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

Connect Housing Association Limited (202003899)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202003899

Connect Housing Association Limited

14 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 the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of noise nuisance.
  2. The Ombudsman has also considered the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint.

Background and summary of events

Background

  1. The resident is an assured shorthold tenant. He started his tenancy with the landlord in June 2004.
  2. The property is a two-bedroom second floor flat.
  3. The scheme consists of 28 flats within five blocks. The landlord has advised this Service that it is a “mix of ground floor units used as supported housing for people with learning and physical disabilities, as well as housing for general needs tenants which is on the upper floors”. Ground floor tenants are supported by care professionals who are on site 24/7 and are commissioned by the local authority. The landlord is responsible for housing management at the scheme.
  4. The perpetrator of the noise occupies a property on the ground floor. For the purpose of this investigation, the perpetrator of the noise has been referred to as “the tenant”.
  5. It is known by all parties that as a result of the tenant’s disability, she vocalised her feelings by shouting. Subsequently, the landlord undertook sound attenuation works to the tenant’s flat to mitigate the impact of the noise on the resident’s above. Consideration was also given to converting a bungalow, used by the care providers as an on-site office, into a self-contained property for the tenant. This was initially ruled out, however, due to the cost implications.

Scope

  1. Whilst the local authority’s / care provider’s actions in managing the tenant are inherently linked with the resident’s complaint about the landlord, it is important to note that the Ombudsman is unable to comment on this within the report. This is because this Service can only consider complaints where the complainant is in a landlord–tenant relationship, as per paragraph 25 of the Scheme, and the complaint must relate to their occupation of the property, as per paragraph 36 of the Scheme. As such, any concerns about the local authority’s / the care provider’s handling of the tenant will need to be raised directly with the local authority in the first instance. The resident may then escalate his complaint to the Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman should he remain dissatisfied and once he has exhausted the local authority’s process.
  2. What’s more, while the resident has asserted that the landlord’s failure to address the noise nuisance resulted in a deterioration of his mental health, this matter has not been investigated. This is as it is beyond the expertise of this Service to reasonably determine a causal link between the landlord’s actions (or lack of) and the alleged health issues. Therefore, should the resident wish to pursue this matter, legal advice will need to be sought.
  3. The Ombudsman is also unable to determine a causal link between the noise experienced by the resident and the loss of the resident’s job. Subsequently, while the resident has advised this Service that he seeks compensation for this, this Service is unable to make such orders. The Ombudsman has, however, taken into consideration the likely impact the noise described would have on an individual, and the appropriateness of the landlord’s response.
  4. Finally, this Service is aware that the resident had been making reports of noise nuisance to the landlord as early as June 2018. It is noted that at this time, the landlord encouraged the resident to make detailed reports which he subsequently continued to do.
  5. Despite acknowledgement of this, however, the Ombudsman is unable to investigate matters which occurred prior to March 2019, six months before the resident first raised a complaint about the landlord’s service.
  6. This is as under paragraph 39(e) of the Scheme, the Ombudsman will not investigate complaints which were not brought to the attention of the landlord as a formal complaint within a reasonable period – which would normally be within six months of the matter arising.
  7. In the Ombudsman’s opinion, if the resident became dissatisfied with the landlord’s service at an earlier time, it would have been reasonable for him to have raised this.

Summary of events  

  1. On 7 March 2019, following a multi-agency meeting with the care provider and local authority, the decision was taken to install noise monitoring equipment at the resident’s neighbour’s property (on the first floor). This was as the care provider had reported receiving differing reports regarding the level of noise. The landlord explained to the resident that this would also allow it to establish how effective its earlier sound attenuation works had been. The equipment was installed on 8 April 2019.
  2. On consideration of these recordings, on 7 May 2019, the landlord confirmed with the resident that the level of shouting from the tenant was unreasonable and excessive, and that a solution had to be found. It noted that the recordings helped to demonstrate that the level of noise would be detrimental to the health and wellbeing of the resident.
  3. An interim plan of “waking nights” support was therefore put in place enabling care workers to respond to the tenant quickly where she made outbursts. The resident confirmed over the weeks that followed that this appeared to improve the issue. The landlord acknowledged that this was only a temporary solution, however. Consideration was subsequently being given to the quality of the earlier sound proofing and to establish whether any further works could be undertaken to reduce the noise.
  4. The resident complained about the landlord’s Service on 9 September 2019 on experiencing further noise. He advised that he felt that the landlord had neglected its duty of care and expressed that he intended to meet with the other resident’s effected to consider a way forward.
  5. The landlord responded on the following day disagreeing with the resident’s assertion. It reminded the resident that it had been meeting with the care provider and the tenant’s Social Worker (SW) to discuss the matter and to agree a plan. The landlord noted that it had also not received reports from the resident for some time. It advised, nonetheless, that the resident’s report would be passed to the Tenancy Enforcement Manager.
  6. It is noted that reports of screaming during the late evening were made in December 2019 and were consistently being reported by the resident’s neighbour on the first floor. The resident highlighted, in his report on 27 December 2020, that the noise continued to impact his sleep and subsequently his work.
  7. The resident was advised on 6 January 2020 by the landlord that it would pass his report of noise on to the care provider and the Tenancy Enforcement Team.
  8. A multi-agency meeting was undertaken on 26 February 2020 in which the feasibility of redeveloping the care provider’s office into a bungalow for the tenant was discussed. It does not appear that this was communicated to the resident at this time.
  9. On 4 March 2020 the landlord raised an order for works which it believed would make a positive difference to the noise being experienced. Following an inspection of the tenant’s property, it noted that works to address the thresholds on both the front door and living room patio, to adjust the patio door, and to install secondary glazing to the bedroom windows could reduce the noise.
  10. The landlord subsequently advised the resident of this, following his further reports of shouting throughout March 2020. The landlord explained, however, that due to government guidelines in relation to COVID-19, this work would be delayed. It was confirmed for the resident that his reports were being recorded on the Anti-Social Behaviour database, nonetheless.
  11. On making reports in early April and later May 2020, the landlord contacted the resident on 12/13 May 2020 for further details on the incidents he experienced. He was advised that enquiries were still being made about how to best move forward. The landlord explained that it was imperative that it collected as much detail about the events and the impact it was having. It advised on 19 May 2020 that it would speak with the care provider about the recent incidents raised.
  12. With no further incidents reported over the following weeks, the landlord requested an update on 15 June 2020.
  13. Following contact from the resident, this Service wrote to the landlord on 3 August 2020. The landlord advised this Service at this time, on 19 August 2020, that it had already provided the resident with a formal response in January 2020. It did not provide this Service with a copy of the complaint letter.
  14. The resident called the landlord on 18 November 2020 to discuss the noise nuisance. This Service can see that the landlord spoke with the resident on the following day and in an internal email, noted that the resident wished to go forward with his complaint. He explained that he was unhappy that although he had been advised of a potential redevelopment to the site office, this would still take some time to achieve. No consideration had been given to how his health and wellbeing would be affected over this time. He advised that he was now working from home and could hear screaming throughout the day.
  15. Records suggest that the resident made further reports of noise in November 2020. On 26 November 2020, he again confirmed for the landlord that he wished to make a formal complaint.
  16. This Service can see that the resident made six reports of noise nuisance in December 2020. He was advised on each occasion that his reports would be shared with the care provider. It was suggested that as the Senior SW had returned to post, some extra support for the tenant could possibly be agreed while plans for the redevelopment were being made.
  17. On 5 January 2021 along with a report of noise, the resident questioned what it would take for the landlord to take the right steps. He stated that he did not feel that he had been treated fairly throughout the entire process and requested that the matter be escalated to the highest level. He was advised in response that the matter had been passed to a manager, and enquiries made about the plan being progressed. This Service can see that he made additional reports of noise on 7, 11, and 24 January 2021.
  18. This Service contacted the landlord on 10 February 2021 advising it to offer the resident a complaint response. It subsequently confirmed with the resident on 15 February 2021 that he would receive a response within 14 days. In his further correspondence on 19 February 2021, the resident expressed dissatisfaction that this was only just being considered at stage one of the complaints process.
  19. On 3 March 2021 the landlord contacted the resident to establish whether there had been any further incidents since his previous report on 19 February 2021. A request was also made for the resident to provide an impact statement to set out how the situation was making him feel. The landlord explained that this would be shared in a later meeting with the care provider and the SW.
  20. On the same day the resident explained that as he had been spending most of his time in his smaller room, and tended to have earphones plugged in, he could not confirm whether there had been more noise. He explained that as well as impacting his job, his health was suffering, and he had experienced an episode in which he collapsed onto his ironing board due to a lack of sleep.
  21. According to the landlord’s internal notes, on 5 March 2021 it contacted the resident following a multi-agency meeting. An offer of temporary alternative accommodation was made at this time, however the resident declined this.
  22. In further correspondence on 8 March 2021 the landlord advised the resident that contact would be made with the tenant’s family to explore the possibility of temporarily rehousing her until the redevelopment could “get off the ground”. The resident was advised that the logistics of exploring this option could still be very complex and take some time. The landlord advised that the redevelopment of the bungalow was considered to be the best option long–term, but it was also recognised that a short-term solution was needed. It had been acknowledged in the meeting that the resident’s health and wellbeing was being affected. He was advised that he would be kept up to date.
  23. The resident was provided with a stage one response on 16 March 2021. Within this, the landlord advised that due to the sensitive nature of the issues, there were some details that it was unable to share. It explained, nonetheless, that it was working with both the care provider and the local authority to provide a solution to put an end to the nuisance experienced. It noted that this would not be a quick or immediate solution, anticipating that matters could take in the region of 12 to 18 months. The landlord subsequently reproposed its offer of alternative accommodation whilst the situation was being resolved. It explained that this was the only option that could be offered to provide an immediate solution.
  24. Notes suggest that works to refit the front door threshold at the tenant’s property were completed on 23 March 2021.
  25. Following notice from this Service that the resident wished to escalate his complaint, the landlord contacted the resident on 23 April 2021 advising that it would offer a response within 14 days.
  26. On 27 May 2021 the landlord wrote to the resident with its final response. It apologised for the delay in responding and advised that that following the resident’s recent reports, it had alerted the care provider so that remedial action could be taken. The landlord noted that waking night cover was still in place and that the secondary glazing, which was being looked at prior to lockdown, was also now on order and would be installed as a priority once it became available.
  27. The landlord explained that while the most viable solution was the redevelopment of the onsite office, the cost was above the initial budget. Alternative solutions were subsequently being considered. It apologised that this was taking longer than was reasonable. The landlord reiterated that it could offer assistance in finding suitable alternative accommodation whilst it worked to resolve the matter.
  28. This Service can see that the landlord took the decision to go ahead with the redevelopment plans and submitted its planning application on 17 June 2021. It appears that this matter is still ongoing.
  29. The landlord also confirmed internally that works to install the secondary glazing to the bedroom window and to address the patio door with a secondary glazing solution were completed on 2 July 2021. It does not appear that this information was shared with the resident.

Assessment and findings

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of noise nuisance.

  1. The landlord has not disputed that the resident was consistently experiencing noise nuisance. Its consideration of the noise captured via the noise recording equipment enabled it to confirm for itself that the level of noise was excessive and that this would cause the resident considerable disruption.
  2. In regular circumstances, this Service would have subsequently expected the landlord to have utilised its enforcement tools to deter the perpetrator of the nuisance. Under the landlord’s ASB policy, it recognises that “if not addressed, ASB can significantly reduce the quality of life for [its] tenants”.
  3. In this case, however, the Ombudsman accepts that the issue was particularly complex and unusual. While the tenant’s behaviour did meet the landlord’s definition of ASB, and there was clear evidence of an adverse impact on its residents, it may not have been completely appropriate for the landlord to have attempted to deal with this using its typical approach. The landlord’s usual sanctions that might persuade a perpetrator to desist from ASB, such as warnings or injunctions, would have been unsuitable given that the tenant’s behaviour resulted from her learning difficulties.
  4. As such, the Ombudsman has not considered it inappropriate that no immediate enforcement action was taken to improve the tenant’s behaviour. The landlord explained to the resident that other avenues would additionally need to be exhausted before it would seek to resort to legal action.
  5. The landlord did, nonetheless, still have a responsibility to seek some form of resolution, whether via arranging intervention for the tenant or agreeing a way forward with the resident. With consideration of the history of the issue, the frequency of the reports being made, and the impact that the resident expressed this was having, this should have been done within a reasonable period of time. The landlord was obligated to take steps to resolve the nuisance, to enable it to uphold the resident’s right to peaceful enjoyment of his home.
  6. This Service can see that the landlord did attempt to do this by working closely with the local authority, the care provider, and the tenant’s SW. On witnessing the noise for itself in May 2019, arrangements were made to introduce “waking night” support which the resident confirmed improved the situation somewhat. The landlord also received few reports in the months which followed.
  7. On receiving reports towards the end of 2019 and into 2020, it would have become clear to the landlord that the “waking night” support was not a sufficient intervention to resolve the matter, however. This Service can see that the landlord did subsequently begin considering the feasibility of its redevelopment plan, previously identified as an option. This was a reasonable long-term option if the landlord could facilitate this.
  8. The Ombudsman cannot see, however, that the resident was advised of its plans at this time. It therefore would not have appeared to the resident that the landlord had taken any steps to address his ongoing experience, other than sharing his reports with the care provider and the Tenancy Enforcement Team. 
  9. While the landlord urged the resident to continue to make reports, this Service appreciates that the lack of visible action would have been discouraging for the resident. Several months had also passed before the landlord advised the resident that works could be undertaken to the tenant’s property which it believed might make a difference – works which were subsequently put on pause.
  10. This Service has noted that the landlord continued to advise the resident, on receiving several further reports in March, April, and May 2020, that his reports had been passed on, and that plans would be discussed with the care provider and local authority. While an update was frequently promised, it does not appear that this was forthcoming. It is also worth noting that it was not the care providers / local authority’s responsibility to find a solution for the resident.
  11. In the Ombudsman’s view, the landlord’s approach was unreasonable. The landlord could have done more to support the resident, particularly given its own concerns for his health and the impact it was having since working from home. It appears to this Service that contrary to this, there was an expectation that the resident wait indefinitely for a plan to be proposed and without proper indication of the conversations that were being had. This ultimately resulted in the resident raising a further complaint about the landlord’s Service. The Ombudsman can see that the landlord continued to offer the resident the same advice – that his reports were being logged and passed on – in November 2020, December 2020, and January 2021.
  12. While the landlord acknowledged that there was a need for a short-term solution, it was not proactive enough in exploring the available options. It is clear that there was no urgency, despite its suggestion that works could be undertaken to the tenant’s property to reduce the noise transmittance. There would have been several opportunities between March 2020 and March 2021 in which the landlord could have done so, noting the several periods in which government guidance permitted landlords to resume non-essential works. Works to address the front door threshold / patio door were not completed until March 2021, and the secondary glazing not until July 2021, however. 
  13. It was reasonable that the landlord made an offer of temporary accommodation to the resident as a short-term solution. This was pragmatic and proportionate. While it is appreciated that the resident was reluctant to accept the offer, this Service cannot see that it was within the landlord’s gift to provide a more immediate solution. It was also in line with the landlord’s ASB policy which explains that such offers will be made to residents in extreme cases where there are few alternatives and where it is justified.
  14. In the Ombudsman’s opinion, however, it would have been reasonable for the landlord to have made this offer at an earlier time. This might have been the case had the landlord addressed the resident’s complaints prior to this Service’s intervention in February 2021.
  15. As a further short-term solution, this Service can see that the landlord sought to explore whether the tenant herself could be temporarily re-housed, and advised the resident that this would be discussed with the tenant’s family. The Ombudsman cannot see that any communication was shared with the resident on the outcome of this. There is also no evidence that this was seriously considered.
  16. The Ombudsman has therefore concluded that there was a service failure in the way that the landlord handled the resident’s reports of noise nuisance. It is accepted that the landlord was in the process of arranging a long-term solution and that it highlighted to the resident on several occasions that this would take some time to implement. In the Ombudsman’s opinion, however, the landlord did not do enough to impose a short-term solution, with knowledge of how this was impacting the resident, within a reasonable amount of time.
  17. The landlord was responsible for pursuing a solution for the resident and despite a significant length of time passing, no reasonable proposals were made until the landlord offered the resident the option of temporary accommodation. The Ombudsman accepts that the resident’s reports were not always consistent, however evidence shows that the landlord was aware that the noise was still taking place during several of these periods.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint.

  1. The landlord’s complaints policy recognises that there will be times where a resident is unhappy with the service that is being provided. It subsequently indicates that it will seek to address this where the matter has been brought to its attention. It confirms that this can be done in person, via email, telephone, its website, or fax.
  2. This Service’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code) also encourages landlords to identify complaints as “an expression of dissatisfaction, however made, about the standard of service, actions or lack of action by the organisation, its own staff, or those acting on its behalf”.
  3. As such, this Service would have expected the landlord to have treated the resident’s communication on 9 September 2019 as a complaint. This is as at this time, the resident clearly expressed dissatisfaction with the landlord’s Service and alleged that the landlord had neglected its duty of care. It was inappropriate that the landlord chose to respond to this outside of its complaints process and to enable the resident to go through its procedure.
  4. Although the landlord advised this Service in August 2020 that it had offered the resident a complaint response in January 2020, it has provided no evidence of this. This Service has also seen no evidence that the landlord contacted the resident at this time to share a further copy, as it said it would, or to discuss any outstanding issues that the resident sought to raise. The resident’s contact with this Service should have been an indication for the landlord that he remained dissatisfied.
  5. This Service can see that instead, there was a further reluctance to raise the resident’s complaint in November 2020. While the landlord’s notes / email records demonstrate that the resident confirmed his dissatisfaction with the landlord’s Service during a telephone call on 18 November 2020, and requested that his complaint be dealt with formally in an email on 26 November 2020, this was not done.
  6. There was also no formal acknowledgement of the resident’s assertion in January 2021 that he did not feel that he had been treated fairly throughout the process, or his request that his matter be escalated to the highest level.
  7. As such, the resident made contact with this Service and this Service had to encourage the landlord to offer a complaint response in February 2021. This was inappropriate. It is clear to this Service that the landlord failed to pick up on the resident’s continued dissatisfaction, contrary to good practice.
  8. While the landlord’s complaints process gave it the opportunity to reflect on its approach to date, particularly where it had delayed in raising the resident’s complaint about its Service, it did not do this. This Service cannot see that there was any acknowledgement of the resident’s previous comments.
  9. What’s more, while the landlord has advised this Service that during the pandemic its target for responding to complaints was extended to 28 days, the acknowledgment letters issued to the resident still indicated that a response would be provided within 14 days. This Service therefore would have expected the landlord to have either honoured the timescales set out in its letters; to have contacted the resident to highlight the error and to set the new timescale for response; or to have recognised within its responses that it had failed to do either of these options. It does not appear that the landlord did this, however. The landlord did acknowledge that there had been a delay and subsequently offered an apology within its final response, explaining that there had been an “error” as well as information outstanding. This Service notes, however, that at both stages one and two, there was a three-week delay in offering a response. An apology alone was therefore unsatisfactory.
  10. In light of the above, the Ombudsman has concluded that there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint. This Service has seen several examples in which the landlord’s actions were contrary to its complaints policy and good practice.

Determination (decision)

  1. In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Scheme, there was:
    1. A service failure with regards to the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of noise nuisance.
    2. Maladministration with regards to the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint.

Reasons

  1. The above determination has been arrived at as:
    1. The Ombudsman accepts that in light of the situation, the landlord concluded that while slightly over budget, its best option was to arrange for a purpose-built bungalow to be developed for the tenant. Although this was a solution that would not offer the resident any immediate satisfaction, due to the complexity and logistics of the situation, it would ensure that no other residents were disturbed in the future. As the resident was not the only individual that was affected by the noise, this was reasonable.

Given the length of time that the resident had to live with the noise nuisance, and the impact he expressed this was having on him, however, this Service would have expected the landlord to have offered a reasonable short-term solution at an earlier time. Despite encouraging the resident to continue to make reports and confirming for itself that it understood the likely impact, few steps were taken – over a reasonable period of time – to enable the resident to peacefully enjoy his home. An offer of temporary accommodation to escape the noise was not offered until a significant length of time had passed and until the landlord agreed to address the resident formally. This was inappropriate.

  1. The landlord failed to act in accordance with good practice (particularly as set out by the Code), and to act in line with the sentiment of its complaints policy. While the resident had put forward his dissatisfaction with the landlord’s service on several occasions, there was a repeated failure to respond to him formally. The landlord also failed to adequately manage the resident’s expectations. Both its complaint responses fell outside of the timeframe it had advised of, and the timescale set out within its complaints policy. Ultimately, the landlord delayed the resident in being able to bring his complaint to this Service for investigation. Its apology was subsequently not sufficient in putting matters right.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

  1. The Ombudsman orders the landlord to award the resident:
    1. £250 in recognition of its handling of the resident’s reports of noise nuisance.
    2. £450 in recognition of its handling of the resident’s complaint.
  2. The above awards of compensation should be made to the resident, and the landlord should provide this Service with evidence of this, within four weeks of receiving this determination.

Recommendations

  1. This Service has considered the landlord’s offer of temporary accommodation to be a reasonable solution until such time that it is able to re-house the tenant. As such, the landlord should re-engage with the resident to establish whether he would re-consider this, and should discuss the potential housing options with him should he agree to move. The landlord should also be clear on the length of time the resident is likely to be in temporary accommodation.
  2. The landlord should provide the resident with an update on the redevelopment works, and any obstacles which will likely delay the completion.
  3. If the landlord has not done so already, it should update the resident on whether there is the potential for the tenant to be temporarily relocated until the completion of the works.