Southway Housing Trust (Manchester) Limited (202122823)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202122823

Southway Housing Trust (Manchester) Limited

22 December 2023

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:
1. The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of anti-social behaviour (ASB) from a neighbouring property.
2. The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of an overgrown tree.
3. The Ombudsman has also considered the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint.

Background

The resident holds an assured tenancy of the property, a three-bedroom house owned by the landlord. The landlord has said it does not have any vulnerabilities listed on its systems for the resident.
On 3 February 2021 the resident contacted the landlord to report noise / ASB from a neighbouring privately rented property. Later in the same year the resident reported the same resident had overgrown trees affecting the building. Towards the end of 2021 and at the beginning of 2022 the resident’s landlord liaised with the local authority and the neighbour’s managing agent. The landlord concluded the noise being experienced was ‘low level household noise’ and did not constitute ASB and that it was unable to take any action concerning the neighbour’s trees.
The resident made a complaint to the landlord on 16 December 2021. The resident said her neighbours are constantly making noise and she feels let down by the landlord. She also said that one of the neighbour’s trees was growing too close to her property. In its decision, of 28 January 2022, the landlord said the resident’s historic reports of ASB had been investigated and she should contact the local authority’s ASB team. It also said an appointment would be made to view the tree.
The resident escalated her complaint to the second stage of the landlord’s complaint process on 28 March 2022. The resident said she felt her noise complaint had been brushed under the carpet and that the local authority had recommended sound proofing. The resident also said that the overgrown tree had not been resolved. In its response of the 11 May 2022 the landlord outlined its final position that: –
1. The issue had been referred to the local authority’s ASB Team as the neighbour is not a tenant of the landlord.
2. That the noise complained about is ‘low level household noise’.
3. The local authority had suggested sound proofing but this is not something the landlord does.
4. That the landlord would never cut down an established tree.
When bringing her complaint to this service the resident has said she doesn’t feel her complaints have been properly considered and she expects the landlord to take her concerns seriously.

Assessment and findings

Scope

It is not the role of the Ombudsman to make a judgement on if the noise being experienced by the resident is ASB. Only to review how the landlord has responded to the resident’s reports and if appropriate action was taken.

Policies and procedures

The landlord’s ASB policy states: –
1. ‘1.4 The policy applies to all the areas where the trust owns and manages homes.’
2. ‘4.2 … we will respond to reports of ASB in a timely manner, based on risk and priority.’
3. ‘4.4 Support – We will support those who are experiencing ASB and keep them informed of the progress throughout their case.’
4. ‘4.5 Case Management – We will ensure that cases are investigated thoroughly in a timely manner, that appropriate actions are recorded.’
5. ‘5.1 We will form strong working relationships with our partners, stakeholders, tenants and residents in order to find solutions to ASB within our communities.’
6. ‘2.4 The Trust expects people to be tolerant of other people’s lifestyles and will not generally accept reports of behaviours that are a reasonable part of everyday life. Examples include … Normal activities within the home at reasonable times of the day such as talking, cooking, walking up & downstairs … children playing.’
The Neighbourhood and Community Standard states that providers must: –
1. ‘work in partnership with other agencies to prevent and tackle anti-social behaviour in the neighbourhoods where they own homes.’

ASB

The resident contacted the landlord on 3 February 2021 to report she was being disturbed by noise from a neighbouring property.
On 4 February 2021 the landlord contacted the resident by phone to discuss her reports. The landlord’s notes state a risk assessment was undertaken and an ASB case opened. This was a reasonable response to the resident’s initial reports and in line with the landlord’s ASB policy.
The landlord contacted the resident on 26 March 2021. Its notes from the call say that the resident informed it that the noise had reduced and the neighbour had cleared the back of their garden. The notes go on to state the ASB case was closed and a closure letter sent to the resident.
On 20 July 2021 the landlord sent an internal email to inform the ASB Team that the resident had been in contact. The email indicates the resident was chasing a call back which had not been returned. It states the resident said she had sent in evidence for the landlord’s consideration but not heard back for four weeks.
The landlord has not included copies of the resident’s emails reporting ASB or providing evidence of ASB in its submissions to this Service. However, the fact that the resident had provided evidence to be reviewed is referenced throughout the landlord’s notes. It is unclear why the landlord took four weeks to respond to the evidence provided by the resident. The landlord’s ASB policy states it ‘will respond to reports of ASB in a timely manner’ and its failure to do so resulted in delays.
The landlord contacted the resident by phone on 12 August 2021 and its notes from the call indicate the resident agreed to send in further evidence of the ASB.
It is unclear why it took the landlord over three weeks to respond to the resident’s call back request. However, this was unreasonable and not in line with the landlord’s ASB policy.
The resident contacted the landlord by phone on 28 September 2021 seeking an update on her ASB case. The next day the landlord attempted to contact the private landlord owner of the neighbour’s property but was unable to reach them so left a voicemail. There is no evidence the landlord responded to the resident directly and this represents a failure to keep the resident updated as outlined in the landlord’s ASB policy.
On 16 December 2021 the resident contacted the landlord by phone. She explained that she had been trying to make a formal complaint but her email had bounced back. The landlord provided the resident with the correct complaint email address and the resident said she would be sending in further evidence.
Later that day the resident submitted a formal complaint to the landlord. In her complaint she said that; –
1. Her neighbours are constantly making noise and cutting across her front garden.
2. That she feels let down by her landlord who has not supported her.
3. That the neighbour’s tree is growing too close to her property.
The landlord’s records state that on this date the landlord also reviewed the evidence provided by the resident. It is unclear what evidence was reviewed or the depth of investigation undertaken as this evidence has not been provided by the landlord or recorded in its notes. However, its notes go on to state that it considered the recordings to be of ‘domestic living noises’.
On 28 January 2022 the landlord responded to the resident’s complaint at the first stage of its complaints process. In its response the landlord said; –
1. That it had investigated the resident’s reports of ASB and liaised with the resident’s neighbour’s managing agent who had also investigated.
2. That as the neighbour concerned is a tenant of a private landlord the resident would need to report the issue to the local authority’s ASB Team.
3. That it was obtaining a quote for new fencing for the resident’s property.
4. That an appointment had been arranged for the landlord’s environment manager to view the trees in the neighbour’s garden.
5. That it could have been more proactive in supporting and providing advice to the resident.
Having carefully considered the landlord’s response, the Ombudsman is satisfied that advice to contact the local authority’s ASB Team was reasonable. However, referring the resident to the local authority does not absolve the landlord of responsibility to follow its own ASB policy in respect of any further reports.
On 8 February 2022 the landlord spoke with the resident. Its notes say that the resident had said the local authority will not take action about the noise as it is classed as ‘domestic living noise’. The landlord’s notes also say that the resident needs to contact the local authority when the noise is bad.
On 17 February 2022 the local authority contacted the landlord by email. It said it had undertaken a 180-minute noise assessment at the resident’s property on 9 February 2022. It concluded the noise was ‘low level but still audible’, ‘was general living noise’ and ‘would not be a statutory noise nuisance.’ The email suggested the landlord should install insulation to improve the buildings sound proofing.
The resident escalated her complaint to stage two of the landlord’s complaints process on 28 March 2022. The resident said that:
1. Her complaint concerning neighbour noise had been brushed under the carpet and the landlord had not supported her.
2. One of the trees in the neighbour’s garden is too close to the building and requires removal. The resident said that the tree surgeon originally recommended this was removed, however, backtracked when attending with the landlord and neighbour’s managing agent.
3. The landlord should be providing sound proofing as per the local authority’s recommendation.
4. The landlord has not confirmed if a fence can be installed in the resident’s front garden.
The landlord provided its stage two response to the complaint on 11 May 2022. It outlined that:
1. The issue had been referred to the local authority ASB Team as the neighbour is not a tenant of the landlord.
2. That the noise complained about is ‘low level household noise’.
3. The local authority had suggested sound proofing but this is not something the landlord does.
4. That the landlord would never cut down an established tree.
Having carefully considered the landlord’s final response the Ombudsman is of the opinion the landlord has relied too heavily on referring the resident to the local authority as a resolution to the complaint.
It is noted the landlord’s final response states ‘it establishes if there is grounds to pursue legal action. If there was, this is something the local authority would need to pursue.’ However, this is not entirely correct. While correct that if a statutory noise nuisance was observed this would be for the local authority to action, the landlord does have the power to take legal action against a private renting perpetrator of ASB causing nuisance to one of their residents.
While it is unclear what evidence was provided by the resident and reviewed by the landlord, following the local authority’s assessment, the landlord has concluded the noise is everyday household noise and it would not take action. Given the information available, this was reasonable and in line with the landlord’s policy on ‘reports of behaviours that are a reasonable part of everyday life.’
However, the landlord has failed to ‘respond to reports of ASB in a timely manner’ or to ‘support’ the resident and keep her ‘informed of the progress throughout’ her case. This was unreasonable and resulted in a detriment to the resident.
It is noted that the local authority has recommended the landlord install sound insulation within the resident’s home. The landlord has responded that this is not something it does as it does not consider it an effective remedy or cost effective. Given that the noise does not amount to a statutory nuisance there is nothing to compel the landlord to explore sound proofing and ultimately this is its decision to make.
However, the Ombudsman’s October 2022 spotlight report into noise complaints, outlines ‘Although the Ombudsman accepts that landlords are not responsible for soundproofing homes above the standard applicable at the time of building, it needs to be recognised that actions taken to prevent and/or mitigate for the typical sources of the noise nuisance will, in the long run, be more cost-efficient that handling the subsequent noise nuisance reports.’ As such I have made a recommendation that this document is reviewed by the landlord.

Overgrown Tree

It is unclear when this issue was first raised with the landlord but on 20 July 2021 the resident contacted the landlord to enquire if it had written to the neighbour’s landlord regarding overgrown trees in their garden. There is no evidence to indicate the landlord ever responded to the resident’s query. The landlord should have responded to the resident and it was unreasonable that it did not.
The resident raised the issue again as part of her stage one complaint submitted on 16 December 2021. Following this the landlord undertook a joint inspection with the neighbour’s managing agent. This was appropriate and a reasonable step to gather evidence. The landlord’s notes indicate that the trees were not overhanging the resident’s garden or causing damage to the building. As such, it was reasonable for the landlord to conclude that no further action was necessary. However, the neighbour’s managing agent agreed to remove some of the branches of the tree to prevent them entering the resident’s garden.
The Ombudsman is satisfied the landlord took the appropriate action in undertaking a joint inspection and requesting the neighbour’s managing agent remove the trees. However, it did not investigate the resident’s concerns in a reasonable timeframe and it was only following the stage one complaint that the landlord arranged an inspection. This was unreasonable as it resulted in delays.

Policies and procedures

The landlord’s complaints policy states: –
1. ‘Stage 1 … you will receive a full written response within 10 working days … If for some reason we cannot provide a response within 10 working days we will explain why and give you a date that you will receive it by.’
2. Stage 2 … you will receive a full written response within 20 working days … If for some reason we cannot provide a response within 20 working days we will explain why and give you a date that you will receive it by.’

Complaints Handling

The resident submitted her stage one complaint on 16 December 2021. On 14 January 2022, having not received a response, the resident contacted this Service. The Ombudsman wrote to the landlord on the same day instructing it to respond by no later than 28 January 2022.
On 28 January 2022, the landlord responded to the resident’s complaint at stage one. This was outside the landlord’s policy timescale of 10 working days and there is no evidence the landlord informed the resident of the delay. This was unreasonable.
On 28 March 2022 the resident escalated her complaint to the second stage of the landlord’s complaints process. The landlord provided its final response to the resident on 11 May 2022. This was 30 days following the resident’s request to escalate, unreasonable and outside of the landlord’s policy timescale. There is no evidence the landlord kept the resident informed of the delay.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure in respect of the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of ASB.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure in respect of the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of an overgrown tree.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure in respect of the landlord’s complaint handling.

Orders

The landlord should take the following action within the next 4 weeks and provide evidence of compliance with these orders to the Ombudsman:
1. Pay the resident the sum of £250, this consists of:
  1. £150 for the delay in investigating the resident’s reports of ASB and providing appropriate advice.
  2. £50 for the delay in investigating the resident’s reports of an overgrown tree.
  3. £50 for the delay in responding to the resident’s complaint.
2. It is noted that as part of her escalation request the resident has asked for confirmation whether or not the landlord is proposing to install a fence in her front garden. The landlord has not responded to this point as part of its final response. As such, the landlord should write to the resident, copied to the Ombudsman, confirming if these works will be going ahead.

Recommendations

It is recommended that the landlord should review the Ombudsman’s October 2022 spotlight report on noise and self-assess against the recommendations it makes.