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

The Guinness Partnership Limited (202322181)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202322181

The Guinness Partnership Limited

20 December 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

  1. The complaint is about the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of antisocial behaviour (ASB).

Background

  1. The resident is an assured tenant of the landlord, a housing association. The property is a 1-bedroom flat which is part of a block of 6. The resident has health conditions the landlord is aware of.
  2. Between 4 May 2023 and 1 June 2023, the resident reported incidents of alleged ASB in relation to neighbours in 3 of the other 5 flats in the block. The landlord responded promptly to the issues raised in relation to 2 of the 3 neighbours. However, the resident continued to report issues in relation to a third neighbour that lives opposite him. He said:
    1. His neighbour has carers that visit multiple times a day which disturbs him.
    2. He was unhappy with how often the emergency services visit his neighbour. He is regularly woken by paramedics buzzing the door to access the building in the early hours.
    3. He believes his neighbour is not capable of living independently and would be better suited living somewhere else.
    4. His neighbour and her partner regularly drink heavily and argue into the early hours.
    5. Empty bottles and rubbish including his neighbour’s incontinence pads were regularly left by the communal bins a week before collection.
  3. The resident raised a formal complaint on 27 July 2023. He said the landlord:
    1. Failed to recognise his vulnerabilities as they asked him to complete diary sheets which he found difficult to complete. This was do due to an involuntary tremor in his right hand.
    2. Was inconsistent with its advice regarding noise recordings, and some recordings had “disappeared” within the ASB department.
  4. The landlord did not uphold the complaint and sent its stage 1 complaint response on 17 August 2023, as follows:
    1. It contacted the resident 4 days after he reported alleged ASB from his neighbour. As the resident said he could not complete diary sheets, it suggested using a noise app or noise monitoring equipment for evidence.
    2. It provided contact details for the local authority environmental health team.
    3. It asked if he would reconsider using the noise app on 28 July 2023 and said it needed evidence before it could progress an ASB case regarding noise.
    4. It had engaged with the resident’s neighbour.
  5. The resident requested to escalate the complaint on 25 August 2023. The landlord partially upheld the complaint and sent its stage 2 complaint response on 20 September 2023. It said:
    1. His ASB reports had been handled correctly and in line with its policies and procedures.
    2. It acted appropriately and tried to help him gather evidence to support his reports.
    3. It apologised for the 7-day delay sending the stage 1 complaint response and offered £35 compensation for this.
    4. It identified 2 failed callback requests which it apologised for. It offered £25 for the poor communication.

Events after the end of the landlord’s complaint process.

  1. After the landlord sent its stage 2 response, the resident continued to email and phone the landlord to report the same issues about his neighbour. There were a further 19 emails and 5 phone calls between 21 September 2023 and 27 November 2023. He contacted this service on 27 September 2023.
  2. In a phone call with this service on 6 December 2024, the resident said his neighbour was currently not at her flat.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

  1. During the complaint journey, the resident told the landlord about the “extreme impact” the ASB is having on his physical and mental health. The Ombudsman does not doubt these comments, but it is beyond the remit of this Service to make a determination on whether there was a direct link between the landlord’s action/lack of action and the resident’s health. The resident may wish to seek independent advice on making a personal injury claim if he considers that his health has been affected by any action or failure by the landlord (reflected at paragraph 42.f. of the Scheme). While the Ombudsman cannot consider the effect on health, consideration has been given to any general distress and inconvenience which the resident experienced as a result of any service failure by the landlord.
  2. The resident said the ASB had “gone on for the last 8-10 years.” It is not clear if the resident ever previously complained to the landlord about this. There is no record of him escalating any complaint to this service prior to his contact on 27 September 2023. This Service encourages residents to raise complaints in a timely manner, normally within 12 months of the issues arising, so that the landlord can consider them whilst they are still ‘live’ and whilst the evidence is available to properly investigate (reflected at paragraph 42.c. of the Scheme).
  3. This service is also aware of complaints raised by another neighbour in the block in relation to the landlord’s handling of ASB. This report will only consider how the landlord handled this resident’s complaint.
  4. No evidence has been provided from either party in relation to any previous ASB investigation in relation to his neighbours. The starting point for this investigation will therefore be 2 June 2023 when the resident reported his neighbour and her partner had returned to the property and started shouting. The end point is when the landlord issued its stage 2 complaint response.
  5. During the investigation, the Ombudsman has considered how the landlord has responded to the resident’s reports of ASB. It is evident that this situation has been distressing to the resident. However, it may help to explain that it is not the Ombudsman’s role to decide if the actions reported amount to ASB or statutory noise nuisance, but rather whether the landlord responded to and managed the resident’s reports appropriately and reasonably.

The landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of ASB.

  1. The tenancy agreement states “the landlord will not tolerate anti-social behaviour, including harassment, victimisation, annoyance, or nuisance… and will take action within our powers and under its policies and procedures to deal with these.”
  2. The landlord’s ASB policy says:
    1. It does not consider “low-level” neighbour disputes as ASB.
    2. It is important that neighbours and their guests are considerate and understanding of others.
    3. The landlord expects residents to tolerate the different lifestyles of others so long as their lifestyle is reasonable.
    4. People have a right to enjoy their homes and are entitled to go about their daily lives without having concerns that complaints will be made against them.
    5. If residents cannot solve their problems with their neighbours, the landlord may act. It would carry out a risk assessment to assess the impact the ASB is having on the individual and whether they are vulnerable and have any support needs. Where required, it would make referrals to appropriate support agencies.
    6. It will keep residents proactively informed about its response to reports and progress in dealing with ASB.
    7. It will consider the needs of each household member for all households involved. This includes the complainant and alleged perpetrator.
    8. It will use mediation to try and resolve ASB before it escalates.
  3. When investigating a complaint, the Ombudsman applies its Dispute Resolution Principles, which include treating people fairly, following fair processes, putting things right, and learning from outcomes. The Ombudsman must first consider whether a failure on the landlord’s part occurred and, if so, whether this adversely affected or caused detriment to the resident. If a failure by the landlord adversely affected the resident, the investigation will then consider whether the landlord took enough action to ‘put things right’ and learn from the outcome.
  4. The landlord’s notes said it called the resident on 6 June 2023 to discuss the noise from his neighbour’s property. The landlord:
    1. Offered to send diary sheets (which it noted the resident said he was not prepared to complete).
    2. Said the resident could [use a] noise app to record the noise from his neighbour (however the resident said the app did not record for very long).
    3. Suggested the resident contact the local authority environmental health team for noise monitoring equipment (but the resident said there was a long wait).
    4. Noted the resident hung up the phone before a risk assessment could be completed.
    5. Noted the resident said he may speak to his neighbour in relation to her partner.

The landlord then closed the case and sent written confirmation to the resident. The landlord acted appropriately and in line with its policy, which says it encourages residents to resolve their matters with their neighbours where it is safe and appropriate. However, it was not clear whether it managed the resident’s expectations. It would have been reasonable to clarify the evidence it required before it could consider opening an ASB case and taking any action against his neighbour.

  1. The landlord’s notes show the resident called on 13 June 2023 as he wanted to know how to use the noise app to record noise. An internal email sent the same day showed the landlord requested for the customer liaison officer to visit the resident. However, there was no evidence to show that this visit took place. This was unreasonable as it denied the resident the opportunity to record potential evidence of noise from his neighbour.
  2. The resident emailed the landlord on 15 June 2023 after he received the letter to confirm the ASB case against his neighbour had been closed. He said:
    1. He could not complete diary sheets due to his health (an involuntary tremor).
    2. He had not refused to use the noise app but was concerned who in the tenancy enforcement team would listen to the recordings.
    3. He had not refused to contact the local authority, but there was a queue for noise monitoring equipment.

After no response, he called the landlord on 19 June 2023 to report his neighbour being drunk, noise, shouting, and a bad smell from his neighbour’s flat. This was a missed opportunity for the landlord to arrange the appointment for the noise app to help the resident gather evidence and complete a risk assessment. It could also have taken the opportunity to manage the resident’s expectations in relation to the evidence it required to re-open an ASB case. There was no evidence it did any of the above, which represents a failing.

  1. After further emails on 21 June 2023, the landlord phoned the resident. It explained it was limited to the actions it could take regarding emergency services attending and with his neighbour’s lifestyle. This was reasonable, however there was again nothing to show it arranged to help the resident gather evidence.
  2. The landlord visited the resident’s neighbour on 27 June 2023 and noted it would arrange a follow-on appointment with her. It also said it had emailed the resident to arrange an appointment [for the noise app] for the same day, but he did not respond. No evidence of this email was provided to this service. The resident called for an update on 29 June 2023. The landlord further managed his expectations regarding the limited action it could take in relation to emergency services and carers attending his neighbour’s address. This was reasonable. It sent a further email to the resident on 7 July 2023 to reiterate the point.
  3. The landlord visited the neighbour again on 12 July 2023 to discuss the ongoing reports. It was not clear if the landlord tried to visit the resident the same day, however it would have been reasonable for it to do so. The lack of communication led the resident to email the landlord and requested to be contacted on 21 July 2023. However, there was no evidence he was contacted which was a failing. He raised a formal complaint a week later.
  4. The resident chased again on 15 August 2023 for a call back. The landlord promptly rang the next day and noted the resident reported the same historical issues. The landlord said it was “working with his neighbour” which was a reasonable update to provide.
  5. From 5 June 2023 to 21 July 2023 (before the formal complaint was raised), the resident contacted the landlord either by phone or email on at least 14 occasions to report further incidents. In the 34 days between the stage 1 and 2 complaints responses, the resident contacted the landlord on at least 20 occasions in relation to his neighbour. The Ombudsman acknowledges the perceived lack of action was frustrating to the resident. However, in order for a landlord to take any action against an alleged perpetrator of ASB, it needs to have evidence. There was no evidence the resident had provided any evidence for the landlord to open an ASB case against his neighbour and take action.
  6. The resident reported further incidents with his neighbour and the police attending on 24 August 2023. The landlord called the resident promptly the next day and again tried to manage his expectations.
  7. The evidence showed overall the landlord’s communication with the resident was poor. This was in terms of both keeping him updated and the clarity of the message provided to him to manage his expectations. Whilst the landlord initially took some steps to manage the situation (diary sheets, noise app recordings and local authority support), there were failings in its handling of the reports. There was no evidence the landlord:
    1. Was proactive in contacting the resident to conduct a risk assessment despite continued reports. Its policy says it would carry out a risk assessment to assess the impact the ASB is having on the individual and whether they are vulnerable and have any support needs. By understanding the risks, the landlord would have been in a better position to determine the appropriate actions needed to address the issue. 
    2. Offered support to the resident, in terms of his own vulnerabilities/health and how he could provide evidence to support his reports of ASB. Having been aware of the resident’s vulnerabilities, the landlord could have explored variations of service delivery to support him. This was unreasonable as without help to document any evidence of ASB, the resident was left to continue to email and phone. This was a failing as he went round in circles reporting the same incidents that were not considered as evidence or part of an ASB investigation.
    3. Managed the resident’s expectations effectively regarding either an action plan or the evidence it required. This contributed to the resident continuing to report incidents to the landlord.
    4. Offered mediation between the neighbours. Whilst the landlord did not have an ASB case open due to the lack of evidence, it could have offered mediation in line with its policy.

Determination

  1. In accordance with Paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord regarding its handling of the resident’s reports of ASB.

Orders and recommendations

  1. Within 4 weeks of the date of this report, the landlord is ordered to:
    1. Pay the resident £300 compensation (less the £25 offered in the stage 2 response if this has already been paid) for the inconvenience, distress, time and trouble caused by its handling of his ASB reports.
    2. Offer the resident a meeting to discuss any ongoing concerns. Following the meeting, it should write to this service within 2 weeks to confirm the outcome.