The Guinness Partnership Limited (202116578)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202116578

The Guinness Partnership Limited

26 April 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 anti-social behaviour (ASB). 

Background

2. The resident is a leaseholder of the landlord, in a ground floor flat.
3. The landlord opened an ASB case on 21 September 2020, as the resident had reported his neighbour in the flat above was banging, swearing and shouting. He also reported that the neighbour often returned to the building in the early hours and was very noisy at these times, singing and waking him up. Following its initial actions on the matter, the landlord advised that as the resident was a homeowner, it could not investigate or manage the ASB case.
4. The resident raised a complaint on 28 April 2021. He said that the landlord had initially acted, but then advised he would have to pay for arbitration and noise equipment, so signposted him to the council, and this delayed him obtaining suitable support. He said the council had contacted the landlord to establish who was responsible for the floorboards in the flat above, as they were causing additional noise transference, but had not received a response.
5. In its decision on the complaint, the landlord apologised that it had not initially provided the correct information and advised the resident to continue to contact the council regarding the issue. It said it had provided staff feedback regarding providing correct information about its ASB service for leaseholders. It further stated that it could offer some support in ASB cases with leaseholders, but this was different to its obligations to tenants. It intended to work with the resident and his neighbour to resolve the matter and attempt informal arbitration if necessary. It would take tenancy action if there was evidence of a breach of lease and its Customer Liaison Office would contact him regarding further support. It said it had provided staff feedback and would review its policies.
6. In the resident’s complaint to this Service, he said he was still being regularly disturbed by noise nuisance from the flat above, including creaking floorboards. He said he thought the landlord should enforce the lease conditions, as it states the residents are responsible for the condition of the floorboards.

Assessment and findings

7. The landlord’s ASB policy states that it covers residents but does not specify leaseholders. The landlord’s website states that when a leaseholder reports ASB, it can issue a written or verbal warning, issue an acceptable behaviour contract, arrange mediation, liaise with appropriate authorities, and consider tenancy action in serious cases.
8. According to the documents provided to this Service, the landlord discussed the issues with the resident’s neighbour, issued him two warnings, and gave the resident diary sheets to document the ASB. Following its initial actions, the landlord advised any further ASB support services would be chargeable because he was a leaseholder. It signposted him to Environmental Health (EH) and his local council for further support, on 10 November 2020.
9. While the landlord could have made its responsibilities more explicit to the resident, and initially signposted the resident to the appropriate services, it explained that it tried to prevent the ASB from escalating. The landlord continued to liaise with the resident regarding the ongoing ASB in March 2021, and again advised him to pursue the issue with EH. While some of the aspects of ASB reported by the resident ordinarily fall within the landlord’s responsibility to deal with, it is appropriate that it referred the resident to EH with respect to the issues of noise. The actions it took, as detailed in the preceding paragraphs were reasonable in the circumstances of the case as they were in line with its obligations set out on its website.
10. It is noted by this Service that there were several incidents occurring and the resident advised the landlord about the impact this was having on him. Reports had also been made to the Police. As the landlord took interim actions before referring the resident to alternative support services, the delay was not unreasonable. It initially took these steps prior to signposting the resident to the council for further action.
11. In his escalation request of 24 May 2021, the resident requested that the landlord assess the lease to establish its ASB obligations. He said that while the landlord had since updated its website, its obligations were previously unclear. The landlord acknowledged that it could have given clearer advice and stated that it was providing a guidance note on ASB for its homeowners, demonstrating that it learnt from the complaint.
12. Noise transference from flooring would not be classed as ASB, instead it is categorised as expected household noise, unless there is evidence to show that the level of noise constitutes statutory nuisance. Under the landlord’s ASB policy it does not class “day to day living noise, which is not excessive or unreasonable” as ASB. Therefore, the landlord would not be expected to take tenancy action against the resident’s neighbour due to the creaking floorboards, without evidence that the level of noise is statutorily excessive. While the landlord could have specifically addressed this aspect of the resident’s complaint in order to better manage his expectations, there is no evidence of service failure as the landlord’s overall response to the reported noise was in line with its policies.

Events Occurring After the Formal Complaint

13. It is noted that the resident expressed dissatisfaction with the landlord’s further actions following its final decision on the complaint, this is specifically with respect to the matter of the telephone call to him which it stated that it would be making. It has been mentioned in the documents provided to this Service that the council has served the neighbour with an abatement notice, but no evidence of this has been provided. The resident has continued to report noise transference issues. 
14. Considering these issues, this Service suggests that the resident continues to diarise further incidents. The landlord is expected to fully implement the measures stated in the complaint decision and to clarify to the resident the issues which it would be investigating and those which should be referred to the EH.  This to ensure that it responds to further reports in accordance with its policy with respect to leaseholders. The resident should consequently consider making a new complaint to the landlord if he remains dissatisfied with its handling of the further issues.

Determination

15. In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration by the landlord in respect of its handling of the resident’s reports of ASB.

Recommendations

16. The landlord should consider how it is implementing all the measures which it committed to in its complaint response. It should also consider contacting the resident for an update on the current situation and clarify the steps it would take, specifying any that would be chargeable, if the issues remain on-going.