Sovereign Housing Association Limited (201914495)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 201914495

Sovereign Housing Association Limited

11 February 2022

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

This complaint is about the landlord’s handling of the resident’s anti-social behaviour reports.

Background and summary of events

Background

The resident is an assured tenant whose tenancy agreement began on 15 August 2016 and describes the property as a two-bedroom flat.
The tenancy agreement obliges the resident to not cause nuisance or annoyance, including noise, to anyone living in the locality.
The landlord has an anti-social behaviour (ASB) policy that shows it will:
1. communicate with ‘victims regularly and in the way they prefer’, investigate and respond to reports quickly and thoroughly and assess harm upon residents
2. risk assess all reports, shaping its response depending on the level of risk
3. offer mediation, use acceptable behaviour agreements, encourage perpetrators to change their behaviour and issue warnings
4. let complainants know when it closes an ASB case.
The landlord allows for residents to apply for property transfers once they have been a tenant for 12 months. It has banding criteria that it uses to assess a resident’s need to move, including Band 1 where there is ‘a serious risk to life due to safeguarding, anti-social behaviour or domestic abuse’.
The landlord has a two-stage complaints policy where it is required to respond to complaints within 10 working days (at stage one) and 20 working days (at stage two) respectively.
The resident’s complaint partially concerns a neighbour who is also a tenant of the landlord. This Service has not been provided with a copy of the neighbour’s tenancy agreement but it would be reasonable to conclude that the same, or similar, tenancy conditions apply as to the resident.

Summary of Events

The landlord recorded receipt of a letter from the resident’s support worker on 1 October 2019 that mentioned:
1. the resident had experienced consistent noise nuisance from the flat above which was being reported to the housing officer but these had not been noted on the landlord’s records
2. this had developed into items like cigarette butts and hot oil being thrown down onto the resident’s balcony which led to the landlord telling the neighbour to apologise to the resident
3. the resident felt that she now needed to move to more suitable accommodation.
The landlord’s records show that it spoke to the resident on 10 December 2019 as she had reported a domestic abuse incident at her neighbour’s address. It noted that it had advised her to complete diary sheets if she felt noise levels were unacceptable and signposted her to the local authority environmental health department.
The landlord’s records show that it recorded a report on 17 February 2020 from the resident of constant blaring music, shouting and screaming from the neighbour’s property and that she felt the landlord had failed to do anything over three years. The landlord noted that the situation between the resident and her neighbour was possibly ‘ramping up’.
The resident wrote to the landlord on 21 February 2020 – she said that the landlord had overlooked her noise reports, her children were being disturbed and visitors to her neighbour’s address were causing a nuisance. She subsequently confirmed that noise was ongoing through to 1am every night. The resident chased the landlord for contact on 25 February 2020 and 3 March 2020.
The landlord noted a telephone conversation with the resident’s neighbour on 18 March 2020. The neighbour advised that there was mediation previously so they tried to keep noise to a minimum albeit the household circumstances meant noise from one family member was likely but this was not deliberate. They denied screaming, shouting and swearing but mentioned this could have been historic and related to a former member of the household.
The landlord advised the resident on 19 March 2020 that it had contacted her neighbour but they had denied the reports of screaming and shouting; it asked the resident if she would be willing to explore mediation.
The landlord made a note on 25 March 2020 that the resident reported her neighbour had played loud music and shouted abuse at her when she complained to her about it. It noted that it put the reports to the neighbour again through a telephone conversation that day – they denied making excessive noise but agreed to try to reach a resolution; the landlord wrote to the resident, confirming it had spoken to the neighbour about these reports and asked that they be mindful of others.
The landlord noted that it opened an ASB case on 1 April 2020. It subsequently provided the resident with instructions on using the Noise App and completed a noise report mediation form on the same day – it noted that this had been reported before and that there were ‘entrenched issues’ between the households.
The resident wrote to the landlord on 7 April 2020 – she reported that noise was ongoing into the evening and she had submitted numerous recordings; she requested the landlord ask the neighbour to stop the noise.
A mediation company completed an assessment form in April 2020 that showed:
1. it had spoken to the resident and her neighbour during 8-9 April 2020
2. the neighbour had made counter-allegations, said she had stopped her child playing on the balcony, denied making noise late into the night and agreed to noise monitoring
3. the resident said it had been quiet recently
4. both parties had agreed to further mediation and a face-to-face meeting when possible.
The landlord recorded a review in June 2020 where it noted that there had been no further ASB reports and mediation would be progressed once Covid-19 restrictions allowed.
The landlord logged a complaint from the resident on 16 July 2020 on the grounds that:
1. she had spent three years complaining about her neighbours but the landlord had done nothing and she felt she was being forced out of her property
2. she had recordings and photos and said she experienced daily abuse
3. she mentioned ‘constant noise, banging, shouting, abuse shouted at us from the balcony, dirt and fluid chucked down onto my balcony’
4. she had a support worker but was vulnerable and the landlord had not even sent any staff to consider the noise
5. the communication from the landlord was poor and it did not have a record of all her reports
6. she had accepted mediation but her neighbour had denied all incidents.
The landlord recorded a telephone conversation with the resident on 20 July 2020, noting that:
1. it agreed with the resident that it would investigate why the Noise App recordings had not gone to an ASB officer, chase up a mediation meeting and check if it had received contact from the resident’s support worker
2. it agreed to fortnightly contact with the resident or her support worker
3. the resident said she would ask environmental health to share their records with the landlord
4. it had told the resident that a management transfer was not appropriate.

It noted that it would close the complaint and follow up with the resident on agreed actions the following week.

The resident’s support worker advised the landlord on 21 July 2020 that her neighbour had returned to their address so noise problems had recommenced.
The landlord noted receipt of feedback from the mediation company on 22 July 2020 – it advised that the resident was willing to engage in face-to-face mediation but this was difficult due to Covid-19 and the neighbour had not engaged recently. It added that the resident had reported an improved recent situation while the neighbour had temporarily vacated their address.
The resident wrote to the landlord on 4 September 2020 – she expressed dissatisfaction on the grounds that:
1. she had received no contact since June 2020 and the ASB officer had only responded to her support worker
2. her neighbour had refused mediation and continued to make daily noise
3. her and her children had not been supported
4. she had to call an ambulance for a panic attack the previous month which she attributed to anxiety from the noise upstairs.
The landlord noted on 7 September 2020 that it spoke to the resident and agreed to keep the complaint closed but that she wanted to discuss how it would proceed given the noise was ongoing and the neighbour had declined mediation. The landlord told the resident that its housing services manager would be in contact.
The landlord noted a telephone conversation with the resident on 9 September 2020 as follows:
1. it apologised to her for not maintaining fortnightly contact
2. it told her it had not received contact from her support worker from 21 July 2020 to 7 September 2020
3. the resident said she had sent an incident log to environmental health and she understood the neighbour had been written to but had not responded
4. the resident reported continuous noise and lots of visitors to the flat upstairs with arguing and banging ongoing
5. the resident said her son no longer wished to live in the property, which was why she was looking to move, and it discussed with her the possibility of using homeswapper or the local authority waiting list
6. it was unaware that the resident’s neighbour had refused mediation offers
7. it agreed to contact her support worker and environmental health, update the resident (and keep in regular contact) and review any incident logs.

The landlord wrote to the resident on 10 September 2020, summarising the above, and told her to report her neighbour to the Police if she thought she was smoking cannabis.

The resident replied to the landlord on 14 September 2020 – she said she had contacted environmental health and told them to correct their records as they had an incorrect address for the alleged perpetrator. She added that she appreciated the conversation the previous week and that it helped her feel supported.
The resident’s support worker passed on a report to the landlord on 4 October 2020 that the neighbour had been verbally abusive to members of the resident’s household and made a threat which led to the Police being called. The landlord acknowledged the report the following day but noted that it had not received any ASB reports for some months and the Police were the correct organisation to investigate this latest incident.
The resident wrote to the landlord on 14 October 2020. She said she had again failed to receive fortnightly contact and had been waiting for this so she could pass on ASB reports. She indicated that the complaint should be escalated.
The landlord wrote to the resident’s neighbour on 14 October 2020 – it referred to incidents of verbal abuse and loud music and banging that month, reminding them that this would be a breach of tenancy. It advised the resident on the same day that it had written to her neighbour.
The resident reiterated on 15 October 2020 that she had been left with no support and constant abuse from neighours. She reported rubbish had been left by her front door that afternoon and her family was unable to sleep due to the noise above so she was ‘stressed beyond control’.
The landlord noted a telephone conversation with the neighbour on 16 October 2020 when counter allegations were made.
The landlord issued a final complaint response to the resident on 20 October 2020 as follows:
1. it had spoken to the neighbour about the impact of noise on the resident but said the resident needed to use the Noise App to provide recordings for any formal action to occur
2. it encouraged the resident to take up a mediation offer
3. it understood the resident was bidding to move from the property
4. it had contacted environmental health about the noise and offered to provide weekly updates to the resident.
The landlord noted receipt of a recording from the resident on 22 October 2020 and wrote to her on 26 October 2020. It advised that a new ASB officer had been assigned her case, requested recordings from the past two weeks and provided a link to the Community Trigger process.
The resident wrote to the landlord on 29 October 2020 and 2 November 2020, requesting a resolution given the noise was impacting her son who was trying to home school due to Covid-19. The resident’s support worker also chased progress on 15-19 November 2020 and the resident submitted a log of incidents on 17 November 2020 (relating to the period 5-16 November 2020).
The landlord noted that it issued a warning letter to the resident’s neighbour on 19 November 2020; it updated the resident and her support worker accordingly.
The landlord recorded that it spoke to the neighbour on 23 November 2020 and that they denied causing an excessive level of noise.
The resident provided further recordings to the landlord on 25 November 2020. The landlord asked the resident the following day if she could use the Noise App so the recordings were time stamped; the resident replied to express dissatisfaction that she was being asked to record in a different way.
The resident and her support worker advised the landlord during 3-7 December 2020 that the Noise App had now been used.
The landlord’s internal records show that it listened to recordings on 10 December 2020 but was unable to hear loud music. It noted 25 recordings with only one being after 10pm and suggested mediation was appropriate rather than enforcement. It also recorded that it spoke to the resident by telephone to inform her of this decision (it followed this up in writing on 30 December 2020).
The landlord noted contact from the resident on 24 December 2020 when she reported her gas had been switched off and she suspected a neighbour had used an outside valve to do this. The landlord said it would not view hours of CCTV footage unless there was a serious crime but would keep the matter under review.
The landlord’s records show that it discussed the potential for a property move with the resident and her support worker in late December 2020 but identified that this was unlikely to be successful due to a lack of evidence of ASB.
The landlord’s internal records show that it spoke to the resident on 18 January 2021, advising her that she did not meet the criteria for a ‘Band 1’ move so had closed her banding assessment case. It noted that she had expressed continued dissatisfaction with the handling of the ASB.
The landlord contacted the resident on 21 January 2021 to advise it would follow up on her continued concern. The resident replied the same day confirming she was unhappy with how the landlord had handled ASB and she had felt ‘shoved aside’. She noted that she had attached a recording.
The landlord issued a follow–up complaint response on 25 January 2021. It concluded that:
1. an ASB case was opened on 26 October 2020 and the resident was contacted the same day
2. it wrote to the resident’s neighbour about excess noise in October 2020 in line with its ASB procedure
3. further noise recordings were received during December 2020 but the noise was found to be ‘not persistent and constant or occurring at an unreasonable time of the day’ with only one (of 25) recording after 10pm
4. these findings were subject to a second opinion by a different ASB officer and management review and the resident was contacted on 10 December 2020 to advise there was insufficient evidence to progress the case so it would be closed
5. it had signposted the resident to the Community Trigger process
6. it offered mediation and a meeting with a manager to discuss its decisions further.

Summary of Events after landlord complaint process

It is not within the jurisdiction of this Service to investigate new events that have not been considered though the landlord’s complaints process. However, these matters have been considered for context and are summarised below:
1. the resident continued to report noise problems in January-March 2021 and reported a confrontation with two sets of neighbours on 26 January 2021
2. the landlord spoke to the neighbour on 26 January 2021 and agreed that they would limit the number of hours per day that music was played
3. the landlord spoke to a third-party neighbour on 26 January 2021 about their experiences in the block which indicated the building was quiet
4. the landlord interviewed the resident and her neighbour on 27 January 2021 regarding the incident the day before and two differing versions of events were offered but the neighbour had agreed to reduce the amount of time music was played
5. the landlord liaised with the local authority environmental health team on 27 January 2021 who advised that they had received ASB reports from the resident in March 2020 and July 2020 and had sent initial warning letters on both occasions
6. the landlord reviewed evidence provided up to mid-February 2021, writing to the resident’s support worker on 12 February 2021 and advising that only three of the recent recordings it had received were deemed to be excessive (the latest being on 29 January 2021) and no further recordings had been received
7. the landlord conducted a review of the case on 2 March 2021, considering recordings and diary sheets between 23 January 2021 and 22 February 2021, noting that there were four recordings with audible music but no other evidence of noise
8. the landlord wrote to the resident on 4 March 2021, advising that it had decided to close the ASB case due to a lack of evidence that would allow it to take further action
9. the resident made further noise nuisance reports to the landlord in June 2021
10. the landlord spoke to the resident on 9 June 2021 and wrote to her support worker on 16 June 2021, advising that it had insufficient evidence of ASB to take further action against the neighbour, and signposted them to the Community Trigger process
11. the resident made a further report in June 2021 that her neighbour had switched off her gas supply and the landlord wrote to the four households that shared the relevant communal cupboard to request that nobody tamper with the gas lever switches and that this would be monitored
12. the resident asked the landlord on 13 July 2021 if it could do anything to prevent the upstairs neighbour tipping items onto her balcony
13. the landlord approached the resident’s support worker during July 2021 to ask when the Community Trigger was raised; the Police advised the support worker on 26 July 2021 that the criteria for a Trigger had not been met as it had only received one report from the resident in 2021 (so it had not met the three reports in six months criteria)
14. the landlord issued a tenancy warning letter to the resident’s neighbour on 20 September 2021 which referred to a conversation between it and the neighbour in October and said that this constituted a formal warning regarding loud music and banging.

Assessment and findings

ASB Reports

The Ombudsman considers complaints about how a landlord has responded to reports of a problem. It is not the Ombudsman’s role to decide if the actions of the alleged perpetrators amounted to ASB, but rather, whether the landlord dealt with the resident’s reports about this appropriately and reasonably.
The resident has advised that she experienced ASB over several years but, during the period covered by this investigation, reports were made at least as early as October 2019. These related to noise nuisance and the throwing of items onto her property by a neighbour. The landlord asked the resident to complete incident diary sheets in December 2019 but there is no evidence that it took any further steps to assess potential harm to the resident or investigate her allegations – this was inappropriate as its ASB policy obliges it to respond to reports thoroughly and quickly.
The resident began to regularly report noise nuisance incidents again from mid-February 2020. There was an initial delay by the landlord in taking any action but from mid-March 2020, it opened an ASB case, raised the allegations with the neighbour, asked the neighbour to be mindful of others and made a mediation referral. These were reasonable steps on the part of the landlord to reach a resolution given it had no evidence of ASB and the matter appeared to be a neighbour dispute.
The landlord reviewed the ASB case in June 2020 and determined that there were no further actions for it to take at this point. Given additional mediation was difficult due to Covid-19 restrictions and there was no record of further ASB reports from the resident during May-June 2020, this decision was reasonable.
The resident began to make consistent noise nuisance reports again from mid-July 2020. She said that she had noise recordings and there were daily problems with the neighbour. The landlord spoke to the resident and committed to fortnightly contact and liaison with environmental health. However, there is no evidence that it took any further actions until early September 2020 – this was unreasonable, particularly given the resident had reiterated that she now felt she should leave the property and the situation was seriously impacting her household.
The landlord apologised in early September 2020 for its lack of contact but the resident complained about a continued failure to maintain communications with her in early October 2020, by which time she reported there had been an incident when the Police were called. The landlord’s ASB policy sets out that it will communicate regularly with residents and in the way they prefer – its further failure to do so during September-October 2020 was inappropriate, particularly given it had already had to apologise to the resident for this. The landlord also failed to demonstrate that it risk assessed the resident’s new reports despite her allegation of threats being made – this was inappropriate and will inevitably have meant that the resident did not feel the landlord was offering sufficient support.
Between mid-October 2020 and mid-December 2020, the landlord did take the following steps:
1. re-assigned the ASB case to a different officer who updated the resident and signposted her as to how to submit time-stamped recordings and request a Community Trigger
2. wrote to the neighbour on 15 October 2020 and 19 November 2020, putting the allegations to them and reminding them of their tenancy obligations
3. spoke to the neighbour on two occasions to discuss the allegations
4. undertook a review of the resident’s recordings in early December 2020 and advised her that these failed to evidence ASB that it would be able to take enforcement about.

These actions by the landlord were appropriate as it demonstrated that it was willing to investigate and address the resident’s reports by listening to recordings, interviewing the neighbour and reminding the neighbour of their tenancy responsibilities when there was evidence to support this.

From January 2021 to March 2021, the landlord took the following steps:
1. gave a further explanation to the resident in writing as to the outcome of its December 2020 review into her sound recordings, setting out that the noise was not ‘persistent and constant or occurring at an unreasonable time of the day’ which is why it could not take further action
2. again offered mediation and the Community Trigger recourse
3. reviewed the resident’s case in regard to her desire to move, determining that she did not meet the Band 1 criteria, and assisted her in making her housing application ‘live’
4. investigated an alleged incident on 26 January 2021 by interviewing both parties
5. reviewed further recordings taken up to late January 2021, establishing three incidents of excessive noise and discussed this with the neighbour, requesting that she reduce the amount of noise accordingly
6. investigated the noise reports further by liaising with the local authority environmental health team (who advised there was no active case) and a third-party neighbour (to obtain their observations of noise in the block)
7. reviewed further recordings in early March 2021, noting no evidence of excessive noise
8. wrote to the resident on 4 March 2021, advising it would close the ASB case given the lack of evidence.

These actions were again appropriate as the landlord investigated the resident’s reports by listening to recordings and liaising with third parties, took proportionate steps to address noise reports when evidence was obtained, signposted the resident for further assistance and made decisions in accordance with its ASB and property transfer policies.

In summary, the landlord took appropriate steps between October 2020 and March 2021 to investigate and address the resident’s ASB reports. However, it delayed unreasonably from October 2019 to March 2020 in considering the ASB reports, failed to undertake risk assessments as its ASB policy recommends and did not communicate with the resident regularly between July 2020 and October 2020 as it had promised to.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord in its handling of the resident’s anti-social behaviour reports.

Reasons

The landlord delayed unreasonably in considering the resident’s initial ASB reports, failed to undertake risk assessments and did not communicate regularly with her during July-October 2020.

Orders

The landlord to write to the resident to apologise for the service failures identified in this report.
The landlord to contact the resident to check whether there is any ongoing ASB; if so, it should undertake a risk assessment and provide her with an action plan of how it intends to investigate.
The landlord to pay the resident compensation of £200 in recognition of the distress and inconvenience caused to her by the maladministration in its handling of her ASB reports.

The landlord should confirm compliance with these orders to this Service within four weeks of the date of this report.

Recommendations

The landlord to ensure it has procedures in place so that:
1. risk assessments are conducted and recorded when residents make an ASB report;
2. residents are contacted regularly while an ASB case is open.

The landlord should confirm its intentions in regard to this recommendation to this Service within four weeks of the date of this report.