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

Yorkshire Housing Limited (202304403)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202304403

Yorkshire Housing Limited

7 February 2025


Our approach

The Housing Ombudsman’s approach to investigating and determining complaints is to decide what is fair in all the circumstances of the case. This is set out in the Housing Act 1996 and the Housing Ombudsman Scheme (the Scheme). The Ombudsman considers the evidence and looks to see if there has been any ‘maladministration’, for example whether the landlord has failed to keep to the law, followed proper procedure, followed good practice or behaved in a reasonable and competent manner.

Both the resident and the landlord have submitted information to the Ombudsman and this has been carefully considered. Their accounts of what has happened are summarised below. This report is not an exhaustive description of all the events that have occurred in relation to this case, but an outline of the key issues as a background to the investigation’s findings.

The complaint

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

Background

  1. The resident holds an assured tenancy with the landlord in a 2-bedroom semi-detached house. She occupies the property with her husband and teenage daughter. The resident advised that her daughter is deaf and has learning difficulties, which the landlord is aware of.
  2. On 6 August 2022 the resident reported noise from her neighbour’s property. This included loud music, and children screaming and arguing. On 8 August 2022 the landlord acknowledged this and opened an ASB case. The resident continued to report ASB issues with her neighbour’s children throughout August 2022. This included name-calling towards the resident’s daughter and items being thrown over the garden fence. From October 2022 to February 2023 the resident made further reports of ASB which the landlord responded to. These mostly centred around the neighbour’s children causing noise by banging and running up and down their stairs. The resident said the noise was unbearable and caused vibrations which affected her daughter’s hearing.
  3. On 15 February 2023 the resident complained to the landlord. She felt it had not dealt with the situation nor progressed it as quickly and efficiently as it should. She was also unhappy with the landlord’s communication with her. The landlord responded to her concerns at stage 1 of its complaints process on 3 March 2023. In summary, it said:
    1. It had not established that the noise was a nuisance.
    2. It acknowledged it could have done more to investigate the noise complaints.
    3. It agreed on an action plan on 1 March 2023 which included sound testing between properties, a joint visit with the police and a renewed offer of mediation.
    4. Much of the noise was household activity however the volume and frequency meant it could cross the threshold into noise nuisance.
    5. The resident should continue to keep a diary of the noise to help with the sound testing.
  4. After this, the resident continued to report the same noise issues. In April and May 2023, following a ‘sound test’ of the neighbour’s property the landlord repaired the neighbour’s stairs and fitted new carpets in the property. On 8 June 2023 the resident informed the landlord that she intended to proceed with court action against it for its handling of her reports. She said the noise continued and the landlord had not taken any action, which had affected the household’s wellbeing. She said her family felt unsafe in the property and often stayed away to avoid the noise. As a resolution, she wanted around £5,000 in recognition of this.
  5. The landlord subsequently agreed with the resident to treat this as an escalation request and issued its stage 2 final response on 5 July 2023. In summary, it said:
    1. It should have done more to investigate the sound from the neighbour to prove the nuisance at the start, which may have led to a tenancy caution.
    2. It knew the neighbour was looking to leave the property and this may have affected how it handled the case.
    3. In future it would let the property as a ‘sensitive let’ to minimise any disturbance.
    4. It would offer £100 compensation to reflect the distress caused to the household for not being clear on the action it was taking at the start.
  6. The same day the resident referred her complaint to this Service. She was unhappy with the amount of compensation offered. She said her household had spent 48 weeks away from the property due to these issues and added that the situation had significantly affected her daughter’s wellbeing. She wanted around £5,000 in recognition of the time spent away from the property. The neighbour moved out of their property in August 2023.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

  1. The resident advised that the handling of this matter by the landlord led to a deterioration in the health of the household. This Service does not doubt the resident’s comments. However, the Ombudsman cannot draw conclusions on the causation of, or liability for, impacts on health and wellbeing. This is outside our jurisdiction, but consideration has been given to the general distress and inconvenience that may have been caused to the resident.

The landlord’s handling of reports of ASB.

  1. The landlord does not dispute that there were failings in its handling of this matter. Where the landlord admits failings, the Ombudsman’s role is to consider whether it resolved the resident’s complaint satisfactorily in the circumstances and offered appropriate redress. In considering this, the Service assesses whether the landlord’s actions were in line with the Ombudsman’s Dispute Resolution Principles: Be fair, put things right and learn from outcomes.
  2. When assessing complaints about the landlord’s handling of reports of ASB, the Ombudsman’s role is to assess whether the landlord has adequately investigated the reported issues and taken appropriate and proportionate action in line with its policies and procedures.
  3. The landlord has a responsibility to respond to reports of ASB made by its tenants within a reasonable timescale. In this case, the landlord responded promptly to the resident’s 6 August 2022 report and opened a ‘noise’ case. In addition, it encouraged the resident to continue to report any further issues. This was an appropriate initial step.
  4. However, the landlord did not update the resident on what action it would take to investigate her concerns. This led to the resident chasing the landlord for an update on 18 August 2022 and again on 2 September 2022. While this was a shortcoming on the landlord’s part the resident confirmed on 8 September 2022 that the neighbour had been away from the property for the last 4 weeks and that there had been no noise. In response, the landlord informed the resident it would close the case and agreed to visit at the end of the month to assess the situation. Yet, there was no evidence that it did so. This was a failing on the landlord’s part.
  5. On 7 October 2022 the resident made further reports of ASB. The landlord acknowledged these reports on the same day. Subsequently, on 14 October 2022 it interviewed the neighbour and sent them a warning letter. This was a fair and proportionate approach. Further, it acted in line with its ASB policy which states it will work with perpetrators to change their behaviour and lists warnings as a tool available to it.
  6. Having received no further reports from the resident the landlord contacted her on 7 December 2022 for an update. The resident advised that although she had involved the police as there was an incident of the neighbour’s children in the street staring through her daughter’s bedroom, things had quietened down and there had been no further issues since this police visit. As such the landlord agreed with the resident to close the case and confirmed this in writing to her. Given the circumstances this was appropriate.
  7. Nevertheless, from the 27 December 2022 onwards the resident made multiple reports of constant banging and running up and down the stairs from the neighbour’s property. She explained that these issues were having a significant effect on the well-being of the household, and particularly her daughter. While the landlord may not be expected to respond to each report individually, it should take proportionate action to investigate the resident’s concerns.
  8. Although the landlord acknowledged on 18 January 2023 that it had opened a new case, there was no evidence of the landlord taking any action to investigate these issues until early February 2023 when it telephoned the neighbour. Further, there was a delay in responding to the resident’s reports which led to her chasing it for a response on more than 1 occasion. This would have likely caused distress and inconvenience to the resident.
  9. Following its conversation with the neighbour the landlord offered mediation to the resident and the neighbour which they both initially agreed to. In addition, the landlord offered the resident ‘tenancy coaching’ and encouraged her to record the noise via its noise app. While the landlord could have offered these solutions sooner its approach in trying to resolve the matter was proportionate to the circumstances. Further, its actions showed it was using tools available to it in line with its policy, which states that it will consider mediation as an early resolution.
  10. During the conversation with the neighbour, they informed the landlord that they did not have carpet in their bedroom. In response, it arranged a sound test of their property for 9 March 2023. Again, this was a proportionate response to the resident’s concerns and demonstrated a willingness to resolve matters. While this appointment had to be re-arranged due to circumstances outside of the landlord’s control, it acted appropriately by keeping the resident updated on the delay.
  11. The landlord carried out the sound test on 23 March 2023. It found that the noise was likely due to many of the stairs being broken or hollow and subsequently arranged for them to be repaired. It also agreed to put thicker carpets in the property. This was a fair approach. Moreover, it promptly relayed its findings to the resident and managed expectations by informing her that it would not serve a second warning for this noise due to these findings.
  12. While it is acknowledged that the resident continued to report the same noise issues between April and June 2023, the landlord responded to these reports within a reasonable timescale. Furthermore, it acted fairly by assessing the resident’s noise recordings and reiterating its offer of ‘tenancy coaching’ and mediation. It also acted fairly by contacting the neighbour to discuss the resident’s concerns and politely reminded them to ask their children not to run up and down the stairs. As the landlord believed this matter to be primarily an issue with the stairs and a lack of carpet these were proportionate steps to take.
  13. In addition, the landlord also visited the resident’s property with the police at the end of April 2023 where it confirmed the actions it was taking. This demonstrated partnership working in line with its policy which states that working closely with other partners is key to successful interventions. It also appropriately managed the resident’s expectations around its limitations in resolving this matter. In April and May 2023 the landlord repaired the neighbour’s stairs and installed new carpet in the property. The resident reported that this had made no difference. In response, the landlord acted fairly by agreeing to conduct a follow-up sound test which the resident declined.
  14. Overall, the landlord’s actions in response to the resident’s reports of ASB were proportionate and demonstrated that it had considered the effect this situation had on the household. However, it should have taken these actions sooner. Nevertheless, it recognised this and apologised. Further, its decision to let the property in future as a ‘sensitive let’ showed a good understanding of the distress this matter had caused to the resident and demonstrated learning on the landlord’s part.
  15. In the resident’s complaint to the Ombudsman, she wanted compensation of around £5,000 as she said she was unable to use her property for 48 weeks. While this Service does not underestimate the distress this situation caused to her and her family the landlord’s offer of compensation was broadly in line with this Service’s remedies guidance which suggests awards of up to £100 where there have been failings that may not have significantly affected the overall outcome for the resident. In this case, the evidence showed that the landlord was limited in what enforcement action it could take given the circumstances of the case. As such, even if it had acted sooner this would not likely have changed the overall outcome for the resident. Therefore, it is the Ombudsman’s view that the landlord’s offer of compensation was satisfactory in putting matters right.
  16. The landlord informed this Service that it did not carry out a risk assessment as it was not part of its process. This is concerning, particularly as this situation involved a vulnerable child. While its actions may have demonstrated that it had considered the risks in this case, a risk assessment should be part of the landlord’s ASB policy or process. This will help the landlord tailor its service and provide adequate support and assistance to residents. Further, in doing so, this would help evidence that it carefully considered the risks of those involved. In view of this, a recommendation has been made below.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 53.b. of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the landlord offered redress to the resident prior to investigation which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, resolves the landlord’s handling of reports of ASB.

Recommendations

  1. The landlord should pay the resident £100 compensation as offered in its final response if it has not already done so. This Service has found reasonable redress based on it paying this amount to the resident.
  2. The landlord should ensure that, in future similar cases, it undertakes a risk assessment upon receiving reports of ASB to take into account the vulnerabilities of the household. This should be reflected in its policy and procedures.