Stonewater Limited (202234548)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202234548

Stonewater Limited

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 handling of reports of noise and antisocial behaviour (ASB).

Background

The resident occupies a 2–bedroom first-floor flat with her partner under an assured tenancy agreement. The landlord records that the resident has vulnerabilities in terms of physical disabilities (including a hearing disability) and mental health needs.
On 24 October 2022 the resident’s partner made a formal complaint to the landlord about its handling of their previous reports of noise from the tenant of the ground-floor flat (neighbour A) and their visitors. The resident’s partner stated:
1. they were not prepared to go through an ASB case as they had tried this previously and it had not resolved the problem.
2. the resident was experiencing distress from the noise, despite her hearing disability, so they considered it was not normal living noise and that neighbour A and their visitors are causing this intentionally.
3. they are seeking legal aid for a discrimination claim regarding neighbour A’s actions and the landlord’s response.
The landlord issued its stage 1 response on 21 November 2022. In this it:
1. explained it had previously opened an ASB case in July 2021 due to the noise the resident had reported experiencing from the ground-floor flat. The landlord outlined the action that it had taken against neighbour A at that time and the resolution options which it had offered.
2. stated that it had escalated a new ASB case in August 2022 to its resolution team. However, the landlord stated it had not been able to progress this for the following reasons:
  1. the resident had told it on 16 September 2022 she was not pursuing the resolution of the noise issues with the local authority’s environmental health team as she was “disappointed with their approach”.
  2. when the landlord attempted to discuss the ASB case with the resident on 28 September 2022 she told it that she wanted the case closed as she no longer wanted to work with it as part of an ASB case and “planned to take the case further”.
3. stated it considered it had approached the resident’s previous reports of ASB appropriately as it had:
  1. completed regular reviews, arranged joint visits and created action plans to monitor and respond to the reports of ASB.
  2. offered support such as mediation with neighbour A and working with the local authority to resolve the ASB, which the resident had declined.
4. it did not have recent evidence from the resident about the noise/ASB she had experienced and it had proactively approached other tenants and not found corroborating evidence of a noise problem from neighbour A. The landlord stated it would not be considering any legal action against neighbour A.
The resident’s partner wrote to the landlord on 5 February 2023 to complain that the ASB was ongoing and that the landlord was not taking action against neighbour A. The landlord contacted the resident to ask whether she wanted the complaint escalated, she confirmed to the landlord on 15 February 2023 that she wanted the complaint taken to stage 2.
The landlord issued its stage 2 response on 8 March 2023. In this it:
1. described that it had reviewed the resident’s case since 2018 and outlined that:
  1. she had first reported ASB from neighbour A in July 2018. The landlord stated that at this time the resident did not provide evidence of a statutory noise nuisance. The landlord said the resident refused to provide additional evidence when asked and insisted that the landlord take evidence against neighbour A.
  2. it visited the resident and neighbour A on several occasions in late 2018 to discuss the reported noise/ASB and neighbour A engaged with this.
  3. it referred the case to a solicitor in October 2018 who considered that the noise reported was daily living noise. The landlord stated that it offered mediation and to refer the noise issue to the local authority but the resident declined this.
  4. it did not receive any further reports from the resident about neighbour A until July 2020, though this was to report a breach of social distancing rules rather than ASB or noise.
  5. it reopened the ASB case in July 2021 and took the actions it described in its stage 1 response.
2. stated that it remained satisfied that it had responded to the resident’s reports of ASB and noise proportionately and in line with its procedure.
3. confirmed it was aware that the resident had recently approached the local authority to investigate her complaint about the noise nuisance. The landlord said that once the local authority had concluded its investigation it would consider its next steps based on its findings.
Both the resident and the landlord have confirmed that no legal proceedings have been issued in this case since the landlord’s stage 2 response. However, the resident remains dissatisfied with the landlord’s response and that it did not offer suitable compensation for the impact of the noise and ASB on her. She escalated the complaint for the Ombudsman to investigate on 24 July 2023. The resident has told this Service she is continuing to experience ASB and excessive noise from neighbour A.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

What the Ombudsman can and cannot consider is called our jurisdiction. This is set out in the Scheme.
Paragraph 42.b. of the Scheme states the Ombudsman may not consider complaints which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, were brought to the Ombudsman’s attention normally more than 12 months after they exhausted the member’s complaints procedure.
From the available records the resident and her partner had previously made formal complaints to the landlord about experiencing noise and ASB from neighbour A, and the landlord’s handling of this, in 2018 and early 2022. The landlord issued formal responses to these complaints on 13 December 2018 and 15 March 2022 respectively.
The resident did not bring her complaint to the Ombudsman until 24 July 2023, which is over 12 months after both of the landlord’s previous formal responses. We have not seen any reason why the resident or her partner could not bring these complaints to the Ombudsman’s attention sooner. Therefore, whilst the historical incidents provide contextual background to the current complaint, the Ombudsman will not investigate the landlord’s handling of the reported ASB and noise from before 15 March 2022.
Paragraph 42.a. of the Scheme states the Ombudsman may not consider complaints which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, are made prior to having exhausted a member’s complaints procedure, unless there is evidence of a complaint-handling failure and the Ombudsman is satisfied that the member has not taken action within a reasonable timescale.
From the available records the resident made a further formal complaint to the landlord on 20 March 2024, which included the landlord’s handling of the reported noise and ASB following the stage 2 response on 8 March 2023. However, after requesting information from both parties there is no evidence that the resident completed the landlord’s complaint procedure with this further complaint. The Ombudsman will only be considering the events up until the landlord’s response to the local authority’s investigation, as the landlord committed to take further steps based on that investigation in the stage 2 response of 8 March 2023.
Paragraph 42.f. of the Scheme, states the Ombudsman may not consider complaints which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, concern matters where the Ombudsman considers it quicker, fairer, more reasonable or more effective to seek a remedy through the courts, other tribunal or procedure.
In her complaint to this Service the resident stated she considered that the landlord had discriminated against her in its handling of the reported ASB. This Service cannot determine whether discrimination has taken place, as this is a legal judgement which is better suited to a court to decide. However, we can look at whether the landlord responded fairly and appropriately to the resident’s allegations of ASB as part of our investigation.
Finally, the resident has described that the landlord’s lack of action over the ASB and noise she had reported has negatively affected her mental and physical health.
Often, when there is a dispute over whether someone has been injured or a health condition has been made worse, the courts rely on expert evidence in the form of independent medical reports. This will give an expert opinion of the cause of any injury or deterioration of a condition. This will be a more appropriate and effective means of considering such an allegation as the courts can make legally binding decisions. If the resident wishes to pursue the impact on her health further, she should seek independent legal advice. The Ombudsman will still consider distress and inconvenience caused from the landlord’s actions.

The landlord’s record keeping

The Ombudsman expects landlords to maintain a robust record of contacts, repairs, and services provided. This is because clear, accurate, and easily accessible records provide an audit trail and enhance landlords’ ability to identify and respond to problems when they arise.
It is the Ombudsman’s opinion that the landlord has, at times, failed to maintain adequate records, which has impacted this Service’s ability to carry out a thorough investigation, as highlighted at various points throughout this report. This was a failure by the landlord and contributed to the other failures identified in this report.

The landlord’s handling of reports of noise and ASB

The landlord’s ASB policy from the time of the events complained about stated that:
1. when assessing whether an incident amounts to ASB it will consider factors such as frequency, intensity and intentionality. The policy set out a non-exhaustive list of issues which the landlord will not consider to amount to ASB under the policy, which included:
  1. lifestyle differences.
  2. day to day living sounds from neighbouring properties (such as, footsteps, going up and down the stairs, doors closing, chair scrapes).
  3. DIY during reasonable hours.
2. To take effective action it will:
  1. fast track serious cases such as hate crime incidents, domestic violence/abuse, severe harassment and cases where there are significant vulnerability issues. In these cases, the policy states the landlord will make contact with the complainant within 1 working day in order to form an action plan.
  2. make it clear to its customers that clear, detailed accurate information is necessary for it to take effective action.
  3. record and monitor cases and incidents of ASB to maintain a clear audit trail of actions and ensure that customers are kept informed and agree the method and frequency of feedback in the case action plan.
  4. make use of all tools available to tackle incidents of ASB, hate and domestic abuse. In the case of ASB, unless the severity of the case warrants more formal action, the policy states the landlord will initially utilise more informal interventions such as direct contact with the alleged perpetrator, informal undertakings and mediation.
  5. only close a case after it has consulted with a complainant, or where the complainant stops engaging with it. The policy says it may also close a complaint where the complainant does not feel the matter has been resolved but the landlord is unable to take any further action.
  6. emphasise resolving issues while keeping customers in their homes. The policy specifies eviction, management transfers and advising the customer to make a homelessness application will always remain a last resort.
  7. proactively maximise the opportunity to gather evidence and will utilise evidence from customers, staff, local authority, Police, CCTV, sound recording equipment etc.
3. To support those the landlord works with and manage customer expectations the policy says customers reporting ASB will be expected to:
  1. report all crime to the Police.
  2. take responsibility and resolve minor disputes with their neighbours themselves.
  3. have mutual respect for their neighbours and be tolerant of different lifestyles, cultures and everyday noise.
  4. work with the landlord to resolve issues such as providing accurate detailed information, providing witness statements, attending court and engaging in mediation where necessary and appropriate.
  5. have reasonable expectations in terms of the action that the landlord can take, remembering that eviction is a last resort.
Prior to the landlord’s previous formal response on 15 March 2022, it had approved a management move for the resident, following advice from the resident’s medical support agencies that a different type of accommodation would be better suited to her needs. The landlord wrote to the resident on 21 February 2022 to confirm that the management move had been approved, the resident responded on the same day that she was happy to proceed with the managed move to a suitable 2–bedroom property.
On 12 April 2022 the resident told the landlord:
1. that there was a contractor causing noise from the ground-floor flat and that she would have appreciated some notice of the planned work.
2. neighbour A appeared to have work carried out to the property frequently and, though it may be necessary, it was another reason why she wanted to move.
3. that the “actual family noise” from neighbour A had been better recently.
The landlord responded on 20 April 2022. In this it:
1. apologised for the delay in responding due to the Easter break.
2. acknowledged the resident’s request for notice of planned works. It stated it would try to update the resident about ongoing works that may affect her, but this information would not ordinarily be information available to the landlord’s ASB team.
3. noted that the resident had reported that neighbour A and their visitors had improved and stated it would continue to monitor this.
In the Ombudsman’s view the landlord’s response was reasonable. Though the resident may have preferred to have been given notice of repair works to a different property the landlord did not have an obligation to do this. This is because the resident’s tenancy agreement did not require access to the property she occupies. Furthermore, the landlord’s ASB policy said repair work to the property, either as DIY or from the landlord, would not be considered as ASB if it took place during reasonable hours. The landlord confirmed that it would continue to monitor the noise from the ground-floor flat which was appropriate in line with its ASB policy.
The resident contacted the landlord on 5 May 2022 to provide further information about her needs for the managed move. From the available records the resident also contacted the landlord separately around this time to complain about ongoing noise from maintenance work to the ground floor-flat and concerns about the amount of visitors neighbour A was receiving. The landlord replied to the resident on 18 May 2022 and it:
1. stated whilst there had historically been situations where the noise from neighbour A’s property had been unreasonable the landlord had to be fair in its approach and acknowledge lifestyle differences between different tenants and between flats. It stated it encouraged its customers to allow visitors to their property, which may on occasion increase the volume of noise, but would intervene if there was evidence the noise was unreasonable.
2. asked for further information about the maintenance work to the ground-floor flat the resident had referred to and the resulting noise.
The landlord’s response to this was appropriate compared to its ASB policy. The policy states that lifestyle difference and maintenance work during reasonable hours will not constitute ASB. There is no evidence that the resident provided further information to the landlord to show that the noise was excessive, or was taking place during unreasonable hours.
The resident sent the landlord a number of emails from 21 May 2022 to 6 June 2022, these were in relation to difficulties in bidding for another property through the local authority rather than reporting further ASB or noise. The landlord conducted a case review on 7 June 2022. This stated:
1. the resident was in the process of applying for other properties. The landlord recorded the resident had been accepted for a managed move though this would only last for 6 months.
2. its current focus was to attempt to rebuild trust between the resident and neighbour A.
3. due to the frequency of emails the resident had sent to it recently it would need to revise its contact plan. It stated it would monitor the case by emailing the resident and neighbour A once every two weeks.
The landlord informed the resident on 13 June 2022 about how it would continue to monitor the ASB and noise. This was appropriate as it was consistent with the landlord’s ASB policy.
On 20 June 2022 the resident told the landlord that she could not go ahead with the planned managed move due to reasons relating to her personal history. In a later email that day she told the landlord that she would prefer to stay at the property as it was solely due to the issue with neighbour A that she wanted to move. She told the landlord that the issue with noise and ASB had improved recently and she would be happy to remain at the property if the landlord helped her with this.
The landlord acknowledged this as part of its fortnightly email on 27 June 2022. It told the resident that, as the managed move was temporary, she would need to re-apply if she decided to move. It confirmed it would remain in contact with the resident once every fortnight to monitor the ASB and noise. This was appropriate as it was consistent with the landlord’s ASB policy and the action plan it had created from the case review.
On 8 July 2022 the resident wrote to the landlord to complain that neighbour A was smoking near the open window of her property. She stated:
1. she had respiratory illnesses and the smoke was causing problems for her.
2. neighbour A had a seating area away from the property where they could smoke and she had previously been asked to use this.
3. she had previously asked the police to approach neighbour A and they had asked them not to do this. She stated she was planning to approach the police again and to take legal action against neighbour A.
The landlord responded on 28 July 2022 as part of its fortnightly email, it asked the resident to send this to its neighbourhood team rather than the individual inboxes of its staff members so it could act on this at a suitable time. In its response it:
1. managed the resident’s expectations that, though it would be prepared to speak to neighbour A about not smoking near the resident’s windows, it would not be able to enforce anything against their tenancy about this.
2. noted that though there had been a history between the resident and neighbour A, it considered providing a written notice to neighbour A may be the most appropriate way to address this.
3. said it would work with the police if the resident decided to contact them.
The landlord’s response was appropriate. In line with its ASB policy it attempted to agree an informal approach with the resident that was suitable for the severity of the ASB reported. It also managed the resident’s expectations about what action it would be able to take against neighbour A’s tenancy.
On 15 August 2022 the resident contacted the landlord and the local authority. She told the landlord:
1. that over the last few days there has been increasing noise from the ground-floor flat. The resident specified that she had not recorded this recent noise as she considered nothing had come of her previous recordings.
2. that her mental health had been deteriorating and that she and her partner have been seeking legal advice about the ASB. She stated that if she was not satisfied with the local authority’s investigation she felt that it had to go to court.
3. that she “did not really need further updates” from the landlord but felt that it was important to provide it with this information.
The local authority also contacted the landlord on 15 August 2022 to ask about its current engagement with the resident. The landlord replied that:
1. it was in contact with the resident on a fortnightly basis to review the reported ASB and noise nuisance.
2. the resident had provided a large number of noise recordings in the past. The landlord stated that it considered some of the historical recordings were normal daytime noise it would expect between flats, but there had been examples where it had been necessary to speak to neighbour A.
3. it had previously approved a managed move for the resident on the grounds that she and her medical professionals had stated that a flat was not suitable for her mental health needs. It stated that it had offered a property but the resident had since told it she no longer wanted to move.
4. that it did not feel there was evidence that the reported ASB could be considered harassment and other residents in the building had not made complaints about neighbour A.
The landlord arranged a case review on 15 August 2022, which was completed on 17 August 2022. This concluded:
1. there was no evidence of a new noise nuisance that it would be able to take action on.
2. a management move had previously been approved however the resident had been moved from a previous property, prior to her current tenancy, due to complaints about noise and the problem had not resolved. The landlord considered another management move was unlikely to be helpful.
3. the resident had reported complex mental health issues which needed to be addressed. The landlord recommended setting up a meeting with the external agencies involved to see how it could best support the resident’s situation as there was no evidence of a noise nuisance occurring.
Based on the information available to the landlord at the time, the decision from the landlord’s case review was reasonable. There is no evidence that the resident had informed the landlord of any noise nuisance from neighbour A from 15 March 2022 until 15 August 2022. Though the resident raised a concern about the noise on 15 August 2022 she explicitly told the landlord she had not recorded this for evidence. It would have been appropriate, in line with its ASB policy, for the landlord to have informed the resident that it would need evidence of the new noise nuisance before it could act on this and have issued diary sheets or sound recording technology to enable the resident to do this.
On 22 August 2022 the local authority wrote to the landlord. In this it stated:
1. the resident had provided it with noise diaries and recordings from 15 August 2022 which described “scraping and banging noises” as well as doors slamming. It said these can be clearly heard in the recordings and this noise would need further investigation.
2. though the smoking issue was not a statutory nuisance it would need to be addressed due to the claimed impact on the resident’s health.
3. it planned to investigate the possible noise nuisance further and would write to all parties involved to advise them of this. It asked the landlord to update it about what it had done so far to deal with the situation.
On 30 August 2022 the landlord responded to the local authority. In this it:
1. reiterated the information it had provided the local authority on 15 August 2022 about its current engagement with the resident.
2. stated that it would work jointly with the local authority and suggested that it may be suitable to arrange a joint visit to neighbour A’s property. It outlined that due to a change in its structure the staff member who had been monitoring the ASB case fortnightly would no longer be involved with the case and it would be referred to the landlord’s resolutions team.
As of 30 August 2022, the landlord had not been provided with a copy of the evidence of ASB the resident had complained about. As such, its initial suggestion to begin with an informal intervention by making contact with neighbour A was reasonable in line with its ASB policy.
Notwithstanding this, the landlord did not contact the resident until 28 September 2022, 20 working days later, and there is no evidence that an action plan was created for the new ASB case it created. This was inappropriate. In line with its ASB policy it should have contacted the resident to create an action plan to keep her informed of the planned action and agree a method of monitoring and communicating with her on an ongoing basis. In addition, considering the resident’s reported vulnerabilities, there is no evidence the landlord carried out a risk assessment to consider if it needed to fast-track the case and agree an action plan with the resident within 1 working day in line with its ASB policy.
The resident told the landlord on 28 September 2022 that she refused to go through an ASB case with it as she felt neighbour A and the landlord had been given “more than enough chances” to resolve things. Following this there is no evidence that there was any contact between the landlord and resident until her formal complaint on 24 October 2022. As set out previously the landlord told the resident in its stage 1 response it had not progressed the ASB case as the resident refused to continue with it.
The landlord’s ASB policy stated that it can close an ASB case if the complainant stops engaging with it so its decision not to take further action was consistent with its policy. Notwithstanding this, it would have been better if the landlord had informed the resident it was closing the case and what evidence it would need from her if she wanted the landlord to take further action. It should not have been necessary for her to have made a formal complaint to have been informed of this.
Following the landlord’s stage 1 response on 21 November 2022 there is no evidence of further contact between the resident and landlord until 5 February 2023 when the resident’s partner emailed the landlord about ongoing ASB. On 20 February 2023 the resident copied the landlord into an email asking the local authority to investigate the reported ASB and noise nuisance. She stated:
1. she and her partner had been harassed by neighbour A since 2018 in terms of excessive noise from slamming doors, banging and raised voices on a regular basis.
2. she had attached noise diaries from December 2022 to February 2023.
3. she wanted the local authority to visit as soon as possible and for it to make the landlord take action as she considered that it had decided to discriminate against her rather than address the ASB.
As set out previously, the landlord’s stage 2 response on 8 March 2023 told the resident that it was aware that she had approached the local authority to investigate her complaint about noise nuisance. It told her it would consider its next steps once this was concluded. From the available records we have not seen that the landlord and the resident were in contact, or that the landlord took any further action on the reported ASB, until the local authority’s investigation was completed around 23 June 2023. The landlord told this Service that it did not receive any noise diaries or noise app recordings from the resident during that time.
The landlord’s ASB policy at the time of the events complained about did not specify how it would work with partner agencies, beyond that it would gather and utilise evidence from the organisations such as the local authority. When it updated its ASB policy in November 2023 the landlord stated that when it was not the lead agency, such as when the local authority’s environmental health team is investigating noise or other statutory nuisance, it will continue to investigate and take reasonable action to support customers reporting ASB.
In the Ombudsman’s opinion, though there was not specific guidance in the landlord’s ASB policy at the time, its actions did not fall within the reasonable range of responses we would expect. Though it was appropriate for the landlord to have acted on the local authority’s investigation, whilst it was waiting for this it should have remained in contact with the resident to monitor the reported ASB. If the resident provided suitable evidence of excessive noise it should have also considered ways it could mitigate the impact of this on her whilst waiting for the local authority’s investigation to be completed. It is understandable that the landlord’s decision to not take further action until the outcome of the investigation would have caused the resident to believe that it was not looking to find a solution for the ASB for the 4 months between 20 February 2023 to 23 June 2023.
Due to a lack of adequate records we have not seen a copy of the local authority’s findings from its investigation. However, on 10 July 2023 the local authority wrote to the landlord and stated that it had previously given it a 14 day timescale to complete the works to neighbour A’s property following its visit and the expected completion date was for 10 July 2023.
In the local authority’s email of 18 July 2023 to the landlord it specified its investigation findings and stated:
1. from the visit to the resident’s and neighbour A’s property it found there were “constant repetitive noises” were being created by neighbour A’s:
  1. overuse of the kitchen sliding door.
  2. constant banging of the front and back doors.
  3. overuse of the pull cord bathroom light switch.
2. it understood the landlord had previously agreed to replace the kitchen door with a standard soft closing door but was now only planning to replace the runners on the door. The local authority asked for further information about how this would reduce the noise.
3. the landlord had agreed to fit the front and back doors of the property with soft closing mechanisms to prevent these being slammed. The local authority stated it had not received evidence that this had been completed.
4. the landlord had agreed to replace the bathroom light pull cord with a sensor to activate the light. It asked the landlord for confirmation that a work order had been raised for this.
5. the noise app recordings provided by the resident indicated that the noise being experienced was not normal living noise and suggested intentional overuse by neighbour A, which was causing the resident distress.
On 17 August 2023 the local authority contacted the resident. It informed her it had met with the landlord to resolve the ongoing noise issues and that:
1. the landlord had booked works to alter the front and back doors of neighbour A’s property. This work was planned to be completed by the end of August 2023.
2. there had been a delay in the landlord replacing the kitchen door in neighbour A’s property due to safety reasons but it believed this work would take place on 26 August 2023.
3. it considered that the repetitive clicking noise was a result of the light pull cord in neighbour A’s bathroom. The landlord had confirmed that it would replace this with a standard light switch.
4. the landlord had agreed to discuss with neighbour A that they and their visitors should use the bench and smoking area provided for smoking and telephone calls rather than congregating under the resident’s window.
5. once the works were completed the landlord had offered to provide mediation between the resident, her partner and neighbour A to reset the relationship between them and look to prevent the noise issues from reoccurring.
The landlord’s offer of mediation this was appropriate. It was consistent with the landlord’s ASB policy for it to first use informal interventions such as mediation to attempt to resolve the ASB. Though the resident may have wanted the landlord to have taken action against neighbour A’s tenancy the policy specifies that this will only be considered as a last resort.
Due to a lack of adequate records, we have not seen the work orders for the replacement bathroom pull cord or alterations to the front and back doors of neighbour A’s property. However, later records from the resident, landlord and local authority corroborate that the work was completed on 21 and 22 August 2023. The action the landlord took to address these sources of excessive noise was appropriate as it was entitled to rely on the findings and recommendations of the local authority’s investigation.
That said, the landlord took 59 and 60 calendar days respectively to complete this work (based on the local authority’s email from 10 July 2023). This was unreasonable and we have seen no evidence from the landlord to show that this delay was unavoidable. This significantly exceeded the 14 days the local authority asked the landlord to complete the work in, as well as the timescales of the landlord’s responsive repair policy which stated that it should deliver all non-emergency repairs within 28 days. This was a failing by the landlord.
With the replacement of the kitchen door the landlord told this Service that it had planned to carry out this work on 31 July 2023 but neighbour A refused to allow this work to take place. Neighbour A’s refusal to agree to the proposed work was not in the landlord’s control. The landlord told this Service that it conducted acoustic testing in July 2024 and found no evidence of excessive noise transfer from neighbour A’s kitchen to the resident’s property. However, there is no evidence to show that the landlord discussed this with the local authority at the time, or considered if it would be able to make different adjustments to neighbour A’s kitchen door to prevent the reported noise from occurring. This was a failing by the landlord as it did not take appropriate action to address this finding from the local authority’s investigation.
In summary, there were failings in the landlord’s handling of the reports of noise and ASB in that:
1. it unreasonably delayed contacting the resident when it created the new ASB case following 30 August 2022 and did not provide her with an action plan.
2. it did not tell the resident that it would be closing the ASB case following her email of 28 September 2022. It did not inform her of this until she had formally complained.
3. whilst the local authority was investigating, between 20 February 2023 to 23 June 2023, it did not take action to monitor the ASB the resident had reported or consider if it could take action to mitigate the impact of this.
4. it unreasonably delayed completing work identified by the local authority’s investigation to make adjustments to neighbour A’s front and back doors and their bathroom light switch.
5. after neighbour A refused to allow the planned replacement of the kitchen door to take place the landlord did not communicate this to the local authority, or consider if there were other ways it could address the cause of the excessive noise identified from the local authority’s investigation.
In terms of the impact on the resident it should be specified that the role of the Ombudsman is not to establish whether the ASB reported was occurring or not. Our role is to establish whether the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of ASB was in line with its legal and policy obligations and whether its response was fair in all the circumstances of the case. Notwithstanding this, it is understandable that the landlord’s actions would have caused the resident distress and frustration, irrespective of whether there was a noise nuisance the landlord needed to address.
As part of the landlord’s response to this Service’s request for evidence for this complaint the landlord wrote to the resident on 30 April 2024. It stated that having reviewed the case it accepted that it could have acted more efficiently in its response to the resident’s reports and should have reached out to the local authority sooner. It apologised to the resident for this and offered her £450 as compensation.
In line with the Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code, the Ombudsman expects landlords to try to resolve complaints through their complaint handling procedures. In this case, although the landlord did not offer any remedy in its stage 2 response. We acknowledge that a number of the failings identified occurred following the landlord’s stage 2 response and it did make this offer shortly after this Service contacted it to begin its investigation. However, there is no evidence to suggest that this offer of compensation would have been made if the resident had not contacted this Service. From this the Ombudsman’s view is that this compensation offer occurred outside of a satisfactory timeframe for it to be considered a genuine attempt to put things right with the resident.
Considered against this Service’s guidance on remedies, the Ombudsman considers the offer made by the landlord is appropriate to remedy the impact of its failings on the resident. Though we acknowledge the resident’s vulnerabilities, as set out earlier, we cannot take a view on whether the landlord’s handling of the reported ASB and noise caused the resident’s physical or mental health to worsen.
However, considering the landlord’s unreasonable delay in offering this remedy the Ombudsman’s view is that this was a service failure. Though the impact of this service failure was not significant enough to increase the level of financial redress we expect the landlord to make to put things right we have ordered the landlord to acknowledge this failure and apologise.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme there was service failure by the landlord in its handling of reports of noise and ASB.

Orders and recommendation

Orders

The landlord must within 28 days of this determination:
1. Issue the resident with a written apology. The landlord must recognise its failings identified in this report, including its delay in offering compensation, and the impact these had on the resident.
2. pay the resident £450 in compensation in recognition of the distress caused to the resident by its handling of the reports of noise and ASB.
3. provide the Ombudsman with evidence of compliance with these orders.

Recommendation

The landlord is recommended to self-assess against the recommendations from the Ombudsman’s spotlight report on Knowledge and Information Management.