Applications are open to join the next Housing Ombudsman Resident Panel – find out more Housing Ombudsman Resident Panel.

Stoke-on-Trent City Council (202316585)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202316585

Stoke-on-Trent City Council

26 February 2025


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

  1. The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of the resident’s:
    1. Reports of noise from contractors outside his property and the impact of this on his human rights.
    2. Associated complaint.

Background

  1. The resident is the secure tenant of the property, a bungalow owned by the landlord. He has mental health conditions which the landlord has recorded.
  2. On 19 June 2023, the resident complained that contractors working on behalf of the landlord had been slamming their van door all morning, causing disturbance.
  3. The landlord sent its stage 1 complaint response to the resident on 21 June 2023. It stated that it interviewed the contractors and found that they had been working within the correct hours, but it asked them to consider neighbouring properties when doing so.
  4. The resident requested escalation of his complaint on the same day, 21 June 2023, as he felt the landlord’s response justified the behaviour of the operatives on site. It sent him a warning letter for breach of tenancy on 27 June 2023 following his escalation email. This led to a further stage 1 complaint on 6 July 2023.
  5. The landlord responded to the resident on 27 July 2023. It said that it could add nothing to its stage 1 response, and it was unlikely any further investigation would change the outcome. It sent a further response on 21 August 2023 confirming the same information and explaining its reason for the breach of tenancy warning.
  6. The resident remained dissatisfied with the landlord’s response and brought his complaint to the Ombudsman for investigation.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

  1. Throughout the period of his complaint, the resident has said that the landlord has breached his human rights, specifically Articles 8 and 10.
  2. The Human Rights Act 1998 sets out the fundamental rights and freedoms that everyone in the UK is entitled to. The Act requires all public authorities – and other bodies carrying out public functions – to respect and protect individuals’ rights.
  3. The Ombudsman has no legal power to decide whether a landlord has breached the Human Rights Act – only the courts can do this. However, the Ombudsman can decide whether a landlord has had due regard to an individual’s human rights in its treatment of them, as part of our consideration of a complaint.

Noise reports

  1. As part of his noise report on 19 June 2023, the resident wrote that his desired outcome was for the contractors to be more considerate and to stop making so much noise by slamming van doors. The landlord spoke to its contractors to remind them of this despite them completing work within acceptable hours.
  2. In the landlord’s stage 1 response on 21 June 2023, it told the resident it had asked its contractors to consider neighbouring properties when completing works. As they were working within the time for acceptable noise levels, it did not uphold his complaint. This was a clear response, and it did exactly as he requested for his desired complaint outcome.
  3. The resident felt that by not upholding his complaint, the landlord was saying it was acceptable for the contractors to slam doors. He said that he felt they had done this deliberately to wind him up and that it was discriminatory against his mental health. He included wording that the landlord found to be threatening. It spoke to the contractors again and they reported that the resident had sworn at them in an aggressive tone on the morning of 19 June 2023.
  4. On 27 June 2023, the landlord sent a warning letter to the resident for breaching his tenancy by way of being abusive to its contractor. It asked him to contact it to hear his views and to discuss ways of resolving the matter. This action was fair and showed its willingness to work with him to reduce tension. However, it is important for landlords to make reasonable efforts to protect their staff and contractors from abuse.
  5. The resident sent several emails to the landlord disputing the breach of tenancy and made a further complaint about this on 6 July 2023. It responded on 21 July 2023 saying that it followed its process correctly in line with its antisocial behaviour (ASB) process correctly. It said that in his complaint the resident confirmed swearing at the contractors. In addition, it also considered the threatening wording in his original stage 2 escalation request a breach of tenancy. Its response to him was factual and professional.
  6. The landlord wrote to the resident on 27 July 2023 saying that it would not be completing a stage 2 investigation as it felt further investigation would not change the outcome of its stage 1 response. It confirmed that it had asked its contractors to consider neighbouring properties and repeated the reason for its breach of tenancy warning letter. It stayed clear and professional in its reply despite receiving excessive communications from the resident leading up to it.
  7. On 3 August 2023, the resident made a further request to the landlord to escalate his complaint to stage 2. He said it had deliberately breached his human rights and repeated that he had acted reasonably in speaking to the contractors.
  8. In its final complaint response on 21 August 2023, the landlord repeated that a stage 2 investigation was unlikely to change the outcome of the resident’s complaint. It repeated much of its response of 21 July 2023. It also said that he had made written threats of violence towards staff in his email of 21 June 2023. Finally, it said it does not tolerate verbal abuse or threats of violence towards any staff or contractor.
  9. While it may have been good practice for the landlord to acknowledge the resident’s concerns about his human rights, its response was factual and clear. It has provided evidence showing that it considered his rights, and it delivered his outcome request by speaking to the contractors and asking them to be more considerate.
  10. Overall, there was little else that the landlord could have done in this situation. The matter of slamming doors took place during a singular morning and other than speaking to the contractors as requested by the resident, there was no further action for it to take. It has shown clear justification in its decision to send a breach of tenancy warning to the resident in line with the conditions of his tenancy agreement.

Complaint handling

  1. The landlord’s complaints policy states that it will consider each complaint on its own merits and that it will not unreasonably refuse to escalate complaints to stage 2. There may be exceptional circumstances where it refuses to escalate a complaint, for example if further investigation would be unlikely to lead to any worthwhile outcome. It will explain this in full to the complainant.
  2. In this case, the landlord refused to escalate the resident’s complaint to stage 2. However, it wrote to him on 2 separate occasions to explain why. It responded to his original complaint of 19 June 2023 on 21 June 2023, and it was able to provide his desired outcome by speaking to the contractors.
  3. The resident’s original escalation request of 21 June 2023 disagreed with the landlord’s decision not to uphold his complaint. However, it had found no failing in the actions of its contractors. It spoke to them as he had requested but there was little other action it could have taken as the matter was not ongoing.
  4. As such, the landlord’s decision not to escalate the resident’s complaint to stage 2 was reasonable and in line with its complaints policy. It wrote to him to explain this on both occasions as it outlines in the policy and remained professional towards him despite the challenging circumstances.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration in respect of the landlord’s handling of the resident’s:
    1. Reports of noise from contractors outside his property and the impact of this on his human rights.
    2. Associated complaint.