The Riverside Group Limited (202206444)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202206444

The Riverside Group Limited

31 March 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:
1. The landlord’s handling of the resident’s noise reports.
2. The landlord’s complaint handling.

Background

The resident was a tenant of the landlord. The tenant moved from the property on 30 October 2022. The property is a ground floor maisonette.
On 28 February 2022, the resident reported noise nuisance to the landlord (and, it seems, the local authority at the same time). He used a complaint form to make his report. He said that over time the noise nuisance was causing disruption to his work, sleep and family life. He worked from home and had autism, and the noise was more impactful than it might otherwise be. He explained in detail his circumstances, his view that the noise might be a statutory nuisance, and referred to environmental protection regulations and government guidance. He included details of when he had heard noise, and its nature on each occasion. He explained he was seeking investigation and intervention by the landlord, and/or assistance moving homes
The landlord treated the report as a complaint (presumably because it was made on a complaint form, there is no other evidence explaining why) and issued a complaint response on 21 March 2022. It did not uphold the complaint. It explained that the resident had not reported the noise issue previously, and so it had opened an antisocial behaviour (ASB) case, and would be in contact to investigate the allegations. It stated that, as part of the ASB process, it had already been in contact with neighbours who had stated they did not believe anyone was making noise intentionally. It explained that its response concluded the complaints process, and how the resident could escalate his complaint if he remained dissatisfied.
The landlord contacted the resident at the end of March 2022 in relation to the noise report. It asked him to use a noise app to capture evidence, and suggested a date to visit the resident “to discuss further”. The resident responded, confirming he had downloaded the app, but saying that he preferred discussions, contact, and correspondence to be in writing. The landlord contacted him again to confirm the visit, to which the resident re-sent his earlier reply.
On 11 April 2022 the landlord emailed the resident explaining that its ASB process included visiting tenants to get more information and investigate further. Nonetheless, it confirmed it had cancelled the visit. It also explained again that it had spoken with other residents, who had confirmed some level of noise, but “these are just general household noises and not done intentionally or maliciously, this will be due to the fabric of the building and unfortunately noise does travel.” Internal correspondence on the same day confirms the landlord’s actions.
On 11 May 2022, the resident asked the landlord if it was receiving his recordings. The next day the landlord responded that it had listened to what the resident had sent but heard nothing of significance. It asked if the noise was coming from any particular property. The resident explained which flat he thought was the source.
On 26 May 2022, the landlord called the neighbouring property identified as the possible source of the noise but could not make contact. It sent a letter explaining that it was investigating noise reports and asked the neighbour to be mindful of sounds from their home.
On 31 May 2022, the resident escalated his original complaint. He sent more recordings, an updated noise diary, asked for an investigation outcome/status, and said he was dissatisfied that the noise persisted. The landlord explained that as it had been over thirty days since the complaint was closed, it was unable to escalate the complaint. It stated it had been opened as a new stage one complaint.
In June 2022 the landlord contacted the local authority (LA) to check what actions it had taken in response to the reports the resident had said he had made to them. The landlord explained it had listened to the resident’s noise app recordings but not heard anything, and asked the LA whether it could provide recording equipment to help the resident support his reports. The LA responded, explaining that it had offered the resident the use of either the noise app, or noise monitoring equipment and was waiting for contact from him. It is not apparent if there was further activity with the LA.
The landlord emailed the resident on 22 June 2022 updating him about the progress of his complaint. It also referred to actions its officers had taken in relation to him potentially wanting to move.
On 27 June 2022, the landlord provided its complaint response. It repeated what it had said in its first response in March, and explained that it could not hear anything of significance in the recordings. It explained it had written to the alleged perpetrator, but due to a lack of evidence it was unable to take formal action against them.
The resident escalated his complaint again on 14 July 2022. He disputed some of the statements in the complaint response (such as his reasons for remaining dissatisfied), queried some of the terms and processes used and referred to (such as how ASB was being defined) and briefly referred to issues around Autism and his own experiences.
The landlord responded to the residents queries and comments on 19 July 2022. It explained and apologised for some assumptions and errors it had made in its complaint response, clarified the different complaint and ASB cases it had opened, and explained in detail its approaches to investigating and resolving ASB, including the types of issues it considers to be ASB. It explained how it used audio recordings and how it assessed whether a recording might or might not be considered a nuisance/ASB. It explained how LAs operate differently to landlords in regard to noise nuisance reports, why it had written to the alleged perpetrator (something the resident had expressed doubts about), and addressed each of the other queries he had made.
On 26 August 2022, the landlord provided its final complaint response. It stated it would: continue to help and support the resident to gather evidence through the noise diary and recordings; and continue to talk to neighbours about noise. However, it explained that the noises the resident was experiencing could be because of the basic structure of the building. It explained how he could bring his complaint to this Service if he remained dissatisfied.
The resident brought his complaint to this Service because he was not happy with how the landlord handled his noise reports and his complaint.

Assessment and findings

Investigation scope

In his complaint to the Ombudsman the resident complained that the landlord ignored his request to only communicate in writing. While it is clear that the resident asked to correspond in writing, this issue has not been seen in the formal complaints raised with the landlord. The resident also provided his observations, concerns, and complaints about a wide range of issues he related to the landlord’s handling of his noise reports. These included issues about the landlord’s noise or ASB policy, his tenancy agreement, the landlord’s handling of its equality and diversity obligations in relation to his circumstances, and the communication channels the landlord made available. The issues and observations raised and made by the resident are all valid and important ones. Nonetheless, they have not clearly been put to the landlord to respond to through its complaints process, and therefore, in line with the Housing Ombudsman Scheme requirements, cannot be considered in this report
The resident’s complaint to the Ombudsman also queried or referred to issues about reimbursement for flooring he installed, and his right to buy his property. These queries should be put directly to the landlord, they are not part of this investigation.

The landlord’s handling of the noise reports

The landlord’s ASB procedure explains that its process starts when a notification of ASB is made to the landlord. If a resident is unable to resolve the issue themselves, the landlord will open a case and allocate it to a housing officer. The procedure is then broken down into four stages. Stage one: initial contact and interviewing complainant. Stage two: engaging with the alleged perpetrator and, where possible, trying to resolve the report or matter. Stage three: case escalation, further evidence gathering and non-legal options. Stage four: legal action. Each of these stages depends on the outcome of the previous stage.
When the resident first reported the noise issue to the landlord he provided a noise diary where he detailed the noises he had heard. In response, the landlord opened an ASB case and assigned it to a housing officer. It explained to the resident that it had also already spoken to his neighbours about the reports. The evidence provided for this investigation confirms the landlord’s explanations of its actions. These were reasonable responses to the residents noise reports as they were in line with its ASB procedure, and prompt – having initiated actions before responding to the report.
The resident enquired about the possibility of moving to solve the issue of the noise. The landlord responded by explaining the current housing availability situation, and the moving options available to him. This was a reasonable and pragmatic response, as it acknowledged the resident’s possible wish to move, managed his expectations about housing availability, and set out his options.
In response to the resident’s information about the potential source of the noise, the landlord attempted to make contact with the alleged perpetrator, by phone and then by letter. In its letter the landlord explained it had received reports of doors and windows slamming, loud music, tv, and radio, knocking noises and dragging furniture. It asked the neighbour to be mindful of the potential noise impact on neighbours, and offered help with any repair issues which might be making noise (such as stiff doors or windows). In his complaint to the Ombudsman the resident queried the effectiveness of writing to the neighbour. However, this was a reasonable action, in line with the landlord’s process, and showed that it took the resident’s reports seriously, even without robust evidence. Informing alleged perpetrators of reports about their behaviour is a standard and essential action when investigating and resolving noise nuisance.
On 27 June 2022, the landlord emailed the resident and stated that with a lack of evidence it was unable to take action against the resident’s neighbours. This was a reasonable decision and explanation because while the landlord had taken steps to investigate, such as listening to the recordings, considering the noise diary, contacting the alleged perpetrator, and liaising with the LA about the issue, it had not been able to substantiate the reports. The resident explained to this Service that he did not believe the landlord made clear what actions it had taken. The evidence shows that it explained its actions on multiple occasions, such as in emails to him on 29 March 2022, 11 April, 4 May, 12 May, 19 July and in its complaint responses. Some of the updates and explanations were more detailed than others, but, overall, it is clear from the information provided by both the resident and landlord that the landlord explained what actions it was taking, and why. Furthermore, the explanations the landlord provided about ASB and how it can be dealt with by a landlord were accurate and detailed.
In his complaint to the Ombudsman the resident explained that he felt the landlord focussed on “the physical aspects of the sounds while ignoring the evidence of the human impact and reaction to it”. In any investigation of a noise nuisance a landlord must first establish that the reports demonstrate an unreasonable level of noise. How it does so is largely based on any information and evidence a tenant can provide, in tandem with the results of the landlord’s own investigations. Only when the landlord concludes that the reports meet what it believes are unreasonable levels can it take formal steps to address and resolve the noise issue. If a noise issue is causing significant distress to a tenant, but no evidence has been found indicating the noise to be at unreasonable levels, the landlord’s has few, if any, formal grounds to act. In other words, it was appropriate for the landlord to focus initially on the “physical aspects” of the issue reported by the resident, because it is those aspects that might have allowed it to take formal action if the noise was decided to be unreasonable.
Nonetheless, the landlord’s internal correspondence, and correspondence with the resident show that it was aware of how the noise issue might be impacting on the resident differently to what might typically be expected. This is shown, for example, in the assistance it provided in relation to his interest in moving homes, and in clearly addressing and explaining in greater detail than is usually seen how its approach to ASB worked, and what ASB was, in the context of the resident’s own experiences.
Overall, the landlord responded to the resident’s noise pragmatically, and in line with both its procedures and with good practice. It actively sought information or evidence needed to investigate the resident’s concerns, constructively responded to his queries about moving due to the noise, and managed his expectations about the level of noise which might be expected due to basic housing construction. Its handling was reasonable.

Complaint Handling

The Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code) sets out that “Landlords should recognise the difference between a service request and a complaint. A service request is a request from a resident to their landlord requiring action to be taken to put something right. Service requests should be recorded, monitored and reviewed regularly. A complaint should be raised when the resident raises dissatisfaction with the response to their service request.” All social landlords are obliged to adhere to the Code in their complaint handling.
Nothing in the evidence provided for this investigation indicates that it was reasonable for the landlord to treat the resident’s first noise report as a complaint. The only apparent reason it did so was because the report was sent on a complaint form. The resident’s report focussed wholly on his housing experiences in general, and the noise issue. It made no identifiable reference to concerns about any actions taken by the landlord (which would have reasonably been the basis for a complaint).
In its complaint response the landlord explained that it had not previously received any noise reports, and because of that it had opened an ASB case. That was reasonable and appropriate. However, the landlord went on to not-uphold the “complaint” and explained the resident’s complaint escalation options. That was counter to the Code (because this was a service request, not a complaint), and caused confusion for both the resident and the landlord further on.
The resident told the landlord in May 2022 that he was dissatisfied because the noise was persisting. Again, he did not specifically identify any particular aspect of the landlord’s handling of the matter, and so it is arguable that this should also not have been treated as a formal complaint. Nonetheless, the landlord’s decision to treat it as such was not unreasonable, because the Code partly defines a complaint as “an expression of dissatisfaction.” However, the initial error caused confusion at this stage. For example, the landlord asked the resident to clarify what outcome he was seeking from his complaint, whereupon the resident explained the outcome he was seeking was the same as in his original report (i.e. intervention, noise abatement, and, potentially, assistance with a home move). The need to explain this again led to the resident doubting the seriousness with which the landlord had been treating his situation (evidenced by his email to the landlord on 14 July 2022, and his complaint to this Service that the landlord made unclear attempts to clarify his complaint). It also led to the creation of multiple case numbers (for the ASB case and two complaint cases) which the resident also had to query.
In its final complaint response, and in a follow-up email on 30 August 2022, the landlord stated that the resident had not engaged with it (in relation to clarifying the resolution to his complaint), and that the complaint had been closed on that basis. In his complaint to the Ombudsman the resident complained that the landlord had not given him any deadlines against which to respond. The only request for information from the landlord in the evidence seen for this report was an email on 18 August asking if he had experienced any further noise issues, and for supporting information if he had. It is difficult to see a clear connection between that request and the landlord’s subsequent claim that the resident had not engaged with it. In the absence of any other information, it is hard not to conclude that this was possibly another example of the confusion caused by the mischaracterisation of the resident’s original report, with the landlord misunderstanding the resident’s concerns and wishes.
The original mis-categorisation of the resident’s report was an unfortunate error, which had a flow on effect on the landlord’s subsequent handling of the complaint, and the resident’s complaint experience. Its handling of the noise reports proceeded in parallel, and does not appear to have been delayed or otherwise impacted. Nonetheless, the mis-categorisation was a significant failing in the landlord’s complaint handling.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration by the landlord in respect of its handling of the resident’s noise reports.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord in respect of its complaint handling.

Orders

Within four weeks, the landlord is ordered to pay the resident £150 compensation for its complaint handling errors. Evidence of the payment must be provided to this Service by the deadline.
Within six weeks the landlord must provide a summary to the resident and to this Service, explaining how it has learnt and improved from the failings identified in this report.

Recommendations

The resident explained to the landlord several times that he preferred contact to be in writing rather than by telephone. It transpired that this also included visits to him. The landlord attempted to comply with his wishes, but on occasion, its officers appear to have been unaware of the adjustment. This included the final complaint investigation. As explained above, the resident does not appear to have raised a formal complaint about this specific issue. Nonetheless, the landlord is recommended to review how it stores and communicates this type of adjustment, to ensure that any resident does not need to make repeat requests for their preferences to be followed.
In his complaint to the Ombudsman the resident explained that he felt his communication channels with the landlord were limited, and that using the complaint submission system was sometimes the main way in which to receive responses. That may explain why the original noise report was made on a complaint form. In light of the resident’s observation, the landlord is recommended to reassure itself that its communication channels and options are clear, accessible, and fit for purpose.