaint to stage 2. The landlord issued its stage 2 complaint response on 6 April which was 63 working days later and 43 days out of time. In its response the landlord appropriately acknowledged the delay, provided an explanation and offered £200 to put things right. However, the response failed to set out its decision on the complaint.
On 8 February 2024 the resident emailed the landlord to request to make a further stage 1 complaint. The landlord issued its response on 1 March which was 16 working days later and 6 days out of time. On 24 March the resident emailed the landlord to request to escalate her complaint to stage 2. The landlord provided its stage 2 complaint response on 3 June which was 47 working days later and 27 days out of time.
In each case there was no explanation for the delay which was therefore unreasonable. Furthermore, the landlord’s responses failed to acknowledge the delay which was inappropriate.
There were failures in the landlord’s complaint handling. The compensation offered by the landlord was in line with the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance where there was no permanent impact. Therefore, this investigation considers that while the landlord’s complaint handling could reasonably have been improved, it has recognised the impact on the resident and has taken proportionate steps to put things right. As such, an offer of reasonable redress has been made in the circumstances.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was maladministration in the landlord’s response to the resident’s request to replace the windows and back door.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was maladministration in the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of antisocial behaviour.
In accordance with paragraph 53.b. of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the landlord has made an offer of redress in relation to its complaint handling which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, resolves the complaint satisfactorily.

Orders

Within 4 weeks of the date of the determination the landlord is ordered to:
1. Write to the resident to:
  1. Apologise for the failings identified in this report.
  2. Confirm its action plan, including timescales, regarding installation of windows and the back door.
  3. Set out its position with regards to steps to improve sound transference between the 2 properties and in relation to ongoing reports of ASB.
2. Pay the resident £450 comprised of:
  1. £150 for the uncertainty and distress caused by its failings in its response to the resident’s request to replace the windows and back door. The landlord may deduct the £25 it has offered if this has already been paid.
  2. £300 for the distress and inconvenience caused by its failings in its response to the resident’s reports of antisocial behaviour.

Recommendations

The reasonable redress finding is dependent on the landlord paying the resident £200 as offered in its stage 2 response of 6 April 2023 if it has not already done so.