Raven Housing Trust Limited (202001573)

A picture containing logo

Description automatically generated

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202001573

Raven Housing Trust Limited

30 November 2021

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 response to the resident’s reports of:
1. A leak from a neighbouring property and compensation for damaged goods and decorations.
2. Anti-social behaviour (ASB) including noise and nuisance.
3. Fly tipping at the property.
4. The landlord’s complaint’s handling.

Background and summary of events

Background and policies

The resident is an assured shorthold tenant of the landlord at the property, a two-bedroom flat. The resident is subject to the terms and conditions contained in the tenancy agreement. The landlord is a housing association.
The landlord operates a two-stage complaints policy. The policy requires that the complainant is kept updated throughout the complaints process. If the resident makes a complaint at the first stage, the landlord should respond within 15 working days. It aims to fully resolve the complaint within 30 calendar days where it is the responsibility of the landlord or one of its contractors. If the resident is dissatisfied with the response, the resident can request an appeal panel hearing and it aims to provide a response within 7 working days of the hearing. The tenant is expected to raise a formal complaint within 6 months of the incident, which led to the complaint being made. The appeal stage will not consider any issues that were not included in the original formal complaint.
Under the tenancy agreement, ASB is any conduct that could reasonably cause nuisance or annoyance to a person residing, visiting or otherwise engaging in a lawful activity in the locality or which amounts to harassment of other people. Harassment means any behaviour whatsoever, intended or likely to cause physical or mental distress or actual harm to that person. The landlord’s website advises that sounds of normal living such as doors opening and closing and people going up and down stairs is not considered ASB. It states that if the resident is having issues with a neighbour they should try talking to them in the first instance.
Under Section 2.6 of the tenancy agreement the landlord is responsible for insuring the resident’s home (buildings only excluding any fixtures and fittings) and the resident is responsible for insuring their furniture and personal possessions.
Under Section 3.14 of the tenancy agreement it is the residents responsibility to put all rubbish for collection in the bin store or other place allocated for it. Any large items of rubbish, such as boxes or furniture must be disposed of by the resident in the correct manner and not left by the side of bins.
The tenancy agreement outlines that it is the landlord’s responsibility to repair and maintain the installations provided by the landlord and complete any work necessary to keep the home in a state which is wind and watertight, habitable and in all respects reasonably fit for human habitation, this includes pipes and sinks. The repairs policy highlights that the landlord aims to perform routine repairs within 28 days of the issue being reported by the resident. It states that it is the resident’s responsibility to keep the inside of the property decorated.

Summary of events

The resident contacted the landlord in April 2020 and raised concerns about noise and nuisance coming from a neighbouring properties.
On 30 May 2020, the resident contacted this service and made a complaint in relation to her landlord, it stated:
1. That there had been recurring leaks from the property above her which was a leasehold flat. She advised that she had previously tried to get the matter escalated to stage two of the landlord’s complaint process but instead accepted a £200 settlement in August 2018.
2. She said the landlord had sent its own plumbers to check the pipework when this had been necessary and determined that on occasions the water leaks were due to pipework and in other instances, they were due to tenant negligence.
3. The landlord informed the resident that she would have to go through her insurance company to claim for personal belongings and she stated that now that she had made several claims, her excess had increased. She advised that the most recent leak occurred on 23 May 2020.
On 16 June 2020, this service contacted the landlord and asked it to provide a stage one response to the resident in relation to the above complaint. After a phone conversation with the resident this service also asked the landlord to address the resident’s complaints in relation to noise and nuisance from neighbours at the complex and fly tipping at the property.
On 17 June 2020, the landlord advised that it would provide a complaint response to the resident by 7 July 2020.
In July 2020, the resident contacted the landlord and advised that she could hear household noise including children running and slamming internal doors from multiple apartments.
On 6 July 2020, the landlord issued the resident with its stage one response and addressed the following:
1. Leak from the flat above – it apologised that this was still ongoing and advised that the matter was more complex as the neighbour was a leaseholder. It advised that its plumber had attended the property and no leaks were evident. It stated that the resident had communicated with her neighbours and had been compensated directly in the past. It advised that as it could not identify the leak it was difficult to take action. It stated that if it happened again to contact them immediately and they would attend the neighbour’s property to identify the cause.
2. Noise and nuisance – It advised that meetings were held between the resident and the tenancy service manager. It stated that the most recent reports were in April 2020, and it advised that it would monitor the situation for a period of two weeks. There were no subsequent reports from the resident and the case was closed, it advised that if there were any further instances to report them.
3. Fly tipping – It advised that it patrolled the areas every weekday and any unauthorised rubbish was removed as soon as possible. It stated that it used a dedicated cleaning team and Neighbourhood Warden team to perform this task. It advised that it would continue to monitor the situation.
4. Compensation for damaged possessions and decorations as a result of the leak – It noted that the resident received money in relation to the leak and that the resident’s excess was now £450. It advised that it did not have a breakdown of what the resident claimed but would be happy to discuss an award once the information was available.
5. Its complaints handling – It acknowledged that there had been some delays in responding to some of the resident’s issues and apologised for this. It stated that it would consider compensation for its failure as part of the compensation for damage and decorations.
On 27 July 2020, the resident contacted the landlord and asked for her complaint to be escalated to stage two of the landlord’s complaints process. she advised that certain issues had been misunderstood and said the following:
1. Leaks from the flat above – She advised that there had been an ongoing issue with leaks coming from the upstairs property in October 2019, 15 January 2020 and 23 May 2020 and she wanted it to stop. She stated that the leaks were due to broken pipes and resident error. She advised that she had to redecorate after each leak and that she had to pay out of pocket or claim against the neighbour’s insurance. She advised that on one occasion she received £350 from the landlord and the neighbour agreed to pay the excess.
2. Noise and nuisance – She accepted that she met with the tenancy service manager however she had issues escalating her complaint through the landlord’s complaints process. She advised that she could hear household noise including children running and slamming internal doors from multiple apartments. She stated that she could smell drugs but was unsure where they were coming from.
3. Dumping of rubbish in communal areas – She agreed that the rubbish was removed, however it was a health and safety issue and wanted to know if the residents would pay for this cost in a roundabout way.
4. Compensation for damages caused to possessions – She advised that the only thing that was damaged was the bathroom cabinet and towels. She advised that she received £350 to cover the excess on her insurance and a payment of £200 from the landlord in August 2018. She thought this was a goodwill payment and said that she never received anything in writing to say the complaint was finished. The resident asked to be moved to a new property and granted 3-6 months free rent as compensation.
On 6 August 2020, the landlord responded to the resident in relation to her various complaint’s and advised the following:
1. That it is the landlord that pays for the removal of the rubbish at the property and that those costs will be sought against the perpetrators if they were identified.
2. It advised that it wrote to all residents about noise and nuisance the last time the resident made a complaint and advised her to complete the complaint logs it supplied in order to gather evidence.
3. It advised that it had no grounds to facilitate a move on the resident’s behalf but provided information about the local authority and Homeswapper. It also stated that the compensation the resident was requesting was between £1630 and £3240 and could not be justified based on the resident’s complaint. It advised the resident had provided no evidence of financial loss.
4. It acknowledged that it failed to formally log the resident’s complaint and offered £100 in acknowledgement of its failure.
On 7 September 2020, the resident contacted the landlord and advised that there were parts of her complaint that it misunderstood. The landlord responded and asked for clarification about what parts of her response she believed that it had misunderstood.
On 4 October 2020, the resident wrote to the landlord and clarified a number of issues at the property and asked for her complaint to be dealt with at stage two of its complaints process. The issues included water leaks at the property, compensation, noise and nuisance, fly tipping and complaints handling.
On 27 November 2020, the landlord provided the resident with the action items from their Zoom meeting held on 25 November 2020. These items included:
1. The resident would be put onto its assessed electricity charges which would reflect meter charges. It advised that it could not fit meters as it would be unsafe to do so.
2. It would inspect the upstairs neighbour’s property and assess the flooring in an attempt to stop any future leaks.
On 30 November 2020, the landlord contacted the resident in relation to fly tipping at the property. It advised that there was no CCTV however, there was signage suggesting that it could be in use. It advised that there had been no previous complaints about fly tipping and that it was cleaned away in a timely manner.
On 3 December 2020, a surveyor attended the neighbouring property to assess the potential causes of the leaks. The landlord advised the resident that it would not be able to share the surveyor report as it pertained to her neighbour’s property but stated that the neighbour would perform the list of recommendations.
On 11 December 2020, the landlord contacted the resident and advised it had contacted the upstairs neighbour and given them until the end of January 2021 to complete works to their bathroom including floor coverings. It stated if the works were not complete it would perform them itself and recharge the neighbour.
On 4 January 2021, the landlord provided the resident with an update of the issues raised and advised the following:
1. Leak – It advised that the most recent leak was due to the neighbour not using the shower curtain or turning the tap off. It recommended some solutions which the neighbour accepted. It stated that it cannot comment on 2018-2019 but believed it was a different problem.
2. Noise and nuisance – It advised that it had opened an ASB case file and recommended that the resident use the incident forms it provided to report any noise. It also recommended the resident speak with her neighbour if she felt comfortable to do so.
3. Fly tipping – See Paragraph 17 above.
On 18 January 2021, the landlord contacted the resident in relation to her ASB complaint on 25 November 2020. It advised that it had written to the alleged perpetrator however due to lack of evidence there was no further action to be taken. It advised that if there were any further issues to inform the landlord.
On 8 February 2021, the landlord responded to the resident’s complaint and issued its final response:
1. It advised the resident several times that she had not provided sufficient evidence to take the complaint to the appeal stage. It provided the resident with the grounds for appeal on 5 October 2020 and agreed to meet for a zoom meeting to provide clarity around its policies and procedures.
2. It advised that each leak at the property was caused by a different issue and each time it assisted by sending a plumber and liaising with the leaseholder. It explained that each time there was a leak it needed to give the leaseholder the opportunity to fix the problem and also sent its own plumber to identify any leaks. It advised that it had kept the resident informed about work which had now been completed.
3. It advised that the resident was previously compensated by the leaseholder for damage caused by the leak. It hoped that works it agreed to pay for would give the resident reassurance that further issues would not occur. It requested evidence of financial loss incurred which the resident did not provide.
4. The noise complaint by the resident was not in the original complaint however it asked the resident to complete diary sheets and to let it know of any further disturbance and would log the complaint against the flat. It was discussed with the resident that a quick chat with her neighbours was far better than a letter from the landlord in the first instance which the resident agreed to do.
5. It advised that there was signage at the property to deter fly tipping. It investigated past reports and the level of fly tipping was low and dealt with within a few days. It stated that if there were a number of reports of individuals fly tipping then please let it know. It stated that the installation of CCTV was a major project and would only be done with police support.

Assessment and findings

A leak from a neighbouring property and compensation for damaged goods and decorations.

There had been a number of leaks which have originated from the neighbouring upstairs property. The resident raised issues of leaks in 2018, 2019, 2020 which had led to water entering the resident’s property and causing damage to the decoration. The impact on the resident was evidently unpleasant and caused the resident great distress and inconvenience. The resident acknowledged that the incidents were individual events caused by both pipework and resident error. The landlord highlighted that the upstairs neighbour was a leaseholder and therefore it was their responsibility to repair the leak. It appropriately advised the resident that it needed to provide time for the neighbour to achieve this. From the evidence provided, it appears that the landlord responded and supplied its own plumber to address the issue within a reasonable time and had its contractors attend the property on each occasion to fix the cause of the leak in excess of its repairs obligations.
The resident made further complaints about the leak on 23 May 2020, the landlord took a resolution focused approach and had its plumber attend the property in order to assess the problem and it was determined that the leak was caused due to tenant error. The resident made a complaint that she would have to pay out of pocket or claim against the leaseholder’s insurance. The landlord appropriately advised that as it was the leaseholder’s responsibility to compensate the resident for any damage caused as they had done in the past. The landlord liaised with the leaseholder and the required works were performed to prevent any future leaks, it also kept the resident up to date throughout the process. This was appropriate and in line with its repairs policy and best practice.
The resident requested compensation from the landlord in the amount of between £1630 and £3240 and to be moved to the newer property. The landlord appropriately advised that that it had no grounds to facilitate a move on the resident’s behalf but provided information about the transfer process and Homeswapper. The resident acknowledged that she had not provided evidence of any financial loss due to the leak and as there is no evidence that the landlord breached its obligations in responding to the reports of leaks, it was appropriate for the landlord to refuse the resident’s compensation request.
Overall, the actions taken by the landlord were appropriate an in line with its repairs obligations and it communicated with the leaseholder and the resident in order for the works to be completed at the property to prevent any future leaks

Anti-social behaviour (ASB) including noise and nuisance.

The Ombudsman considers complaints about how a landlord has responded to reports of a problem. It is not the Ombudsman’s role to decide if the actions of the alleged perpetrators amounted to ASB, but rather, whether the landlord dealt with the resident’s reports about this appropriately and reasonably. Our duty is to determine complaints by reference to what is, in this Service’s opinion, fair in all the circumstances of the case.
The resident raised concerns about noise and nuisance coming from a neighbouring properties in April 2020. The landlord took a resolution focus approach and demonstrated that it had opened an ASB case file, met with the resident and agreed to monitor the situation for a two-week period. There were no subsequent reports of ASB from the resident and the case was closed in line with its ASB policy.
In July 2020, the resident contacted the landlord and advised that she could hear household noise including children running and slamming internal doors from multiple apartments. The landlord wrote to all residents in the building and reminded them to keep noise to a minimum. It also advised the resident to complete diary sheets in order to gather further evidence of noise and nuisance at the property and speak with her neighbours if she felt comfortable doing so. The steps taken by the landlord were in line with its ASB policy.
It is evident and not disputed that the ASB issues at the property had an acknowledged impact and caused the resident distress. However, the landlord acted appropriately and took reasonable steps to investigate the reports and acted on these investigations, where appropriate. The landlord opened an ASB file, met with the resident, provided diary sheets and action plans, provided a warning to all residents and agreed to monitor the situation. The landlord’s actions in response to the resident’s allegations of ASB were appropriate and in line with its policies and procedures. They also reflect the Ombudsman’s experience of similar cases across the social housing sector. Overall, the landlord’s actions were fair and reasonable given the circumstances of the case.

Fly tipping at the property.

The resident made reports about fly tipping at the property in June 2020 and suggested that the landlord install CCTV to monitor the problem. The landlord appropriately investigated the situation and discovered that it had very limited reports of fly tipping and in the circumstances it was reported, it was removed in a period of a few days at the expense of the landlord. The landlord appropriately communicated this to the resident and advised that it would not install CCTV at the property. Given the lack of reports about the issue, the decision made by the landlord was appropriate and in line with its obligations. It also advised it had signage around the building and its cleaning team and Neighbourhood Warden team would continue to monitor the situation. Overall, the steps taken by the landlord were appropriate given the extent of the situation.

The landlord’s complaints handling

There was some confusion in relation to the complaints handling in the case as the resident said that she was having trouble progressing the complaint and the landlord advised that a number of issues were yet to complete its complaints process.
The resident made a complaint to this Service on 30 May 2020. This Service advised the landlord to provide a formal response to the resident and it agreed to do so by 7 July 2020. The landlord provided the resident with its stage one response on 6 July 2020 which was appropriate and in line with this Service’s request.
On the 27 July 2020, the resident asked for her complaint to be escalated to stage two of the landlord’s complaints process. The landlord advised that there was not enough evidence to escalate the resident’s complaint to the review stage however, it continued to respond to the resident’s concerns on two separate occasions in relation to the same issues raised. This caused significant confusion to the resident and this Service as after each response it advised that it was the landlord’s final response. The landlord acknowledged its failure and apologised for its failure to escalate the resident’s complaint on 6 August 2020 and offered the resident £100 for the distress caused.
This amount would have been appropriate to compensate for its failure to escalate if it had not then issued a further two responses to the resident on 4 January and 8 February 2021 also stating it was its final response. The landlord’s failure to escalate the complaint or issue a single final response caused further delay and confusion in the case. As such an amount of £150 would be more appropriate to compensate the resident for the landlord’s complaint handling failure.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration by the landlord in its handling of:
1. A leak from a neighbouring property and compensation for damaged goods and decorations.
2. Anti-social behaviour at the property.
3. Fly tipping at the property.
In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure by the landlord in relation to its complaint handling.

Reasons

The landlord took a resolution focused approach and went above and beyond its repairs responsibilities in relation to the leak from the upstairs leaseholder. It sent its plumber out on a number of occasions to assess the issue and communicated with both parties about the repairs that needed to be performed.
The range of actions taken by the landlord in response to the resident’s ASB reports were appropriate and in accordance with its obligations and policies. It has evidenced that it took proportionate steps to investigate and address ASB whilst maintaining contact with the resident.
The landlord appropriately investigated the matter and determined that fly-tipping was not an ongoing issue at the property that required CCTV. It ensured that it would have its staff monitor the situation going forward and for the resident to report any further issues.
The complaint handling by the landlord was not in line with its internal policies at stage two of the landlord’s complaints process. The landlord advised that the resident’s complaint had completed its complaints process however it continued to provide further responses which caused delay and confusion.

Orders

The Ombudsman orders the landlord to pay the resident compensation of £150 in respect of the distress and inconvenience experienced by the resident as a result of the highlighted complaint handling failures. This replaces the previous offer from the landlord to pay the resident £100.
This amount is to be paid to the resident within 4 weeks.