Sanctuary Housing Association (202016075)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202016075

Sanctuary Housing Association

18 August 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 response to the resident’s reports of noise nuisance from the neighbour in the upstairs flat.
2. The related complaint handling.

Background and summary of events

The resident is an assured tenant whose tenancy started on 17 January 2017. The property is a one bedroom flat in a Housing For Older Persons (HFOP) complex (‘the scheme’) comprising 16 flats.
The landlord has confirmed to this Service that the resident has PTSD, Bi Polar and suffers with anxiety and depression as a result causing her not being able to sleep. The landlord provides “supported living” and it offered a “low-level” support plan to all residents. The landlord has confirmed that it had a support plan in place for the resident at the time of the complaint however that she had since refused any support from any staff but this was reviewed every three-months. Further, that she has a pendant and alarm system in the property which was connected to its telecare service in case of an emergency.
In her formal complaint raised on 15 March 2021, the resident said the noise from her upstairs neighbour has been ongoing for four years. Whilst this may be the case this investigation can only consider matters that have been raised as a formal complaint within six months of the events occurring. The formal complaint must have also completed the landlord’s complaints process. Therefore, this investigation will focus on events from January 2021 as they formed the subject of the complaint made on 15 March 2021.

Summary of Events

The landlord’s records indicate that the resident contacted its Customer Service Centre (CSC) on 1 January 2021 to complain about the volume of her upstairs’ neighbour’s TV. The landlord asked her to call back in working hours.
The landlord’s internal records show the resident called the Scheme Manager (SM) on 13 January 2021 reiterating her concern about the volume of her upstairs’ neighbour TV and said he was getting up early and walking about. The resident advised she could also hear the noise of the TV from the neighbour to the side of her.
The SM called the neighbour to the side of her asking her to reduce the volume of her neighbour’s TV. As the upstairs’ neighbour was deaf, the SM attended the site that day and their notes state they could hear the neighbour’s TV from the carpark and so visited the neighbour and adjusted the TV volume to a reasonable level and put subtitles on for him.
On 18 January 2021, the resident made a further noise complaint to the SM about the volume of her neighbour’s TV and advised that she wanted to move. The SM spoke to the Housing Officer (HO) about the resident’s report and an ASB case was opened. On 21 January 2021, the landlord sent the neighbour a letter asking him to keep the volume of the TV turned down and to be mindful in general of noise late at night and during the early hours of the morning.
The SM called the resident on 22 January 2021 to advise of the actions taken at which point the resident queried why she had not sent the letter before she went on leave for Christmas. The SM said they only got the neighbour’s TV set up on 23 December and then she was on leave from 24 December 2020 and did not return until 4 January 2021. The SM noted the resident said she blamed her for being on medication and put the phone down on her.
The resident made a further report of excessive noise from her upstairs’ neighbour’s TV on 31 January and the SM visited the resident on 1 February 2021 to discuss her report and then visited the neighbour to put the subtitles back on his TV and told him to be mindful of how loud the volume was. The landlord’s records note that the SM raised a repair for the sliding doors in the neighbour’s flat as she noticed they were creating a noise when being used.
The resident contacted the landlord again on 18 February 2021 to report that she had been woken up by her neighbour making a noise in the night and then in the morning at 6am when he got up. The resident said that she heard him turning the taps on, having a bath and then going back to bed. The landlord’s HO called her back on the same date and the resident raised a concern about the lack of action from the SM. Its HO explained what action had been taken in terms of reducing noise from the neighbour’s TV and banging however explained that it could not stop the neighbour from using the taps and toilet in the night or from getting up early. Its HO advised that it may be possible to look at works to reduce the noise but could not make any guarantees that this would work. Its HO also discussed moving and advised the resident to seek a supporting letter from her GP. The HO told the resident that because there was no evidence that the noise caused by the neighbour was done so with intent, the ASB case would be closed.
The SM’s note dated on 24 February 2021, stated that the resident asked that the SM did not call her anymore and that in response the SM advised that she would text the resident every three days and if the resident needed her to call her anytime.
On 1 March 2021, the resident reported a further instance of her neighbour’s TV being on loudly and of being woken up at 2am due to her neighbour walking around the flat noisily and using the taps. The landlord’s records indicate that the SM called her back and noted that the resident said her neighbour was still keeping her awake at night and that the they were not doing anything about it.
The resident called the landlord’s CSC on 3 March 2021 advising she did not want to speak to the SM. Its SM texted her advising she could contact the HO who was also responsible for the scheme.
The resident made a further report on 4 March 2021 of the neighbour turning on taps on and walking around in the night. The landlord opened a second ASB case however said it could not visit again until after lockdown restrictions had been lifted. On 12 March 2021, its SM visited the neighbour to check on the volume of his TV and to remind him to be mindful of the noise he is making and the resultant disturbance this caused. A local authority support service contacted the landlord’s HO on 12 March 2021 regarding ASB issues being experienced by resident as she had told them about the noise being experienced.
On 12 March 2021, its HO wrote to the resident advising further investigation in to the noise from the taps and floorboards would be conducted once lockdown restrictions had been lifted. It said however that they would remain in contact with the neighbour in the meantime to ensure the noise was kept to minimum. It acknowledged the local authority support service had contacted it and advised that that the resident had found the noise so unbearable at the weekend she had stayed at a bed and breakfast for a couple of days. Its HO also said this service had told it that the resident had said she no longer felt able to talk to its SM and the landlord advised that a colleague (a second HO) would contact her in the next week to discuss her case and how she was feeling.
On 15 March 2021, the resident called the landlord’s second HO and advised she wished to make a complaint as she did not feel like she was being taken seriously after 4 years. The HO’s notes indicate it reiterated advice given in its 12 March letter that it was in regular contact with her neighbour to monitor the noise she had reported. The resident was dissatisfied with this response.
On 17 March 2021, the resident called the landlord advising that she had been woken up at 1.45am and that it had been going on too long and it was driving her to have a breakdown. An urgent call back was raised. The Area Manager (AM) called the resident on the same date but no notes of the call are included in the landlord’s records.
The resident contacted the Ombudsman on 17 March 2021 regarding her noise complaint.
The CSC notes indicate that the resident called the landlord again on 18 and 19 March 2021 asking to speak to the Regional Manager. A message was sent to this individual however later that day the landlord called the resident advising her that its Operations Manager (OM) was the appropriate person to speak to and that she would contact the resident later that day.
Its OM called the resident on 19 March 2022 to discuss her complaint and health issues. The landlord’s notes state the resident told it she had felt suicidal and was on the verge of a breakdown. She had no family support and felt unsupported by the landlord’s SM and said her social worker had not gotten back to her despite calling her several times. She had not slept properly for 7 days due to the noise. The resident said she had spoken to its CSC earlier that day who had offered to call the emergency services but she refused this. The OM asked what it could do for her. The resident asked to move property and its OP explained whilst she could support a move, this was not something she could do immediately. The resident asked about a stay in a hotel for respite. Its OM agreed, as a goodwill gesture, to fund her stay in a hotel for 2 days and said it would arrange this for her, which it did.
Following contact from the Ombudsman, the landlord told us on 22 March 2021 that it had raised a stage one complaint regarding the resident’s noise complaint.
On 22 March 2021, the landlord’s OM called the resident signposting her to a support services. Its OM called the resident again on 23,24,25,26,29 and 31 March 2021 to check on her welfare and also discuss ASB. The OM’s notes made during this time also show they completed the resident’s GP and Safeguarding referrals and liaised with a social worker in the Safeguarding team and then arranged to visit the resident at the property with her social worker.
The joint visit took place on 1 April 2021 and the landlord’s notes indicate they discussed the resident’s ASB reports, her health, her complaint and re-housing. Her social worker agreed to look at an adult social care package and to visit the resident again on 12 April 2021. Its OM agreed to call her the following week.
On 8 April 2021, the landlord’s OM called the resident and its notes show the resident had returned to the property. The resident reiterated that her concerns had not been addressed and the landlord confirmed that there was an open complaint but explained that it had been prioritising her welfare but said it would now look into the complaint. The resident’s request to move was discussed further.
On 15 April 2021, the landlord’s OM called the resident to discuss her complaint and followed up that conversation with her stage one written response. This outlined the actions they had taken:
1. Made a referral to her GP and Safeguarding to alert them to concerns with her mental health.
2. Raised an inspection request for a surveyor to attend to inspect the noise from the floorboards and plumbing. Ahead of this visit it would provide the surveyor with an update on the situation as discussed.
3. Contacted her Social Worker for an update regarding adult social care.
4. Considered her request for further assistance with hotel costs (beyond the initial two days it agreed to cover). It explained that it did not have the provision to pay for any further hotel accommodation costs but signposted the resident to a local authority support service which it said had a legal duty to support her if she felt unable to return to her home.
It acknowledged the resident’s complaint regarding the SM not providing sufficient support and that she had said the SM had not: passed on her concerns to the HO or discussed the situation with her neighbour quickly enough and that she had provided an incorrect phone number for the HO.
The landlord referred to the support plan in place and said the resident had agreed to minimal support from the SM under this. It explained the SM’s role was not provide support themselves but to signpost and ensure the general welfare of its customers. It could see her SM has been in regular contact with the resident and had provided her with signposting advice as well as escalating her concerns to the HO, however, it said it appreciated that she would have liked this to happen sooner.
It said that the resident had been made aware of support services but that the resident told it that she did not wish to engage with mental health services.
The landlord said that in addition to her support plan, it had reviewed cases logged in relation to her noise complaints. It advised the first ASB complaint logged (on 18 January 2021) related to the noise from her neighbour’s television. It said the SM had confirmed to her that she had contacted her neighbour to request it was turned down. It said that at this point, she had queried why action was not taken sooner and it acknowledged that there had been a delay with logging the case indicating it took longer than could reasonably be expected. The landlord said it was sorry it did not deal with this issue as quickly as she would have liked.
It referred to the further complaint opened (on 4 March 2021) in response to her reports of noisy floorboards/plumbing and general living noise from her neighbour’s flat. In advised that in response, its SM spoke to her neighbour about this issue and provided her with an update. Its HO had explained that it was unable to inspect the floorboards/ plumbing concerns at that point due to Covid restrictions in place. It reiterated that the concerns raised did not constitute ASB and that er neighbour had not breached his tenancy agreement in a manner that would allow it to take further action.
Within its response the landlord acknowledged that it should have completed a vulnerability assessment to consider the impact the noise issue was having on the resident. It apologised for not taking this action.
Regarding incorrect phone numbers, it said that the SM had explained that an incorrect phone number for the HO had been put on a letter sent to all customers at the scheme but that this had been corrected and reissued it to all. It could find no evidence that this error was targeted at her or was intended to stop her from accessing services/ contacting it.
In conclusion the landlord advised it was partially upholding her complaint as it could have contacted her neighbour sooner regarding the television noise and because it did not complete a vulnerability assessment in line with procedure. It said that in not doing so it believed this had had a significant impact on her. It offered the resident a goodwill gesture of £250.00 in recognition of the delay and the impact this situation has had on her.
On 29 April 2021, a surveyor attended the neighbour’s flat to inspect the floorboards/taps/pipework and to listen to the noise it created in the resident’s property. During this visit an inspection of the taps and pipework was carried out.
The resident contacted the landlord on 6 May 2021 asking to escalate her complaint. The landlord’s records indicated it completed an escalation form and sent the resident a letter on the same date confirming her request to escalate the complaint to stage two. It advised it aimed to provide the final response by 2 June 2021. The landlord advised that it may not be able to resolve any ASB which she may be currently experiencing or enforce any tenancy action or facilitate a move/transfer to alternative accommodation. It said however it would investigate her reports of ASB had been handled by local housing staff and if these have been dealt with in accordance with its ASB policy and procedure.
The surveyor attended again on 11 May to inspect the floorboards at her neighbour’s address.
On 11 May 2021, the landlord wrote again to the resident regarding her request to move advising it would prioritise her for a move to a top floor one-bedroom HFOP flat. It provided her with further details of its HFOP properties in the area and said it could only consider her for one of these once one became vacant and such it was difficult to give her a timescale. It also provided the resident with details about its mutual exchange scheme.
The landlord advised that a surveyor had inspected her neighbour’s address and that as a result repairs had been raised to: “fill obvious gaps around pipework along with some adjustments to the pipework/ plumbing, including further inspection work”. It advised that the surveyor was also in attendance that day to review the noise potentially emanating from the floorboards, this inspection will allow the surveyor to consider further recommendations for improvements . It said it would provide an update once it had received the surveyor’s report.
On 17 May 2021, the landlord’s called the resident who raised further concerns.
On 2 June 2021, the landlord provided a stage two final response. It acknowledged that the resident’s complaint raised on 17 March 2021 concerned how her noise complaints had been handled by its SM and Housing staff and stated that the resident had raised further concerns during the call of 17 May 2021.
It set out events and actions taken in response to the resident’s noise reports since 1 January 2021. Actions it had taken included:
1. arranging for the resident to spend two nights in hotel accommodation with expenses to cover two evening meals in order to provide her with respite from noise and to allow her to get some sleep.
2. visiting her on 1 April with her social worker to discuss the noise reports, her health and re-housing her.
3. Arranging for a surveyor to inspect the taps, plumbing and floorboards at the neighbour’s address. It said it understood gap filling and plumbing work (valve change in WC to make it quieter) had been completed and it said works to the floorboards would commence on 9 June.
The landlord acknowledged there had been some failings when handling her noise reports. These included:
1. Not offering any support in response to her 1 January 2021 noise report. The landlord said it was sorry for the poor level of customer service she received that day.
2. Whilst its SM called the resident on 1 March 2021 in response to her noise report of the same day, its records did not detail its response or show if it contacted the neighbour about this report.
3. Following her report of 4 March 2021, there is no evidence of it contacting the neighbour until eight days later on 12 March 2021 when it visited him to check on the volume of his TV and remind him to be mindful of the noise he was making and the resultant disturbance this caused.
4. In response to her request for call back on 15 March 2021 it was unclear from its records if this call back was provided. It said it was sorry if she did not receive a call back.
5. Its records did not detail the call the resident had with its AM on 17 March 2021 or show if its HO followed up on her report that day of a loud noise being heard when her neighbour turned the taps on. It apologised for its poor record keeping on this occasion.
It also responded to the resident’s additional concerns raised on 17 May 2021 including:
1. Its HO had never been seen on scheme or discussed with residents if they are happy with SM – the landlord’s response was that its HO visited all of the schemes on a regular basis (prior to lockdown restrictions). As the SM managed the scheme, they would not be visiting residents unless specifically requested or required. It understood that its HO had since had a face to face meeting with the resident on 25 May 2021 to discuss her concerns. Unless complaints were being received, its HO would have no reason to discuss residents’ satisfaction with its SM any concerns raised would be done on a one to one basis and would not involve consultation with other residents on the scheme.
2. Its SM telling her to take sleeping tablets – the landlord’s response was that it had checked system notes and records and there was no interactions which indicate that she was given this advice. The landlord said it had asked its SM and she denied making this statement. It said if she did have proof of this conversation, she would be happy to look into this claim.
3. Its SM knowing that Christmas is a bad time for her and that she did not go and pre-warn her neighbour not to make too much noise over Christmas 2020 – the landlord’s response was its staff did not speak to the neighbour about any noise issues as it had not been made aware of this prior to 1 January 2021.
4. A query about when its SM contacted her neighbour about flushing his toilet at night and running taps – the landlord’s response was that its notes show that toilet flushing was discussed with the neighbour on 12 March 2021 when its SM asked him to try to be quieter when using the toilet at night. Whilst not mentioned in the notes, it said it was likely hand washing was also mentioned to the neighbour during this discussion.
The landlord said it was sincerely sorry that there had been failings in its handling of some of her reports of noise nuisance. However it was satisfied that the actions taken were in accordance with its ASB policy and procedure. It reiterated that as her neighbour was not breaching the terms of his tenancy agreement it was unable to take any formal action against him. It said it was still working hard to try and reduce the noise transference as much as possible and would continue to try and resolve the issue. It said its OM would highlight her experiences to staff and remind them of the importance of following process and what communication levels are expected specifically when managing ASB cases.
It advised that in addition to its previous offer and in recognition of the poor customer service she received on 1 January 2021, its poor record keeping, unclear records, it offered to increase the gesture of goodwill to £350.00.
The landlord’s internal communications show it booked repairs to the hallway floorboards for 10 June 2021 however the landlord’s internal communications indicate that as they were not deemed completed to a good standard, the works would be re-done in September 2021.
On 5 August 2022 the landlord confirmed to the Ombudsman that the works to the floorboards were completed on 20 September 2021 and that it had purchased the neighbour earphones for when he watched TV.

Assessment and findings

Response to reports of noise nuisance

The landlord’s ASB policy includes noise nuisance within the definition of ASB but says when dealing with noise nuisance it will only address noise nuisance that meets the statutory definition.
The landlord’s policy also makes clear the landlord must identify vulnerable complainants or perpetrators as this may affect the impact of a situation on a complainant and what action may be taken against the alleged perpetrator. Its policy requires that local staff carry out a details vulnerability assessment for all new ASB cases. The landlord’s policy also requires it to make appropriate adjustments to consider if there are any reasonable adjustments needed to ensure that complainants and alleged perpetrators are able to engage fully in the procedure.
Furthermore, in accordance with its ASB policy, staff must also ensure that actions agreed are proportionate to the nature of the ASB and ensure the victim or witness has a realistic view of the case and explain the realistic and likely outcomes, in order to manage their expectations.
In this case, the resident’s reports mainly concerned excessive noise from the upstairs’ neighbour’s TV and from his use of the toilet and the taps during the night/early in the morning. Reports also included him walking around/creaky floorboards and less frequently of him “throwing furniture around”.
The neighbour in question is deaf and the landlord has confirmed to the Ombudsman that he also has other vulnerabilities. The landlord was also aware that the resident had mental health needs and it had a support plan in place for her at the time of the complaint.
The landlord opened an ASB case after receiving three noise reports from the resident concerning excess noise from the neighbour’s TV over two to three weeks. This was reasonable as these reports established a pattern of potential ASB however there is no evidence of the landlord agreeing an action plan or explaining the realistic or likely outcomes to the resident. It also did not carry out a vulnerability assessment on the resident. As its policy makes clear the landlord should take these steps on receipt of an ASB report, this is evidence of the landlord not following its policy in this regard. However, it is evident that the landlord:
1. visited the neighbour’s address to a) adjust his TV volume/put subtitles on for him and b) discuss the noise reports against him and ask that he try to be quiet, especially during the night and during the early hours of the morning
2. sent a letter to the neighbour asking him to keep the volume of the TV turned down and to be mindful in general of noise late at night and during the early hours of the morning.
On balance, the action taken was reasonable and proportionate, despite the landlord not following some aspects of its policy when responding to the resident’s reports at this stage. Shortly afterwards, in response to a further noise report, the landlord advised the resident it was closing the ASB case (on 18 February 2021) as it deemed that the type of noise did constitute ASB as it was not done with intent. Whilst the landlord’s notes indicate it explained the reason to the resident over the phone, as the noise reports were ongoing, it was reasonable to expect the landlord to set out to the resident what it intended to do to manage the noise issue going forward and consider if any action could be taken to mitigate the noise transference issue. There is no evidence of the landlord doing so at this stage indicating a failure to manage the resident’s expectations.
However, in response to the resident then reporting noise coming from the neighbour’s flat during the night/early in the morning, the landlord opened a further ASB case. On 12 March 2021 it wrote to the resident advising further investigation into the noise from the taps and floorboard would be conducted once lockdown restrictions had been lifted. It also assured her that it would remain in contact with the neighbour in the interim to ensure the noise was kept to minimum. Over the subsequent two to three months the landlord:
1. Carried out further visits to neighbour’s address to i) adjust his TV volume/put subtitles on for him and ii) discuss the noise reports against him and ask that he try to be quiet, especially during the night and during the early hours of the morning
2. In response to the resident’s reports of noisy plumbing and creaking floorboards, it arranged for a surveyor to inspect to the neighbour’s plumbing and floorboards.
3. It advised it may not be able to resolve the ASB or take enforcement action against the neighbour but said it would review at stage two its handling of her noise reports.
4. It raised works recommended by the surveyor to seal around pipes extending through to the floor below and to change the ball valve to the toilet cistern to reduce the noise. This work was completed in May 2021
5. It raised works recommended by the surveyor to repair the hallway floorboards. This repair was originally carried out in June 2021 but re-done in September 2021 when it decanted the resident for several days.
6. Agreed to support the resident’s request to move to a top floor flat at one of its HFOP in the area and wrote to her on 11 May 2021 confirming this . It gave details of these but explained it could not provide a timescale as this would depend on when one of these properties became vacant. It also provided details of how the resident could register for a mutual exchange which it said may provide her with a quicker solution for a move.
These actions were reasonable and proportionate and shows it took steps to manage her expectations as well as reduce the issue of noise transference. Further, by visiting the neighbour in person rather than calling him to discuss the noise reports received, the landlord made appropriate adjustments to ensure the neighbour understood the complaint against him and had an opportunity to respond. However, whilst in response to the ongoing noise reports, the landlord continued to provide support to the neighbour and to remind him to be aware of noise transference, there is no evidence of it checking if he had the relevant support from other agencies. As the underlying noise issue may have related to his disability, this action would have been reasonable in the circumstances. Nevertheless, the landlord told the Ombudsman on 18 October 2021 that it was seeking support via adult social services at that time.
Apart from the failures in the landlord’s service provided previously mentioned, there were some minor delays by the landlord when responding to the resident’s noise reports including those made on 1 and 4 March when it did not visit the neighbour to discuss the reports until 12 March. There were also occasions when some of its staff did not detail discussions it had with the resident during calls for example on 17 and 18 March 2021. This is further evidence of the landlord failing to follow its policy which makes clear that all staff must keep full and accurate detailed records of any contact, communication and developments throughout an ASB case.
However, within its complaint responses, the landlord acknowledged and apologised for these failures in the service provided as well as for the lack of action taken in response to her initial 1 January 2021 report about excessive noise coming from her upstairs’ neighbour’s TV. The landlord offered the resident £250 in compensation in recognition of the delay and the impact of its failure to complete a vulnerability assessment. It increased this amount to £350 in its stage two final response.
In regards to the resident’s concern raised during the complaints process about the support provided by its SM, as previously mentioned a support plan had been in place to support the resident for her mental health conditions at the time of the complaint. The landlord’s communications indicate the resident had agreed to minimal support from the SM. The landlord’s records (from 2 November 2020) show the landlord’s SM and HO had been in regular contact with the resident regarding various issues including her health and from 1 January 2021, in regards to the noise issues.
In its stage one complaint response the landlord explained this to the resident and also that the SM’s role was not to provide support themselves but to signpost and ensure the general welfare of residents. It said it was satisfied that its SM had done this in her case and that the resident was aware of how to contact MH services if she needed to. It also confirmed that its SM had escalated her concerns to the HO although acknowledged the resident would have liked this to happen sooner.
As the landlord records confirm what it said in its complaint response and do not suggest there was insufficient support from its SM, the landlord acted reasonably in this regard. However, during the complaints process, it is evident that the landlord increased the level of support provided to the resident due to her advice on 19 March 2021 that she was reaching a crisis point.
Over the next one to two weeks, the OM contacted the resident on multiple occasions to check she was safe. It also liaised with support services and on 1 April 2021, visited the resident at the property with a social worker to discuss her concerns including her health and the noise issue. During this timeframe the OM made referrals to her GP and Safeguarding to alert them to concerns with the resident’s mental health. As previously mentioned, its OM also agreed to fund two nights hotel accommodation for the resident in order to give her respite from the noise.
Therefore, the steps taken by the landlord to ensure the resident was safe after she indicated she had suicidal ideation were appropriate. It is noted that by acknowledging in its complaint response that its failure to carry out a vulnerability assessment had had a significant impact on the resident, this suggests the landlord recognised there may have been a link between this and her subsequently feeling as though she had reached crisis point. It is not the Ombudsman’s role to determine any causal link between the landlord’s action/lack of action and any health condition a resident has. However, as the landlord acknowledged its omission in this regard and has demonstrated that in all other aspects it has provided appropriate support to the resident including when it followed its safeguarding process when it was made aware of the resident’s mental health conditions, overall the landlord’s support provided to the resident was reasonable.
The landlord also provided an assurance to the resident in its final response that the OM had highlighted to their staff the importance of following its policies and effective communication and good customer service to prevent a similar issue occurring in the future. Therefore, this indicates lessons had been learned by the landlord. This is in accordance with the Ombudsman’s dispute resolution principles which are to be fair, learn from outcomes and put things right. As the landlord also offered the resident compensation of £350 in recognition of impact caused to her by its failures in the service, the landlord reasonably resolved the resident’s complaint regarding its response to ASB reports.

Complaint handling

The landlord operated a two-stage complaints procedure and in accordance with its policy handling policy, at stage one the landlord will acknowledge complaints within five days and provide a written response within 10 working days. At stage two (final stage), the landlord will provide a written response within 20 working days.
The landlord provided a stage one response to the resident on 15 April 2021. As the resident raised her complaint on 15 March 2021, this indicates that the landlord’s response was not provided within the 10 working day timescale stated in its policy. It is noted that the landlord explained to the resident on 8 April 2021 that whilst it intended to provide a complaint response, it had been prioritising on her welfare up to that point.
Although the landlord had been providing support to the resident, as it did not explain this would result in a delay in providing its stage one complaint response prior to the resident raising this with approximately three weeks after she raised a complaint, this is evidence of the landlord failing to following its complaint process at stage one. However, due to the length of the delay, this constitutes a minor service failing. The landlord did not apologise for this in its complaint response.
As the resident asked to escalate her complaint on 6 May 2021 and it provided a response on 2 June 2021, this was within the 20 work day timeframe stated in its policy.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 55(b) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was reasonable redress by the landlord in respect of its handling of the resident’s noise reports.
In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Scheme, there was service failure by the landlord when responding to the resident’s complaint.

Reasons

Although there were some failures in the service provided when responding to resident’s noise reports, the landlord acknowledged these and took steps to put these right during the complaints process. The landlord also provided sufficient support to the resident in relation to her mental health conditions and addressed her request to move property due to the noise.
The landlord failed to follow the timescales stated in its complaints policy when responding to the resident’s stage one complaint and did not acknowledge or apologise for this.

Orders and recommendations

The Ombudsman orders that the landlord:
1. Apologises to the resident for the delay in providing a stage one response and;
2. Pay the resident £50 in compensation for its failure to follow its timescale state in its complaint handling policy.
3. Comply with the above orders within four weeks.
The Ombudsman recommends that the landlord provide an update in regards to her request to move to an alternative property.