Poole Housing Partnership Ltd (202200485)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202200485

Poole Housing Partnership Ltd

29 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 handling of:
1. The resident’s reports of Anti-social behaviour, including noise nuisance.
2. The associated complaint.
This Service has also considered the resident’s vulnerabilities.

Background and summary of event

Background

The resident occupies a one bedroom, sixth floor general needs flat and the tenancy started on 24 June 2013. At the time of the complaint the resident was a secure tenant of an ALMO.
The landlord has recorded vulnerabilities for the resident.
The resident complained to this Service on 7 April 2022. He stated that he was unhappy with how his landlord had handled his reports of anti-social behaviour (ASB) in the block of flats in which he lives.
In addition, the resident complained about the behaviour of specific member of staff and as a remedy asked for this person to be reprimanded.
This Service has seen evidence that the resident made reports of ASB allegedly being perpetrated by two different neighbours in 2019 and 2020. The landlord opened cases following both reports and both were subsequently closed due to lack of evidence.
Following contact with this Service the resident has raised additional complaints in respect of the landlord.

Scope of the investigation

The Ombudsman does not consider or comment on how a landlord should deal with identified service failings by the individual members of staff involved, in terms of any disciplinary proceedings. This is in accordance with paragraph 42(i) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, which states that this Service will not consider complaints which concern terms of employment or other personnel issues. The Ombudsman, when investigating a complaint about a member of the landlord, will consider the response of the landlord as a whole, and will only comment on the actions of individuals only in so far as they are acting on behalf of the landlord. Therefore, if the actions of an individual member of staff give rise to a failure in service, the Ombudsman’s determination and any associated orders and recommendations would be made against the landlord rather than the individual. In short, we can look at staff conduct as part of the landlord’s overall service, but we cannot order the landlord to take disciplinary action against individual staff members.
The Ombudsman’s remit does not extend to investigation of historical issues as a resident is expected to raise issues with both the landlord and Ombudsman in a timely manner. In order to investigate this complaint fully and fairly this Service will consider events from 9 December 2020, encompassing the landlord’s formal complaints procedure which started on 14 December 2021, and culminated with the landlord’s final response of 24 February 2022.
The Ombudsman is also not able to investigate issues that post-date the completion of the landlord’s complaints process, other than to ensure that the landlord has followed through on any agreements it might have made during the course of this process. This investigation will not consider the issues raised by the resident following the completion of the landlord’s formal complaint’s process.

Summary of events

On 10 December 2020, the resident contacted the landlord to report noise nuisance from the property below and the property above. He explained that from one of the properties he could hear the door buzzer ringing from 11pm onwards, loud banging and voices until the early hours and from the property above he could hear someone banging heavily with their feet.
The landlord spoke with the resident on 16 December 2020, to advise that it had received the noise recordings and acknowledged that an ASB case had been reopened. The landlord explained that it would follow its ASB procedure. The ASB case was marked as a 5-day priority.
The landlord’s housing management system showed that it sent a first written warning letter to the alleged perpetrator of the noise on 16 December 2020. This Service has not seen a copy of that letter.
On 19 January 2021, the landlord wrote to the resident regarding the issues he was experiencing and enclosed diary sheets for the resident to complete and return so that it could assess the most appropriate course of action. The landlord advised that it would notify the safer neighbourhood patrol team so that they could monitor when patrolling in that area. This Service has not seen evidence that this happened.
The resident provided further noise app recordings on 24 January 2021. An internal email exchange showed that the resident telephoned the landlord on 27 January 2021 to discuss the ongoing noise nuisance and requested a call back. On 1 February 2021, the landlord confirmed that it would call the resident that day to discuss his concerns, in addition he would also be contacted with regard the possible installation of Digital Audio Tape (DAT) device.
The landlord’s housing management system showed that on 2 February 2021, the landlord sent another first written warning letter to an alleged perpetrator of the noise.
On 5 February 2021, the resident submitted a complaint to the landlord about the way it was handling the on-going noise complaints. He stated that he had been subjected to noise nuisance from two different neighbours since he had moved into the property. He added that he had made over 100 noise app recordings and had completed a noise diary going as far back as 2020.
The resident explained that whilst a landlord officer was dealing with his reports of noise nuisance, he had encountered hurdles, problems, confusion and was feeling frustrated. He stated that he had sent several emails to the landlord and had to wait days for a response. In addition, he stated that a pre-arranged home visit for that day had been cancelled by email 20 minutes before it had been due to take place.
The resident said that he did not feel that the landlord was taking him seriously. He acknowledged that he could be difficult to speak to but said that the noise nuisance had been ongoing for so long that it had impacted his mental health.
An internal email exchange dated 8 February 2021, set out the details of the complaint submitted by the resident. The landlord stated that it was not keen to log the resident’s complaint as a complaint, as the ASB investigations were ongoing and that it was dealing with the ASB reports with the tools it had available. The landlord stated that it had sought the involvement of the environmental health team, but that due to Covid restrictions they were not making home visits. It added that environmental health had listened to the noise recordings but did not feel that the noise could be described as nuisance, especially during the day, but that it had offered to call the resident to discuss. The landlord also stated that it was struggling to source a DAT machine.
Later that day, an internal email showed that the landlord had telephoned the resident to discuss the ASB reports. The landlord said that the resident seemed frustrated. The email described that the landlord bluntly suggested to the resident that his mental ill health could be making the noise more of a problem than if he was doing OK with his mental health. The email also described that during the course of the conversation the resident stated that the noise was so bad that he had thought about suicide. In response the landlord explained that if he was feeling suicidal then it would need to act on that information. The landlord described that the resident then ‘backtracked’ and explained that he was describing how the noise made him feel.
The internal email set out that during the conversation the landlord suggested that the resident speak with his doctor regarding his mental well-being. According to the email the resident expressed his disappointment with his previous housing officer and made a threat against him, which he immediately retracted and clarified that he was angry and frustrated by the situation. The landlord explained that given the number of emails the resident was sending, his housing officer would not be able to respond all of them and perhaps he could collate all of the information and send a weekly email to the housing officer, which would be easier to acknowledge.
The resident expressed his frustration with the noise recording app, which he said was not picking up the noise and said that even if he were offered the noise monitoring equipment, he may not accept it.
The internal email set out the following actions to be completed:
1. Ask environmental health to contact the resident that week.
2. Verify with waking watch the resident’s report that they also heard the loud music the previous weekend.
3. Speak with another resident who may also be experiencing the noise nuisance.
4. The housing officer to call the resident.
It is not clear to this Service if these actions were carried out.
The landlord explained that it would not record his complaint as a complaint, as it was satisfied that it was progressing with its investigations into ASB as best as it could at that time, and that there was nothing that it could do for him at that time but advised that he should continue to collate the information.
Between 20 March 2021 and 9 May 2021, the resident sent several emails directly to his housing officer regarding the noise nuisance. On 20 March 2021, he explained that he had called the police regarding the noise at the weekend, and that they had visited the alleged perpetrators of the noise, one of whom lived in the property above his and the other who lived in the property below. He explained that the noise consisted of shouting and swearing and playing of loud music. The resident said that his mental health was being negatively impacted by the noise and that he felt ‘sandwiched’ between noise and abuse from the property above and below. He said that he hadn’t been keeping a noise diary since the landlord had told him that it could not do anything.
He sent another email the following day, asking the housing officer to contact him about the incidents the previous weekend. The housing officer responded the following day and explained that it had attempted to telephone him but was unable to get in contact or leave a message. They stated that they had requested the information form the police regarding their visit the previous weekend and said that they would attempt to contact him again the next day at 9:30am. The resident responded that he would be available at that time.
It is not clear to this Service whether the housing officer contacted the resident as planned. However, on 26 March 2021, they emailed the resident to notify him that it was still waiting for a response from the police. They added that it would call the resident by Friday 26 March 2021.
On 6 April 2021, the resident emailed the housing officer to advise that he had spoken with the relevant PCSO and that they said they would contact the housing officer directly. The resident explained that the PCSO suggested he contact his GP, which he said he would not do as he did not think the GP could help with the noise. He added that he had called the police again the previous weekend regarding noise into the early hours of the morning. He also said that he hoped the housing officer would contact him soon with some good news.
The resident emailed the housing officer the following day and on 12 April 2021, regarding the noise which also included the use of the bin chute at 6:47am. On 15 April 2021, the resident emailed again as he had not had a response to his previous email. He explained that the neighbour upstairs was having parties, which he said he would report as a Covid breach.
On 30 April 2021, the resident emailed the housing officer and said that he had reported his neighbour again for a Covid breach. He added that the PCSO had stated that they had attempted to contact the housing officer but had not had a response. The resident said that if he did not hear back from the housing officer soon, he would explore other avenues.
The resident sent two further emails on 8 May 2021 and 9 May 2021, explaining that the noise was ongoing and disappointed that he had not had a response from the landlord.
On 10 May 2021, the resident telephoned the landlord regarding the noise. He explained that he had been reporting the noise for over a year and that over the past few months he had reported noise from the alleged perpetrator having a party as a Covid breach. He gave the name of the PCSO that had been in contact with and explained that he was at breaking point, as he felt that neither the police nor the landlord was doing anything to help him. He added that he had sent diary sheets and had previous involvement from environmental health, but that nothing made a difference. He stated that he wanted a formal investigation into why nothing had happened. The landlord recorded the details of his complaint on its ‘I wish to make a complaint form’.
On 17 May 2021, following the request from the resident for a formal investigation, internal emails showed that the landlord discussed the case and noted that the most recent contact from the resident had been in February 2021, when he complained about the same issue. The landlord confirmed that at that time his complaint was not logged as a complaint because there was an ongoing ASB investigation. In addition, the internal discussion noted that there had been a number of actions set following the resident’s contact in February, it stated that if it had failed to carry out those actions then that would be grounds for a complaint. The landlord acknowledged that the resident had mental health issues and questioned whether something had happened to cause him to make contact again.
The landlord decided to deal with the issues as part of a review of the ASB case rather than logging it as a complaint. The landlord stated that part of the issue with investigating the ASB was that it did not know for certain where the noise was originating from but noted that the police had identified where the noise was coming from. The landlord agreed with the resident that it would make contact by 24 May 2021.
A landlord file note showed that it called the resident on 24 May 2021, to discuss the noise issue. The resident stated that he had not heard any noise the previous week and the landlord explained that it could only take action if the noise was ongoing and if it knew where the noise was coming from. The resident stated that he had told the housing officer on 19 March 2021 and 20 March 2021, where the noise was coming from. However, the file note indicated that the landlord had not been able to find any record of his emails in its main housing management system or in the housing officer’s email inbox.
The resident stated that the landlord had not acted on the issues he had been reporting throughout the previous year. The landlord disagreed and said that it had opened ASB cases and spoken with neighbours but had subsequently closed the cases as it did not know where the noise was coming from until recently.
The resident explained that he could hear a dog in the property above his, chewing a bone and a ball being bounced across the floor. He said that the housing officer had visited the property but there was no dog. The landlord advised that whilst the noise may be irritating, it did not constitute ASB.
The landlord explained that it had attempted to contact the police but had not had a response. The landlord officer asked the resident to resend the emails, which the resident eventually agreed to do. The employee explained that they would be on leave from Friday 28 May 2021, so if the resident was able to resend the emails before then, they would let him know when they would respond to him.
This Service has seen an email from the landlord officer to the resident dated 25 May 2021, confirming that they had received the resident’s recordings and confirmed that they would be collated into one document for ease.
Internal email exchanges between 1 July 2021 and 5 July 2021, showed that the resident had called to discuss the ongoing noise nuisance. He also stated that he wanted to make a complaint about a landlord officer who had allegedly said that he was noise intolerant. The resident also asked to speak with the landlord officer with whom he had spoken to on 24 May 2021. The internal email exchange showed that the Officer had been on annual leave and had not returned to work.
During the internal email exchange, the landlord stated that it was not certain why the resident specifically requested to speak with the same officer from the conversation on 24 May 2021, but assumed that it was about ASB.
The landlord also stated that it believed the resident had wanted to complain about every officer he had dealt with and added that whilst it is a resident’s right to complain, complaining about the management of ASB cases is mostly about the resident not liking the outcome, rather than a service failure and that this recent interaction should be logged as a ‘call back’.
Internal emails dated 8 July 2021 and 9 July 2021, showed that a new housing officer was looking into the resident’s complaints, the emails explained what action they had taken with regard the resident’s noise complaints. The officer visited the resident who explained that he wanted the landlord to ask the neighbours in the block to be mindful of noise, which they agreed to do. The emails showed that the officer had asked the resident to consider mediation, which he refused.
In response to the explanation of actions taken, the officer was advised to be mindful of the resident’s mental health issues which may have been impacting on the perceived ASB.
Notes dated 9 July 2021, on the landlord’s housing management system showed that the case was not actionable because the noise was considered lifestyle noise, as it had been described as a dog ball being thrown across the floor.
The landlord telephoned the resident that day and carried out a home visit on 19 July 2021. It explained that it would not investigate his noise complaint as the noise he had complained about was considered lifestyle noise. It also explained that he could consider mediation, which the resident was not happy with.
Landlord’s internal emails showed that the resident had attempted to make another ASB report on 16 July 2021 and he was frustrated that the landlord had not responded to him. An internal email dated 16 July 2021, stated that a general letter regarding noise would be sent to the whole block.
Landlord systems show that on 27 July 2021, two ASB warning letters were sent to the resident’s neighbours.
The same day the landlord wrote to the resident advising it would investigate the noise reports made on 19 July 2021. It stated that in order to progress the complaint the resident would need to engage with the landlord. It asked the resident to complete diary sheets that it had provided. The letter explained that the housing officer would keep in touch and agree a contact plan with the resident.
The resident called the landlord again on 11 August 2021, as he was still unhappy with how his noise complaints were being handled. He recounted the incident in May 2021, when he had been asked to send the diary sheets as quickly as possible so that the officer could action his reports. The landlord reiterated that it could not deal with complaints about ongoing ASB cases, but that his concerns would be forwarded to the relevant officer to address the issues he had raised.
On 19 August 2021, a letter was sent to the alleged perpetrator of the noise, explaining that whilst it had received two more complaints of loud partying, banging, and shouting. it did not have sufficient evidence to take action at that time. However, it would take action if evidence was provided within the following three months. The following day the landlord wrote to the resident advising that as no new evidence had been received the ASB case would be closed. It explained that it had spoken with the alleged perpetrators and that it could reopen the case if appropriate to do so. The letter also mentions mediation.
The resident made further noise reports in September 2021 and October 2021.
On 12 October 2021, the landlord completed an ASB triage questionnaire for the resident. It set out that on 9 October 2021, the resident had called the environmental health team due to different noise issues from three different neighbours. The noise included, music, banging, singing, and bouncing a dog ball. The questionnaire noted that the resident experienced the noise daily and that it was impacting on his mental health. The resident was given a vulnerability score of 15, which equated to low vulnerability. The case was accepted and was given a 5-day priority. Environmental health confirmed that it had attended an out of hours visit at 8:55 pm on 9 October 2021. It confirmed that the cause of the disturbance was loud music from one of the resident’s neighbours. On attending the property, the perpetrator of the noise agreed to turn the music off.
The landlord then wrote to the resident on 14 October 2021, to advise his reports of ASB were being considered subject to an initial investigation. It stated that in order to progress the investigation it would need the resident to complete diary sheets. The landlord said that it would keep in touch with the resident and agree a contact plan.
In response, on 18 October 2021, the resident sent in a list of incidents dating back to July 2020, the noise included music, banging, shouting, door buzzer. Whilst some of the noises occurred during normal daylight hours, many occurred late at night and into the early hours of the morning. The resident stated that he had experienced more incidents than the ones noted in the diary, many of which he reported directly to housing officers involved in his case. The resident explained that the situation was causing him to feel distressed and ill. He questioned why he should continue completing the noise diaries if the ones he had already completed had not resulted in the noise stopping. On the same day letters were sent to three different neighbours regarding the noise complaints explaining that the complaints would be investigated further.
Following on from the letter, the landlord received communication from one of the neighbours insisting that they were not responsible for the noise. Then between 6 November 2021 and 8 November 2021, the resident and the landlord exchanged emails in which the resident insisted that the noise he could hear from the property above was a dog. The landlord explained that it had visited both properties where the resident believed the dog related noise was coming from but there was no evidence of a dog. The landlord added that it had identified where the noise was coming from and it had issued advice.
The resident made a further noise complaint about his neighbour on 5 December 2021. The landlord emailed the resident explaining that the noise report had been logged on the open case and arranged to call him on 7 December 2021. In addition, the landlord followed up the noise report with the alleged perpetrator, who insisted that he was not in the property at the time of the noise.
On 9 December 2021, the resident contacted the landlord again stating that he was frustrated that he was still a victim of noise nuisance, in addition he explained that he was not happy about the state of the block of flats. Notes on the landlord’s housing management system from that day showed that the landlord had arranged to meet the resident at the block on 13 December 2021, to discuss his concerns about the condition of the block.
The housing officer attended the block as promised on 13 December 2021 and carried out the visit with the resident and the caretaker for the block. The landlord’s notes for that day showed that the landlord had invited the caretaker to attend the visit because the issues the resident had alluded to would need to be dealt with by the caretaker. The landlord explained, in its notes that the cleaner for the block also arrived unannounced and the landlord took the opportunity to discuss the cleaning with them. During the visit, an incident occurred which the resident described as the housing officer and caretaker walking behind him smiling.
Following the visit, the resident emailed the landlord to explain that he had felt humiliated during the visit. The landlord apologised and said that it felt the resident had been quite aggressive and that by smiling it had intended to lift the mood. The landlord explained that after the resident had left, it continued the block inspection with the caretaker and had agreed to tidy and clean various areas around the block.
The resident responded and said that he did not feel that he acted in an aggressive way. He felt uncomfortable that he had no prior knowledge that the caretaker would be attending. He added that the landlord was aware of his mental health issues but that its actions that day had compounded them.
An internal email the same day from the housing officer set out that the resident was disappointed with how his ASB case had been handled during the previous two years. The officer explained that they would be issuing a tenancy breach against the perpetrator, but that it would not lead to an eviction. The officer confirmed that they had offered mediation, and that they understood that his complaint could not be investigated until the ASB case was closed.
On 14 December 2021, the resident submitted a formal complaint. His complaint addressed his concerns with regard how the visit the previous day had been conducted and also set out his concerns regarding how the noise complaints he had made had been handled. He explained that he had experienced noise issues with neighbours living above and below him for several years and recounted the various incidents he had previously reported to the landlord. He further explained that he felt his case had been mismanaged and that on one occasion he compiled a noise diary for the landlord at short notice, but that nothing was actioned. He noted that various officers had dealt with his case, none of whom had reached a conclusion.
The following day, the landlord acknowledged the complaint and told the resident to expect a response within 10 working days. On 21 December 2021, the resident agreed for the landlord to extend the deadline for a response to his stage one complaint until 10 January 2022.
The landlord responded to the stage one complaint on 10 January 2022. It stated that as part of the investigation into the complaint it had spoken with staff in various service areas and had considered all the ASB incidents he had reported. The landlord agreed that there had been many incidents over a sustained period, but it maintained that following each incident it had taken appropriate action. The landlord advised that it was unable to provide the details of what action had been taken due to GDPR legislation.
The landlord continued that the many of the incidents described were general living noise, that would have been expected from living in a block of flats and therefore were not of a level where formal court proceedings would be applicable. Although it did acknowledge that the noise complaints that were outside of reasonable hours were being addressed.
The landlord proposed the following:
1. Mediation for the resident and his neighbours about whom he had made the complaints.
2. Install a noise monitoring machine to gather evidence.
3. Keep the ASB case open to continue review the situation.
4. Consider locking the refuse chutes so that they could not be used overnight.
The landlord did not uphold the resident’s complaint that no action had been taken in respect of the reported ASB.
An internal email exchange between 27 January 2022 and 31 January 2022, explained that following the stage one response, the resident had been in contact to explain that he was disappointed with the outcome of the complaint. He said that he had been offered mediation two years prior but that it hadn’t progressed. he added that he kept diary sheets but that nothing had changed. He also said he felt vulnerable because of the way the landlord had dealt with him and that his mental health was not good.
During the email exchange the landlord considered moving the complaint to stage two and acknowledged that it had failed to respond fully to his complaint at stage one. It proposed instructing an officer with no prior knowledge of the complaint to consider it at stage two, but this was disregarded due to staff availability.
In the email exchange, the landlord acknowledged that if the resident were to take his complaint to the Housing Ombudsman Service, it would likely establish that not all points raised by the resident at stage one had been addressed.
Nevertheless, the landlord decided not to progress to stage two, instead opting to write to him again and cover all three parts of his complaint. It also agreed that it would provide the resident with a timescale to get the issues resolved.
The landlord wrote to the resident on 4 February 2022. It thanked the resident for his information and explained that it would revisit the alleged perpetrators. It noted that by way of resolution, the resident wanted the landlord to resolve, as soon as possible:
1. The noise from the property above him
2. The issue of the noise from the buzzers
3. The noise from the bin chutes
In addition, the landlord confirmed that it had asked contractors to check the buzzers to ensure they are in good working order and to establish if the volume of the intercom buzzer could be turned down. It also stated that it was sourcing lock for the bin chutes and that they would be installed when delivered.
The landlord has provided this Service with a case assessment dated 10 February 2022, in which it states that the issues were ongoing, evidence had been provided and it showed that there was a breach. It stated that whilst there was no risk of harm to either the victim or the alleged perpetrator, the resident’s mental and physical health had been affected. The case was given a score of 17, which equated to a medium risk and the proposed action was to refer to a housing officer and consider housing support team involvement.
The following day the resident contacted the landlord to advise that he had sent a further noise diary. He stated that although he had been told earlier that week that an officer would be in contact with him, he had not heard anything. He added that he just wanted a resolution for the constant banging.
The landlord acknowledged a stage two request on 16 February 2022. It advised the resident to expect a response by 7 March 2022.
Records on the landlord’s housing management system, showed that on 18 February 2022 the landlord advised the resident that it had visited his neighbour who was not aware where the noise was coming from. The landlord acknowledged that it had heard a constant tapping/banging, although it was struggling to establish where the noise was coming from. It advised that it had ordered a noise monitoring machine, but that they were being recalibrated and therefore there would be a delay in getting one.
The landlord added that it had contacted a specialist company to check the buzzers and that it would update the resident when it knew more. It also said that it was sourcing a timed lock for the bin chute.
The resident was unhappy with the landlord response as he maintained that the noise was originating for the property above his. The landlord agreed to visit the property one evening to establish what the noise was and where it was coming from.
The visit was arranged for 22 February 2022. However, the day before the visit the resident stated that the noise had reduced, and it didn’t see any value in the landlord attending. The resident agreed to continue monitoring the noise and the landlord said that it would hold off on visiting the alleged perpetrators.
The landlord responded to the stage two complaint on 24 February 2022. It stated that it understood the resident’s complaint to be about excessive levels of noise late at night, which included using the bin chute at night, loud door entry buzzers and, noise from the flat above.
It noted that in order to address the resident’s concerns the landlord had.
1. Carried out an investigation into where the noise could be originating from.
2. Offered mediation.
3. Offered to install sound monitoring equipment at the resident’s property, which he had declined.
4. Offered to visit during the evening, which the resident agreed to and then subsequently cancelled.
5. Investigated the possibility of a timed lock for the bin chute.
6. Arranged for a contractor to assess the noise level of the buzzers.
The landlord upheld its original decision and maintained that it had taken all possible action to investigate and resolve issues.
Following a conversation with the resident in which he expressed his disappointment with the outcome at stage two, the landlord agreed to review the response.
On 3 March 2022, the landlord wrote to the resident and stated that in relation to his opinion that the landlord had not adequately dealt with his noise reports. It maintained that each of the officers involved had done as much as they could to support him, within the limits of what was possible. The landlord explained that lifestyle and domestic noise is not considered anti-social behaviour, provided that it isn’t occurring at unreasonable times. It acknowledged that the resident stated that it was happening during unreasonable times but went on to add that as it had not been able to obtain evidence of the noise, it was limited in what it could do.
The landlord acknowledged that the resident felt that a noise monitoring machine would not prove valuable as although the noise is regular and persistent, it may not be loud enough for the device to pick up. Nevertheless, the landlord reiterated that it would source a machine if the resident changed his mind.
The landlord reiterated the benefits of mediation and encouraged the resident to reconsider. In addition, the landlord explained what action it was taking in relation to the possibility of a lock on the bin chute and assessing the volume of the buzzers.
The landlord also addressed the incident that took place on 13 December 2021, during the landlord and caretaker visit to the block. It stated that it had discussed the incident with the officer involved who explained that the caretaker was there so that he could action the resident’s concerns about the condition of the block. In relation to the fact that the officer smiled, the landlord investigated this and found that the officer had smiled in order to alleviate a stressful situation and that there was no malice intended.
The landlord maintained that there had been no service failure and that it had done everything it could to resolve the issues.

Post Internal complaints process.

Following the completion of the internal complaints process, the resident’s case was triaged by its engagement and enforcement team. As a result of additional complainants providing evidence, tenancy enforcement action was taken against one perpetrator. However, the resident failed to provide any further evidence and his case was closed. The landlord followed up the actions regarding the proposed lock on the bin chute but found that the cost of the locks was too high and difficult to obtain. It advised that it consider other alternatives. With regard the volume of the door buzzers, this was also investigated by the landlord but was outside the landlord’s budget constraints.

Assessment and findings

Landlord’s policies and obligations

The Anti-Social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Act 2014 outlines that when responding to reports of anti-social behaviour, agencies must consider the effect that such behaviour has on victims and witnesses. It also states that agencies should recognise and consider the debilitating impact that persistent or repeated anti-social behaviour can have on victims, more so over a period of time. The landlord recognises the definition of ASB as set out in the Crime and Policing Act 2014. Lifestyle/domestic noise, lifestyle differences and one-off parties are amongst the list of items that the landlord does not consider as ASB.
On its website the landlord includes noise nuisance amongst its examples of ASB and describes noise nuisance as playing music, TV, or radio loudly at unsociable hours and repeatedly and intentionally banging on walls or ceilings.
The landlord’s ASB policy sets out that it will tackle ASB through prevention, diversion, early informal intervention, support, and enforcement.
When managing ASB the landlord states that it uses a triage process to quickly:
1. Assess the nature of the complaint.
2. Assess the likely impact of the behaviour.
3. Assess the vulnerabilities of the complainant and the alleged perpetrator.
The landlord states that it uses triage results to determine whether any further investigation or action is necessary. Any action it takes will take into account the particular circumstances of the case and will be reasonable and proportionate. It will consider relevant legislation including the Equality Act 2010. The policy confirms that if the landlord decides not to take action it will explain this to the complainant.
On its website the landlord explains that it will need evidence of incidents in order to take action and to that end will ask the complainant to complete diary sheets of ongoing nuisance. It advises that if the nuisance relates to noise, it encourages complainants to use the Noise app and may encourage the complainant to report the nuisance to other agencies such as the police or environmental health.
The landlord states that once it has evidence of the nuisance it will be assessed, and a decision made as to whether a tenancy has been breached. The landlord will speak to both the complainant and the alleged perpetrator. The landlord sets out various actions depending on the severity of the incidents. These include mediation; referral to support services; written warnings and possession order.
The Equality Act 2010 provides a legislative framework to protect the rights of individuals and to advance equality of opportunity for all. The landlord would be required to comply with the provisions for public bodies under the Act. Under the Act the landlord had a legal duty to make reasonable adjustments where there is a provision, criterion or practice which puts a disabled person at a substantial disadvantage in relation to a relevant matter in comparison with persons who are not disabled.
The Social Housing Regulator’s Tenant Involvement and Empowerment Standard requires registered providers to “treat all tenants with fairness and respect” and “demonstrate that they understand the different needs of tenants, including in relation to the equality strands and tenants with additional support needs” with a specific expectation that providers will “demonstrate how they respond to those needs in the way they provide services and communicate with tenants”.
The landlord’s complaints policy uses the complaint definition set out in the Ombudsman’s complaint handling code. Section 5.2 of its policy states that it does not cover any concerns regarding ASB, as there is a separate policy in place for this. However, if the customer feels there has been a service failure in the way the matter has been dealt with, then the failure can be dealt with as a complaint under the complaints policy.
The landlord operates a two stage complaints process. It aims to respond to stage one complaints within ten working days and stage two complaints within 14 working days.

The resident’s report of ASB, including noise nuisance.

The Ombudsman’s Dispute Resolution Principles are:

• Be fair

• Put things right

• Learn from outcomes

This Service will apply these principles when considering whether any redress is appropriate and proportionate for any maladministration or service failure identified.
It is the Ombudsman’s role to assess the appropriateness and adequacy of the landlord’s actions in responding to reports of anti-social behaviour and the fairness and reasonableness of its response to the formal complaint. This does not include establishing whether a party is responsible for ASB; our investigation is limited to the consideration of the actions of the landlord in the context of its relevant policies/procedures as well as what was fair in all the circumstances of the case. The Ombudsman cannot tell the landlord to take action against neighbours.
The resident reported noise nuisance to the landlord on 10 December 2020, and submitted noise recordings. As a result, the landlord opened an ASB case and advised that it would follow its ASB procedure. The landlord sent a warning letter to the alleged perpetrator. It also wrote to the resident and enclosed diary sheets, which it asked the resident to complete so that it could decide on the best course of action.
Whilst it is acknowledged that the landlord opened an ASB case and wrote to the alleged perpetrator soon after the resident’s report of nose nuisance. There is no record that the landlord assessed the likely impact on the resident of the behaviour, or indeed assessed the vulnerabilities of the resident or the alleged perpetrator, as set out in its triage process. The landlord was aware of the resident’s mental health issues, however it failed to carry out a vulnerability assessment and therefore failed to identify, offer, and signpost to support services that may have assisted the resident to navigate through the life of the case. In addition, the landlord failed to agree an action plan with the resident. The landlord failed in its policy position as it did not adhere to its own procedures.
Throughout the duration of the complaint, the landlord insisted that it was dealing with the resident’s reports of noise nuisance and that it was using all tools available to it in order to resolve the issue. Nevertheless, on two occasions (between 26 March 2021 and 24 May 2021 and then again between 25 May 2021 and 8 July 2021), the resident was left in limbo not knowing how the landlord was progressing his reports of noise nuisance. In addition, Landlord notes dated 9 July 2021, showed that the landlord had decided that the resident’s reports were not actionable as they were considered lifestyle noise. However, the notes only showed that they had considered his report of the dog ball being thrown across the floor and made no mention of the reports of music, banging, shouting or the bin chute being used outside of the prescribed hours. The fact that the landlord managed the matter as ASB and then on occasions advised the resident that it was lifestyle noise and no action could be taken, resulted in a lack of clarity in the process and decision-making. It also left the resident unclear on what action the landlord was or was not taking and what he could expect. The landlord’s failure to effectively triage at the earliest opportunity, to agree and review action plans based upon the progress of the case, led to frustration, distress and inconvenience to the resident, with no clear resolution being sought.
On 8 February 2021, the landlord advised the resident to email the housing officer directly with his noise complaints. However, approximately six weeks later the housing officer was absent from work for an extended period, which meant that his emails were ignored. This caused the resident further frustration and compounded his mental well-being. The landlord failed to have a clear agreement in place with the resident in relation to communication and updates, which led to poor case management practices and failed to take a victim-centered approach.
Following a complaint from the resident on 10 May 2021, an internal email exchange on 17 May 2021 stated that the last contact it had had from the resident was in February 2021. Further demonstrating that it had no knowledge of the resident’s reports over the previous three months.
The landlord’s decision to suggest that the resident send emails and noise reports directly to the allocated housing officer, put both the landlord and the resident at a disadvantage, as his reports were not stored in a central location and could not be located or acted upon. This demonstrates poor record keeping and this Service orders the landlord to review its record keeping in line with the Ombudsman’s Spotlight report on Knowledge and Information Management published in May 2023
On 24 May 2021, another landlord officer advised the resident to send recordings directly to them. The officer acknowledged receipt of the recordings the following day and subsequently went on annual leave. The resident heard nothing further from the officer. When he contacted the landlord again on 1st July 2021, internal emails showed that the officer had been off work since going on annual leave. Consequently, the resident’s emails had been once again ignored. The landlord failed to actively manage a live investigation. This was neither reasonable or appropriate and demonstrates poor case management.
The resident submitted various emails and noise reports to the landlord between 26 March 2021 and 8 July 2021 and for the majority had no response from the landlord. This compounded the resident’s frustration and compounded his feeling that the landlord was not taking his reports seriously.
However, on 27 July 2021, the landlord agreed to investigate the noise reports, sent warning letters to two alleged perpetrators, a letter to the resident advising that it would investigate the reports, but failed to consider the impact the incidents were having on his mental well-being. The case was closed on 20 August 2021 due to lack of evidence . It was clear that the matter had been ongoing for a prolonged period of time and that there was no clear resolution in place. Good practice on case management would see the landlord and resident agreeing that the matter could be closed and agreeing any further steps if there was a reoccurrence. This Service has seen no evidence that the landlord engaged with the resident prior to taking the decision to close the case.
It wasn’t until the resident submitted further noise complaints in September 2021 and October 2021, that the landlord completed an ASB triage questionnaire on 9 October 2021, for the resident. Based on the questions asked, the resident scored as low vulnerability. It was appropriate for the landlord to assess the resident’s vulnerability. However this was inconsistent throughout the case, and whilst it did carry out an assessment, there was no evidence to suggest how this would help support the resident in managing the ongoing ASB, nor did it describe what support would be provided or what adjustments would be made.
Between October 2021 and 14 December 2021, when the landlord accepted the resident’s complaint regarding the handling of his reports of noise nuisance, the resident submitted further emails regarding the noise and a noise diary which included reports between July 2020 and October 2021. However, he refused to complete any further diaries as he did not feel that they were being acted upon. The landlord’s lack of clarity in agreeing actions and evidence gathering tools left the resident feeling frustrated and not wanting to engage. The landlord could have, and should have, done more to explain the evidence needed and threshold tests that would need to be met, and should also have managed expectations to stop the relationship from breaking down.
It is clear that the resident was susceptible to the noise going on around him in the block, and that it was having a negative impact on his mental well-being. This Service acknowledges that in February 2021, environmental health advised that it had listened to the recordings provided by the resident and that it was unlikely that it would be able to act on the noise. It also acknowledges that the landlord sent warning letters, suggested mediation, asked the resident to complete diary sheets and noise recordings and also suggested installing sound monitoring equipment. However it did not do this in any agreed or systematic way. Furthermore, the landlord took a narrow view of the noise reported by the resident and did not consider other options for minimising the noise other than warning letters and mediation. The landlord failed to undertake any investigations into the fabric of the building to assess if it could have been a contributing factor. The landlord needs to have a clearly defined ASB and neighbourhood strategy to manage noise transference that is due to the fabric of a building and contributing life style factors. The Spotlight report on noise complaint published by this Service in October 2022, provides landlords with valuable recommendations for managing noise complaints. An order has been made for the landlord to self-assess against this report.
Whilst this Service acknowledges that the landlord investigated the resident’s noise nuisance reports, it also notes that, for several months the resident’s reports were ignored, which led to the resident feeling frustrated and ignored. This Service finds maladministration in the landlords handling of the resident’s reports of ASB and noise nuisance.

The landlord’s handling of the associated complaint

The resident first submitted a complaint regarding the handling of his noise reports on 5 February 2021. He clearly set out that he felt his reports weren’t being taken seriously and that the whole situation was being badly handled. He further explained that he often found it difficult to get in contact with anyone to discuss the noise nuisance.
The landlord’s own complaints policy defines a complaint as an expression of dissatisfaction and whilst it does not normally consider complaints about ASB under its complaints policy, it clearly states that where a resident feels that there has been a service failure in the way the matter has been dealt with, it would consider this under its complaints policy. The resident was clear that he was unhappy with the way his reports had been handled, yet the landlord refused to treat this as a complaint. This was not in line with its policy and not in line with the code. The landlord failed to recognise the difference between a report of ASB and a complaint about its handling of such a report. This resulted in a failing that led to resident being unable to access the landlord complaints process, which is unreasonable.
On 10 May 2021, the resident contacted the landlord again to make a complaint regarding the handling of his noise reports. This request was also dismissed by the landlord as the ASB case was ongoing and it believed it was being managed correctly. The landlord acknowledged that he had submitted a complaint in February, and that it had suggested a number of actions to be progressed, it added that the resident may have grounds for a complaint if the landlord hadn’t progressed the actions suggested. It is not clear to this Service if those action were carried out. This was not a reasonable or appropriate response and caused further detriment to the resident compounding his frustration.
On 1st July 2021, the resident contacted the landlord again regarding the handling of his noise reports. The landlord did not accept the complaint. The landlord’s comment that a resident’s complaining about the management of ASB cases is mostly due to the resident not liking the outcome was disrespectful and demonstrated a dismissive attitude to the resident’s noise reports and his subsequent complaints regarding the handling of them.
The Spotlight report on noise complaints published in October 2022 includes a section on respect. An order has been made for the landlord to self-assess against this report.
The landlord eventually accepted a stage one complaint from the resident on 14 December 2021, ten months after he first put them on notice of his dissatisfaction, in February 2021. The resident’s complaint covered two main issues:
1. The handling of his reports of noise nuisance
2. The way he was treated by a housing officer during a visit to the block in which he lives.
The landlord responded to the complaint on 10 January 2022. However, the landlord failed to respond to all points raised and only focused on his complaint regarding the handling of noise nuisance. The landlord acknowledged that the resident had reported many incidents over a sustained period but maintained that it had taken appropriate action. It advised that it could not provide details of what action had been taken due to GDPR legislation. Whilst it is clear that a landlord cannot disclose personal information regarding other resident’s or indeed give specifics on what action it had taken. However, it could have explained to the resident that it had contacted the alleged perpetrators of the noise. This may have gone some way to assuring the resident that his reports were being taken seriously.
Following on from the stage one response, the landlord acknowledged internally that it had failed to acknowledge all aspects of the stage one complaint and commented that this would be noted by the Housing Ombudsman if the complaint were to go that far. Nevertheless, it still refused to escalate the resident’s complaint to stage two. Once again showing disregard for the resident and his concerns.
The landlord finally agreed to escalate the complaint and responded at stage two on 24 February 2022, which was a whole year after the resident made his first complaint. Once again, it only addressed the resident’s complaint regarding the handling of the noise complaints and failed to respond to his complaint regarding the way he had been treated during a landlord visit. The landlord acted as a gatekeeper and failed to actively listen or take a customer centred approach. It repeatedly missed opportunities to put things right.
The landlord eventually responded to the second part of his complaint, when it reviewed its response on 3 March 2022. It stated that it had spoken with the officer concerned and concluded that there was no malice intended in her actions.
The Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code), which member landlords are required to adhere to, defines a complaint as “an expression of dissatisfaction, however made, about the standard of service, actions or lack of action by the organisation, its own staff, or those acting on its behalf, affecting an individual resident or group of residents”. A complaint should be resolved at the earliest possible opportunity and landlords should not unreasonably refuse to escalate a complaint through all stages of the complaint’s procedure. In accordance with this, the landlord should have recognised that the resident was dissatisfied with its handling of his reports of ASB and should have responded at the earliest opportunity to his concerns in line with its complaints policy. The landlord failed to act in line with its own policy or in line with the code and consequently this Service finds maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the associated complaint.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s vulnerabilities

Given the known vulnerability of the resident, the landlord would be expected under both the Equality Act 2010, and the Social Housing Regulator’s Tenant Involvement and Empowerment Standard, to demonstrate that it had taken steps to ensure that it understood the needs of the resident and to demonstrate that it had respond to those needs in the way it provided its services and communicated with him.
During a telephone conversation with the resident on 8 February 2021, the landlord failed to consider or apply any reasonable adjustments to accommodate the resident’s vulnerability, the landlord suggested that the resident’s mental ill health could be making the noise more of a problem than if he was well. This shows a considerable lack of empathy for the resident, but also a failure to recognise how the noise was impacting on him. The lack of empathy is further demonstrated in the landlord’s own use of words to describe the tone it used.
During the same telephone conversation, the resident explained that the noise was so bad that he had thought about suicide. Having been advised of this and given that there was no indication that there was an immediate risk, the housing officer would have been expected to contact the local authority safeguarding team. It should also have reassessed the vulnerability of the resident through its ASB risk assessment process and offer appropriate signpost and referrals to relevant support services. The housing officer failed to recognise that their first consideration should have been about how best they might support the resident and instead made what could be considered a harsh remark.
It is unclear from the evidence provided by both parties if the resident was aware that the caretaker would be attending the visit alongside the housing officer on 13 December 2021. Nevertheless, given the resident’s known vulnerabilities it would have been reasonable for the landlord to make it clear to the resident in writing that the caretaker would be attending and to have given the resident the opportunity for the visit to go ahead without the caretaker attending.
In addition, the language used by the housing officer in response to the resident feeling humiliated during the visit was inappropriate, was not solution focused and lacked a respectful tone.
The landlord failed to have due regard for its duties and obligations under the Equality Act and its response, tone and use of language showed that it didn’t adequately respond to the resident’s needs, make reasonable or appropriate adjustments or consider his needs. This Service therefore finds maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s vulnerabilities.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, this Service finds that there was a maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of ASB and noise nuisance.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, this Service finds maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the associated complaint.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing ombudsman Scheme, this Service finds maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s vulnerabilities.

Reasons

Whilst the landlord sent warning letters to the alleged perpetrators and proposed mediation, the resident’s noise reports were ignored for several months at a time, compounding the feeling that he was being ignored. The landlord failed to show effective case management and failed to clearly identify it the matter was being managed as ASB or as a noise transference issue, led to confusion, frustration, and distress to the resident.
The landlord failed to recognise the resident’s complaint and dismissed it as an active ASB investigation. It acted as a gatekeeper to the complaints process and delayed the resident’s ability to access its service. In addition, it failed to respond to the complaint at the earliest opportunity and when it eventually responded failed to respond to all elements of his complaint.
The landlord failed to acknowledge the resident’s vulnerabilities and failed to consider any reasonable adjustments. The landlord’s tone and responses often lacked empathy and failed to understand how the issues were impacting on his well-being.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

Within four weeks of the date of this report, the landlord is ordered to:
1. Issue a letter of apology from an appropriate member of the senior leadership team to the resident for the failings highlighted in this report.
2. Pay the resident a total of £1200, which includes:
  1. £600 for the resident’s distress and inconvenience caused by the landlord’s failures in handling the resident’s reports of ASB and noise nuisance.
  2. £600 for the resident’s time and trouble contacting and chasing the landlord for a response to his emails and his complaint.
Self-assess against the Ombudsman’s Spotlight on Noise complaints report, paying particular regard to the section on respect, and demonstrate to this Service how it will comply with the recommendations in the report.
Contact the resident with an update on its position with regard to the actions it has taken in respect of the bin chute and door buzzer, if not already done so.
Provide this Service with evidence of compliance with the above orders.

Recommendations

Review its record keeping in line with the Ombudsman’s Spotlight report on Knowledge and Information Management published in May 2023, and provide this Service with evidence of how it has considered the recommendations set out in the report.
Review its policy position in relation to vulnerable residents and confirm that it has effective guidelines for ensuring that they are not at a disadvantage.