Wandle Housing Association Limited (201911000)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 201911000

Wandle Housing Association Limited

8 January 2022

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 antisocial behaviour (ASB) from his neighbour.
2. The associated complaint.

Background and summary of events

The resident is a tenant of the landlord and occupies a flat within a block of flats.
The resident wrote to the landlord on 19 June 2019 to report that his neighbour (Mr A) was making “persistent intolerable noises during the night”. He reported these as the slamming of doors and “whacking the bedroom ceiling with a solid object”.
The resident submitted an ASB report to the landlord on 20 September 2019 in which he said that Mr A had woken him up that night by slamming his bedroom door and that this had happened approximately four times a week. He said he was being subjected to “orchestrated” nuisance.
The landlord set up an ASB case and emailed the resident on 18 December 2019 to ask for more information on the noise nuisance he had reported such as the nature and times of the noises. It asked him if the noises were the same as previous noises he had reported which had been linked to pipe works. The resident replied to the landlord the same day to say that he refused to deal with the member of staff who had contacted him and instead asked to only deal with a senior member of staff.
The resident wrote to the landlord on 31 December 2019 to allege that Mr A was “stalking” him and carrying out “violent outbursts” during the night. He asked for a senior manager to deal with his reports and reiterated that he did not wish to deal with the staff member who had contacted him previously.
The landlord advised the resident on 9 January 2020 that if he did not provide any further information about the noises he had reported then it would close the ASB case.
After receiving contact from the resident, the Ombudsman emailed the landlord on 21 January 2020 to request that it contact him about his complaint concerning its handling of antisocial behaviour and his reports of noise nuisance.
The resident reported to the landlord on 13 February 2020 that Mr A had caused a whistling noise from his property which continued for ten minutes and in the evening a stone hit the resident’s window. He asked the landlord to allow him to view CCTV footage of the event. The resident again asked for a senior manager deal with his case. He said that the staff member who had contacted him previously should be removed from the investigation as he believed that they had “protected” Mr A.
The landlord emailed the resident on 2 April 2020 to confirm its position on the resident’s reports of noise nuisance from Mr A. It stated that its prior investigation had found no evidence of deliberate noise nuisance from Mr A and therefore it did not consider the matter to be ASB. The landlord urged the resident to provide any updates to the situation but advised that his claim of Mr A intentionally causing a whistling noise would not be investigated any further without independent evidence to support the allegations. It relayed that it had previously found that the noise was related to pipes in Mr A’s property, to which it had carried out repairs. The landlord confirmed that it had passed the matter back to its repairs team to investigate if the issue had reoccurred and further work was required. It advised that it could not provide an exact date for this because of limitations upon its repairs service due to corona virus restrictions.
The resident responded to the landlord later on 2 April 2020 to complain that it had disregarded the evidence he had presented to it and had “protected [Mr A] from investigation”.
Between 14 April and 15 June 2020, the resident made further reports to landlord which included:
1. Experiencing abuse from another resident.
2. Having an altercation with a visitor to the area.
3. Dissatisfaction with the landlord’s use of signage on fire doors.
4. Mr A slamming his door in the night on several occasions.
The landlord wrote to all residents of the block on 9 July 2020 to update them on its service provision as corona virus lockdown restrictions eased. In this, it advised that some of its staff were still working remotely. The landlord noted that it had received complaints about noise nuisance in the block and asked residents to be considerate of one another.
The landlord issued a stage one complaint response to the resident on 7 August 2020 which referred to its handling of a report made against him about noise nuisance. This letter made reference to it speaking to him about his complaint.
The resident responded to the landlord later on 7 August 2020 to dispute that it had contacted him. He provided a list of 22 incidents of noise from Mr A’s flat between 5 June and 6 August 2020 where Mr A had slammed his door and made “hammering” noises. The resident said that he had recorded most of these.
The landlord wrote to the resident on 30 September 2020 to provide an update to him on his current ASB cases and enquiries. It said that it had requested on 5 August 2020 for him to provide further information or evidence that the noise nuisance he reported originated from Mr A’s property, but it had received no response. The landlord confirmed that it had reviewed the recordings he had provided which did not evidence that the noise was coming from Mr A’s property. It explained it was unable to present any evidence to Mr A, who had denied the allegations made by the resident. As a result, the landlord informed him that it would be closing the ASB investigation on 5 October 2020.
On 8 October 2020, the resident wrote to the landlord to provide a log of 13 incidents of wall banging and door slamming occurring between 15 August and 8 October 2020, which he attributed to Mr A. He advised that he had recordings of most of these incidents. On 13 October 2020 the resident reported to the landlord that Mr A “intercepted” him whilst on the street and verbally assaulted him.
On 26 October 2020, the resident provided to the landlord a list of further door slamming incidents from Mr A and several incidents of verbal abuse from another neighbour. It emailed him on 30 October 2020 to request the recordings which he had mentioned in his previous email.
The landlord issued a final complaint response to the resident on 15 February 2021 in which it referred to an enquiry he had made about an untenanted property in the building and an ASB report against him regarding his use of the emergency exit door which created a disturbance to his neighbours. It warned him that continued misuse of this door could result in legal action against him.
After receiving contact from the resident, the Ombudsman intervened on 16 June 2021 to request that the landlord respond to his complaint about noise nuisance which he attributed to Mr A. It responded on 22 June 2021 to advise that its final response on 15 February 2021 was its response to his complaints about noise nuisance.
After further contact from this Service to request that the landlord provide an explicit response to the resident’s complaint about noise nuisance from Mr A’s property, it provided a revised final response to him on 6 July 2021. It acknowledged that it received information from him via this Service on 7 July 2020 about his concerns about the noise from Mr A’s property. The landlord explained that this information was not added to an existing complaint he had with the landlord at the time but was instead dealt with through its ASB management system.
The landlord referred to its letter on 30 September 2020 which advised that the ASB case was being closed on 5 October 2020 due to a lack of evidence. It confirmed that it had raised the issue with Mr A who had denied creating the noise reported and it could proceed no further due to a lack of evidence. The landlord asked the resident to provide it with any further evidence he had to enable it to re-open the case, such as a dates and times so that it could attempt to identify a pattern of behaviour. It added that, due to the construction of the building, noise could travel through ‘service risers’ which made it difficult to precisely identify the source of any noise.

Assessment and findings

The landlord’s tenancy agreement with the resident confirms that residents, their households and their visitors are not to cause annoyance or nuisance, or be abusive or violent to others in the neighbourhood. This includes noise which may cause a nuisance to others.
The landlord’s ASB policy confirms that it defines ASB as:

“Conduct that has caused or is likely to cause harassment, alarm or distress to any person; conduct capable of causing nuisance or annoyance to a person in relation to that person’s occupation of residential premises or conduct capable of causing housing related nuisance or annoyance to any person”.

The landlord’s ASB policy also states that, in tackling ASB, it will ensure residents are kept updated on their cases, and maintain communication between its case handler and the resident. It will also formally acknowledge ASB cases and draw up an action plan. The actions it will take are to interview the resident, investigate the issues and assess the circumstances of the complaint. This policy states that the landlord does not consider certain matters to be ASB, which includes the sounds of normal day to day living such as opening and closing of doors.
The landlord’s “How do I make a complaint?” webpage provides for a two-stage internal complaints procedure. At stage one of this procedure, the landlord is to provide a response within ten working days. At the final stage of the complaints procedures it is to respond within 20 working days. If it is unable to meet either timeframe it is to explain why to the resident and extended the deadline by no more than a further ten working days.

The landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of ASB from his neighbour

The landlord has confirmed to this Service that it has no records of its investigations into the resident’s ASB reports, despite referring to its investigation in its correspondence with him. A landlord would be expected to keep clear records of its investigations of ASB, not only to maintain a clear audit trail in the event of any disputes, but also to ensure that the appropriate actions are taken to investigate ASB concerns. These records would enable it, for example, to ensure that any enforcement actions are taken as appropriate in the event of persistent ASB.
While the landlord may not have concluded that the noise reported by the resident was ASB, as the noise may be considered to be the sound of everyday living, nevertheless excessive environmental noise in a residential property can be considered a hazard and the landlord had a responsibility to investigate possible hazards in the property. There was no evidence that it attempted to assess the volume or regularity of the noise or that it referred the matter to the local authority’s environmental health team (EH) or suggested that the resident contact (EH) to assess the level of noise.
In this case there were difficulties in the landlord progressing the ASB investigation due to the resident’s reluctance, expressed in his contact on 18 and 31 December 2019 and 13 February 2020, to deal with the staff member who had contacted him. However, in light of his repeated reports of noise disturbance between 2 April and 30 October 2020, the landlord should have attempted to resolve the matter by alternate means, perhaps by providing another contact for the resident to correspond with or explaining why it did not consider the reports to be ASB.
While there was difficulty in the landlord obtaining further information from the resident about his ASB reports, there was no evidence that it followed its ASB policy above in interviewing him and drawing an action plan to address his concerns. There was also no evidence of it maintaining regular communication with the resident about his reports. In the absence of this evidence, the Ombudsman can only conclude that it failed to adhere to its policy and procedures. This failure would have prolonged the resolution of the ASB complaint, leading to excess time and effort and inconvenience by the resident in making continued reports about the same issues.
The Ombudsman’s remedies guidance, available to view at https://www.housing-ombudsman.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2020/11/Remedies-Guidance.pdf provides for payments of compensation of between £250 and £700 for failures where there has been “failure over a considerable period of time to act in accordance with policy”. Therefore, in recognition of the likely distress and inconvenience caused to the resident by the landlord not adhering to its ASB policy, balanced against the difficulties in engaging with the resident, the Ombudsman orders that the landlord pays the resident compensation of £250.

The landlord’s handling of the associated complaint

The Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code), which member landlord’s are required to adhere to, defines a complaint as “an expression of dissatisfaction, however made, about the standard of service, actions or lack of action by the organisation, its own staff, or those acting on its behalf, affecting an individual resident or group of residents”. In accordance with this, the landlord should have recognised as far back as 18 and 31 December 2019 that the resident was dissatisfied with its handling of his reports of ASB and should have responded to his concerns in line with its complaints policy.
After the Ombudsman’s contact on 21 January 2021 and then the resident’s further expression of dissatisfaction about its approach to his reports on 13 February 2021, the landlord should have considered his dissatisfaction as a complaint about the standard of service it had provided him and raised a formal complaint at that stage. However, there was no evidence that this was considered through its formal complaints procedure and the only complaint response which referenced its handling of his ASB reports was made in its revised final response to him on 6 July 2021. This was a failure by the landlord to act in accordance with the Code.
As above, the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance above provides for compensation awards of between £250 and £700 where there have been “significant failures to follow complaint procedure”. Therefore, in light of the landlord’s failure to recognise that it should have raised a formal complaint despite repeated expressions of dissatisfaction from the resident and the intervention of this Service over a protracted period of time, compensation of £250 should be paid to the resident.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord in:
1. Its response to the resident’s reports of ASB.
2. Its handling of the associated complaint.

Reasons

There was insufficient evidence that the landlord followed its ASB policy in addressing the resident’s reports of ASB.
The landlord did not consider the resident’s dissatisfaction about its handling of ASB as a formal complaint, despite repeated contact from the resident about this and the intervention of this Service, over a protracted period.

Orders

Within 28 days, the landlord must:
1. Pay compensation of £250 to the resident for its service failures in its response to his reports of ASB.
2. Pay compensation of £250 to the resident for its failure to consider his dissatisfaction as a formal complaint at an earlier stage.

Recommendations

The landlord should:
1. Contact the resident to assess whether the reported ASB continues and formulate an action plan if appropriate.
2. Review its record keeping procedures to ensure that it maintains evidence of its investigations into ASB.
3. Carry out complaints handling refresher training with its staff to ensure that staff are able to recognise complaints from residents and implement the landlord’s complaint handling procedures correctly.