The Guinness Partnership Limited (202228624)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202228624

The Guinness Partnership Limited

18 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

The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of:
1. The resident’s reports of anti-social behaviour (ASB).
2. The associated complaint.

Background

The resident is an assured tenant of a 2-bedroom flat in a high-rise block. He has lived at the property since July 2012.
The resident had reported to the landlord excessive noise from his neighbour below, over a period of 9 years. On 5 May 2022 the resident complained to the landlord that it had not addressed the excessive noise from his neighbour. The landlord responded at stage 1 on 20 May 2022 and said it could find no failure in its handling of the matter.
On 21 January 2023, the resident complained to the landlord that no action had been taken against the neighbour and the issue was ongoing. He stated he wanted a “deadlock letter” so he could take the matter to the Ombudsman. The landlord registered a new complaint, opened an ASB case and advised the resident to contact Environmental Health.
The landlord issued its stage 1 complaint response on 2 April 2023 and apologised for the delay in answering the resident’s complaint. The landlord said:
1. While it had made enquiries with the neighbour it was unable to take further action until further evidence had been provided.
2. The resident should refer the complaint back to the council’s Environmental Health department.
3. It offered the resident £25 compensation for its failures in complaint handling.
The resident escalated his complaint on 27 June 2023 and said the response was unacceptable and the issue had not been investigated properly. The landlord issued its stage 2 complaint response on 20 July 2023 and confirmed it had not reviewed noise reports prior to August 2022. The landlord said:
1. It had identified that it had attempted to contact the neighbour by phone but was unsuccessful. The landlord said it should have followed this up with a letter and it apologised for not doing so.
2. The resident should contact the council’s Environmental Health department and ask for their support.
3. It would increase its offer of compensation to £175, made up of:
  1. £75 for the delay in issuing its stage 1 response.
  2. £100 for failing to investigate the ASB in line with its policy.
On 5 April 2024, the landlord contacted the resident and said it had reviewed his complaint. It said the compensation did not reflect its failure to register his complaint in a timely manner or its failure to manage his expectations with regular communications. In addition to the £175 compensation already awarded, the landlord offered an additional £250, made up of:
1. £150 for poor communication.
2. £100 for poor complaint handling.
The resident remained dissatisfied and brought the complaint to this Service. He said he is still experiencing the same noise issues, and he has declined the compensation offers thus far.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

The Ombudsman encourages residents to raise complaints with their landlords in a timely manner, so that the landlord has a reasonable opportunity to consider the issues while they are still ‘live’, and while the evidence is available to reach an informed conclusion on the events which occurred. As the substantive issues become historical it is increasingly difficult for either the landlord, or an independent body such as the Ombudsman, to conduct an effective review of the actions taken to address those issues.
The resident has told this Service that he has been experiencing issues with noise from his neighbour below for approximately 11 years. He states the noise is mainly in the form of excessively loud music and he has made multiple reports to the landlord over the years. The resident said that the landlord provided mediation roughly 5 years ago, which resolved the problem for 4 to 5 months, before the issue returned.
The resident made an earlier complaint, which was responded to by the landlord at stage 1 on 20 May 2022. The evidence suggests that the resident’s attempt to escalate this complaint in January 2023 led to a further complaint being recorded and investigated separately. This is discussed further in the complaint handling section of the report.
In the interest of fairness, the scope of this investigation is limited to matters which occurred from January 2022, until the matter completed the landlord’s internal complaints procedure on 20 July 2023.

Reports of ASB

The purpose of this investigation is not to establish if noise nuisance or antisocial behaviour have occurred. However, the Ombudsman can assess whether or not the landlord responded appropriately and reasonably to the resident’s reports, taking into account all the circumstances of the case. The resident’s neighbour is also a tenant of the landlord.
The resident’s block contains landlord offices and has a concierge service in reception. The resident has told this Service that in the past he was able to report the music to the concierge who would contact the neighbour. He states he has since been told by the landlord that he cannot report the noise to the concierge.
On 26 March 2022 the resident contacted the landlord and stated he was experiencing loud music from his neighbour below and it was an ongoing issue. He said the volume of music was excessive and made it impossible for him to hear his own TV. The resident asked for details of the actions the landlord had taken to date, and what it proposed to do resolve the issue.
The landlord’s notes state that a “home visit” was attempted on 28 March 2022 but no one was home. It is not clear whether the visit was made to the resident or the neighbour. However, no follow up visit or attempt was recorded. The landlord contacted the resident on 27 April 2022 and asked if he had kept any logs of the noise. The resident informed the landlord that he had not, as no action had been taken previously when he dedicated time to completing the logs.
The landlord’s ASB policy defines ASB. The definition includes conduct that is capable of causing nuisance or annoyance to any person in relation to that person’s occupation of residential premises. It sets out specific examples of behaviour that is considered to be ASB, which includes loud music. The policy also sets out the approach it will take to dealing with reports:
1. It will acknowledge all new ASB reports within a maximum of two working days.
2. Upon receiving a report of ASB, it will carry out a risk assessment to assess the impact the ASB is having on the individual.
3. It will take “proportionate and timely” action to deal with the ASB, including:
  1. Agreeing an action plan and taking action.
  2. Working in partnership with other agencies, including the local authority.
The tenancy agreement sets out the obligations of tenants who reside in the landlord’s properties. The agreement states tenants must not behave in a way that is likely to cause nuisance or annoyance to neighbours, such as “playing loud music”.
The landlord did not open an ASB case and acknowledged the report a month after it had been made. This was a failure to follow its policy and was unreasonable.
The resident contacted the landlord again on 3 and 5 May 2022 to report further instances of loud music and to formally complain. The landlord completed an ASB risk assessment and noted the resident felt he was being harassed, as the incidents were happening more often.
The landlord obtained more details from the resident on 6 May 2022. Its records noted:
1. The resident was unable to remain in the property during the day when the music was being played.
2. The loud music had been witnessed by the concierge of the block and also contractors that had attended the property. The concierge staff had approached the neighbour on a number of occasions and asked that the music be turned down.
3. The resident was unhappy about the way he had been treated and felt “fobbed off”.
4. The resident tried to set up the noise app, but it did not work. The landlord provided him a walk-through video and a technical support number.
While the landlord did complete a risk assessment on this occasion, it did not create any plan of action in line with its policy. The resident was left with an app that did not work, and the landlord took no steps to confirm the issues with the app had been resolved. Furthermore, there is no evidence that the landlord considered any potential tenancy breaches, approached the neighbour to try and resolve the issue, or tried to speak to the concierge / contractors who had witnessed the noise or other neighbours who may have been affected.
The resident reported further incidents of loud music from the neighbour on 21 August, 7 September and 3 November 2022. On the latter 2 occasions, the landlord attempted to phone the neighbour but received no answer. From the documentation provided to this Service, the landlord did not take any further action to resolve the issue. The landlord’s failure to make any further contact with the neighbour was a missed opportunity to resolve the matter at an earlier stage.
The resident contacted the landlord again on 21 January 2023 and stated it had taken no action to address the loud music, and he wanted to refer the matter to the Ombudsman. The landlord responded by taking the following action:
1. 21 January 2023 – it called the resident and established that he had spoken to the council’s Environmental Health department, who would not take action because the noise was in the daytime.
2. 27 January 2023 – it opened a new ASB case and completed a risk assessment with resident.
3. 2 February 2023 – it contacted the resident for further details and noted:
  1. The music was being played loudly every day and the volume level meant he was unable to make work calls at home.
  2. The resident had approached Environmental Health department again, who informed him it was “not their job” and told him to approach the landlord.
  3. It advised the resident to go back to Environmental Health as they would need to determine whether it was everyday noise or a statutory nuisance.
The landlord acknowledged and recorded the reports in line withs its policy. However, despite the landlord documenting contact with the resident on multiple occasions in March 2023, it took no further action to deal with the issue. It failed complete a plan of action, consider a multi-agency approach to solving the issue or consider the potential tenancy breaches that had been occurring. It was not unreasonable that the landlord asked the resident to contact the council’s Environmental Health department as it had a duty to inspect and decide if the noise was a ‘statutory nuisance’.
On 31 March 2023, the landlord recorded it had spoken to the neighbour who had denied the music was being played. The landlord’s notes also indicate a letter was sent to the neighbour on the same date. A copy of the letter has not been provided to this Service. Therefore, it is not clear whether the landlord addressed any potential tenancy breaches. This was the first successful contact between the landlord and the neighbour since the resident’s earlier report in March 2022. This was a significant failing. The landlord has not set out any reasons why it could not have sent a letter to the neighbour sooner.
The landlord issued its stage 1 complaint response on 2 April 2024. The response said:
1. It had arranged a site visit in August 2022, but did not elaborate on what the visit achieved.
2. It had not opened ASB cases in relation to the noise reports made in September and November 2022.
3. It had made “enquiries” with the neighbour, but was unable to take further action until further evidence was provided.
4. It “urged” the resident to refer the complaint to Environmental Health.
The landlord’s response lacked any plan of how it would investigate and address any potential tenancy breaches. While it would be unreasonable to expect the landlord to investigate its actions over the previous 9 years, it would have been aware the issue had been going for that period, and any previous action it had taken had not effectively dealt with the matter. It would have been reasonable of the landlord to have contacted the council’s Environmental Health to understand what had been reported to it from the resident or other residents. Moreover, it is not clear if the landlord made contact with other residents in the building to ask if any noise was affecting them. However, landlords should not rely totally on outcomes from Environmental Health and should conduct their own investigations into noise nuisance.
It is apparent there was a delay in the resident receiving the stage 1 response and he escalated the complaint on 27 June 2023. The landlord provided its stage 2 complaint response on 20 July 2023, which repeated much of what it said at stage 1, and directed the resident towards Environmental Health again. In addition, the landlord said:
1. It had failed to write to the neighbour when it had been unable to contact them by phone.
2. It offered £100 for failing to investigate the ASB case in line with its policy.
The landlord wrote to the resident on 5 April 2024 and said it had since reviewed his complaint. It said it had identified it had failed to consider the length of time the issue had been ongoing and failed to manage his expectations with regular communications. The landlord offered the resident £150 extra compensation. The resident states he did not receive this letter.
The resident has told this Service that the noise from the neighbour below continues to impact on the enjoyment of his home. He states he previously kept noise logs, which were time consuming but were not acted upon by the landlord. The resident’s reluctance to continually report the issue is indicative of a loss of confidence in the landlord’s ability to deal with the matter.
Where there are admitted failings by a landlord, the Ombudsman’s role is to consider whether the redress offered by the landlord put things right and resolved the resident’s complaint satisfactorily in the circumstances. In doing so the Ombudsman considers whether the redress was in accordance with the Dispute Resolution Principles; be fair, put things right and learn from outcomes.
There were multiple shortcomings in the way the landlord handled the resident’s reports. It failed to investigate the noise and potential tenancy breaches from an early stage and while it opened ASB cases, it failed to follow its policy and determine a plan of action. The landlord took 12 months to speak with the neighbour about the noise. It also failed to consider contacting the council and other residents who may have witnessed the noise.
This leads to a finding of maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s ASB reports. An order has been made for the landlord to pay £600 compensation to the resident for the distress, inconvenience, time, and trouble caused. This is in line with the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance for maladministration where there have been failings which have had a significant long-term impact on the resident.

Complaint handling

A landlord’s complaint handling process is an essential part of its overall service delivery. An effective complaints process helps a landlord to identify and address service delivery issues in a timely manner. It will also provide learning for future service provision.
The landlord’s complaints policy sets out the timescales in which the landlord will deal with complaints:
1. It will acknowledge and record a complaint within 2 working days.
2. It will issue a stage 1 response within 10 working days from when the complaint was recorded.
3. The resident should escalate their complaint within 15 working days. In exceptional circumstances, it may consider escalations after this time.
4. It will issue a stage 2 response within 20 working days from the request to escalate the complaint.
The resident made a formal complaint to the landlord on 5 May 2022 about the noise from his neighbour. The landlord acknowledged his complaint the following day and provided a stage 1 response on 20 May 2022. The landlord acted in line with its policy.
On 21 January 2023, the resident contacted the landlord to express his frustration that the noise from his neighbour was ongoing. The resident said he had not been updated on any action the landlord had taken. While the term escalation was not used, the resident’s email was clear that he wanted his complaint to progress. The landlord did not escalate the resident’s complaint or record the resident’s obvious dissatisfaction as a complaint in line with its policy. This was a failing.
The resident’s request was received 8 months after the stage 1 response. While the landlord’s policy requires escalations to be made in 15 working days, it also allows for exceptional circumstances. When the landlord received this, it could have, in line with the Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code:
1. Escalated the complaint to stage 2 – and provide a final response
2. Dealt with the complaint as a new stage 1 complaint to respond to its handling of any new reports of noise nuisance
3. Refuse to accept it as a complaint as it was out of time. The landlord would still have been required to have provided a letter setting out its reasons and allowed the resident to refer the complaint to the Ombudsman.
On 3 March 2023, the Ombudsman intervened and asked the landlord to provide the resident with a response. The landlord contacted the resident by phone on 9 March 2023 and advised him it would raise a new complaint and respond within 10 working days. The landlord acknowledged the resident’s complaint 4 working days after it was contacted by this Service. This was a deviation from its policy position.
The landlord issued its stage 1 complaint response on 2 April 2023 and apologised for failing to recognise the resident’s complaint sooner. It offered the resident £25 compensation for the delay in responding. This was 16 working days after it had recorded the resident’s complaint. This was a further deviation from its policy position.
The landlord states the stage 1 response was sent to the resident by post. The resident disputes he received the response. This is supported by the resident’s calls to the landlord on 23 May, 5 June and 20 June 2023, asking for an update. The landlord did not provide any form of update to the resident. This is likely to have added to his distress and inconvenience. On 22 June 2023, the Ombudsman intervened again and asked the landlord to provide the resident with a response.
The resident escalated his complaint on 27 June 2023 and stated the response was unacceptable. The landlord issued its stage 2 complaint response on 20 July 2023 and apologised for not sending its stage 1 response by email. It increased the compensation for its complaint handling failures to £75. The landlord issued its stage 2 response within 17 working days, in line with its policy.
On 5 April 2024, the landlord wrote to the resident and offered a further £100 compensation for failing to record his complaint when it was first made.
In summary, the landlord’s failure to record the resident’s complaint in January 2023, and its failure to respond to him when he had obviously not received the stage 1 response, have delayed the resolution of this complaint. The resident has also involved the Ombudsman on 2 occasions, to get a response from the landlord. While the landlord has offered an increased amount of compensation (total £175), this was 10 months after the stage 2 response.
While this Service welcomes the fact the landlord looked to revisit the issue to try and put things right, its final compensation offer was 10 months after the resident exhausted the landlord’s complaint procedure on the issue. Considering the time which has passed, this has affected the degree to which the offer puts right the clear failings by the landlord.
This leads to a determination of maladministration in the landlord’s complaint handling. An order has been made for the landlord to pay £200 compensation to the resident for the distress and inconvenience caused. This is line with Ombudsman’s remedies guidance for maladministration where the failure had adversely affected the resident.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s ASB reports.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s complaint handling.

Orders and recommendations

Within 4 weeks of the date of this report, the landlord must:
1. Provide the resident with a written apology for the failings identified within this report.
2. Pay directly to the resident £800 compensation, made up of:
  1. £600 for its failures in handling the resident’s ASB reports.
  2. £200 for its failures in complaint handling.
3. Review the reports of noise nuisance over the past 6 months for the building. The landlord must contact the local authority and inquire what reports have been made to it in the last 6 months. It should also consider reports from other residents about loud music in the past 6 months. The landlord must then:
  1. Complete an updated risk assessment.
4. Provide the resident diary sheets and offer the NoiseApp or noise monitoring equipment to him again and explain the importance of building evidence.
The landlord must reply to this Service with evidence of compliance with the orders within the timescales set out above.