Southwark Council (202016554)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202016554

Southwark Council

21 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

The complaint concerns:
1. The landlord’s handling of the resident’s noise nuisance reports.
2. Related complaint handling.

Background and summary of events

The resident is a leaseholder. The property is a two-bedroom flat and was assigned to the resident and another individual on 4 November 2016. The neighbour who is the subject of the resident’s noise complaint is a tenant of the landlord. The neighbour has since moved out of the neighbouring property.
The landlord’s records show the resident made noise complaints in 2018 regarding her neighbour shouting during prayers. In 2019, the Council’s Noise Team issued an abatement notice to the neighbour.
There is no evidence of the resident raising a formal complaint, about the neighbour’s noise, that has exhausted the landlord’s complaints process until April 2021. Therefore, this investigation will not investigate what happened in 2018 or 2019 but will consider events from June 2020 when the resident made reports to the Council’s Noise Team which she followed up with reports to the Landlord in October 2020. This constitutes a reasonable timeframe prior to her formal complaint.
The landlord’s internal communications show the Noise Team contacted it in June, July and August 2020 advising it had received noise nuisance reports about the neighbour from the resident and other residents in close vicinity of the neighbour’s property. The landlord met with the Council’s Noise team in August and the evidence indicates that the Noise Team intended to make arrangements for a noise monitoring machine to be installed at the resident’s property but this did not go ahead. The reason for this is unclear from the evidence.
The landlord’s internal communications show that on 16 October 2020, the resident called to make a complaint about the ongoing noise nuisance. This evidence referred to the landlord asking the resident if she would be willing to take part in mediation and that her response was that she would be willing but felt that the other party would not want to take part. The complaint was allocated to its Resident Services Officer (RSO) to investigate.
Within its internal communications, the landlord referred to receiving a call from the Noise Team officer who was waiting outside the neighbour’s property as they had also received noise reports and wanted to discuss the allegations with the neighbour. This evidence indicates the landlord called the neighbour at that time to tell her this however in response said she that was changing her child at that time. The neighbour also said she was experiencing noise from the resident’s dog barking.
On 19 October 2020, the landlord received a noise complaint from a different resident regarding hearing “loud religious music” from the neighbour’s address that she sings along to.
On 28 October 2020, the landlord visited the neighbour to discuss the allegation against her.
The landlord’s internal communications show it had a joint meeting with the Council’s Noise Team on 13 November 2020 also that it was in contact with the neighbour’s social worker during November 2020. Within this communication, the landlord referred to assisting the neighbour with bidding for alternative properties.
The landlord’s records show that on 20 November 2020 it responded to a different resident’s complaint raised about loud music/sermonising coming from the neighbour’s property. It provided advice that it was exploring the option of re-housing the neighbour which could take some time.
On 30 November 2020, the landlord wrote to the neighbour stating that despite its visit to her home on 28 October 2020 to discuss allegations of noise nuisance from her flat, the Council’s Noise Team had continued to receive reports of noise nuisance. It reminded her of the term in the tenancy which required tenants to act in a reasonable manner and not to cause nuisance, annoyance, distress, or alarm to other tenants in the vicinity.
On 3 December 2020, the resident raised a complaint with the landlord. She said her neighbour had just come out of her house and screamed at her whilst she was trying to eat her lunch in her front garden and stated she knew their complaints had resulted in the landlord wanting to find her family alternative accommodation.
The resident said the neighbour informed her she would not accept any of the properties offered. This was alarming to her and other neighbours who heard her screaming. She asked the landlord what it could do support them as it was getting to the point she was afraid to leave her house and the neighbour had also threatened her dogs.
Its records indicate that on 4 December 2020 the landlord called the neighbour to discuss the ASB complaints against her, including threatening behaviour. This evidence says the neighbour denied all allegations.
On 7 December 2020, the landlord sent a ‘second’ warning letter to the neighbour with a copy of the conditions of her tenancy. The landlord also made an enquiry with the Multi-Agency Safeguarding Hub (MASH) about whether the neighbour was known to them. The landlord received a response on 8 December.
On 8 December 2020, the landlord visited the location however its internal notes state there was no audible noise either outside the front door, rear playground area or rear communal external walkway. It hand delivered “another” letter to the neighbour. Its notes of the same date state it received a call from the neighbour advising she had received its letter and that she insisted the allegations against her were fabricated. She made a counter-allegation concerning noise from the resident’s dog barking.
On 10 December 2020, the landlord called the resident to discuss her complaint. Its notes stated it informed her of the action taken and advised her to report all forms of threatening behaviour to the police.
On 23 December 2020, the landlord’s RSO issued a stage one response to the resident. This stated they were sorry to hear she was experiencing threatening behaviour from the neighbour and reiterated to report threatening behaviour to the police for them to record, investigate and provide her with a crime reference number.
They referenced discussing the complaint with her on 10 December and confirmed the actions taken/would take as:
1. It had hand delivered two warnings to the neighbour which explained the actions it would take with regard to a breach of tenancy – the landlord explained that usually it invited tenants to attend its offices to discuss any breach of tenancy however this was not possible due to Covid-19 restrictions. It said it had also sent a copy of the tenancy conditions as well as a letter to remind the neighbour that ASB would not be tolerated.
2. It had interviewed the neighbour about the resident’s ASB complaints raised and reminded her of her obligations as a tenant.
3. It would monitor the case further and advised the resident to contact them should the need arise.
On 30 December 2020, the resident asked to escalate the complaint to stage two as she was dissatisfied with its response. She said:
It had not addressed all of her points raised and the neighbour had ignored the letters that it had sent. The neighbour continued to make antisocial noise in breach of the tenancy. She said the landlord should consider taking more stringent action that would stop the neighbour causing further noise nuisance.
It had not addressed her point about it providing support for her and other residents living in close vicinity to the neighbour in terms of the sleep deprivation and stress they are experiencing. Some had young children and mental health issues. She asked it to contact the Noise Team.
On 30 December 2020, the landlord contacted the Noise Team regarding the resident’s complaint.
Later the same day, it emailed the resident acknowledging her communication and said it apologised if its response did not satisfy her expectations however due to privacy and data protection laws it could not provide her with information about individuals or personal circumstances however this did not mean it was not dealing with her reports.
It further advised that it had been in contact with the Council’s Noise Team who stated that since March 2017 they had received 66 calls about problems from the neighbour’s property. She had made 39 calls and the rest were from the property the other side of the neighbour. Since then, they had made a further 23 visits and nothing had been witnessed.
On 26 January 2021, the resident contacted the landlord thanking them for the response however she said that she felt that the issues had not been resolved as such she would like to escalate her complaint. Additionally, she would like an update about what was happening with her neighbour as the noise nuisance had continued.
The resident also said that last time they spoke, the landlord had said that the neighbour would be moved to other accommodation, but this had not happened yet. She asked for confirmation as to if this was still being progressed.
On 22 March 2021, the resident emailed the landlord and the Council’s Noise Team asking for an update on a resolution for the on-going noise issues from her neighbour’s address. She referred to her escalation request of 26 January 2021 and said this had been disregarded and instead mediation was suggested.
She had previously explained to the landlord why she thought that mediation with the neighbours would be unproductive and said that she was disappointed that her request to move this issue forward was ignored. She had contacted the Ombudsman and she looked forward to its stage two response.
Following contact from the resident, on 22 March 2021, the Ombudsman contacted the landlord asking it to respond to the resident’s escalation request.
On 14 April 2021, the landlord advised the resident and the neighbour that the Council’s Noise Team had agreed to place a noise recording device in the resident’s property, in the neighbour’s property and in the property the other side of the neighbour’s address, to capture any noise.
On 28 April 2021, the landlord’s Complaints Team provided a stage two final response. This stated they had considered the history of the complaint, looked at all correspondences and had liaised with colleagues at the landlord and with the Council’s Noise Team. They advised:
1. They had a meeting with various officers on 27 April 2021 to resolve the matter “fully”.
2. She had been in communication with the Council’s Noise Team that have said they were willing to continue to communicate with her.
3. The Council provided her with a noise box for the past two weeks and she would have this for a further two weeks to catch any noise present.
4. They were unable to comment on any social services involvement on this matter as it would go against Data Protection laws.
5. Written warnings have been sent to the neighbour in question several times, which she was aware of.
6. The Council’s Noise and Nuisance Team had attended to calls on this matter and had slowly resumed their services since July as they were not visiting throughout the Covid-19 pandemic.
7. All policies and procedures have been followed regarding this matter to date.
It concluded that her complaint had been adequately addressed and had been taken seriously. If she remained unhappy with the outcome of its complaint investigation, it said she could pursue her dissatisfaction by asking the Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman (LGSCO) to review her complaint. The LGSCO investigated complaints about councils including housing allocations, planning, education and social services.
The resident continued to report further noise nuisance and on 20 May 2021 the Council’s Noise Team issued a warning to the neighbour which stated that a Community Protection Notice (CPN) may be issued in regards to loud amplified preaching/sermonising consisting of shouting and chanting from with her property.
On 3 June 2021, the resident told the Ombudsman that she was unhappy with the landlord’s final response.
In response to the Ombudsman’s evidence request, the landlord provided noise reports made to the Council’s Noise Team. This evidence details the noise reports mentioned by the landlord in its 30 December 2020 communication to the resident.
The landlord confirmed to the Ombudsman on 31 May 2022 that the neighbour and her family had since moved out of the neighbouring property.

The landlord’s ASB policy

The landlord’s ASB policy highlights the importance of having clear and robust procedures for managing ASB and states it is committed to assisting those who are affected by ASB.
It states that remedies to address ASB, including noise complaints, include talking to and interviewing perpetrators, sending warning letters and mediation. Further, that it takes a multi-agency approach to tackling ASB cases including when dealing with complex households. It is committed to taking a victim-centred approach and works to resolve ASB and support tenants so as to avoid eviction

Assessment and findings

Noise reports

Responsibility to investigate and resolve noise complaints can lie with either the landlord or the local authority’s Noise Team depending on the type of noise reported or the facts of the individual case. However, responsibility can overlap requiring both to work together to identify the best course of action to effectively resolve or manage the issue, whilst keeping the resident informed. However, this review will only consider the landlord’s handling of the resident’s noise nuisance reports, in accordance with our Scheme.
The resident first contacted the landlord to verbally complain about the noise from the neighbouring property on 16 October 2020 when it allocated the case to its RSO to investigate. Prior to this, it is clear that both she and other residents in close proximity of the neighbour had complained about this issue to the Council’s Noise Team. Whilst the landlord’s records show the Noise Team had made the landlord aware of the complaints received during this timeframe, as they were conducting their own investigations including carrying out site visits, it was reasonable for the landlord not to take any action until such time it was asked to intervene by either the Noise Team or the resident.
Following the resident’s noise report to the landlord on 16 October 2020, it was proactive in taking steps to address the issue over the next two to three months. Its RSO immediately called the neighbour to discuss the allegations then visited the neighbour on 28 October 2020 and sent a first tenancy warning letter on 30 November 2020 after the reports continued. The landlord subsequently sent a second tenancy warning on 7 December 2020. The landlord continued to work with the Council’s Noise Team throughout this timeframe who sent officers to the site location on further occasions in an attempt to witness/evidence the noise nuisance. The action taken therefore was in accordance with the landlord’s ASB policy.
The landlord also contacted the neighbour’s social worker and liaised with them regarding the possibility of moving the neighbour to an alternative property. It also contacted MASH to enquire if the neighbours were known to them as, through the course of its investigations, the landlord identified that the neighbour and her family had “multiple issues” indicating they may be vulnerable.
Therefore, at this stage it is clear the landlord was taking reasonable steps to resolve the noise issue whilst balancing this with the need to provide support to the neighbour’s family as required by its policy. However, there is a lack of evidence to demonstrate the landlord provided any updates to the resident about the progress of its investigations following her 16 October 2020 report until she raised her complaint in early December 2020. This indicates there was insufficient communication from the landlord when handling her ASB reports at this stage.
However, following her stage one complaint, in its complaint response the landlord set out the action taken. It also advised it would continue to monitor the situation, reminding her to report any further incidents. Whilst the landlord’s approach was reasonable, the resident contacted it again on 30 December 2020 advising of ongoing noise disturbance. She explained that she was concerned that the action taken was insufficient to resolve the issue and also asked it about providing support to her for the sleep deprivation and stress caused by the noise issue. The landlord replied on 30 December 2020 explaining that despite the Noise Team visiting outside the property on numerous occasions, they had not yet witnessed the noise nuisance. It did not answer her request for support. On balance, it was reasonable to expect the landlord to signpost the resident to a support agency in the circumstances. Its failure to do so demonstrates it did not follow its ASB policy in this regard which commits to taking a victim-centred approach.
The resident contacted the landlord again on 26 January 2021 confirming that the noise disturbance was on going and asked if there was any update on previous advice that the neighbour may be moving. She also requested to escalate her complaint. The landlord did not respond to the resident’s 26 January 2021 communication and there is no evidence of it taking any further action in relation to the noise reports. It is acknowledged that between 6 January 2021 and 8 March 2021 the country was in its third lockdown (as a result of Covid-19), therefore this may be the reason for the landlord’s failure to act during this timeframe. However, there is no evidence of the landlord explaining this to the resident either at the time or at any time since. The lack of response from the landlord therefore during this timeframe was unreasonable.
Following contact from the Ombudsman on 22 March 2021, the landlord confirmed to the resident and the neighbour in April 2021 that the Council’s Noise Team had provided noise boxes for them to capture the level of noise heard in their homes. As noise recordings can identify the frequency and level of noise heard from inside a property, this can assist in building a case where enforcement action is deemed appropriate. As the Noise Team had not witnessed noise nuisance during site visits, this action was appropriate to establish the extent of the noise nuisance being reported. It is noted this option was first mentioned by the Noise Team in August 2020 but this was not pursued at that time. Further, mediation had also been referenced to the resident in October 2020 as means of resolving the noise issue, however this was also not progressed.
In its final complaint response dated 28 April 2021, the landlord referenced that the noise box would remain in situ for a further two weeks to capture any noise. Further, it said its ASB Manager was willing to communicate on this matter with her on a continuous basis going forward. This assurance provided was appropriate in the circumstance.
Therefore, the landlord followed its ASB policy by working with other agencies in particular the Council’s Noise Team to identify the best approach to address the resident’s noise complaints whilst also providing support to the neighbour. For the main part, the landlord took appropriate and proportionate action to address the resident’s ASB reports. However, further steps taken by the landlord to either progress mediation or secure installation of noise recording equipment sooner may have resolved the noise issue earlier. It did not always provide sufficient updates to the resident about the progress of its investigations and it did not respond to her request for support. Therefore, these issues demonstrate a failure in the service provided when dealing with the resident’s noise complaints. The landlord did not acknowledge or apologise for these instances in its complaint responses or offer any compensation. This would have been reasonable and in accordance with the Ombudsman’s Dispute Resolution Principles (DRPs), which are, ‘be fair – treat people fairly and follow fair process; put things right and learn from outcomes’.
The Service had not seen evidence of the parties’ communications after the final response however it is evident that the Council’s Nose Team issued the neighbour with a CPN warning letter within a few weeks. Further, it is noted that the landlord has confirmed that the neighbour has since moved out of the property however no further details have been provided.

Complaint handling

At the time of the complaint, the landlord operated a two stage complaints process which stated it will provide a stage one response within 15 working days and a (stage two) response at review stage within 25 working days. Its policy said if the complainant is dissatisfied with the review stage response they will be informed of their rights to escalate to the LGSCO or the Housing Ombudsman.
The landlord failed to escalate the resident’s complaint to its review stage when the resident requested this on 26 January 2021. Whilst it did subsequently issue a stage two final response on 28 April 2021, following the resident’s contact with the Ombudsman in late March, its failure to provide a final response within the timescale stated within its policy is evidence of it not following its complaints process when handling the resident’s complaint. It also provided the resident with inaccurate information about which Ombudsman to escalate her complaint to in its final response.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure by the landlord when handling the resident’s noise reports.
In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord when handling the resident’s related complaint.

Reasons

The landlord did take steps to address the resident’s noise complaints and applied a multi-agency approach in accordance with its ASB policy. However, there were instances of it failing to communicate with the resident sufficiently, an instance of it failing to act on her further report in late January 2021 and an instance of it not addressing her request for support.
The landlord did not escalate the resident’s complaint to its review stage when she asked it to and it provided incorrect Ombudsman’s details.

Orders and recommendations

The Ombudsman orders the landlord to:
1. Pay the resident total compensation of £200 comprising of:
  1. £100 for stress and inconvenience caused by failures in the service provided when handling her noise nuisance reports.
  2. £100 for complaint handling failures.
2. Review this report to identify learning to improve its handling of noise reports and complaints going forward.
3. Comply with the above orders within four weeks.