Wandle Housing Association Limited (202216072)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202216072

Wandle Housing Association Limited

31 January 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:
1. Handling of the resident’s reports of antisocial behaviour and noise nuisance from her neighbour.
2. Decision to offer the resident’s neighbour an assured tenancy.
3. Response to the resident’s concerns it had discriminated against her by granting her a starter tenancy and not an assured tenancy.
4. Handling of the associated complaints.

Background

The resident is an assured tenant of the landlord. She moved into the property, a 3-bed house, in April 2012. The landlord granted the resident a starter tenancy, this became an assured tenancy after 1 year.
The landlord’s records show the resident has made it aware that she has mental health conditions including post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) and experiences panic attacks. She stated that some of her conditions were caused or worsened by the antisocial behaviour (ASB) and noise nuisance she has experienced.
The records show that the resident began reporting ASB from her neighbour in May 2022. She reported that they were having loud parties and smoking cannabis. In September 2022 she began reporting noise nuisance from her neighbour’s child.
On 9 September 2022 the resident asked the landlord to raise a complaint regarding its handling of noise nuisance from her neighbour’s child. The landlord raised this as a complaint (Complaint 1).
The landlord emailed the resident on 16 September 2022. It said the email was in response to Complaint 1. It said:
1. Its ASB officer was investigating the issues with the resident’s neighbour.
2. It understood that her neighbour’s child had a diagnosis of autism and displayed behaviour which was “beyond his control”.
3. This did not mean that she should be experiencing the issues she had raised.
4. It asked that she consider attending mediation to see if “common ground and a compromise [could] be found”.
On 7 March 2023 the resident asked the landlord to raise a formal complaint (Complaint 2). She said that she had held a secure tenancy with the local authority immediately prior to moving into her current home. She said that the landlord gave her a starter tenancy when she moved in. She had learned that the landlord had given her neighbour an assured tenancy when they moved to their property. She said that this was discrimination and had impacted the landlord’s handling of the ongoing ASB.
The landlord acknowledged Complaint 2 on 20 March 2023.
On 24 March 2023 the resident told the landlord she wanted to raise a complaint about its handling of her concerns that her neighbour was committing tenancy fraud. She said she was also unhappy with its response to her reports of ASB from her neighbour.
The landlord provided its stage 1 response to Complaint 2 on 31 March 2023. It said:
1. Starter tenancy:
  1. It could not share information about her neighbour’s tenancy due to data protection.
  2. It was “normal practice” to offer new tenants a starter tenancy.
  3. There were many reasons why a tenant may be offered an assured tenancy.
  4. It had not discriminated against the resident and had offered her and her neighbour the “correct type of tenancy as required”.
2. ASB:
  1. It outlined the main actions it had taken in the case. This included meeting with both parties and issuing a warning letter to her neighbour.
  2. It was also working with other agencies including the local authority noise team, police, and social care. The police and local authority had both issued her neighbour with warnings.
  3. It had discussed with her the possibility of applying for an injunction against her neighbour.
  4. There had been no failure in how it handled the case.
The resident asked the landlord to escalate the complaint to stage 2 on 31 March 2023. She said:
1. The landlord had told her that it had given her neighbour an assured tenancy because she had previously been a secure tenant of the local authority. She had also been a secure tenant prior to moving into the property, but was given a starter tenancy.
2. The ASB case had been “dragging on” since May 2022. The landlord had completed the actions it had listed in 2023; but it had not explained why it did not act sooner.
3. It had not responded to her complaints about noise nuisance from her neighbour’s child and suspected tenancy fraud.
The landlord acknowledged the stage 2 escalation on 31 March 2023. It provided its stage 2 complaint response on 24 April 2023. It said:
1. Tenancy type:
  1. It had adhered to its tenure policy in relation to the type of tenancy granted to the resident and her neighbour. It had not discriminated against her. As she was a new tenant to the landlord it had given her a starter tenancy.
  2. It could not give information on her neighbour’s tenancy. One of the officers who she had stated had discussed her neighbour’s tenancy type no longer worked for the organisation. The other could not recall informing the resident of this. It could not therefore confirm that they had provided this information.
  3. While its stage 1 response had been correct it could have provided more detail from its policy to explain its decision. It offered £10 compensation for the inconvenience of her having to escalate her complaint.
2. ASB:
  1. It had carried out several actions to gather evidence and stop her neighbour’s behaviour.
  2. It was working with an external ASB consultant to ensure it was taking proportionate steps to resolve the ASB.
  3. Her concerns regarding the behaviour of her neighbour’s child were recorded on its ASB file.
  4. It had acted in accordance with its ASB policy and did not uphold the complaint.
On 13 May 2023 and 7 June 2023 the resident advised the landlord that there were aspects of her complaint that it had not responded to.
On 7 July 2023 the landlord emailed the resident and acknowledged that it had received her stage 2 complaint. It is not clear what complaint this referred to. On 3 October 2023, in response to a request by the resident for an update on her complaint, the landlord said it had already provided a final complaint response on 24 April 2023. It said that it had raised a further stage 2 complaint on 7 July 2023 in error and that in line with its complaint policy it would not consider the same complaint twice.

Legal and policy framework

The landlord’s ASB policy states that it considers “persistent noise nuisance” and “noise nuisance outside of sociable hours” to be ASB. It also states that it would not consider children playing “to a reasonable level, during normal daytime hours” to be ASB.
The ASB policy states the landlord will carry out a risk assessment in all cases and will agree an action plan with the resident.
The landlord’s ASB procedure says that where formal warnings haven’t stopped the ASB and there is “reliable evidence” that the ASB has continued, it will consider using an acceptable behaviour contract (ABC) or taking legal action.
The landlord’s tenure policy states that it will grant starter tenancies to “new tenants who do not already hold a social housing tenancy with [the landlord]”.
The landlord’s starter tenancy procedure states it will give starter tenancies to all incoming tenants except those who are:
1. Existing tenants of the landlord who are transferring to another property.
2. Moving as part of a mutual exchange.
3. Existing assured or secure tenants of the local authority or another social landlord where there is no evidence of them being involved in ASB or other tenancy breaches.
The Regulator of Social Housing (RSH) is responsible for ensuring that social landlords meet the standards set for them. One such standard is the ‘tenancy standard’. This states that social landlords must grant incoming tenants a tenancy with the same security of tenure as they had with their previous social landlord.
The landlord’s complaint policy states it will acknowledge complaints within 5 working days. It says it will respond to stage 1 complaint within 10 working days and stage 2 complaints within 20 working days.

Assessment and findings

Jurisdiction

What we can and cannot consider is called the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction. This is governed by the Housing Ombudsman Scheme. When a complaint is brought to the Ombudsman, we must consider all the circumstances of the case as there are sometimes reasons why a complaint will not be investigated.
After carefully considering all the evidence, in accordance with paragraph 34.a. of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the following aspect of the complaint is outside of the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction:
1. [the landlord’s] Decision to offer the resident’s neighbour an assured tenancy.
Paragraph 34.a of the Scheme states that we will investigate complaints which relate to the actions or omissions of a member which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, have affected the complainant in respect of their application for, or occupation of, property.
The landlord’s decision to grant the resident’s neighbour an assured tenancy rather than a starter tenancy affects the neighbour’s use and occupation of the property. It does not affect the resident’s use and occupation of her own property. We understand that the resident feels that the landlord’s decision to grant her neighbour an assured tenancy meant that it could not end the tenancy under section 21 of the Housing Act 1998. This is of concern to the resident given the ASB she has been experiencing. It is acknowledged that the resident is unhappy with the landlord’s handling of ASB matters, and we have considered this separately. However, the type of tenancy that her neighbour was granted does not directly affect the resident in relation to her occupation of her home and for that reason this complaint falls outside of the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction.

Scope of the investigation

We acknowledge that the landlord has not considered the resident’s concerns regarding noise nuisance from her neighbour’s child at stage 2 of its internal complaint process. We consider however that it had several opportunities to do consider this matter but failed to do so. We have therefore assessed the landlord’s handling of this matter as part of this investigation.
This Service accepts that the landlord’s decision to offer the resident a starter tenancy rather than an assured tenancy took place in 2012. Such a timeframe would usually be outside the scope of our investigation. However, as the landlord responded to this during the course of the complaint, we have assessed its response and considered the matter further.
We acknowledge the resident’s concern that the landlord discriminated against her when it granted her a starter, rather than an assured, tenancy. Whether or not the landlord has breached the Equality Act 2010 is a matter that would appropriately be decided by a court, not the Ombudsman. We have not therefore considered whether there was discrimination in this case. We have, however, considered whether the landlord’s actions were reasonable and in line with its policy and procedure. The resident may wish to contact Citizen’s Advice for further guidance about a discrimination claim.
The resident has raised concerns regarding the landlord’s response to her reports that her neighbour was engaging in tenancy fraud. This complaint has not completed the landlord’s internal complaint process. This was however due to a complaint handling failure by the landlord as it failed to respond to the complaint despite the resident chasing for a response several times. While this complaint is within the jurisdiction of this Service, we do not have sufficient evidence to carry out a full investigation. We have however considered this issue within our complaint handling assessment.
This Service would not usually consider events that have occurred after the end of the landlord’s internal complaint process. This is because the landlord should be given the opportunity to respond to these events in a complaint response. In this case however, the resident tried to complain formally about the landlord’s handling of the continued ASB and noise nuisance. The landlord had the opportunity to respond to these concerns by raising a new complaint, but it failed to do so.
We have therefore considered events that took place after the landlord’s stage 2 complaint response up to October 2023. This was when the landlord advised the resident that it would not consider the issue again and signposted her to this Service.

Handling of the resident’s reports of antisocial behaviour and noise nuisance from her neighbour.

We acknowledge that the incidents the resident has reported have had an impact on her and on her family. However, when considering complaints relating to ASB, it is not the role of the Service to reach a decision on whether ASB has occurred. Instead, our role is to consider whether the landlord has taken reasonable and appropriate steps to respond to the resident’s reports. This report will therefore assess whether the landlord has acted in accordance with its policies and procedures and acted in a manner that is fair and reasonable in all of the circumstances.
The evidence shows that the resident began reporting ASB from her neighbour in May 2022. The resident stated that she reported ASB to the landlord approximately every week. However the landlord has not provided records of any reports between May 2022 and August 2022. It is not clear whether this is because it did not receive any reports or because it did not record the reports. Given the absence of evidence, we are unable to assess the landlord’s handling of ASB during this period.
The landlord’s ASB policy and procedure state that it will complete a risk assessment in all cases. The landlord has advised, in response to a specific request from this Service, that it has been unable to locate any risk assessments in this case. It said that it transferred the case records from an old case management system and that such records may have been lost during this process. That the landlord has been unable to demonstrate that it completed an initial risk assessment is a failure to adhere to government guidance and its own policy and procedure. The landlord missed this opportunity to ensure the resident was adequately supported.
In August 2022 the resident reported that her neighbour had held a loud party until 4.30am. She also reported her neighbour and her visitors were smoking cannabis in the garden and that she and her children could smell this in their home. Following this report the landlord asked the resident’s neighbour to contact it so the report could be discussed. It was reasonable for the landlord to discuss the report with the neighbour and to obtain her comments before considering what to do next.
In September 2022, an external ASB consultant conducted a review of the case. The consultant said that it was unclear what action the landlord had taken in the case and that there was no evidence of a formal action plan being agreed with the resident.
That the landlord employs an external consultant to provide a routine review of its cases is positive. This demonstrates that it is committed to improving its ASB services. However, we would reasonably expect the landlord to act on the advice of its consultant. We have not seen evidence that it agreed a sufficiently thorough action plan with the resident until November 2022. This was unreasonable and a departure from the landlord’s policy.
On 9 September 2022 the resident reported noise nuisance from her neighbour’s child who she said had autism. She said the child was “running around banging” from 4am every morning. We have not seen that the landlord responded to address this report. This was unreasonable.
On 15 September 2022 the resident asked the landlord for an update on the ASB and noise nuisance case. She said she was off work sick with stress due to the ASB and that her children were struggling at school due to being kept awake at night.
The following day the resident reported that her neighbour had again held a loud party which continued until 5am. She said she could hear the neighbour’s child screaming and banging in the early hours of the morning too. The landlord responded and asked if the resident would be willing to attend mediation with her neighbour. The resident replied and said that she had tried to discuss matters with her neighbour but she had been abusive. She said she was therefore not willing to attend mediation. The resident attached recordings of the noise she could hear from her neighbour’s property.
This Service considers that it was reasonable and proportionate of the landlord to offer mediation at this stage. Mediation is often effective in cases of noise nuisance and ASB where lifestyle differences are a factor. We accept however the resident’s reasons for declining the offer, and it is noted that to be successful, mediation requires the full engagement and cooperation of both parties.
The landlord advised the resident that it only had 2 ASB officers who dealt with ASB cases across all its properties. It said it prioritised cases based on risk and that therefore she would “need to continue to remain patient”. It advised that she could contact social care anonymously if she had safeguarding concerns about her neighbour’s children. This Service notes that the tone used by the landlord in this communication lacked empathy and was abrupt. This was unreasonable.
The landlord asked the resident to continue to provide evidence of noise nuisance and other ASB. However it said it was unable to access the recordings she had sent and asked if she could send them in a different format. The resident then sent the landlord a link to access the recordings on a cloud-based storage system. This was reasonable and ensured that the resident was able to provide evidence for the landlord’s consideration.
On 19 September 2022 the resident advised that another neighbour had asked for the contact details of the landlord’s ASB officer. She said they also wished to report ASB by her neighbour. We have seen no evidence that the landlord contacted the witness identified by the resident. This was a missed opportunity to gather further evidence.
The evidence shows that in a telephone call on 22 September 2022 the landlord “agreed an action plan” with the resident. The landlord said that the action plan was for it to contact her neighbour.
While the landlord was attempting to take on board its consultant’s advice to agree an action plan, we do not consider that it stating that it would contact the resident’s neighbour constituted a satisfactory plan. An action plan is an agreement between the landlord and resident which sets out what each agrees to do to progress the ASB investigation. An action plan should be specific and contain timeframes for each action, it should also be reviewed regularly. This was a missed opportunity to manage the resident’s expectations and to ensure it was clear on how it would respond to any further reports.
The landlord wrote to the resident’s neighbour on 23 September 2022 and outlined the reports of ASB it had received. It reminded the neighbour of the terms of her tenancy and warned against further ASB. This was reasonable.
In late September 2022 the resident reported further ASB from her neighbour. She said her neighbour had a party which continued until approximately 4am and that her visitors were drunk and smoking cannabis. She sent a recording of the incident to the landlord via a messaging platform. The landlord acknowledged the report.
The resident also reported this incident to the local authority environmental health department (EHD) which contacted the landlord. The landlord advised it was aware of the issue and was gathering evidence. It asked what action the EHD intended to take and asked if it would consider issuing a community protection warning (CPW). The landlord said it would consider taking tenancy enforcement action if the EHD issued a CPW. The EHD responded and said that it would only act if it witnessed loud music from the neighbour’s property. It said that as it had not done so it was the landlord’s responsibility to address the issue.
It is not clear why the landlord was waiting for the EHD to act before it considered taking enforcement action itself. We acknowledge that action by other agencies would provide evidence to support action by the landlord. However, this was not a prerequisite for it to act. We consider that the EHD was correct that it was the landlord’s responsibility to ensure it enforced the terms of the tenancy agreement.
On 28 September 2022 the landlord advised the resident that it could not access the recordings she had sent. The evidence shows the resident had sent the recordings to the landlord by email, by cloud-based system, and by the messaging platform. If the landlord was unable to access any of these formats, we would reasonably expect it to tell the resident what format she should provide the recordings in. That it did not was unreasonable.
The resident contacted the landlord on 3 October 2022. She asked if it would consider other options for reducing the noise from her neighbour’s property such as installing carpets or sound insulation. The landlord replied that installing carpet was the tenant’s responsibility but that it would suggest that her neighbour do so and that it may consider providing insulation.
While we accept that the landlord was not obliged to provide carpeting, it would have been proportionate and appropriate for it to consider doing so on a discretionary basis. This is explored in more detail in our Spotlight Report on noise complaints which we would encourage the landlord to consider. Such a measure may have provided a cost saving as opposed to the investment of staff time in investigating and responding to reports of noise transference.
The landlord contacted the resident on 5 October 2022 in response to her request for an update. It appreciated that her neighbour’s son’s behaviour may “seem” to constitute a noise nuisance. However, it would be difficult to take tenancy action against a person with a “diagnosed behaviour difficulty”. It said it had discussed the child’s behaviour with her neighbour and believed she was taking steps to address the issue.
The Equality Act 2010 says that landlords cannot discriminate against disabled people by treating them less favourably because of their disability. This would include taking legal action against their tenancy unless the action was “justified”. If disabilities are involved, the landlord would have to show they had considered all other remedies and support before acting. It was therefore reasonable that it attempted to manage the resident’s expectations about the action it may take regarding the noise caused by her neighbour’s child.
This Service accepts that there are additional considerations that landlords must take prior to taking legal action in cases where the defendant or their household has a physical or mental disability. It is not however correct to say, as the landlord has done in this case, that it cannot address behaviour by such residents. The landlord should reasonably carry out a formal justification exercise prior to commencing legal action against a person known to have a relevant disability. Where there are known disabilities or support needs, before any legal action is taken, the landlord must consider a person’s capacity to:
1. Understand that their behaviour is unacceptable.
2. Control their behaviour.
3. Understand the consequences of their behaviour, if it continues.
4. Understand any requirements or prohibitions set, including those set out in Court Orders.
We have not seen evidence that the landlord carried out any such justification exercises in this case.
The landlord issued the resident’s neighbour with a warning letter on 5 October 2022. It outlined the ASB reports, reminded her of the terms of her tenancy, and advised that it may take legal action if her behaviour continued. The landlord asked the neighbour to attend its office for an appointment to discuss the issue. This action was reasonable.
At the end of October 2022 the resident reported further ASB from her neighbour. She said her neighbour had held further parties which went on into the early hours of the morning with loud music, cannabis use, shouting and fighting. She asked if she could attend the landlord’s office to show it her recordings of the incidents as she was aware it could not access those she had previously sent. The resident asked what the action plan was to address the issue.
The landlord contacted the police on 3 November 2022 and asked if it would consider issuing a CPW. The police replied that it would issue an ASB warning in the first instance but could consider a CPW if the issue continued.
On 5 November 2022 the landlord emailed the resident following a meeting with her. It provided an action plan which said:
1. The resident would continue to complete diary sheets and gather video recordings.
2. The landlord:
  1. Had contacted the police and EHD and would continue to work with them in “a more joined up approach”.
  2. Had given the neighbour a written warning.
  3. Would attend the next residents’ meeting.

While it was positive that the landlord agreed an action plan, we consider that it should reasonably have done so earlier in the case.

The landlord met the resident’s neighbour on 10 November 2022. It emailed the resident 4 days later to update her. It said it had put the reports to her neighbour who had agreed to change her behaviour and attend mediation. The landlord asked if the resident was willing to attend. The resident advised she was not willing to attend mediation due to experiences of verbal abuse by her neighbour.
On 23 November 2022 the landlord updated the police regarding its recent actions. It said it had met with the resident’s neighbour and had issued her with a ‘final tenancy warning’.
In early December 2022 the resident reported further ASB and noise nuisance from the resident. The reported behaviour included a loud party, music, cannabis use, and the child banging, screaming, and crying. The resident provided the name of an independent witness to one of the incidents. The landlord advised the resident that no other witnesses had contacted it.
On this and several other occasions the resident told the landlord that there were other witnesses to the ASB. Despite this, we have seen no evidence that it attempted to contact these witnesses to obtain statements. Such action would have been reasonable and proportionate given the significant detrimental impact the reported behaviour was having on the resident. This was a missed opportunity to gather independent evidence to aid its investigations.
The landlord contacted the police following the resident’s report and asked it to act. The police advised that while it had seen CCTV of the neighbour smoking, it could not verify that she was smoking cannabis. It advised that it had previously issued an ASB warning.
The evidence shows the landlord put the reports to the resident’s neighbour and issued a further verbal warning. This was reasonable and proportionate considering the persistence and impact of the ASB.
In early February 2023 the resident reported that she continued to experience parties, banging doors, arguments, and drug use from her neighbour and her partner. She also reported that she continued to hear screaming from her neighbour’s child. The landlord responded and said that it required evidence to apply for an ASB injunction. It asked if the resident had video evidence and if she was prepared to give a statement and attend court. The resident responded providing video recordings and said she and her partner were willing to attend court.
Following the resident’s reports of safeguarding concerns the evidence shows that landlord took appropriate action in line with its statutory obligations.
The resident continued reporting issues with her neighbour throughout February 2023. She described parties and loud music along with “daily” noise from her neighbour’s child screaming, banging on walls, and banging doors between 2am and 5am. She said her own children had fallen asleep at school as they had been kept awake at night.
The landlord replied to the resident and said it was working with the police and EHD to determine what action to take. It asked the resident to provide a formal statement.
On 7 March 2023 the resident reported that her neighbour’s partner had been verbally abusive and physically threatening towards her. The landlord contacted the resident by telephone to discuss the incident and she said she wanted it to act against her neighbour.
We have seen evidence that the landlord contacted the resident’s neighbour in relation to a meeting. However, there is nothing to demonstrate that the landlord actively pursued this and it went ahead. Considering the nature of the report and as it had issued a ‘final’ warning approximately 3 months earlier, we would have reasonably expected the landlord to act more decisively.
On 10 March 2023 the resident reported that a visitor to her neighbour’s property was kicking her front door. She advised she had CCTV evidence of this. Following this report the landlord contacted the police and asked if it could provide additional patrols of the area. It also contacted the EHD and again asked it to consider serving a CPW against the resident’s neighbour. It said that this would provide further evidence to support legal action against the tenancy.
We consider that the landlord’s actions were reasonable and proportionate and demonstrated good partnership working. We also consider however that the landlord should reasonably have considered taking its own enforcement action rather than waiting for its partners to act. The EHD and police must meet a higher burden of proof to issue the warnings and notices available to them. The civil standard of proof which applies to landlords in legal cases against a tenancy is lower. It does not therefore follow that the landlord was unable to act because other agencies had insufficient evidence to do so.
The resident continued to report noise nuisance from the neighbour’s child throughout March and April 2023. She said there had been no parties or drug use as her neighbour was not staying in the property. The neighbour had left her child at home in the care of a family member. The landlord’s records show that it acted appropriately in response to the resident’s safeguarding concerns.
The resident told the landlord that she felt stressed and unable to go to work. She said she was experiencing depression and anxiety attacks.
In early April 2023 the landlord sought advice on the case from its external ASB consultant. The consultant asked the landlord if it had reviewed the recordings submitted by the resident. It also advised the landlord to again invite the resident’s neighbour to the office to give her the opportunity to respond to the recent reports. That the landlord sought advice was reasonable. We have not however seen evidence that the landlord acted on this advice and asked the neighbour to meet for over a month. This was an unreasonable delay.
On 28 April 2023 the landlord advised the resident that the ASB case was with its legal team. It said it needed to conduct an ‘equality impact statement’ prior to deciding whether to take legal action. The landlord has not provided this Service with evidence that demonstrates that the case was considered by its legal team. It would have been reasonable for the landlord to keep a record of any discussions with its legal team and any advice obtained and for it to share this with this Service. That it has not done so is a record keeping issue.
On 5 May 2023 the landlord issued the resident’s neighbour with a further warning.
Throughout May 2023 the resident reported disturbances from her neighbour having parties, playing loud music and smoking cannabis. She also reported that her neighbour’s child was screaming in the early hours of the morning. The resident said she was “at the edge of doing something to [herself]”. We have seen no evidence that the landlord contacted the resident to discuss her statement.
Had the landlord completed and regularly updated a risk assessment, the impact on the resident’s mental health would reasonably have been highlighted. We would have reasonably expected the landlord to take steps to satisfy itself that the resident was not at risk of harming herself and to signpost her to appropriate support. That we have not seen evidence of this is concerning and inappropriate.
On 16 May 2023 the landlord advised the resident that it was in the process of drafting her witness statement which she would need to sign prior to it applying to court. We cannot establish whether the landlord’s actions were appropriate as we have no further evidence.
The local authority contacted the landlord on 17 May 2023 to arrange a ‘community trigger’ meeting following an application by the resident. The community tigger is now referred to as an ‘ASB case review’. An ASB case review gives victims of serious or persistent ASB the right to request a multi-agency review of their case.
The evidence shows that an ASB case review was completed. It has not been possible for us to establish when the meeting took place or what the outcome was.
The evidence shows that in May 2023 the landlord continued to work with the neighbour in relation to the reports it had received. It advised the resident that it had finished drafting her witness statement and notified the neighbour that it would be taking enforcement action.
In June 2023 the resident reported further ASB from her neighbour and asked for an update on the legal case. She said the issue was impacting her physical and mental health and said she was “very close [to] killing [herself]” as the issue was “unbearable”. The landlord replied to the resident 11 days later but did not acknowledge or address her statement about harming herself. That it did not do so was unsympathetic, inappropriate and a serious failing.
In July 2023 the resident again asked for an update on the legal case. She said she continued to experience noise nuisance from her neighbour’s child. The landlord said it would get an update from its legal team for her. We have not seen evidence that it did so and this was unreasonable.
At the end of July 2023 the landlord asked the resident if it could inspect her home with a view to carrying out works to reduce noise transfer from her neighbour’s property. The resident said she had asked the landlord to consider sound insulation a year ago and asked why it was only considering this option now. She said she had previously instructed a builder to inspect the building and they had found:
1. There was no insulation in the party wall.
2. The stairs at both properties used “the same planks”.

She also said that her neighbour did not have carpets. She said that the issue was with her neighbour’s property so the landlord should inspect that property rather than her own.

That the landlord was considering undertaking such works is positive and demonstrates that it was resolution-focussed. We however understand the resident’s frustration the landlord did not explore the possibility of carrying out such works 9 months earlier when they were queried by her.
On 11 August 2023 the landlord advised the resident that it was consulting with its legal team about the case. It said that as there had been no ASB, other than noise from the neighbour’s child, “for some time” it was considering its options. This Services notes that at that time it had been 2 months since the resident’s last report of ASB from parties, music and drug use.
In September 2023 the resident reported parties and drug use at her neighbour’s property on 2 separate occasions. She also reported on several occasions that her neighbour’s child had caused a disturbance by banging on walls in the early hours and causing damage to her front door.
The landlord replied and said it was happy to carry out testing in her property with a view to carrying out works to reduce noise transference. It also said that it would refer the matter back to its legal team. That the landlord offered to carry out such testing again was reasonable and proportionate.
In response to the reports, the landlord informed the neighbour that if the reports continued it would apply for an injunction. It was reasonable that the landlord made the neighbour aware of the reports against her and warned her of the potential consequences. We note however that the landlord had already issued her with several warnings, including a ‘final’ warning in November 2022. The landlord had not followed through on its previous warnings and this would have indicated to the resident’s neighbour that the warnings were empty.
On 19 October 2023 the landlord inspected the neighbour’s property. It noted that there was no carpet in several areas of the property. As there were 3 young children in the property, it considered that this was likely contributing to noise transference. The records show that the landlord applied internally for funding to install carpet to the property. This was reasonable.
The following day the landlord updated the resident. It again asked for access to her property. It explained that it required access to both properties to carry out noise transference testing. The resident replied and said that she was experiencing some personal issues and asked if it could arrange the testing in the new year. It is accepted that this will have caused some delays to identifying potential remedies.
Overall, while we accept that there have been some areas of good practice, the landlord has failed to:
1. Carry out a risk assessment.
2. Promptly agree a satisfactory action plan with the resident.
3. Contact independent witnesses.
4. Act with empathy towards the resident and signpost her for support when she reported feeling suicidal.
5. Effectively manage the expectations of the resident.
6. Appropriately consider what action it could take in relation to the neighbour.
7. Take ownership of the problem instead of relying on partner agencies to act.
8. Demonstrate that it referred the case to its legal team.
Therefore we have made a finding of maladministration in relation to the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of ASB and noise nuisance from her neighbour.

Response to the resident’s concerns that the landlord granted her a starter tenancy and not an assured tenancy.

On 3 March the resident asked the landlord why she had been granted a starter tenancy when she moved to the property. She said her neighbour had been granted an assured tenancy and said she felt discriminated against.
In response to an email from the landlord several days later the resident added that she had moved to the property from a local authority tenancy. She asked if the landlord had given her a starter tenancy because she was “foreign”.
The landlord stated in its stage 1 response to complaint 2 that it had offered her the correct type of tenancy in line with its policy. It repeated this stance in its stage 2 response.
The landlord’s own policy and procedure states that it will grant a starter tenancy to all new tenants. This is unless they were moving from a secure tenancy and there was no evidence of tenancy breaches.
The resident has provided evidence that shows that prior to her tenancy with the landlord she was a secure tenant of the local authority. We have seen no evidence that the landlord granted a starter tenancy due to a breach in her previous tenancy.
We therefore find that the landlord has failed to act in accordance with its own policy and procedure. It has also failed to adhere to the RSH tenancy standard which states it must not grant incoming tenants a tenancy with a lower security of tenure than they had with their previous social landlord.
Overall, we find that the landlord failed to adhere to its policy, procedure, and RSH standards. It failed to acknowledge this or provide an apology or redress to the resident. It is accepted that the resident is now an assured tenant and therefore she has not been disadvantaged in this sense. She has however experienced distress as she believed the landlord had treated her differently. There was therefore severe maladministration in its response to the resident’s concerns that the landlord granted her a starter tenancy and not an assured tenancy.

Handling of the associated complaints.

The resident raised complaint 1 regarding noise nuisance from her neighbour’s child in September 2022. The landlord provided its stage 1 response 7 days later. This is in line with the timeframes outlined in the Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code) and its own policy.
The landlord’s stage 1 response did not contain the following components identified in the Code as essential elements in a complaint response:
1. the decision on the complaint
2. the reasons for any decisions made
3. the details of any remedy offered to put things right
4. details of any outstanding actions.
We also note that the stage 1 complaint response failed to provide details of how the resident could escalate the matter to stage 2 if she was dissatisfied with the answer. This was inappropriate.
The resident raised Complaint 2 in March 2023 in relation to the type of tenancy the landlord had granted her and its handling of her reports of ASB. It took the landlord 10 working days to acknowledge this complaint. This far exceeds the timeframes outlined in the Code and the landlord’s own policy. The reasons for the delay is unclear; however, that there was one is a failing.
Shortly after the landlord had acknowledged Complaint 2, the resident asked it to raise a further complaint. She said she was unhappy with its handling of her reports that her neighbour was committing tenancy fraud and its response to her reports of ASB. We have not seen evidence that the landlord acknowledged this complaint. This was unreasonable.
The landlord’s stage 1 response to Complaint 2 addressed her concerns regarding the type of tenancy the resident had been offered and its handling of her reports of ASB from her neighbour. It did not however address her reports of noise nuisance from her neighbour’s child or her concerns regarding tenancy fraud. This was a failing.
The landlord stated in its stage 1 response that it had offered her the correct type of tenancy. It failed to identify that it had not correctly applied its tenure policy or starter tenancy procedure. This was a missed opportunity.
The stage 1 response briefly outlined some of the actions taken by the landlord in response to her reports of ASB. It failed however to acknowledge the failings identified by this Service. This was a missed opportunity to put things right in line with the Ombudsman’s dispute resolution principles.
The resident asked the landlord to escalate the complaint to stage 2 on 31 March 2023. She explicitly pointed out:
1. She had been a secure tenant prior to moving into the property so the landlord should have granted her an assured tenancy.
2. It had not addressed delays in its ASB response.
3. It had not provided a response to her complaints about noise nuisance and tenancy fraud.
The landlord provided its stage 2 complaint response on 24 April 2023. It repeated its stance from its stage 1 response. It again missed the opportunity to acknowledge and provide redress for the failings identified.
Despite the resident clearly stating in her escalation request that the landlord had not responded to 2 of the issues of complaint, it failed again to respond to these matters. This indicates that it had not properly considered the escalation request. In addition, the resident had chased for a response to these concerns in May 2023 and June 2023. The landlord failed to provide a response in line with its complaints policy and the Code. This was a further serious failing.
In July 2023 the landlord emailed the resident and acknowledged that it had received a stage 2 complaint from her. It then advised 3 months later that it had raised this in error and that her complaint had already completed its complaint process and would not be considered again. We accept that the resident’s concerns in relation to the type of tenancy granted and her ASB reports had completed the landlord’s complaint process. Her concerns regarding tenancy fraud and noise nuisance however had not. It would have been appropriate for the landlord to have recognised this and to issue a further response to ensure that these points were addressed.
Overall, the landlord failed to:
1. Provide a response to Complaint 1 that contained all the necessary elements outlined in the Code.
2. Offer the resident advice on how to escalate Complaint 1.
3. Acknowledge Complaint 2 within a reasonable timeframe.
4. Identify the failings identified by this Service and put things right.
5. Respond to the resident’s complaint about its response to her reports of noise nuisance and concerns regarding tenancy fraud.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was:
1. Maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of antisocial behaviour and noise nuisance from her neighbour.
2. Severe maladministration in the landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns that the landlord had discriminated against her by granting her a starter tenancy and not an assured tenancy.
3. Maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the associated complaints.
In accordance with paragraph 34.a. of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme the resident’s complaint about the landlord’s decision to offer her neighbour an assured tenancy is outside of the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

Within 4 weeks of the date of this report:
1. A senior officer of the landlord must apologise to the resident for the failings identified by this investigation.
2. Pay the resident compensation of £1,100 which comprises:
  1. £500 for distress and inconvenience in relation to its handling of the resident’s reports of ASB and noise nuisance.
  2. £300 for time and trouble in relation to its response to the resident’s concerns that the landlord had discriminated against her by granting her a starter tenancy and not an assured tenancy.
  3. £300 for time and trouble, distress and inconvenience in relation to its complaint handling.
3. Review its handling of the resident’s concerns regarding tenancy fraud. This should include providing a formal response to the resident’s complaint.
Within 8 weeks of the date of this report:
1. If it has not done so within the past six months, the landlord to review staff ASB training materials and conduct staff training ensuring that all relevant staff:
  1. Are reminded of the ASB policy.
  2. Complete risk assessments and action plans in line with its policy and best practice.
  3. Recognise the importance of keeping an accurate record of ASB reports and actions taken.
  4. Understand the importance of empathy and prompt action where there are safeguarding concerns.
  5. Take ownership of cases and actions.
2. Carry out tenure training with all relevant staff to ensure they:
  1. Understand the landlord’s tenure policy and starter tenancy procedure and the requirements of the RSH tenancy standard.
  2. Can correctly determine the correct tenancy to grant.
  3. Carry out sufficient investigations to make this determination.