Sanctuary Housing Association (202104457)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202104457

Sanctuary Housing Association

8 December 2021

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 is about the landlord’s handling of:
1. the resident’s reports of antisocial behaviour (ASB) from her neighbour.
2. the resident’s reports of mice in her property.
3. the associated complaint.

Background and summary of events

The resident is a tenant of the landlord and occupies a flat in a housing scheme for people over the age of 50.
On 26 November 2020, the landlord spoke to the resident about a report it had received from her neighbour (Miss A) about noise from home improvements in her property. On 30 November 2020, the resident reported to the landlord that she had a verbal exchange with Miss A. The resident informed the landlord on 6 January 2021 that she had was experiencing harassment from Miss A.
The resident made a complaint with the landlord on 13 January 2021, stating that she did not have quite enjoyment of the property due to Miss A striking her door with her stick, Miss A asking her carer to confront her about noise, and Miss A calling out to her. She felt that she was due compensation for this. The resident contended that Miss A had “mental health issues” and therefore would not be able to adhere to any agreements. On 18 January 2021, she agreed to enter into mediation with Miss A.
On 25 January 2021, the resident reported to the landlord that Miss A had shouted abuse at her through her kitchen window and banged the ceiling from the property below hers. She called back later that day to request an update on her complaint.
The resident called the landlord on 1 February 2021 to discuss her complaint and request compensation from it. She added that she wanted new flooring to be installed in her property.
On 17 February 2021, the resident called the landlord to highlight that it had not responded to two letters she had sent it. She repeated that she wanted it to install new flooring to prevent noise transference to Miss A’s property which was below hers. The resident noted that the landlord had originally installed flooring for her but had not put down sufficient underlay to reduce noise transference.
The resident called the landlord on 22 and 24 February 2021 to request an update on her complaint. It noted that ASB related complaints were currently being dealt with through a dispute mediator and she should contact them directly to avoid duplication of information.
The resident emailed the landlord on 1 March 2021 to complain about its service to her, which included reference to a previous dispute, which she had brought to the Ombudsman for independent investigation. She said that she had received no response to two letters she had sent on 13 January and 2 February 2021 and she had received no calls back in response to five calls she had made to the landlord to request updates. The resident contended that the landlord was also not receiving her emails and requested that this was investigated by its IT team. She said that she had not received written acknowledgement or contact about her reports and took this to mean that the landlord had not investigated her complaint.
The resident said that Miss A, who had moved in below her in November 2020, had waged a “malicious campaign” against her from the outset by complaining about noise from her property. She said that the dispute mediator had conducted sound tests which had found that there was no excessive noise from her property. The resident added that the dispute mediator had advised her to report any further “harassment” to the police. She said that the landlord had not provided any “professional support” in response to her reports of ASB and she was being forced to report such matters to the police.
The resident requested that the landlord install flooring which was thick enough to provide adequate soundproofing for her property. She noted that it had previously installed flooring in her property but this was “half the depth of a matchstick”. The resident contended that she had spent 11 months in dispute with the landlord about a number of matters and therefore believed she should receive compensation for this.
The landlord emailed the resident on 13 April 2021 to confirm that it would only be responding to her current complaints about flooring, compensation and ASB. It noted that it had received reports from Miss A of noise nuisance from the resident which it had passed to its dispute mediator to “act as an independent witness”. The landlord confirmed that the dispute mediator had caried out visits to Miss A’s property and found no evidence of noise nuisance; therefore, her ASB case was closed. It said that it did not consider that there had been a failure of service as it was obliged to investigate all reports of nuisance appropriately and therefore it did not consider that compensation was warranted.
Regarding the resident’s flooring, the landlord noted that it had fitted the existing flooring in the resident’s property in 2019 as a goodwill gesture to resolve her complaint of the time. It confirmed that provision of flooring was the resident’s responsibility. The landlord advised that it was looking into her report of non-receipt of her emails.
On 14 April 2021, the resident sought the intervention of her MP, saying that the landlord had not addressed her reports of ASB from Miss A and that she considered that the flooring it had previously installed “failed to meet the required standards” for soundproofing at the time.
On 20 April 2021, the resident reported to the landlord that she was experiencing an infestation of mice at her property, which she said came from Miss A’s property. The landlord spoke to Miss A and relayed to the resident that there was no evidence of a mouse infestation at Miss A’s property. The landlord advised her to raise a repair for the holes which she believed the mice were using to gain access to her property.
On 29 April 2021, the landlord confirmed to the resident that its pest control contractor would be attending her property on 6 May 2021.The pest control contractor’s report after the visit noted that there was evidence of mouse activity and recommended works to block off possible access points in the property. They also stated that it was “advisable” to carry out an inspection of neighbouring properties.
The landlord brought forward a repair appointment to carry out works on 20 May 2021 to seal possible access holes for mice in the resident’s property. One hole in the cupboard housing the immersion heater was inaccessible to the worker. The landlord’s records noted that the most practical solution was to access Miss A’s property to “remedy issues”, however both parties were awaiting arbitration talks which could cause access issues.
The landlord’s records on 20 May 2021 noted that the resident would not meet with Miss A for mediation until Miss A provided her with a written apology.
On 8 June 2021, the resident contacted the landlord to report that she still had mice in her property. It advised her to request a repair to have the remaining possible access hole filled. That same day, the resident sought the intervention of her MP regarding her dissatisfaction with the landlord’s handling of the pest infestation and her reports of ASB.
The landlord issued a stage one complaint response to the resident on 15 June 2021 which repeated exactly the content of the email it sent to her on 13 April 2021.
The resident escalated her complaint with the landlord on 23 June 2021, in which she expressed her dissatisfaction with the landlord’s handling of her reports of ASB.
The landlord issued its final complaint response to the resident on 21 July 2021. It apologised for the mishandling of her communication on 14 January 2021 in which she raised her concerns about ASB. It explained that it would ordinarily have raised this as a stage one complaint but this was not done as she was in the process of mediation with Miss A; it apologised for not explaining this to her at the time.
The landlord said that it could not consider the resident’s dissatisfaction with the handling of her rent account as this occurred more than six months prior to the complaint.
The landlord explained that, following receipt of the resident’s report of harassment from Miss A on 14 December 2020, it arranged for mediation between herself and Miss A. It confirmed that while mediation was ongoing, it stopped all other action until this was complete and only considered further action once it received the final report from the dispute mediator. The landlord noted that it referred the resident back to the dispute mediator on 15 and 25 January and 24 February 2021, but it did not acknowledge her correspondence on 14 and 18 January and 1 February 2021. It apologised for this.
The landlord explained that, due to the impact of the corona virus pandemic, its staff had been unable to enter resident’s properties except for emergencies. This prevented it from installing noise monitoring equipment. It noted that the resident had requested that it lay adequate flooring in the property as a resolution to the noise transference issues which led to the reported ASB issues. The landlord confirmed that it agreed to this to resolve the ASB issues between the resident and Miss A in conjunction with the recommencement of mediation between the parties which was scheduled for 26 July 2021. It noted that this had been delayed by the resident requiring a written apology from Miss A before agreeing to participate in mediation.
The landlord confirmed that pest control within individual properties was the responsibility of each resident, but if an infestation was found to be affecting several properties, the landlord would be responsible for resolving the issue. However, the landlord confirmed that it assisted the resident in resolving the matter, despite its communal pest control visit on 14 April 2021 finding no evidence of rodent infestation. The landlord confirmed that it had attended to block up possible access holes for mice in the resident’s property, apart from her airing cupboard which was easier to access from Miss A’s property below. It noted that the resident had raised concerns about fire compartmentalisation and would be sending its fire technician to inspect the issue.
Regarding the resident’s request for compensation for not having the quiet use of her property, it noted that she was in dispute with Miss A but she had not provided any evidence that her enjoyment of the property had been impacted by the dispute. It therefore declined to offer compensation for this as it found that it had responded to her reports of ASB satisfactorily. However, the landlord acknowledged that it had mishandled her complaint and had not communicated effectively with her and offered her £125 compensation for this, broken down as £75 for its delayed complaint acknowledgement and response, and £50 for its lack of communication.
The resident contacted this Service on 22 July 2021 to confirm that she continued to be dissatisfied with the landlord response to her concerns about the ASB, its handling of pest control and its provision of adequate flooring from the outset of the tenancy in 2019. She subsequently contacted the Ombudsman to provide information about further instances of ASB.

Assessment and findings

Policies and procedures

The landlord’s tenancy agreement with the resident confirms that it is “not to interrupt or interfere with the tenant’s peaceful right to occupy the property”. This also confirms that tenants are not to cause nuisance or annoyance to others in their vicinity, for example through causing excessive noise.
The landlord’s ASB policy states that on occasions where it is noted that it is “not best placed to lead on the resolution of a case… staff will ensure that residents are aware of this arrangement”.
The landlord’s ASB procedure states that when it receives reports of ASB, it will assess the vulnerabilities of the victim, carry out an investigation and then attempt resolution through early intervention methods such as mediation, signposting, issuing warnings and acceptable behaviour contracts. After these actions, it will then consider the use of formal enforcement action such as legal action.
The landlord’s pests and infestations leaflet states that responsibility for dealing with a pest infestation is usually the resident’s unless the infestation affects an internal communal area, affects more than one property in a building, where access is due to a defect in the fabric of the building or affects a housing for older people scheme.
The landlord’s complaints procedure provides for a two-stage complaints process where at stage one the complaint is to be acknowledged within two working days and it is to provide a response to the resident within ten days. This procedure states that it is to monitor the progress of any resolutions agreed and inform them of progress. If the complaint is not resolved at stage one, the landlord is to acknowledge the escalation of the complaint to the final stage within two days and provide a written response to the resident within 20 working days.
The landlord’s compensation guidance provides for offers of compensation to be made when there is evidence of a failure on its part which has impacted the resident. It may offer compensation to the resident, for their time, trouble and inconvenience, of up to £400 depending on the level of impact on the resident and the level of effort required by the resident to resolve the matter.

The landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of ASB

When considering a landlord’s response to reports of ASB, it is outside the Ombudsman’s role to establish whether the reported ASB actually occurred; for example, whether Miss A actually perpetrated ASB against the resident. The Ombudsman instead seeks to determine whether the landlord acted reasonably and in accordance with its obligations in law and under its policies and procedures. Compensation may be awarded if it is found that the landlord did not act reasonably or in accordance with its obligations. Therefore, whilst the Ombudsman understands that ASB can be distressing, compensation is not awarded for a resident for experiencing ASB; it is only awarded to reflect the likely distress and inconvenience they may experience as a result of any failures by the landlord.
As confirmed by the tenancy agreement above, the landlord has a responsibility to investigate alleged perpetrators of ASB when it receives a report of noise nuisance. It was appropriate, therefore, for it to investigate the noise reports it received from Miss A on 30 November 2020. The Ombudsman would expect the landlord to also investigate accordingly when the resident subsequently made a report to it of experiencing ASB from Miss A on 30 November 2020, and 6 and 13 January 2021.
There was no evidence that the landlord opened an ASB investigation into the resident’s report of ASB from Miss A in accordance with its ASB procedure. However, it is noted that the resident entered into mediation with Miss A on 18 January 2021. As the landlord would be expected to utilise early intervention measures, such as mediation, to resolve ASB issues, in accordance with its ASB procedure above, it was reasonable for it to not commence an ASB investigation at this stage. This is because the ASB process, described in its ASB procedure above, had in effect been accelerated past the investigation stage of its procedure, to the offer of mediation. It therefore responded reasonably to the reports of ASB from the resident in accordance with this procedure.
For a landlord to take formal enforcement action against an alleged perpetrator of ASB it must demonstrate that it has taken all reasonable informal action to address the reported ASB, such as interviewing the alleged perpetrator and victim, offering mediation or issuing a tenancy warning. This is because the ultimate outcome of formal tenancy enforcement action is legal action to remove a resident from their tenancy and a court would require evidence that the landlord had exhausted all other methods before pursuing this option. Therefore, in light of the nature of the dispute, the landlord’s use of mediation and the recommencement of mediation on 26 July 2021 was reasonable in the circumstances.
While the landlord took reasonable actions to resolve the ASB by arranging for the resident and Miss A to enter into mediation, it is unclear if it was clarified to the resident that whilst this process was ongoing, it would not lead on any further investigation of ASB. As specified by its ASB policy above, the landlord should have confirmed to the resident that the handling of any further ASB from Miss A was being dealt with through the mediator. It did not take the opportunity to explain its handling of the ASB to her in its responses to her on 13 April and 15 June 2021, which informed her about its handling of Miss A’s ASB complaint about her, but not her complaint about Miss A. It was evident that there a lack of clear communication which the landlord acknowledged in its final response to the complaint on 21 July 2021.
The landlord offered, in its final response to the resident on 21 July 2021, £50 for its acknowledged failures in communication. The Ombudsman’s remedies guidance, available to view at https://www.housing-ombudsman.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2020/11/Remedies-Guidance.pdf, provides for compensation payments of £50 to £250 for failures “which had an impact on the complainant but was of short duration and may not have significantly affected the overall outcome for the complainant”. The £50 offered is the minimum amount under this guidance, but it must be considered that the landlord also agreed, in its final response to the resident, to replace her flooring to resolve the reported ASB.
The laying of flooring is the resident’s responsibility; while she may be unhappy with the standard of flooring the landlord installed previously as a gesture of goodwill, it remains that the replacement of this would be ordinarily be at a cost to herself. Its replacement of her flooring was therefore a form of redress as this removed the financial responsibility from her to do so. In conclusion, the landlord’s offer of £50 compensation, alongside its offer of replacement flooring formed a reasonable offer of redress to the resident for the failures it exhibited in the handling of her reports of ASB.
The Ombudsman understands that the resident made further reports of ASB from Miss A after the conclusion of the complaint, which have not been considered in this investigation. This is because the Ombudsman can only consider issues which have exhausted the landlord’s internal complaints process. The landlord has not yet had the opportunity to respond to the resident’s recent reports of ASB and it should be given the chance to do so, before the Ombudsman can consider the landlord’s handling of these incidents. The landlord should continue to engage with the resident to resolve the ongoing ASB and she retains the right to make a complaint and bring this to the Ombudsman if she remains dissatisfied.

The landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of mice in her property

While the landlord’s pests and infestations leaflet confirms that it is the resident’s responsibility to address pest infestation in their individual properties, it also states that this is not applicable when this affects a property in a scheme for older people. Therefore, it responded reasonably and in accordance with this policy when it sent its pest control contractor to the property on 6 May 2021 in response to the resident’s report on 20 April 2021.
It was reasonable for the landlord to carry out remedial works to address sites of possible rodent entry into the property by attending on 20 May 2021 to block access points. However, it is evident that one last access point was not blocked due to a lack of accessibility. To date, there was no evidence that this work was completed. As it was the landlord responsibility to remedy the infestation, it was a failure on its part not to complete the remedial works specified by its pest control contractor. The landlord should complete this work and pay £150 compensation to the resident for its failure to complete this within a reasonable time. This amount is in line with both this Service’s guidance and the landlord’s compensation policy, as set out above.

The landlord’s handling of the associated complaint

The landlord acknowledged, in its final complaint response to the resident on 21 July 2021, that it had mishandled her complaint by not raising a stage one complaint on 14 January 2021. However, it did not acknowledged that it once it logged her complaint on 1 March 2021 that it then took 30 working days to issue a response to her on 14 April 2021. This was 20 working days in excess of the timeframe specified in its complaints policy above. Furthermore, this response did not confirm that this was its response at stage one of its internal complaints procedure and did not give information to the resident on how to escalate her complaint if she remained dissatisfied.
This was not in accordance with the Ombudsman’s complaint handling code (published on our website), which sets out the Ombudsman’s expectations regarding landlords’ complaints processes. The code specifies that a landlord should make it clear to residents at which stage of its procedure it had considered their complaint and to provide clear information on how to escalate their complaint if they remain dissatisfied.
The landlord then issued a final stage one complaint response to the resident on 15 June 2021 which did not build upon its previous response. This served to delay and frustrate the complaints process further.
The landlord’s final stage complaint response was provided to the resident on 21 July 2021, 20 working days after her escalation on 23 June 2021, and was provided within the timeframe specified in its policy. However, as mentioned above, this did not fully acknowledge its failures in the handling of her complaint.
The landlord offered £75 compensation to the resident for its handling of her complaint. In light of its unacknowledged failure, and in accordance with our remedies guidance above, the Ombudsman orders that a further £75 compensation be paid to the resident for its delay in progressing her complaint, bringing the total compensation to £150 for this issue. This is because its handling of the complaint caused additional expenditure of effort and inconvenience by the resident to seek resolution of her complaint which necessitated her seeking the intervention of her MP in order to progress the complaint.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 55(b) of the Scheme, the landlord made an offer of redress to the resident prior to investigation which, in the opinion of the Ombudsman, resolves the complaint satisfactorily concerning its response to her reports of ASB from her neighbour.
In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Scheme, there was service failure by the landlord in:
1. Its response to the resident’s reports of mice in her property.
2. Its handling of the associated complaint.

Reasons

The landlord responded reasonably in arranging for mediation between the resident and Miss A to resolve the reports of ASB. It offered a reasonable level of redress to her for its failures in communicating with her about her reports of ASB.
The landlord did not complete the remedial work specified by its pest control contractor to tackle the reported infestation in her property.
The landlord delayed unreasonably in handling the resident’s complaint and did not provide sufficient information in its stage one responses.

Orders

Within 28 days, the landlord should:
1. Pay additional compensation of £150 to the resident for its failure to complete remedial work to address her reports of mice infestation.
2. Pay additional compensation of £75 for to the resident for its failures in the handling of her complaint.
3. Confirm to her when it will complete the rodent proofing work to her property, if it has not done so already.

Recommendations

The landlord should:
1. Pay the resident the £125 compensation it offered her in its final complaint response, if it has not done so already.
2. Confirm to the resident when it will replace her flooring.
Carry out refresher training with complaints handling staff to ensure that complaints are handled in compliance with the Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code. actions, it will then consider the use of formal enforcement action such as legal action.