Landlords can now complete the Complaint Handling Code Annual Submissions form. More information is available online.

Longhurst Group Limited (202111150)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202111150

Longhurst Group Limited

30 June 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

  1. The complaint is about:
    1. The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of noise and antisocial behaviour (ASB) from his neighbour.
    2. The landlord’s handling of the associated complaint.

Background

  1. The resident is a tenant of the landlord. 
  2. The resident initially raised concerns about noise from his neighbours property in April 2021 which included slamming and banging of kitchen cupboards and drawers as well as tapping on the dividing wall between the properties. The landlord opened an ASB case but this was closed due to no contact from the resident. The resident wrote to the landlord and supplied diary sheets of the noise in May 2021, following which the landlord discussed the allegations with the neighbour who was advised to keep noise to a minimum. It visited the resident in June 2021 where it listened to one of several audio recordings. An action plan was agreed and the landlord confirmed that it would visit the neighbour. In July 2021, the landlord sent the resident an outcome letter in which it explained that it had not identified any cause for the noise from the neighbour’s property and there was no further action it could take against the neighbour. It said that it would also be checking the heating system following reports of pipe related noise and added that it had received reports of pests (rats) which it felt may also contribute towards the noise experienced.  
  3. During July 2021, the resident asked for a final response to his complaint. He remained dissatisfied with the landlord’s response to his concerns and felt that it had accused him of lying. He asked for evidence which confirmed that rats were the cause of the noise as he did not feel that the explanation was logical. He was also dissatisfied that the landlord had only listened to one of multiple audio recordings of the noise and that there had been a delay in arranging a home visit to his property following his initial report in April 2021.
  4. In response to the resident’s complaint, the landlord explained that the heating system and pests could be a possible cause of the noise experienced but it had not meant that these were the only cause. It apologised if the resident felt that it had accused him of lying. It acknowledged that it may have been more helpful to discuss the outcome of the ASB case with the resident before sending the outcome letter to more fully explain its actions. It also acknowledged that it should have requested all noise recordings to find out the extent of the issues and the type of noise. It added that it could have also liaised with the local authority’s Environmental Health department regarding the noise to gain a professional opinion. It confirmed that individual staff would be spoken to regarding the handling of the ASB case. It later confirmed that the neighbour’s tenancy had ended and the ASB case was closed on 19 August 2021 as a result. It further explained the actions it had taken in an attempt to eradicate the pest issue and confirmed that it had received no further reports of pests in October 2021.
  5. The resident referred his complaint to this Service as he remained dissatisfied with the landlord’s handling of his ASB reports and its claim that rats were responsible for the noise experienced rather than his neighbour. He added that he was also still affected by the issue of pests within the building and was not satisfied with the actions taken by the landlord. He was unsure as to why the pest issue had been addressed by the landlord in its complaint responses when his complaint was about ASB from his former neighbour. 

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

  1. In his communication with this Service, the resident has stated that little to no work had been undertaken by the landlord to resolve the pest issue within the building and he was still affected by this issue. As this is a separate issue to the complaint raised with the Service, this is not something that this Service can adjudicate on at this stage, as the landlord needs to be provided with the opportunity to investigate and respond to this aspect. The resident will need to contact the landlord and, if appropriate, raise a separate complaint to get this matter resolved. He may then approach this Service again if he remains dissatisfied with the landlord’s final response on the matter.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of noise from his neighbour.

  1. It is evident that this situation has been distressing for the resident. There remains a dispute between the resident and the landlord regarding whether the landlord responded appropriately to his reports of ASB. The role of the Ombudsman is not to establish whether the ASB reported was occurring or not. Our role is to establish whether the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of ASB was in line with its legal and policy obligations and whether its response was fair in all the circumstances of the case.
  2. In line with its antisocial behaviour policy, the landlord has an obligation to investigate reports of ASB and respond appropriately. The landlord’s ASB policy states that it should respond to medium and low-risk reports of ASB within five working days. The landlord would initially encourage the resident to complete diary sheets on order to gain evidence of the alleged ASB. It should also complete a risk assessment to determine the level of ASB experienced and create an action plan detailing the steps it would take to resolve the issue. Where appropriate and necessary, an appointment for a home visit will be arranged in order to investigate the complaint further.
  3. The landlord should initially take informal measures such as home visits, verbal warnings, warning letters to neighbours and mediation to resolve neighbour disputes. In noise complaint cases, advice would be given to the complainant to contact their local Environmental Health team in addition to contacting the Housing Team. Landlords cannot reasonably be expected to take formal action against tenants for noise that is considered everyday household noise; however, if a noise is confirmed as constituting statutory noise nuisance, then both a landlord and the local authority’s Environmental Health service may be able to warn and take formal action against the perpetrator. For a landlord to take formal action in respect of ASB, such as formal warnings, injunctions or eviction proceedings etc, the landlord would require extensive evidence of the alleged behaviour to support formal action. A landlord should generally only consider taking formal action if informal attempts have been unsuccessful in resolving the issues. Where all efforts to contact the resident are exhausted and no contact is made, the case will be reviewed. If there are no known risks to the resident a 7-day review letter should be sent, seeking contact from the resident for the case to be progressed further.
  4. In this case, the landlord made reasonable efforts to investigate the resident’s reports of noise from a neighbouring property and gain evidence of the alleged noise by asking the resident to complete diary sheets, providing access to a noise app and asking him to send any recordings he had made via email. Following his initial report on 8 April 2021, the evidence shows that the landlord attempted to call the resident to discuss his concerns but contact was not made following several attempts. It is noted that the resident did not wish to provide the landlord with up to date contact details which hindered its ability to discuss the case with him. The landlord acted appropriately by discussing the allegations with the neighbour around this time and it was reasonable for it to close the case as there were limited further steps it could take without additional evidence of the alleged behaviour.
  5. The ASB case was re-opened on 13 May 2021, following receipt of completed diary sheets from the resident.  The landlord responded within a reasonable timescale and took reasonable steps to verbally warn the neighbour of their behaviour, advising them to keep the noise to a minimum. The resident expressed concern that a home-visit was not arranged until 17 June 2021 following his reports on 8 April 2021. The evidence shows that the landlord had completed a risk assessment with the resident and found him to be at a medium risk of ASB. In line with its policy, there is no specific timescale for the landlord to complete a home visit where a resident is found to be at a medium risk of ASB and in some cases a home-visit may not be necessary. There is no evidence to suggest that the home-visit was unreasonably delayed in this case and the resident was not significantly disadvantaged by the timescale involved as the landlord had made efforts to contact him to discuss the case and had also taken steps to address his concerns with the neighbour.
  6. During the visit on 17 June 2021, the landlord acted appropriately by creating an action plan with the resident and confirming that it would visit the neighbour which it did on 24 June 2021. The resident has advised that he was dissatisfied that the landlord did not conduct the home visit to the neighbour on 17 June 2021. The landlord would have needed to contact the neighbour before completing the home visit to ensure that it was scheduled at a suitable time and there is no evidence to suggest that there was any significant delay in completing the visit.
  7. The neighbour confirmed that they had previously made noise when refurbishing a set of drawers but that this was now complete and denied making excessive amounts of noise. Where a perpetrator of alleged ASB denies their behaviour, the landlord would need extensive evidence to support them in taking further action. The landlord took reasonable steps to verbally warn the neighbour against making excessive noise and explain its position to the resident in that it had not witnessed the noise and it could not find any cause for the noise within the neighbouring property. As the neighbour had denied the allegations, it was reasonable for the landlord to investigate other possible causes of noise including reports of noise from the heating system and as a result of pests within the building. There is no evidence to suggest that the landlord had accused the resident of lying and it acted reasonably by apologising to the resident if he felt this was the case, further explaining that it did not mean pests or the heating system were the only sources of noise. Given that the neighbour had denied making noise but had reported noise from the pipework, it was reasonable for the landlord to inform the resident that it would also be taking steps to investigate the matter as a possible cause of noise. The resident raised concerns about how the landlord concluded that pests may have been responsible, which will be discussed in more detail below.
  8. The landlord has acknowledged that it could have done more to investigate the resident’s concerns by listening to all of the noise recordings made by the resident and liaising with Environmental Health to determine whether the noise constituted a statutory noise nuisance. The Ombudsman cannot comment on whether the additional recordings would have been sufficient evidence to support the landlord in taking further action against his neighbour. However, it would have been appropriate for the landlord to have reviewed all available evidence to determine the type of noise and how often the noise occurred in order to better understand the resident’s concerns. This was likely to have been frustrating for the resident who had spent time and trouble creating audio recordings which were not considered. 
  9. Similarly, Environmental Health would be responsible for determining whether the noise experienced met the threshold to be considered a statutory noise nuisance and may have been able to take further action against the neighbour if needed had they been contacted. It would have been appropriate for the landlord to have referred the resident to Environmental Health in line with its ASB policy for noise complaints. It is, however, noted that resolving issues such as noise complaints can be a lengthy process and it is unlikely that Environmental Health would have been able to take immediate action. The landlord’s failure to refer the resident may not have affected the overall outcome of the complaint as the neighbour ended their tenancy in August 2021, following which, the resident noted that the noise had ceased.
  10. In view of the service failures identified, the landlord should pay the resident £50 compensation in recognition of the inconvenience caused by its failure to consider the noise recordings made by the resident or refer the resident to Environmental Health in view of his noise-related concerns. The Ombudsman’s remedies guidance states that amounts in this range are considered proportionate where there has been service failure but this was of a short duration and may not have affected the overall outcome of the complaint.

The landlord’s handling of the associated complaint.

  1. Reports of ASB should not usually be considered under the landlord’s formal complaints process in the first instance as the landlord needs to be provided with the opportunity to respond and attempt to resolve the ASB. If the resident remains dissatisfied with the landlord’s handling of their ASB reports, they can then raise a formal complaint for the landlord to investigate its handling of the matter. The landlord’s complaints policy states that it has a two-stage formal complaints process. At stage one, the landlord should respond within ten working days. If the resident remains dissatisfied, they can escalate their complaint to stage two. At stage two, the landlord should respond within 20 working days.
  2. The resident initially asked the landlord to provide a final response to his complaint on 7 July 2021. At this stage, the case was being dealt with under the landlord’s ASB policy rather than as a formal complaint. It would have been appropriate for the landlord to have considered the resident’s complaint at stage one at this time as he was dissatisfied with the service received and had discussed his intention to approach this Service. However, the landlord did not acknowledge the resident’s complaint until 4 August 2021 following his further contact. The landlord issued it stage one complaint response on 24 August 2021, which was approximately 34 working days from the resident’s request for a complaint response and outside of the landlord’s timescales at stage one which was likely to have been inconvenient for the resident.
  3. Following contact from the resident, on 2 September 2021, the Ombudsman asked the landlord to respond to the resident’s complaint within its policy timescales. It is unclear from the evidence as to whether the resident had asked for his complaint to be escalated following the landlord’s stage one complaint response. The landlord made reasonable efforts to contact the resident following the Ombudsman’s involvement to discuss the complaint, however, no contact was made until 20 September 2021. Following this, the landlord issued its stage two complaint response on 25 October 2021, which was approximately five working days outside of its timescale at stage two from the date the resident had made contact.
  4. The resident has raised concern that the landlord had established that his complaint was about the pest infestation within the building rather than his concerns regarding ASB from his neighbour and its handling of the matter. Whilst the landlord somewhat addressed the resident’s concerns regarding ASB by confirming that the neighbour had moved and that the matter was now resolved, it did not address the resident’s concerns about why it believed that pests may have been a cause of the noise experienced rather than his neighbour. This was likely to have caused inconvenience to the resident who remained uncertain as to why the landlord believed that the pests may have been a cause of the noise experienced.
  5. In view of the service failures identified, the landlord is to pay the resident £100 in recognition of the inconvenience caused by the delay in acknowledging and responding to the resident’s stage one complaint and its failure to address each aspect of the resident’s complaint at stage two. Amounts in this range are considered proportionate in instances of service failure which had an impact on the resident but which may have not affected the overall outcome of the complaint, including failure to meet service standards for actions and responses but where the failure had no significant impact.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure by the landlord in respect of its handling of the resident’s reports of noise and antisocial behaviour (ASB) from his neighbour.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord in respect of its handling of the associated complaint.

Orders

  1. The Ombudsman orders that the following actions are taken within four weeks:
    1. The landlord is to pay the resident £150, comprised of:
      1. £50 in recognition of the inconvenience caused by its failure to consider the additional noise recordings or refer the resident to Environmental Health in view of his concerns regarding noise nuisance.
      2. £100 in recognition of the inconvenience caused by the delay in acknowledging and responding to the resident’s stage one complaint and its failure to address each aspect of the resident’s complaint at stage two.

 Recommendations

  1. It is recommended that the landlord contacts the resident to confirm its current position with respect of the pest issues experienced in the property in view of his ongoing concerns. If the resident remains dissatisfied with the landlord’s response, he may wish to raise a complaint if appropriate to resolve the issues.
  2. It is recommended that the landlord contacts the resident to confirm his preferred contact method in order to avoid any delays in communication moving forward. It may wish to explain the importance of holding up-to-date contact information, including a phone number so that it is able to contact the resident in case of emergency.