Torus62 Limited (202102573)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202102573

Torus62 Limited

5 May 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 concerns:
1. The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of anti-social behaviour from his neighbour.
2. The landlord’s handling of counter-allegations of anti-social behaviour against the resident.
3. The landlord’s complaint handling.

Background and summary of events

The resident is an assured tenant. The property is a two-bedroom bungalow. It is a semi-detached property. The neighbour is the subject of the resident’s ASB reports.
In his complaints raised with the landlord from April 2020, the resident made allegations of an assault that occurred in August 2018 and also referred to a noise complaint he raised with the Local Authority’s Environmental Health team in June 2019, both of which concerned the neighbour. As there is no evidence of the resident complaining to the landlord about these events within six months of them happening or prior to April 2020, they were not raised as a formal complaint with the landlord within a reasonable timeframe and this review will not consider these events on this basis.
The resident has alleged that the landlord has been biased, discriminatory and caused “harassment” in the manner it has dealt with the resident’s ASB complaints or counter allegations. The Ombudsman’s cannot determine if the landlord has been discriminatory or whether it has breached the Equalities Act as these are matter where it is more appropriate for a court to consider. As such this review will not consider these allegations.
On 6 November 2019 the landlord wrote to the resident reminding him of his tenancy conditions following an allegation received from his neighbour regarding his dog entering his neighbour’s garden.
The resident reported antisocial behaviour (ASB) from his neighbour to the landlord on 15 December 2019. The report concerned individuals talking loudly in the neighbouring property during the night. He also said he had been woken up the previous night by his neighbour’s dogs barking. He provided incident diary sheets which detailed similar noise nuisance he had experienced since 13 October 2019.
The resident’s report was logged by the landlord on the same date and assigned to its Safer Estates Officer (SEO)
The resident sent the landlord a further email about this issue on 21 December 2020. On 10 January 2020, the landlord’s SEO emailed the resident and also sent him a letter acknowledging his report and asking him to contact it. It referenced having tried to call the resident.
On 19 January 2020, the resident emailed the SEO to report being woken up by his neighbour and her guests during that night. The resident made a similar report on 8 February 2020.
On 12 February 2020, the resident wrote to the landlord asking that it soundproof the wall between him and his neighbour to prevent any future disputes.
On 12 February 2020, there was a face to face meeting between the landlord’s SEO, the resident, his advocate and other members of his religious community, to discuss his ASB reports.
On 13 February 2020, the resident sent the landlord’s SEO phone recordings of the noise. In his email the resident referred to the SEO have viewed 20 others on his tablet and that he was still trying to access his laptop where the majority of the recordings were stored.
The resident contacted the landlord on 5 March 2020 reporting he had been woken up at 5 am by the neighbour’s dog barking.
On 4 March 2020, resident’s advocate complained about the lack of communication following the meeting on 12 February 2020. In its response of 6 March 2020, the landlord confirmed the role of its SEO was to take initial details about his complaint. It said they had agreed an action plan which included interviewing the neighbour about the noise nuisance. The possibility of mediation between the resident and his neighbour was also referenced. It advised his case would be passed to its Housing Team to progress matters and it apologised for the delay with this.
The resident contacted the landlord on 8 March 2020 and 12 March 2020 to report further instances of being woken up during the night by loud talking in the neighbouring property.
On 24 March 2020, the HO assigned to his case advised the resident that sound-proofing the property was not something it would provide but said she had enquired if this was something it would grant permission for. In regard to the ASB reported, she would contact his neighbour to put his allegations to her. She asked that he kept incident diary sheets was the only way to ensure it had “good evidence” to resolve the issues he was experiencing.
On 16 April 2020, the HO asked for him to complete and return the incident diary sheets and provide details of any further incidents.
On 23 April 2020, the resident’s advocate raised a complaint. Within this complaint, a concern was raised about the landlord’s letter to the resident dated 6 November 2019 being sent three months after the alleged event.
On 6 May 2020, the landlord responded and advised its letter of 6 November 2019 related to an allegation from his neighbour received in August 2019 that the resident’s dog had accessed her garden. It acknowledged there was an unreasonable delay in making the resident aware of this allegation for which it apologised. It explained that because there was conflicting information from both parties it therefore decided that the case would be closed with no action other than to remind all to keep their dogs in a safe and secure environment.
On 8 June 2020, the resident emailed the landlord at 3:30 am advising he had been woken up by loud noise coming from his neighbour’s address. This was impacting on his ability to sleep and have peaceful enjoyment of his home especially at that time of night. He asked the landlord what it had done in the last six months to resolve the ASB and stop this occurring.
On 10 June 2020, the HO acknowledged his email and advised she would send a letter to the neighbour warning her about the allegations of loud music and raised voices which were going on until the early hours. It considered such behaviour was unacceptable it would take whatever action was necessary to resolve the issue. The landlord sent the neighbour a tenancy warning letter on the same day advising it had received complaints of excessive noise coming from her property late at night which were causing nuisance and annoyance to her neighbour. It cited reports of loud music and raised voices in the early hours of the morning on two occasions. It advised ASB constituted a breach of the tenancy agreement.
On 22 June 2020 the resident emailed the landlord at 1:31am complaining about having no sleep on account of the loud voices of his neighbour and her male guests. He that the landlord’s letter sent to his neighbour had not resolved the issue. The landlord acknowledged his email on 23 June 2020 and advised its HO would provide an update once she had spoken to his neighbour.
On 24 June 2020 the resident emailed the landlord at 2:27am to report another disturbed night’s sleep due to the neighbour’s raised voice. He explained the impact the ASB as having on him.
On 16 July 2020 the resident’s MP wrote to the landlord on the resident’s behalf advising he had been experiencing ASB for some time. They said the resident was concerned about the way the landlord had been dealing with the issues raised. The resident was suffering from mental health issues and needed support. They said the local authority’s EH team were involved.
The landlord’s internal communications dated 22 July 2020 refer to it contacting the local authority’s EH team and being told the resident had no live cases of noise nuisance with them.
On the same date, the landlord replied to the resident’s MP advising it was currently working with the resident in regards to his noise nuisance complaint concerning his neighbour. Whilst it did not consider it was statutory noise nuisance, it had written to the neighbour to advise she may unknowingly be causing a nuisance and to ask that she was more considerate to neighbours in the future.
On 24 July 2020, the HO contacted the resident advising that in light of the MP’s comments, that she could provide him with details of support networks.
On 27 July 2020, the resident reported to the landlord that there had been three further occasions on 10 July, 19 July and 27 July 2020 when he had been woken up by noises from his neighbour’s property. He referred to the HO’s email of 29 June 2020 which he said was “highly inflammatory”. On 3 May 2022, the landlord told this service it had been unable to locate a copy of this email.
On 28 July 2020, the landlord sent the resident a letter advising such cases are difficult to prove where allegations were denied as in the current situation. It said that it was important for him to understand that it could not take tenancy enforcement action unless the noise was excessive. It reiterated that the noise nuisance he reported was not statutory nuisance and whilst it sympathised with his disturbed sleep, it was limited in the actions it could take without independent evidence.
Further, regarding his comments that the HO had caused him distress and was “highly flammable”, her email had been reviewed and there was no inflammatory material contained within the body of the email. She was simply relaying the views and counter allegations that his neighbour had made about him. It explained that it had to act impartially, and it was appropriate to make each party aware of the counter allegations being made.
On 9 August 2020 the resident provided the landlord with incident diary sheets of noise incidents in June and July.
On 13 August 2020, the resident reiterated matters previously raised and suggested the landlord was happy to “support the offender” but not him the victim. He raised a complaint on the same date in which he said the landlord had failed to follow its ASB policy when handling his reports. This set out the reasons including:
1. The unacceptable time taken to arrange a face to face meeting with him and for the landlord to contact the neighbour about the reports.
2. Failure to act on the evidence he provided of logs, video and audio recording of the noise and then claiming he had not substantiated his complaints.
3. Refusal to accept more evidence when offered at the 12 February 2020 meeting with the SEO.
4. Its HO highly inflammatory comments in her 29 June 2020 email and the landlord had accepted counter-claims from the neighbour based on hearsay.
On 21 August 2020 the landlord contacted the resident’s doctor following comments made in his logs of noise.
On 25 August 2020 the resident’s advocate contacted the landlord on his behalf to make a further complaint. This reiterated the points previously raised by the resident in his 13 August 2020 email however raised additional points including:
1. The landlord had failed to act upon evidence provided.
2. The comment in its email of 29 June 2020 was likely to cause further animosity between the resident and his neighbour rather than lead to the situation being resolved.
3. The landlord had ignored the resident’s requests for the HO not to deal with his ASB case.
On 1 September 2020, the landlord provided a complaint response that it confirmed was in response to his complaint of 13 August 2020 and the further complaint received from his advocate on 25 August 2020. In response to the issues raised:
1. It acknowledged and explained the delay in contacting and meeting with the resident. It reiterated that its SEO had drawn up an action plan which included interview his neighbour however there was a delay in passing his case to its HO.
2. It acknowledged that it took nearly six months until 10 June 2020 from the date of his initial report in December 2019 for it to contact his neighbour about his ASB reports. It explained the main reason for this was its HO had sought clarification about whether there were ongoing incidents however in reviewing the ASB casefile, there was “more than sufficient logs of alleged incidents” and so the HO should not have delayed with contacting his neighbour. It apologised for that delay.
3. Regarding his comments about its failure to act on all of the evidence referring to logs, video and audio, it pointed out that written logs did not constitute evidence of an incident occurring but rather they were allegations that an incident had occurred. It explained the evidential value of video and audio recording would depend on the quality of the recording. They could only see two recordings on his ASB file. It said it had listened to these and the landlord described what could be heard indicating the noises on the recordings were not sufficiently clear.
4. Its SEO said that the resident had tried to show him some recordings about the alleged noise nuisance during the face to face meeting with him on 12 February 2020 but said that he had technical issues and the sound quality was poor. Its SEO denied that he refused to view any evidence and it could not find any evidence to show it had subsequently refused to accept or collect audio or video recordings from him. Its SEO should have pointed out to the resident that his email of 13 February 2020 did not include attachments as referred. It said it apologised for his failure to do so.
5. There was no evidence that its HO had not dealt with his ASB reports appropriately either in the current case or prior to this. Assigning an ASB case to the HO in the area is standard procedure and does not contravene its ASB policy.
6. When its HO put his allegations to the neighbour, she made counter allegations which its HO then reported back to him. This was appropriate however it understood that receiving such feedback on what the other party had said could be upsetting and annoying. It was sorry to hear that he felt so upset by receiving the email. It referenced its previous response about this issue on 28 July 2020. It advised it was not the case that it had accepted as fact what his neighbour had said. The landlord advised that it did not accept the validity of his complaint raised about the HO.
The landlord acknowledged that it had not applied a victim-centred approach when dealing with his ASB complaints in accordance with its policy. It acknowledged there had been significant failings on its part including the time taken to approach his neighbour and its failure to undertake a risk assessment. It apologised for that. It said it also should have contacted potential witnesses at an earlier stage of the investigation. Further, its communication at times had also been poor. It confirmed that it had recently contacted his GP and offered to make referrals, on his behalf to support networks based on the comment in his logs regarding his state of mental health. It advised service failings when handling his case had been highlighted to the relevant staff and the appropriate action would be taken to ensure that this did not happen again.
The landlord said that going forward, it would: complete a risk assessment with the resident’s agreement and; contact his immediate neighbours to his property to see if they had witnessed/could support his ASB reports. It advised he could submit any audio/video recordings that it had not seen by email or said it would arrange to collect these from him. It explained that if there was no independent witnesses to support his claims, it would not be able to take any further action beyond the written reminder of tenancy conditions that had already been issued to the neighbour. The landlord advised that did not mean it was saying the allegations were untrue, only that it could not get the type of evidence that could be used in court. The landlord advised its response was the completion of its complaint process.
On 4 September 2020, the landlord wrote to the resident’s advocate asking if the resident was willing to complete a risk assessment with it and provide any further audio evidence.
The resident’s advocate responded to the landlord’s stage one response advising they were glad to see the landlord had accepted some of the matters pointed out however indicated they wanted to escalate the complaints that had been disputed by the landlord. They provided further information about what was discussed at the meeting on 12 February 2020. They also said that the current ASB issues did not concern loud music, as referred to by the landlord. Whilst there had been a history of this, this was previously dealt with by the local authority’s EH team in early 2019
They also sought clarification on the landlord’s position on whether the ASB was a statutory nuisance and said that its “inaction” was allowing the neighbour to continue to deprive the resident’s “quiet enjoyment of his property”. They said they believed the resident had sent more that the two recordings mentioned in its response and said that all of the resident’s evidence had been ignored or rejected and that the landlord had offered no assistance.
Regarding inflammatory remarks, whilst the landlord said it was sorry to hear the resident was upset about the remark, it had not provided an apology for the remark.
On 10 and 25 September 2020, the landlord wrote to residents in the immediate area of the property advising they were investigating complaints relating to alleged noise nuisance. It asked for these residents to contact it if they had been disturbed by such behaviour. There is no evidence to suggest these residents responded to the landlord’s request.
On 8 October 2020 the landlord emailed the resident a risk assessment ‘for witnesses and victims’ the resident to complete. The resident completed this on 11 October 2020.
On 12 October 2020, the landlord provided a stage two final complaint response. Within its response it expanded on the account previously given by its SEO of the meeting on 12 February 2020 and responded to the further accounts that had been given of this meeting although explained that it was not in a position to confirm what was discussed. It acknowledged receipt of the SD memory card with the recordings collected by its HO on 8 October 2020 although explained there may be a delay in reviewing this evidence due to difficulty accessing the recordings. It provided an assurance however that its IT team were facilitating accessing the recordings.
It also reiterated the position stated in its 6 May 2020 relating to the allegation put to the resident in its 6 November 2019 about his dog accessing the neighbour’s garden. It also confirmed that in the email of 29 June 2020, its HO had advised him that whilst discussing his noise nuisance allegations with his neighbour, she had raised a concern that one of the resident’s dogs had tried to get into her garden while she was in the garden and that she had been frightened because of the size of the dog. It clarified that the neighbour had not said that the dog had actually gained access to the garden. The landlord explained that it was an established part of its procedure that it puts allegations to the other party and records their response, this does not mean that it accepted as fact the counter allegation. It said that on this occasion, the resident was reminded to keep his dog under control.
The landlord reiterated there had been “significant failings” in the way it had handled his ASB complaint, as referred in its stage one response and offered the resident £100 in compensation for the impact of service failure identified.

Post final response

The landlord wrote to the resident on 5 February 2021 advising him it had listened to 127 of the 129 recordings provided in relation to noise nuisance from his neighbour’s property and whilst voices can be heard on some of the recordings very faintly on the recording made from his bedroom, the quality was so poor no sound could be detected on the majority of the recordings. It said it was unaware if he was still being disturbed by his neighbour. However, it was currently piloting a ‘noise app’ which can assist with providing it with clear evidence of noise nuisance. It provided details of this to the resident.
In this communication, the landlord also acknowledged that during its discussion with the neighbour, it could have tried to get her to agree to cease the noise being complained about, which could have been confirmed in writing to her together with a reminder of the expectations of the tenancy agreement. Further, it said that the offer of an independent mediation service was currently being made to the resident which was referred to as a possible option if both parties were agreeable. The landlord confirmed whilst there was no evidence to justify removing the staff member who dealt with the resident’s ASB complaints (from March 2020), the resident’s ASB case was assigned to a different HO following its stage one response.

Assessment and findings

The landlord’s ASB policy says noise nuisance for example loud parties, shouting and noise from TVs and Hi-fi’s, may amount to ASB.
The landlord’s policy says it recognised the impact of ASB if left unchallenged and therefore aim to tackle the often diverse and complex issues around ASB using a range of tolls including prevention, support and enforcement to deliver a proportionate and flexible approach. It looks to address anti-social behaviour as early as possible because this may prevent situations from escalating and may stop the ASB.
Further, its policy sets out initiatives it can use or access to prevent ASB including Acceptable Behaviour Contracts and mediation services and; the Respect and Social Responsibility Sign-Up Statement/Good Neighbour Agreement to emphasise the importance of behaviour and community safety.
Its policy also states it aims to effectively support complainants and witnesses. Steps it can take to support complainants and witnesses include referring individuals to support services where necessary and risk assessing.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of anti-social behaviour by a neighbour

The resident first contacted the landlord to report noise nuisance from his neighbour on 15 December 2019. He provided incident diary sheets detailing occasions when loud talking from the neighbouring property had kept him awake at night as well barking from his neighbour’s dog. In response, the landlord logged the complaint and assigned the case to its SEO. Its SEO then contacted the resident in writing on 10 January 2020 asking him to contact it to discuss his complaint.
The landlord’s steps taken to contact the resident and meet with him to discuss his ASB complaints were appropriate. However, whilst its ASB policy does not include timescales, it was reasonable to expect the landlord to have contacted the resident sooner than it did to discuss the ASB incidents reported. In its 10 January communication, its SEO references having tried to contact the resident on his mobile however this service has not been provided with details of any such call attempts. In its subsequent stage one complaint response of 1 September 2020, the landlord acknowledged and apologised for its delay in contacting the resident in the first instance, which was reasonable.
The landlord’s SEO then attended a face to face meeting with the resident, his and other people on 12 February 2020 to discuss the ASB issues being experienced. This was appropriate however following the meeting, no further action was taken by the landlord to address the reported noise issues until approximately four months later on 10 June 2020 when it sent a warning letter to the neighbour regarding the resident’s allegations. This was despite ongoing noise reports from the resident in the interim. Subsequently, on 30 June 2020 the landlord also spoke to the neighbour about the complaints against her.
Contacting an alleged perpetrator of ASB to discuss the complaints against them is an opportunity for the landlord to make them aware of the situation and get them to agree to cease the behaviour that is causing a nuisance where appropriate. Further, identifying and developing an action plan in response to noise reports helps manage a resident’s expectations about what action the landlord can take to tackle the issues.
According to the landlord’s response of 6 March 2020, its SEO had agreed an action plan with the resident during the meeting of 12 February 2020 with one of the actions being for the landlord to contact the neighbour to put the allegations to her. The landlord has not provided any notes of the meeting that it made at that time or of the action plan referred to. Its ASB makes clear that all interviews and actions are recorded and inputted onto its case management system. The lack of contemporaneous notes of its meeting with the resident on 12 February 2020 indicates a service shortcoming by the landlord. However, it is noted that the landlord did provide details of the action plan agreed in its 6 March 2020 letter to the resident which was written not long after the meeting. As such it is reasonable to think this was likely to reflect, or at least partially, what was agreed.
It is noted however from the parties’ subsequent complaint correspondence that there was disagreement about what was said at the meeting including regarding video/audio offered/viewed by the SEO. A clear record of the discussions and action plan agreed at this time may have avoided this and would have helped manage the resident’s expectations. Regardless, the landlord failed to promptly contact the neighbour after the resident reported multiple instances of noise nuisance. In its response to the resident’s advocate dated 6 March, the landlord apologised for the delay in progressing the actions agreed including contacting his neighbour in relation to the reports assuring that it would progress matters. Whilst this was reasonable, following this response from the landlord, it took a further three months for it to contact the neighbour.
In its stage one complaint response of 1 September 2020, the landlord apologised for and sought to explain these delays. It also apologised that no risk assessment had been carried out and for failing to point out to the resident sooner that his email of 13 February 2020 did not have the recordings attached as referred. The landlord’s acknowledgment of the failures in the way it had dealt with his ASB reports up to that point, was reasonable as it shows ownership of the issues experienced by the resident.
The landlord also set out the next steps it would take to progress its investigation which was appropriate. As the neighbour had denied the ASB allegations, it advised that it intended to write to immediate neighbours to establish if they had witnessed the noise issues. It also explained that the noise being complained about was not clear from his two recordings and advised the resident how to best forward the other recordings so it could review this evidence. The landlord’s internal records show that it did then write to his immediate neighbours and arranged for its HO to collect the resident’s SD card to review the recordings. The landlord confirmed receipt of the recordings in its final response to the resident confirming it would be reviewing this evidence.
In response to the Ombudsman evidence request, the landlord provided notes of the 127 recordings listened to, showing it did then review the multiple recordings provided by the resident as promised. These recordings covered the period from January to October 2020. This evidence indicates that whilst voices and dog barks in the background can be heard on some, they cannot be heard on other recordings.
Whilst this review has not investigated events after the final response, it is noted that in its letter to the resident dated 5 February 2021, the landlord explained that because the voices in the background could only be heard faintly, there was insufficient evidence to warrant court action. The landlord also advised that it was piloting a noise app which it said for evidential purposes appeared successful in assisting it with providing clear evidence. Noise apps are a commonly used tool by landlords that can assist with providing clear evidence of noise nuisance.
The landlord, in accordance with its ASB policy, is responsible for providing support to victims of ASB and referring them to support service where appropriate. The landlord wrote to the resident’s doctors in August 2020 and offered to make a referral to a support service following a concern raised by the resident’s MP and due to the resident’s comments included in his logs of ASB submitted to the landlord. The resident’s logs described the impact on his mental health of the noise issues he was experienced during the night. The steps taken by the landlord in this regard to support the resident, were appropriate.
Therefore, apart from meeting with the resident to discuss his allegations, the landlord’s failure to take any action to address the issues for approximately six months was unreasonable. After this, it did take some action by contacting the neighbour in question about the allegations in June 2020. It later wrote to his immediate neighbours to see if they were experiencing similar issues, carried out a risk assessment and reviewed the recordings of the noise provided. These actions were appropriate however as there was insufficient evidence of noise nuisance the landlord concluded there was insufficient evidence to justify tenancy action against the neighbour.
Whilst this conclusion was reasonable in the circumstances, on balance the landlord could have taken further steps to resolve the noise issues being experienced by the resident at an earlier point, for example by offering mediation between the resident and his neighbour, in accordance with its ASB policy. The possibility of mediation was mentioned by the landlord in its communications to the resident in early 2020 however the landlord did not follow up on this.
Its ASB policy also mentions the use of Good Neighbour Agreements as an initiative to tackle ASB. In its summary of the issues provided to this service, the landlord acknowledged that it could have tried to get his neighbour to informally agree to stop the noise being complained about which it said it could have then followed up in writing to her together with a reminder of the expectations of the tenancy agreement. As such the landlord has acknowledged that it could have been more pro-active at the time and these issues were not identified in the landlord’s complaints responses.
As mentioned above, in its complaint responses, the landlord did acknowledge and apologised for delays and service failures and it also confirmed it had fed back the issues to the relevant staff which suggests the landlord learned lessons which is in accordance with the Ombudsman’s Dispute Resolution principles. In its final response the landlord also offered the resident £100 in compensation for the impact of service failure identified. Nonetheless, as this review has found it was reasonable to expect the landlord to have taken further steps to resolve the issues being experienced by the resident at an earlier point, the compensation offered is not sufficient redress for the failings identified in this report.

The landlord’s investigation of the allegations of anti-social behaviour made about the resident.

On 6 November 2019, the landlord wrote to the resident reminding him of his tenancy conditions following an allegation received from his neighbour regarding his dog entering his neighbour’s garden. Further, in an email dated 29 June 2020, the landlord also put to the resident a further allegation concerning one of his dogs having tried to get into the neighbour’s garden.
Whilst this service has not seen any contemporaneous evidence detailing the neighbour’s allegations in this regard, in its complaint responses, the landlord explained to the resident how it approached allegations and counter allegations. Namely that it raises any such allegation with the other party to order gain their response, which it then records. This is a reasonable approach to take as a first step and the need for any further action can then be assessed depending on the issue and response received. It is also reasonable to expect communication advising of any such allegations or counter allegations be appropriately worded with any tenancy warnings proportionate to the matter raised.
On the first occasion the landlord wrote to the resident advising of the allegation and reminding him of his responsibilities under the tenancy. The landlord’s letter on occasion was not strongly worded and the tenancy reminder was proportionate to the allegation regarding his dog. It is noted that the landlord did not take any further action on the basis that there was conflicting information from both parties.
On the second occasion, according to the landlord’s final response, it put this allegation to the resident in its email dated 29 June 2020 however the landlord has not provided this email to this service as it has not been able to locate this communication. The landlord is required to keep records which includes copies of its communications with its residents. As such its failure to provide this, constitutes a failure by the landlord in the service provided. As a result, the appropriateness of the wording used on this occasion to convey this further allegation received from his neighbour cannot be determined. However, in its final response the landlord provided further explanation surrounding this allegation when it also confirmed the only action taken was to remind the resident to keep his dog under control. Based on the available evidence, on balance, the landlord’s handling of this allegation was reasonable.
The resident also raised a complaint about the offence caused by the landlord due to a comment it said the neighbour had made when it had raised his allegations with her. This comment was relayed by the landlord in its 29 June 2020 email to the resident which has not been supplied to this service. However, it is clear from the parties’ subsequent correspondence that this comment was that the resident’s ASB complaints about his neighbour were racially motivated. This was subsequently denied by the resident. In its responses dated 28 July 2020 and 1 September 2020, the landlord emphasised that its HO had only been relaying what his neighbour had said and explained there was no evidence to suggest that she accepted this allegation made by his neighbour, as fact. It is noted that the landlord did not take any action against the resident based on the allegation in question, as such it is clear it was explaining to the resident what the allegations were to enable to him to give his version of events. This was reasonable however to the seriousness of this allegation, it was important for the landlord to make this point clear to the resident at the time of raising this matter and use appropriate and sensitive language.
In its complaint responses, the landlord said that it did not consider there had been any failure on the part of its HO when she relayed this comment to the resident. However, the landlord told this service that whilst there was insufficient grounds to remove this individual as the HO, it assigned a different HO to continue with the investigation of the resident’s noise complaints following its stage one response. This step was reasonable in the circumstances.

Complaint handling

The landlord’s complaint policy from May 2020 shows it operates a two stage process whereby formal complaints received are logged at stage one of its process. This states it will provide a stage one response within 10 working days and that if a resident is unhappy with its response, they can ask to escalate their complaint to stage two. Under its policy, the landlord will provide a stage two appeal review within 10 working days.
The resident raised multiple complaints between 4 March 2020 and the landlord’s stage two final response of 12 October 2020. Prior to issuing its final response on 12 October 2020, the landlord provided responses to his complaints on 6 March, 6 May, 28 July and 1 September 2020. These responses were all provided by the landlord in a timely manner and included explanations which in the main part addressed the issues raised indicating the landlord thoroughly and fully considered the concerns raised.
However, the landlord did not make clear under which stage of its complaints process it was providing a response nor did it provide details of how the resident could escalate the complaint to stage two if he remained unhappy with its response. As the complaints raised all related to the noise nuisance being experienced, in the circumstances, it was appropriate for the landlord to have provided a stage two final review sooner that it did on 12 October 2020 which was some seven months after the resident raised his first complaint. Its failure to do so prolonged the complaints process.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Scheme, there was service failure by the landlord when handling the resident’s reports of anti-social behaviour from his neighbour.
In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Scheme, there was service failure by the landlord when handling reports of anti-social behaviour against the resident from his neighbour.
In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Scheme, there was service failure by the landlord when handling the resident’s complaints.

Reasons

The landlord failed to sufficiently follow its ASB policy when responding to the resident’s ASB complaints for approximately six months as it did take sufficient steps to progress its investigation into his complaint. The landlord did then take action to address the issue and in its complaint responses, it also acknowledged that there had been significant failings on its part when dealing with his ASB complaint, offering the resident £100 in compensation. However, it is clear that the landlord could have done more to resolve the noise complaints, for example by following through with its offer of mediation or attempting to get his neighbour to enter into an informal agreement with it in regards the noise issues reported. These tools are set out in its ASB policy and it would have been appropriate for the landlord to use these in the resident’s case.
The landlord’s approach to put ASB allegations and counter allegations to the other party when raised with it and record the response, is a reasonable step to take when dealing with ASB complaints. It explained to the resident this did not mean it accepted such allegations as established facts. The landlord failed to provide a copy of an email which was the subject of a complaint raised by the resident which constitutes is a record keeping failure.
The landlord did not make clear under which stage of its complaints process it was providing the response nor did it signpost the resident to the next stage of its process. The landlord provided multiple complaints responses at stage one before escalating the resident’s complaint to stage two. As they all related to the ASB complaints, it would have been appropriate for the landlord to provide a final response sooner. Its delay in doing so extended the complaints process.

Orders and recommendations

The Ombudsman orders that the landlord to:
1. pay the resident £325 in compensation comprising of:
  1. £150 for failing to take sufficient steps to resolve his noise complaints.
  2. £100 for its failure to keep full records when handling the resident’s reports of anti-social behaviour from his neighbour.
  3. £75 for failing to label complaints and a delay in escalating his complaint to stage two.
2. Comply with the above orders within four weeks.