London & Quadrant Housing Trust (L&Q) (202111018)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202111018

London & Quadrant Housing Trust

28 June 2023

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:
1. Handling of the resident’s reports of antisocial behaviour and noise.
2. Complaints handling.

Background and summary of events

Background

The resident is an assured tenant of the landlord, which is a housing association. The resident moved to the property in February 2020 by way of a mutual exchange. The property is a ground floor flat within a converted period house.
The resident is deaf, and the landlord has this recorded on its system. The resident also says that she suffers from chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) which is a lung condition which causes difficulty breathing, she also has arthritis and uses a walking stick at times.
The landlord’s antisocial behaviour (ASB) policy defines ASB among other things as “conduct capable of causing nuisance or annoyance to a person in relation to that person’s occupation of residential premises”. It says that it will take prompt and decisive action to tackle ASB.
When ASB is reported the landlord will assign a priority based on the evidence. Standard priority cases will be logged and assessed within three working days of the report. The policy says that noise that is “persistent, deliberate or targeted” will be recorded as ASB, however noise caused by people going about their daily lives will not be considered as ASB. When considering what is and is not ASB, the landlord will consider vulnerabilities or other issues facing the resident which may make it more difficult for the resident to resolve the issue without support. If vulnerabilities are present the landlord will adjust its approach as necessary. When managing an ASB case the landlord will:
1. Keep in regular contact with the resident.
2. Follow safeguarding procedures.
3. Provide support and advice including supporting to gather evidence.
4. Agree an action plan.
5. Use remedies available including warning letters, offer mediation, use acceptable behaviour contracts, or take legal action based on the nature of the ASB.
The landlord has a CCTV guidance document. It says that if the CCTV only captures images within the resident’s property boundary there are no data protection requirements to follow. However, if the CCTV records images outside of the property boundary, then the resident must comply with the Data Protection Act 2018 and must have a clear and justifiable reason for its use. The guidance does not say that the landlord’s permission is required to have CCTV. The Information Commissioner’s Office’s (IOC) guidance on domestic CCTV systems can be found on its website at: www.ico.org.uk. The guidance applies to recording equipment and says that “to capture video or sound recordings outside the user’s property boundary is not a breach of data protection law” and that people have “the right to install CCTV cameras”.
The resident’s tenancy agreement, and the landlord’s document on assured tenancy terms and conditions, both state that residents must not cause nuisance or annoyance or interfere with the peace or comfort of anyone in the local area. The resident also has a right to quiet enjoyment. This is term implied within all tenancies and means that the landlord must allow the resident to live in the property without undue interference. The tenancy terms and conditions also say that residents must obtain the landlord’s written permission before making any changes or improvements to a property.
The landlord’s residents’ home improvements policy states that residents should not make any alterations or improvements to their homes without having written consent from the landlord. It also says that residents who are tenants will not be considered for permission to make structural alterations and that permission for hard flooring will only be granted “on receipt of documentation showing that sound-proof underlay has been used so as to negate the likelihood of a complaint from neighbouring properties. Approval may be withdrawn if any complaints on this matter are received and upheld.”
Under the landlord’s vulnerable resident’s policy, it will identify any vulnerabilities a resident might have and their needs. It will tailor its services to the different needs of its residents. Section 20 of the Equality Act 2010 imposes a duty to make reasonable adjustments to assist people who are disabled.
The landlord operates a two stage complaints process. Under its complaints policy it defines a complaint as “an expression of dissatisfaction, however made, about the standard of service, actions or lack of action by” the landlord. The landlord will try to resolve complaints “there and then” but, if it cannot, it will acknowledge the complaint within one working day. It will then respond within ten working days to explain the outcome, how it will resolve the complaint and the timescale for this. If the resident is dissatisfied, they can ask for the complaint to be escalated to stage two. An independent member of the landlord’s staff will review the complaint and provide a response within 20 working days. The complaints policy sets out complaints which include ASB are excluded from the complaints process.

Scope of investigation

The resident raised several issues within her complaints to the landlord and her complaint at stage two of the landlord’s process. However, when approaching the Ombudsman, the resident asked that we only investigate her complaint relating to ASB and noise. The Ombudsman has also considered the landlord’s complaints handling.

Summary of events

The resident moved to the property in late February 2020 and made her first complaint to the landlord on 25 April 2020 (the first complaint). The first complaint had several parts, but in relation to noise ASB the resident said that:
1. There was noise coming from the flat above meaning that most days she did not wear her hearing aid.
2. The noise sounded like things being dropped and the resident above (who will be referred to in this report as the neighbour) was doing housework, running, and slamming the communal front door until the early hours.
3. The neighbour’s kitchen was located over her bedroom and the ceiling and walls were “paper thin”.
4. She had asked two companies to quote for soundproofing work and was told this would cost £5,000 with no guarantee it would solve the problem.
5. She needed to move.
The landlord acknowledged the first complaint and responded on 27 April 2020. In relation to the noise ASB element, the landlord said that it could not find any previous reports of noise or ASB made by the resident. It also said that ASB matters were excluded from the complaints process, but that it would direct the resident’s concerns to its case manager who would be able to investigate this.
On 7 May 2020 the landlord tried to call the resident. The resident emailed the landlord to say that she was deaf and so could not hear over the phone and asked to be emailed or sent text messages instead.
The landlord replied by email on 11 May 2020 and asked the resident to provide evidence of the noise by using the ‘Noise App’, a mobile application which can be used to record and report noise to the landlord. The landlord also emailed the resident on 13 May 2020, to ask her to complete diary sheets to record the incidents.
The resident emailed the landlord on 13 May 2020 and said that she did not understand why the landlord would allow the neighbour to have wooden flooring. She also said that recording noise would not help as it was day to day living noise, but that the flooring was making it worse. The resident said that the neighbour had knocked down a wall and moved the kitchen to above where her bedroom was, and that the landlord did not care that the neighbour had done this.
On 2 June 2020 the landlord emailed the resident. In its email it said it had listened to the noise app recording; it was household noise and not ASB and so would close the case. It had spoken to the neighbour who said that there was a wooden floor in the kitchen and bedroom. It had asked the neighbour not to slam the communal door. The resident replied by email to say that she had not been able to use the app to record the loud noise due to limitations with the app. She said that the noise went on until the early hours of the morning and that the wooden floor was making it worse.
The resident made a complaint on 13 June 2020 (the second complaint). In her complaint she said:
1. She had made a complaint by email on 2 June 2020 but had not received a reply.
2. That running, dropping things, slamming doors until 4.30am was not normal household noise.
3. The neighbour should have carpet or soundproofing and should not have a kitchen above her bedroom as this was not the original layout.
4. That she asked for permission to install soundproofing, but the landlord had not replied.
On 25 June 2020 the landlord acknowledged the second complaint by email. It said it would respond by 10 July 2020. This Service has not seen evidence that the landlord provided a response to the second complaint.
On 7 July 2020 the landlord emailed the resident in relation to the second complaint and asked her to complete diary sheets. The resident replied that the landlord should visit the neighbour to see that the layout of the flat had been changed and that there was wooden flooring. She said that she had sent the landlord a drawing.
In an internal email dated 9 July 2020 the landlord’s building surveyor advised “if the [neighbour] has moved the kitchen and taken down a wall they should be getting permission from us via a home improvement form and we wouldn’t normally grant permission to take down a wall”. On 13 July 2020 the landlord asked its surveyor to inspect the neighbour’s flat.
The landlord’s surveyor visited the neighbour on 8 August 2020. Following the visit, the landlord sent an internal email to its legal and policy teams. In the email it said that the neighbour had asked for permission to change the layout of her flat in October 2009; the landlord had visited but there were no records of whether permission was granted or not on the landlord’s system. The landlord’s surveyor said that the works had been completed. The kitchen had been moved to where the bedroom was, and the living and kitchen area had been knocked through; the work had been done to a high standard. The landlord said that the neighbour had said the work was done over ten years prior. The purpose of the email was to find out where the landlord stood legally. On the same date, the landlord in another internal email, said that it was “not actually clear that no permission was given – it sounds like the issue is one of recording.”
The landlord also sent an email to the neighbour on 8 August 2020 detailing the visit. In the email it also set out that the neighbour had made counter allegations about the actions of the resident.
The landlord’s records show that the resident provided noise app recordings on 6 August 2020.
On 8 January 2021, in response to an email from the landlord asking to close the second complaint, the resident replied by email. She asked for the complaint to remain open. She said that she still had not received an answer on whether she could install soundproofing. She also said that her daughter could hear the neighbour’s conversations through the ceiling.
On 22 February 2021 the resident’s daughter called the landlord to ask about making improvements. The landlord’s record says that it sent the resident a form to fill in and send back.
The resident made a complaint on 27 March 2021 via the landlord’s online complaints form (the third complaint). The third complaint was not recorded or acknowledged until 7 April 2021. The landlord acknowledged the third complaint by email and set out the issues, which included a complaint of noise from the neighbour’s flat. It said that it would refer the noise complaint to its case manager who would be able to deal with this directly.
The resident emailed the landlord on 7 April 2021 to provide further information about her noise complaint. She said that:
1. The noise issue was ongoing, and the neighbour did not care.
2. There had been more noise from works being done in the neighbour’s flat.
3. The neighbour had told her she would speak to any prospective mutual exchange partner and tell them she had a family, and they make noise.
4. When she works, she works odd shifts and uses her washing machine and cooks at night, and she had started receiving complaints.
5. She will need to move.
On 9 April 2021 the resident emailed the landlord to say that she now had a camera at her window so she could see if she had a visitor or delivery; previously she had to sit at her window and wait as she could not hear the doorbell. She asked if she needed permission. The landlord replied by email on 13 April 2021 to say she could fit a doorbell camera if this would help her not miss deliveries.
The resident emailed the landlord on 13 April 2021 to report noise from the neighbour’s flat and that she was having parties during the Covid-19 restrictions. The landlord replied that it would pass this on to the case manager.
On 15 April 2021 the resident emailed the landlord to report an incident which she said took place on 11 April 2021. The resident said that the neighbour had placed a wheelie bin in the front garden to block the view from the resident’s camera. She said that she had tried to speak to the neighbour about this, the neighbour became aggressive and was waving her hands in her face while moving forwards so that the resident ended up back inside the property. She said that her daughter had to intervene. The resident said the neighbour accused her of filming her family but that the camera does not record and was only a live video to an app on her phone.
The resident emailed the landlord again on 29 April 2021 to ask whether the neighbour would be allowed to keep the changes she had made to her flat or not.
The landlord provided its first response to the third complaint on 30 April 2021 by email. In relation to the noise element of the complaint, the landlord:
1. Said it had advised on 7 April 2021 that it would pass this element of the complaint to the case manager. It became aware of a previous ASB noise case and so combined them.
2. Provided a summary of the information the resident had provided it with.
3. Confirmed that the resident had asked for permission to have a camera and that this had been granted.
4. Said it had raised a new task for the case manager to contact the resident.
5. Provided information on how to escalate the complaint and how to contact this Service.
On 5 May 2021 the resident emailed the landlord and asked for her complaint to be escalated to stage two. She said that she was having to take her hearing aid out most days and wanted to know whether the neighbour was going to be told to move her kitchen back to its original position.
Between 13 May 2021 and 18 May 2021 several emails were exchanged between the resident and the landlord regarding the resident’s camera. In these emails:
1. The landlord told the resident to contact an occupational therapist (OT) in relation to her needs and provided information about CCTV and data protection.
2. The resident replied to say that the camera does not record and explained why she needed it to see anyone visiting the property. She said her neighbour told her that she needed permission. She told the landlord that it had already given her permission. She also explained how her hearing impairment, and her hearing aid, affected how she heard sounds.
3. The landlord’s case manager said that he had not given the resident permission for the camera but that it would need to go through the OT to be “within the law”.
4. The resident explained that the camera did not record, that it was pointed at the front garden which she said was for her use and her responsibility to maintain. She repeated the reason for the camera and said that the landlord did not know how to treat deaf people fairly.
5. The landlord said again that there would need to be an OT assessment.
The resident sought help from the NHS and a social prescriber emailed the landlord on 21 May 2021 to say that an OT was not appropriate, but a referral could be made to the sensory team which can assist people who are deaf.
In an internal email on 24 May 2021 the landlord said that it had not had a response from its legal team about the alterations made by the neighbour.
On 11 June 2021 the resident emailed the landlord and queried why she had been told by the case manager her camera was breaking privacy rules. She said she felt like she was not being taken seriously because she was deaf and complaining about noise. She also said that the communal door continued to be slammed and things were falling off her wall as a result. The resident asked why the neighbour had been allowed to keep the changes she had made and the wooden flooring and that this was not fair. The landlord replied that it had passed the noise issue to the case manager and that the member of staff replying was “not authorised to investigate the issue or contact [the] neighbour.”
The resident emailed the landlord on 20 June 2021 to say that she had spoken to her consultant at the hospital and that he was going to write a letter explaining how noise affects deaf people. This letter, dated 21 June 2021, says that while the resident is deaf “the cochlear implant she uses is particularly effective at picking up noises in a different manner to human speech. Therefore, she is extremely sensitive to noise and not reduced as maybe thought for someone who is deaf.”
The landlord’s records show that on 24 June 2021 it had a case discussion. The landlord decided to arrange to visit the property to investigate whether the noise was deliberate. There is no record that this visit went ahead.
On 25 June 2021 the landlord tried to call the resident and followed this with an email. In the email it said it had tried to call to update the resident on her case.
The resident emailed the landlord on 27 June 2021 to ask for her complaint to be escalated to stage three. She said that:
1. The “complaints system is confusing I do not know who is dealing with what complaint so having to keep repeating myself to everyone. It should be standard that people are told this person is dealing with this that person is dealing with that etc.”
2. The landlord did not know how to deal with deaf people, and that she had kept informing it to email or text her, but not to call her as she could not hear well over the phone.
3. She had taken her camera down and did not have her deaf doorbell to alert her to visitors as it had fallen from the wall and broken; she said this was due to the communal door being slammed. She was still waiting for the sensory team to assess her needs.
The resident emailed the landlord again the following day to say that the complaints process was “slow, confusing and frustrating” and that the landlord kept phoning and leaving voicemails.
On 30 June 2021 the resident emailed a senior manager at the landlord. In her email she said:
1. Just because she was deaf didn’t mean that she could not complain about noise. She also said that the landlord kept trying to phone her.
2. She agreed the noise was household noise but that her visitors could hear conversations coming from the neighbour’s flat.
3. The neighbour was continuing to slam the communal door and was leaving shoes in the hallway.
4. She still had not received a reply on whether she could install soundproofing.
5. She remained confused with who was responsible for replying to her complaint.
The resident emailed the landlord again on 7 July 2021 to chase her escalated complaint. The landlord replied that day and said that the senior manager had asked the case manager to investigate the noise part of her complaint.
In an internal email on 13 July 2021 the landlord said that the neighbour had made changes to her flat, but that the landlord had “no issues with the property and how it was laid out.” It said that the neighbour had asked for permission, but the landlord had not responded. It said that the changes had been made years before the resident moved into her property and there had been no complaints from previous residents.
On 14 July 2021 the resident completed the landlord’s online complaints form to report an incident with the neighbour. She said that she had gone to check on the new communal door closer which the landlord had fitted to stop the door being slammed. She said that as she was doing this she was approached by the neighbour from behind and assaulted; however, the neighbour called the police and accused her of assault.
The resident and the landlord exchanged further emails between 20 July 2021 and 29 July 2021. In these emails:
1. The landlord told the resident that the works the neighbour had done had been checked and the workmanship was fine.
2. The resident detailed her noise complaint again and explained what she said happen on 14 July 2021.
3. The landlord said that there had been no complaints about noise from the previous resident of the resident’s property. It suggested trying mediation.
4. The resident said that she had asked for mediation and that the neighbour had lied about being assaulted by the resident. She also said that her deaf doorbell had fallen off the wall due to the communal door being slammed and no longer worked.
5. The landlord confirmed that it had sent a referral for mediation and that it was communicating with the OT regarding her camera.
On 3 August 2021 the resident emailed the landlord to say that she was scared to leave or return to her property alone; she was scared the neighbour might attack her. The resident’s daughter called the landlord on 10 September 2021 to report intimidation and bullying. She said that the neighbour had deliberately locked the resident out of the communal door and that she had been a witness to this.
The resident contacted this Service on 12 September 2021 to ask for help. She said that she had asked for her complaint to be escalated in July 2021 but had not received a response from the landlord.
The resident’s daughter contacted the landlord again on 13 September 2021 to report that the neighbour had prevented the resident from leaving her property and locked her out when returning on 11 September 2021.
On 13 September 2021 the landlord provided a second response to the resident’s third complaint by email. This response related to other parts of the resident’s complaint and did not mention the noise ASB element.
The resident emailed the landlord on 13 September 2021 and said she was told not to contact the case manager directly. The landlord replied the following day and said that it was best for her to contact the contact centre. On 15 September 2021 the landlord emailed the resident and said that mediation had been arranged. It also said that it had “various departments which deals with different matters” and she should contact the customer services department if she had repairs or maintenance issues.
In an internal email dated 16 September 2021 the landlord referred to posts on Twitter made by the resident’s daughter about the resident’s complaint. The landlord said, “need this to be treated as very urgent please as [it] is all over our public Twitter page about this and anyone can see these tweets.” The Twitter post said that the resident wanted permission for her camera and that the case manager had not been responding.
On 27 September 2021 this Service wrote to the landlord to ask it to provide its stage two complaint response.
The landlord emailed the resident on 28 September 2021 to ask for further information on any other medical conditions she had, her ethnicity and any other treatment she was receiving. In a separate email it acknowledged the resident’s request to escalate her complaint to stage two. It said that “due to changes in [it’s] complaints process from November 2020, imposed by the Ombudsman service, there are currently high volumes of cases awaiting stage 2 review which will impact timescales.”
In an internal email on 30 September 2021 the landlord noted that this Service had asked it to provide a stage two response. It asked the case manager to produce a draft response and to confirm whether the landlord had followed its policies and procedures. On the same day the landlord emailed the resident and this Service, acknowledging the escalation request.
Emails between the landlord and a mediation service, and between the resident and landlord on 4 October 2021 to 7 October 2021 show that:
1. A mediation session was arranged for the resident and the neighbour on 5 October 2021. The landlord had asked the resident’s daughter to also attend.
2. The resident’s daughter did not think it was a good idea for her to attend to translate. The mediation service had not arranged a ‘lip speaker’ but would try to conduct the mediation without one.
3. The neighbour cancelled the session the day before. The mediation service had tried to contact the resident, but the message did not get through and the resident attended the appointment to find the building locked up.
4. A new appointment was arranged for 12 October 2021.
On 12 October 2021 the mediation service emailed the landlord. In its email it said that “the mediator was forced to curtail the mediation session as both residents insisted upon arguing over historical events and not engaging in the mediation process. Stopping a mediation session is very rarely done, but on this occasion there was no point in continuing.”
The resident emailed the landlord on 18 October 2021 about the mediation. In the email she said:
1. That she thought she could kill herself.
2. That the neighbour had lied at the mediation.
3. There was no interpreter, signer, or lip speaker.
4. That the mediation was a bad experience, that she felt that no-one believed her and that she just wanted to move out.
On 19 October 2021 the landlord made a safeguarding referral to the council safeguarding team. The safeguarding team responded that it did not consider its involvement was needed.
In an internal email on 21 October 2021 the landlord said that the resident had signed mutual exchange documents and would be moving.
The landlord provided its stage two response on 22 October 2021. In its response it:
1. Said it wrote following correspondence from this Service on 27 September 2021, but that it recognised the resident had asked for an escalation on 28 June 2021 and 7 July 2021 and apologised for that.
2. Summarised the resident’s reports of noise and ASB, and the actions the landlord had taken.
3. In relation to the resident’s camera, said the case manager had requested that this was removed following a complaint which the landlord treated as a “valid concern” and so “were required to act”. It said that the OT had been approached “to enable a medical professional to consider your report that you needed the doorbell due to your disability”.
4. Accepted that “several ASB cases were opened and were handled by different [staff]. The cases and your reports were not linked together, which resulted in delays and responses not being provided [and] regular contact was not maintained”. There had been a failure in communications, and it apologised for that.
5. Said that the noise complained about was not ASB.
6. Explained that the kitchen in the neighbour’s flat had been relocated some years ago and was not deemed to be a breach of tenancy; this had been reviewed by the landlord’s legal team.
7. Offered compensation for other parts of the resident’s complaint, although did not offer compensation for its handling of the ASB noise element.
8. Provided details on how to contact this Service.

Events following completion of the landlord’s complaints process

The landlord emailed the resident on 14 February 2022 to say that it had closed her case as she had moved. The resident has told this Service that she has moved into a different ground floor flat with a different landlord.
The landlord has told this Service, in response to questions asked, that it has not received any noise complaints from any past or current residents of the property. It has also said that it did not request any information or disclosure from the police following the alleged assault reported by the resident.

Assessment and findings

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of antisocial behaviour and noise

The landlord’s ASB policy sets out how it will respond to reports of ASB. Its complaints policy excludes complaints of ASB. However, no distinction is drawn between reports of ASB and complaints about how the landlord has responded to reports of ASB. This also appears to have confused the landlord itself.
When the resident made the first complaint on 27 April 2020, the landlord correctly separated the report of noise ASB from the rest of the complaint. It assigned a case manager to investigate. The case manager tried to make contact by phone, even though the landlord had recorded that the resident was deaf; this was poor practice. Following the resident’s request to be emailed the landlord waited a further two days before replying; this was outside of its timeframe to reply to reports of ASB. However, it suggested ways the resident could gather evidence by using the noise app and diary sheets, which was helpful, and solution focused.
The resident provided the recordings but also told the landlord that the noise was household; that the problem was the flooring and layout changes made by the neighbour. She also said that the way the app worked, and limit of 30 second recordings, made it difficult to record the noise. The landlord did not consider other methods of recording the noise, or suggest the resident record a longer audio file which could be emailed to it. The landlord did speak to the neighbour and asked her to be more considerate but decided to close the case without further investigation. While the landlord’s policy does state that household noise is not ASB, it would have been helpful if it had considered further investigation of the resident’s claims of property alterations rather than simply closing the case.
Following a second complaint, which should have been treated as a complaint about how the landlord had handled the report of noise, the landlord reopened its ASB case, and the resident was again asked to complete diary sheets. More positively it decided to investigate the changes made to the neighbour’s flat and contacted its surveyor, who said it would require permission and would not be normal for permission to knock down a wall to be given. This is in line with its home improvements policy.
Following an inspection, the landlord sought advice from its policy and legal teams. From considering the evidence, due to an oversight the legal referral to request advice was either never sent or received. The landlord assessed the work as of a good standard. It found that the neighbour had asked for permission in 2009, but the landlord did not have a record of whether this was granted. The landlord decided that, as it could not prove it had not given permission, it would say that there was no breach of tenancy and that it was fine with the changes. The landlord had not kept proper records and had not shown that it followed its policy to consider factors it would ordinarily consider before granting permission for major alterations, such as adverse disruption or impact on neighbours and or their properties. Specifically, within a converted house, the landlord did not show that it gave any consideration to the noise implications for the resident living below; there is no evidence that it investigated whether there was soundproof underlay under the wooden floor.
After the resident made her third complaint on 27 March 2021 this was passed to its case manager. Eleven months had passed by this point since the resident’s first complaint. She also emailed the landlord on 29 April 2021 asking whether the layout changes made by the neighbour were going to be allowed; the landlord did not respond. The resident asked again two further times before the landlord gave its response on 20 July 2021 that the work the neighbour had done was “good enough for the layout to remain”. This was an unreasonable delay in answering the resident’s question. It was not reasonable to keep the resident waiting for a response where the resident was clearly experiencing distress caused by this uncertainty.
The resident provided the landlord with a letter from her consultant regarding her disability and the effects of noise on her; there is no evidence the landlord considered this when investigating her noise complaints or when replying to her complaint at stage two. The landlord also repeatedly tried to call the resident, despite having recorded her as deaf on its system, and the resident having asked it not to do this. The landlord again failed to consider the resident’s disability and make reasonable adjustments. In relation to the mediation offered, which was in line with its ASB policy and solution focused, there was a further failing to make reasonable adjustments. While mediation was carried out by a mediation service, this was on behalf of the landlord which should have provided a translator, signer, or lip speaker to assist the resident. The landlord did not follow its vulnerable resident’s policy or comply with the Equality Act 2010.
The resident emailed the landlord to ask for permission for a camera and explained why this would help her. The landlord gave her permission. However, following a complaint from the neighbour the landlord’s case manager told the resident that he had not given permission and asked her to take it down. The landlord breached its own guidance on CCTV and that of the ICO; the resident did not require permission from the landlord for the camera. In addition, the landlord gave contradictory messaging showing that it was not working as one organisation. The landlord did not consider that the camera did not record video. It also again did not consider the resident’s disability, as required under its vulnerable resident’s policy, or the Equality Act 2010 requirement to make reasonable adjustments.
Incorrectly the landlord insisted on trying to arrange an OT assessment, later corrected to an assessment by the sensory team, so that it could recommend whether the camera would assist the resident. The landlord had a mistaken belief that this was required to be compliant with the law. The landlord also failed to take a common-sense approach. This caused further distress and inconvenience for the resident.
In relation to the failures identified, the Ombudsman’s role is to provide fair and proportionate remedies where maladministration or service failure has been identified. In considering this the Ombudsman takes into account our Dispute Resolution Principles: Be Fair, Put Things Right and Learn from Outcomes as well as our own guidance on remedies.
Taking into account the landlord’s failure to investigate the resident’s complaint fully, to make reasonable adjustments, to check for soundproofing of the flat above, to grant permission for the resident to install soundproofing, and its handling of the resident’s CCTV camera, there was severe maladministration. This impacted on the resident’s quality of life for nearly two years on a daily basis from her first complaint in April 2020 up until she moved in October 2021, leaving her feeling suicidal and the landlord having to make a safeguarding referral.
Although the noise suffered from was not deemed to be ASB the resident was not able to have quiet enjoyment of her property, mainly due to the change in the layout of the flat above. The kitchen being located above the bedroom was not how the property was originally designed because is not recommended that kitchens are above bedrooms in flats. While the noise was household noise, where it was occurring above the resident’s bedroom meant that it had a more detrimental impact on her. The fact that a previous resident did not complain is immaterial to the resident’s complaint.
The resident suffered distress and inconvenience, frustration and felt like she was not being listened to or taken seriously. She also felt that her disability was being overlooked or used as a mitigating factor by the landlord. Due to this, she spent considerable time and trouble pursuing her complaints. The failures had a significant impact on the resident and an order has been made that the landlord pay £1,500 in compensation to reflect this.

The landlord’s complaints handling

The landlord correctly identified that the noise ASB element of the resident’s first complaint was a report of ASB and so passed it to its case manager to investigate under its ASB policy.
The resident’s second complaint, made on 13 June 2020 was acknowledged on 25 June 2020, nine working days later and outside of the landlord’s policy timeframe. The landlord did not reply to this complaint, and this was a failing.
The resident made the third complaint on 27 March 2021, which was not acknowledged by the landlord until 7 April 2021, seven working days later and again not within one working day as per its policy. The landlord referred the noise ASB element of the complaint to the case manager; it did not consider if this was a complaint about its handling of the previous reports of noise ASB. The landlord responded to the complaint on 30 April 2021 being 24 working days after the complaint was made, against a policy timeframe of 20 working days. The landlord provided a further response on 13 September 2021 although this response did not address the noise ASB element of the complaint. These were unacceptable delays which would have added to the distress and inconvenience the resident was suffering.
The resident asked for the third complaint to be escalated four times on 5 May 2021, 27 June 2021, 30 June 2021, and 7 July 2021. The resident then contacted this Service, and we wrote to the landlord to request its stage two response; only after the intervention of the Ombudsman was this provided on 22 October 2021. The landlord took 122 working days to provide its stage two response, from the date of the first request to escalate, against a target of 20 working days. The landlord did apologise for the delays, however, did not explicitly compensate for these. There was maladministration which caused distress and further time and effort to the resident in having to chase the landlord and contact this Service for assistance, which should not have been necessary. An order has been made that the landlord pay compensation of £300 to reflect the effect this maladministration had on the resident.
Within the emails the resident sent to the landlord she expressed her confusion and frustration at the complexity and delays in the complaints process. The landlord’s policy meant that it referred ASB matters to the case manager to investigate, but it did not appear to have a route to make a complaint about its handling of ASB matters as a separate complaint type. Therefore, when the resident made further complaints, these were treated as reports of ASB, but the landlord did not consider its own handling of these. This also led to confusion for the resident, who asked for her complaint to be escalated to stage three when it had not been considered at stage two (and when there was no stage three within the landlord’s complaints process). The records also show that there was a lack of joined up working within the landlord, and the landlord’s staff’s confined roles led to the resident being told that part of a complaint was outside of a member of staff’s remit; this was confusing for the resident.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with Paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was severe maladministration in relation to the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of antisocial behaviour and noise.
In accordance with Paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in relation to the landlord’s complaints handling.

Reasons

There was severe maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of ASB and noise as it did not treat the resident fairly in all of the circumstances. It failed to investigate the resident’s complaint fully, to make reasonable adjustments, to check for soundproofing of the flat above, to grant permission for the resident to install soundproofing, and its handling of the resident’s CCTV camera was poor. The landlord’s communication and record keeping was also poor, and the resident had to ask multiple times for answers which added to her distress. The landlord gave conflicting and incorrect information.
There was maladministration in the landlord’s complaints handling, as the landlord did not acknowledge or respond to complaints within the timeframes set out in its policy. Its responses did not consider its handling of the ASB noise element of the complaint until its stage two response. While it did acknowledge its failings, it did not put things right.

Orders

88. Within four weeks of the date of this report, the landlord is ordered to:

1. Write a letter of apology to the resident from the Chief Executive for the failures detailed in this report.
2. Pay directly to the resident further compensation of £1,800 made up of:
  1. For distress and inconvenience caused by its handling of the resident’s reports of ASB and noise £1,500.
  2. For distress, time and effort resulting from its complaint handling failures £300.
3. Review its complaints policy and consider amending it to include how it will consider complaints about its handling of reports of ASB, so that they are not treated as new reports of ASB. The landlord is to provide details of the outcome of this review and any proposed changes to this Service.
4. Produce a plan to provide inclusivity and reasonable adjustments training to frontline staff and call handlers and provide a copy of this to this Service.
5. Review its systems to ensure that information on disability and reasonable adjustments regarding communication is clearly visible to all members of frontline staff and call handlers.
6. Confirm compliance with the above orders to this Service.

Recommendations

It is recommended that the landlord:
1. Consider empowering one member of staff to take the lead on all aspects of a complaint which involves multiple or different elements. Where it is necessary to involve other members of staff, this person should act as the liaison for all matters, so that the resident has one sole point of contact until all elements of the complaint are resolved.
2. Consider creating a noise nuisance policy, which is separate from its ASB policy, to deal with situations where there is noise nuisance which is not caused by and does not amount to ASB.