Jigsaw Homes Tameside (202113750)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202113750

Jigsaw Homes Tameside

9 May 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 the resident’s:
1. reports of noise nuisance;
2. request for a move.
The Ombudsman has also considered the landlord’s complaint handling.

Background and summary of events

Background

At the time of the events detailed in this investigation, the resident held an assured tenancy with the landlord which began in 2005. He lived in the property, a one-bedroom ground floor flat in a two-storey block, with his wife. The flats in which the property is located were previously linked to a mobile warden service, with allocations ringfenced to applicants aged 55 and over. The resident and his wife are in their 80s and each have a number of health conditions.
Some of the issues addressed in this investigation were reported to the landlord by the resident’s wife. More recently, the resident has been represented by his son in his dealings with the landlord and this Service. For the purposes of this report, the resident, his wife and his representative are all referred to as ‘the resident’.
The landlord’s tenancy agreement sets out tenants’ community responsibilities. It states that tenants must not do anything which causes or would be likely to cause nuisance, annoyance or harassment to others living in the locality. Its definition of ‘harassment’ includes “doing anything that interferes with the peace, comfort or convenience of other people”. ‘Nuisance and annoyance’ includes “making noise, in whatever way, which is or is likely to be a nuisance or annoyance”.
The landlord’s ‘policy and procedure statements’ relating to antisocial behaviour (ASB) state that “we expect our tenants to act reasonably and be considerate of the different values and lifestyles reflected in our neighbourhoods.” The document adopts the definition of ASB used by the ASB, Crime and Policing Act 2014 and gives as an example of ASB “loud music and/or noise that is capable of causing nuisance or annoyance to a reasonable person”. It also notes that “sometimes customers wish to report behaviour they believe is unacceptable, but the behaviour is not antisocial in accordance with our definition. [The landlord] expects customers to be tolerant of other people’s lifestyles and will not accept reports of behaviour that most people accept as a reasonable part of everyday life.” An example of such behaviour is “actions that are considered to be normal everyday activities or household noise”.
The landlord’s ASB policy and procedure document says that its staff will exercise their professional judgement when assessing whether a report of ASB meets its definition or not. Where the reported behaviour is not antisocial, it will provide customers with self-help options where appropriate. A key element of its approach is ‘prevention and early intervention’, which includes use of noise monitoring equipment and mediation. It will investigate ASB complaints “as fully as possible, without preconceptions as to the outcome”, and where necessary it will “seek ways of independently corroborating or refuting allegations by interviewing other witnesses/local neighbours”.
The landlord’s management move procedure defines a managed move as “the allocation of a property to an existing resident outside of the usual allocation pathways, and done in response to identified risk in order to allow the move to happen quickly”. The procedure states that support with priority banding within choice based letting programmes is appropriate in most situations, but the landlord will consider a managed move in cases where “no other housing solution is possible”. Managed moves are only offered in cases where there is imminent risk to health or safety; extreme financial hardship; urgent medical or welfare need; urgent decants; or local authority crisis referrals.
The landlord operates a three-stage complaints process. The first step, ‘put it right’, is “about finding a quick and effective solution without the need for lengthy investigations”. At the second step, ‘investigate it’, complaints are acknowledged in writing and responded to within ten working days. Requests to escalate a complaint to the third and final step, ‘review it’, must be made within one month of the investigation response. The landlord will respond with its decision regarding acceptance within five working days, and if the escalation request is accepted, a panel including two directors will review the complaint within one month of acceptance and respond within ten working days of the review.
The landlord’s compensation policy states that it will consider compensation in circumstances where “customers have suffered significant inconvenience as a result of our service failure” and “it is an appropriate and proportionate response to a failure on our part”. Discretionary compensation for service failure may be payable where the landlord has failed to follow policy and procedure or taken an unreasonable amount of time to resolve a situation. When deciding on appropriate redress, the landlord will consider the duration of any avoidable distress or inconvenience; the severity of any unfair impact; and any actions which mitigated or contributed to distress, inconvenience or unfair impact.

Summary of events

Prior to the events of this investigation, the resident had reported noise nuisance from his neighbour in the flat above since shortly after the start of his tenancy in 2005. The landlord investigated the reported issues in 2007, 2009, 2013 and 2017. Previous interventions by the landlord included: interviews with the resident’s neighbour; work with the neighbour to reduce transmission of noise, such as adjustments to her routine; installation of noise monitoring equipment, which did not evidence a statutory nuisance; provision of rugs, underlay and carpeting to dampen the noise; and an offer of mediation, which was accepted by the resident but declined by his neighbour. The Ombudsman has examined the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of noise since January 2020, as this was the timeframe considered during the landlord’s internal complaints process.
On 27 January 2020 the resident reported noise nuisance caused by his upstairs neighbour to the landlord. The noise was from banging, “stomping” up and down stairs and around the property, dropping furniture, and loud playing of a radio from 6.30am. The resident told the landlord that when he first moved in 14 years ago, he had asked the neighbour if she could move her bin, and there had been an issue with noise ever since. A few weeks earlier, the resident had tried to speak to the neighbour about the noise, but she denied being noisy and “slammed the door in [his] face”. The resident said the banging was so loud that it made the light fitting in his ceiling shake. He believed the noise was deliberate.
The landlord acknowledged the resident’s report the following day and advised him to gather evidence by keeping diary notes and using its noise app or the video function on his phone. During further correspondence, the resident asked about the possibility of a house move on 30 January 2020. The landlord sent him some information about rehousing on 5 February 2020.
The landlord then visited the resident and his neighbour on 10 February 2020. While inside the resident’s property, the landlord heard his neighbour’s footfall in the flat above. The landlord discussed this with the resident’s neighbour and concluded that she was “naturally heavy footed”, which she could not help. It suggested ways that she could reduce noise transferring to the flat below, such as closing doors quietly and not dropping furniture. The landlord wrote to both parties on 11 February 2020, recapping discussion during the visits and stating that it did not believe the noise was malicious. It said it would explore soundproofing as an option, but later advised that it could not offer this, although the resident could install it at his own cost. It suggested revisiting shuttle mediation and a further installation of noise monitoring equipment.
On 17 February 2020 the resident contacted the landlord and said he would like noise monitoring equipment to be installed in his property. The equipment was installed on 11 March 2020. It was due to be collected on 18 March 2020, but this was shortly following the start of the Covid-19 pandemic and the resident had a cough at the time. The resident informed the landlord in April 2020 that he continued to experience noise nuisance from his neighbour, and in June 2020 the landlord suggested that a family member may be able to assist the resident in resetting the noise monitoring equipment and making recordings. The resident was unfortunately unable to make any further recordings, and in August 2020 the landlord said that it had put the resident’s case forward for some new noise monitoring equipment that it would soon be receiving. It collected the original equipment, which was no longer working, in September 2020.
In November and December 2020, the landlord wrote to the resident to say that it had not yet received the new noise monitoring equipment and to apologise for the delay. The equipment arrived in February 2021 and was installed in the resident’s property between 19 and 31 March 2021.
On 23 March 2021 the resident emailed the landlord. He said he felt the noise monitoring equipment would not achieve anything, as the noise had previously tended to subside when equipment was installed. He said it seemed as if his neighbour knew when the equipment was in place, and the fact that she then reduced the noise showed that she was able to keep it down. He also noted that he and his wife had tripped over a cable from the noise equipment that ran across his living room floor. He asked the landlord if he could be considered for a nearby bungalow that he had seen advertised.
The same day, the landlord wrote to the resident about rehousing. It said it had recently reviewed the way it managed its waiting lists and let homes to new tenants, as it felt it was unfair to allow people without housing needs and with low prospects of being offered a property to register an application. It said that, as the resident was already adequately housed, he did not qualify to be registered on its transfer scheme. Instead it suggested he consider a mutual exchange with another tenant.
The resident complained to the landlord after receiving its letter. He said the letter had been sent through the landlord’s online portal, which meant that his daughter-in-law had to take time off work in order to help him access it. Once received, he found the landlord’s position that he was adequately housed “unhelpful and upsetting”. He felt that while he may be adequately housed in terms of the size of his property, his housing was not adequate in terms of the stress and health impact it was causing him. The landlord replied and said it would investigate the resident’s email as a formal complaint. It also said it would contact the resident about applying for bungalows.
On 29 March 2021 and 1 April 2021, the resident and his wife obtained letters from their GPs which outlined the impact of the noise nuisance on their physical and mental health. The landlord then registered the resident’s application for rehousing on 1 April 2021. The application was categorised as Band 2 priority, with this level of priority being awarded to “those who need to move on fitness or mental health grounds”.
On 13 April 2021 the resident asked the landlord what the next steps were regarding his housing application. He said he understood he was in Band 2 but did not know what that meant. He also referred to a bungalow being offered to a ‘silver applicant’, which he found confusing. An internal email by the landlord on 14 April 2021 agreed that its information about bandings could be explained more clearly and noted that it was in the process of reviewing the information on its website to make this more transparent. It replied to the resident on 20 April 2021 and provided a full explanation of its priority bandings along with details of other routes for rehousing. It also confirmed that the resident was in the correct banding for his circumstances, and that he was not eligible for a managed move.
On 21 April 2021 the resident contacted the landlord to say that, other than an initial acknowledgement, he had received no response to his complaint except information about the landlord’s priority bandings. He noted that the landlord had said it would open an investigation following his email of 23 March 2021, and asked it to “elevate [his] complaint to the next level as a matter of urgency”. The landlord replied the same day. It said it was sorry the resident’s concerns remained unresolved, explaining that his complaint was initially “passed to relevant managers in an attempt to put this right quickly if possible”. Since the resident remained unhappy, it said it would now escalate his complaint to its formal process.
After speaking to the resident on the phone, the landlord emailed him on 29 April 2021 to summarise and acknowledge his formal complaint. Its email stated that:
1. The complaint was about the fact that the resident had experienced noise nuisance from the flat above for 16 years, and he felt the landlord had not done enough to resolve the situation.
2. The resident described how his neighbour would “stomp” about suddenly and continually, affecting his mental health, physical health and wellbeing.
3. The resident had kept diaries of noise incidents and the landlord had installed equipment to monitor the noise over the years. However, the resident felt the equipment was not worth installing because of how suddenly and unpredictably the noise occurred.
4. It had previously given the resident’s neighbour rugs to dampen the noise, but she had removed them and the noise was now worse.
5. When the resident’s neighbour vacuumed every Sunday, she would lift the corner of her settee to vacuum under it then let it drop back down, making a loud bang.
6. The resident felt his neighbour stomped about on purpose and seemed to do it more if he or his wife went outside, to intimidate the person still inside.
7. The resident felt the landlord was letting his neighbour know when it installed noise monitoring equipment.
8. The resident had tried recording the noise on his phone, but this was often unsuccessful due to the brief nature of the noise.
9. The resident was happy with the length of time it took to get his transfer application approved, although he had to ask for a review of the initial decision which was denied.
10. The resident was dissatisfied that the landlord told him that he was eligible for a managed let but this did not materialise.
11. It would not investigate the resident’s antisocial behaviour (ASB) reports again, but would consider whether it had acted on his reports in accordance with its policies and procedures.
12. As it would not usually investigate issues older than six months, it would limit its investigation to the resident’s current case which was opened on 27 January 2020.
13. The outcome sought by the resident was a managed move to a bungalow in a specified area.
14. The resident said he was not initially clearly informed of the banding scheme and bidding process, which caused confusion. The landlord could see this was the case and apologised. It had discussed the different groups of applicants with the resident and reiterated its earlier advice about different routes to rehousing.
15. It would respond within ten working days.
On 13 May 2021 the landlord sent the resident a report it had produced in relation to recordings made on its noise monitoring equipment in March 2021. The report showed that 55 recordings were made, all but one of which were in the ‘green’ (lowest) category. The only recording in the ‘yellow’ (middle) category was made when the resident was talking loudly on the phone, which accounted for the increased decibel level. The report stated that while varying levels of noise were picked up by the equipment, this appeared to be household noise and “it would be difficult to say that it is antisocial or excessive”. The landlord would not take enforcement action in relation to the noise evidenced.
The landlord issued its stage one response on 14 May 2021, stating that:
1. It had liaised with its neighbourhood safety team and reviewed information from systems as well as the results of the recent noise monitoring installation.
2. Its approach to ASB complaints involved taking action it believed was proportionate.
3. Although it had said it believed the noise to be household noise in the past, it had still investigated the resident’s reports, put the allegations to his neighbour, and installed noise monitoring equipment on two occasions in order to try and gather evidence. On both occasions the equipment recorded noise that was deemed to be household noise.
4. In 2013 it had installed padded underlay to the stairs to dampen any noise, and in 2014 it made a referral for mediation, but the resident’s neighbour declined to participate.
5. It had reviewed the current case and was satisfied it had acted appropriately and in line with its policies and procedures in response to the resident’s reports of noise nuisance. Given the available evidence, it considered its response to be reasonable and proportionate. It was therefore unable to uphold the resident’s complaint.
6. It only arranged managed moves in extreme circumstances and as a last resort. The resident did not meet the criteria for a managed move.
7. The resident had expressed dissatisfaction that the landlord had indicated he may qualify for a ‘managed let’. This had been addressed with the officer in question, and it apologised for any misunderstanding.
On 18 May 2021 the resident expressed his dissatisfaction with the noise report and with the landlord’s handling of his case. He noted that the report said it was difficult to say whether the noise captured would be deemed excessive, but that there was evidence of banging causing the property and items inside it to shake, which to him was an indication of excessive noise. He also said that the noise assessor could not determine whether the noise was deliberate or not. He said he was not asking for the landlord to take enforcement action against his neighbour, but for a move to a bungalow.
A case update by the landlord on 20 May 2021 stated that it had contacted the resident and informed him that it would be closing his case due to the findings of its noise investigation. The resident told the landlord that the noise continued and said he “just wanted to move to get some peace”.
The resident sought assistance from his local councillor on 3 August 2021, and the councillor’s reply noted that if the resident believed his concerns had not been addressed in the landlord’s response to his complaint, he could seek a review. The resident then emailed the landlord on 9 August 2021, stating that the “daily noise harassment” from his neighbour above was causing him and his wife great distress. He felt the landlord’s decisions were based on decibel levels, but these did not reflect the “constant torture” and “intolerable” nature of the noise. He felt he had asked the landlord for help but nothing was being done, and the landlord was disregarding its duty of care. Three of the resident’s adult children, including his representative, also contacted the landlord and expressed concern for their parents.
The landlord replied to the resident’s email on 12 August 2021, saying it was sorry the resident was so unhappy in his home. It noted that it had previously responded to a complaint by the resident on 14 May 2021, and the next stage was a review. It said it would normally require that a review request was made within one month of its complaint response, but on this occasion it had accepted the resident’s email as a review request. It would now review its complaint handling and consider the reasons he was unhappy with the outcome, and would respond within ten working days.
The landlord issued its stage two response on 15 September 2021, stating that:
1. It apologised for the delay in providing its response.
2. It could see that the resident’s relationship with his neighbour had been difficult since soon after his tenancy began in 2005.
3. It was sorry the resident had concluded that the only resolution was for him to move. It appreciated that this was not a decision he would have taken lightly.
4. It summarised the four investigations it had carried out in 2007, 2009-11, 2013-14 and 2020-21. Each time it had found that the noise was general household noise rather than ASB, and so it would not take enforcement action. The most recent case was closed on 21 May 2021 following discussion with the resident.
5. It was aware the resident had hoped it could take action against his neighbour. However, since it was unable to evidence anything other than household noise, this limited the actions available.
6. It was unfortunate that mediation had been declined by the neighbour, but the landlord could not enforce this. For mediation to be successful, both parties needed to be committed to the process.
7. It was satisfied that under the circumstances, its response to the resident’s reports of neighbour noise had been reasonable and proportionate.
8. It appreciated the resident was initially reluctant to consider moving home, and was disappointed to learn that he now felt obliged to do so. An email from the resident on 30 January 2020 mentioned a house move but said that he remained reluctant. A formal transfer application was not received by the landlord until 1 April 2021. Since enquiries began on 30 January 2020, it agreed to backdate the resident’s transfer application to that date, and would amend its system accordingly.
9. It had received GP letters for the resident and his wife concerning the impact of the noise on their health. Due to this, the resident’s application was placed in Band 2, which was the correct band to reflect the circumstances (medical reasons).
10. When it considered expressions of interest on a property, it first looked at banding, and applicants within bands were prioritised by date order. Since registering his application, the resident had bid on five properties. Due to competing needs of other applicants, the landlord had not yet been able to make him an offer. The landlord had 698 one-bedroom bungalows, 30 of which had become available since the start of 2021; it also had 604 registered housing applications from elderly people competing for this type of accommodation, 122 of which were from tenants with medical needs.
11. One of the resident’s recent bids was for a flat in an independent living scheme. It had other schemes where this type of vacancy frequently became available, and offered to contact the resident to discuss independent living accommodation in more detail. The resident could also continue applying for bungalows but this may not provide a quick solution.
The resident subsequently referred his complaint to this Service, stating that he was suffering from “constant vindictive noise” from his neighbour above which was affecting his health and having a negative effect on his quality of life. He said he wanted the landlord to rehouse him and his wife as a matter of urgency.
The resident was later transferred to a one-bedroom bungalow in his area of choice in January 2023.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

It is important to note at the outset that, while the Ombudsman can consider the impact of the situation on the resident, including whether the landlord responded fairly and appropriately in light of information it had about the resident’s circumstances and vulnerabilities, a finding cannot be made in relation to whether the landlord’s action or inaction caused or worsened a health condition. Such matters may be addressed by way of a personal injury insurance claim.

Noise nuisance reports

The landlord acted in accordance with its policy by being open-minded as to whether the noise reported by the resident in January 2020 was unreasonable, despite having investigated similar issues on three occasions previously. It acted appropriately by acknowledging the report, gathering evidence and visiting the resident and his neighbour. The correspondence sent by the landlord following the visits demonstrated exceptional and sensitive practice, taking account of both parties’ perspectives, making reasonable suggestions that could improve the situation, and giving helpful advice. Given the recurrence of the issue, it was appropriate for the landlord to review the effectiveness of interventions it had previously tried alongside new options such as soundproofing (which it considered but ultimately did not provide).
The landlord’s decision to install noise monitoring equipment in the resident’s property in March 2020 was in line with the resident’s wishes. It is unfortunate that the installation coincided with the start of Covid-19 restrictions and that no useful recordings appeared to be generated. In view of this, the landlord reasonably prioritised the resident’s case for new noise monitoring equipment it was due to receive, and the delays in installing this – while no doubt frustrating for the resident – were outside the landlord’s control. The landlord proactively wrote to the resident on three occasions while it was awaiting receipt of the equipment to reassure him that he had not been “forgotten”. It was right for the landlord to keep the resident updated even when it had no development to share.
It could have been appropriate, particularly given the time taken for the new noise monitoring equipment to arrive, for the landlord to interview third parties such as neighbours and visiting contractors, who may have been able to corroborate or refute the reported impact of the noise. However, the Ombudsman notes that the landlord had the opportunity to witness some of the noise for itself, and that the type and frequency of the noise was not in dispute. There may also have been challenges in gathering such evidence associated with Covid-19 restrictions.
Recordings made by the resident during the second noise monitoring installation in March 2021, together with written records from the resident and events personally witnessed by the landlord when it visited the resident in February 2020, reasonably led the landlord to conclude that the noise complained of was not antisocial. The landlord addressed the resident’s suspicion that his neighbour was forewarned when noise monitoring equipment was installed, and reassured him that it had found no reason to indicate this was the case. The landlord’s communication was good and its findings were consistently evidence based. While it could have done more to address the resident’s concerns about tripping over the noise equipment wires, and claiming in its noise report that it would be “difficult to say” that the noise was excessive could be seen as confusing or introducing doubt, overall the landlord’s handling of the resident’s noise reports was appropriate. Sharing a copy of its assessor’s report with the resident showed the landlord to be open and transparent in its decision making.
The Ombudsman does not underestimate the significant daily impact of the situation on the resident and his wife; while the neighbour’s behaviour was not deemed to be objectively unacceptable, their experience of it was obviously a source of extreme upset. Their distress was compounded by their age, health conditions, and the additional challenges imposed by the Covid-19 pandemic. Having investigated and found insufficient evidence of deliberate noise or harassment to enable it to take enforcement action against the resident’s neighbour, the landlord was resourceful in its attempts to find an alternative solution to the issue. It made good use of the tools available, including those specifically referenced in its ASB policy document. It also balanced practical measures with advice that supported its aim of encouraging tolerance of different lifestyles. Both before and after the resident concluded that no resolution could be reached, the landlord supported his application for a house move (discussed in more detail below).

Request for a move

The resident first raised the possibility of a house move with the landlord on 30 January 2020. He did not apply for a transfer until around a year later, and his application was registered by the landlord on 1 April 2021 after he supplied medical evidence. In view of the noise investigation and lack of resolution found, it was a reasonable and proportionate adjustment for the landlord to backdate his housing application to the date he first enquired about a move.
The landlord’s letter of 23 March 2021, in which it said that the resident was adequately housed and did not qualify for a transfer, caused the resident some distress. This was partly due to the method of delivery, which differed from the way the landlord had previously been communicating with the resident. The fact that the letter was delivered via an online portal suggests that it may have been a blanket communication sent to all applicants on its list who were affected by a recent review of its system. While the content of the letter caused the resident to be understandably dismayed, as he had only recently and reluctantly considered a transfer, it did not cause him significant detriment as his application was successfully registered a week later. Likewise, although the landlord could have considered the contact preferences of applicants who may be vulnerable due to age, use of its portal was not unreasonable for such correspondence.
Information about the bidding and banding process that was initially provided to the resident was confusing. The landlord acknowledged that the information “could be explained better” and addressed this by reviewing the contents of its website. This was a reasonable and proportionate response that would also benefit other applicants. An explanation subsequently provided to the resident by the landlord on 20 April 2021 clarified the process and the landlord’s position, and the landlord apologised for the confusion in its email of 29 April 2021.
The landlord’s management move procedure sets out a clear and exhaustive list of circumstances in which it would offer a managed let. The resident did not meet the criteria, and so the landlord was justified in following its procedure and informing him of this when he enquired. It was appropriate for the landlord to give the resident advice regarding other routes, such as a mutual exchange, that may have allowed him to find a suitable property more quickly.
This Service has seen no evidence that the landlord led the resident to believe he may be eligible for a managed let. In response to his concerns, the landlord apologised for any action it may have taken to falsely raise the resident’s expectations on this point, and addressed this with the member of staff it believed to have been responsible. This was again an appropriate response which showed that the landlord had taken steps to prevent an issue from recurring.
The resident chose to pursue a housing transfer, and later moved to a property that met his requirements. Although this happened some time after his complaint concluded the landlord’s internal complaints procedure, the landlord had provided accurate information about the likely waiting time. The Ombudsman is satisfied that the landlord applied its policies and fulfilled its responsibilities correctly.

Complaint handling

The landlord’s complaints policy that was in effect at the time of the resident’s complaint defined a complaint as “an expression of dissatisfaction about a [landlord] action, lack of action, or standards of service, where an initial response has not proven satisfactory”. A later version of the policy adopted a definition more similar to that used by this Service, but which still referred to cases “where an initial informal response has not proven satisfactory”. The Ombudsman’s complaint handling code recommends a two-stage formal complaints process, and states that it is not appropriate for landlords to have a ‘pre-complaint stage’ as this causes unnecessary confusion for complainants. It is the initial or informal response stage that appears to have caused issues in the resident’s case.
The resident first expressed his dissatisfaction with actions by the landlord on 23 March 2021. The landlord replied the same day and said it would investigate the resident’s communication as a formal complaint. It also said it would arrange for its lettings manager to contact the resident about applying for bungalows. While the landlord’s lettings manager subsequently contacted the resident, he received no contact from the landlord about his complaint, leading him to chase this on 21 April 2021. The landlord said it was sorry the resident’s complaint remained unresolved and that it had previously passed the complaint “to relevant managers in an attempt to put this right quickly if possible”. It said it understood “some contact was made with [the resident] by the teams”, but no such contact had been made. This resulted in the landlord speaking to the resident on the phone and formally logging his complaint on 29 April 2021, more than a month after he had first attempted to make it. This delay was unacceptable, and appeared to have been brought about by confusion over the ‘put it right’ stage of the landlord’s complaints process, with no individual member of staff taking responsibility for the complaint.
The landlord’s summary of the resident’s complaint, based on a verbal conversation, was thorough and invited the resident to let the landlord know if any aspects of his complaint had been missed. It helpfully recapped the resident’s points about noise from his neighbour’s property and the outcomes he sought. It also clarified that its investigation would examine the landlord’s response to the resident’s ASB reports, rather than reinvestigating the reported ASB itself, and confirmed the timeframe it would consider. The landlord’s acknowledgement email could have simply stated the resident’s concerns about rehousing, but it also took the opportunity to provide detailed advice about housing options, which was good practice.
The landlord told the resident it would respond to his complaint within ten working days of its acknowledgement email, and did so. The response contained evidence of appropriate investigation and gave correct advice in relation to the resident’s request for a managed let (as discussed above). Although the landlord had said in its earlier email that it would only investigate the resident’s current case, its response gave details of action the landlord had taken in relation to previous cases and limited detail about the current case. It concluded that its response to the resident’s noise reports had been “reasonable and appropriate” and “in line with our policies and procedures”, but did not quote from its policies or explain how it had reached that decision. The landlord’s ‘investigate it’ response also did not explicitly state that the resident could escalate his complaint to the ‘review it’ stage if he remained dissatisfied; it simply said “If you remain unhappy … the enclosed information explains our complaints process.”
The resident expressed his continued dissatisfaction with the landlord’s handling of his case on 18 May 2021, stating that he felt “the matter is being treated with apathy and [the landlord] is not interested in rectifying it”. However, the landlord did not identify this communication as an escalation request. It was not until the resident expressed his dissatisfaction again, on 9 August 2021, that the landlord agreed to escalate his complaint, and stated that it was stepping outside its process in order to do so. By this time the resident had received a reply to a councillor enquiry he made on 3 August 2021, which appeared to alert him to the landlord’s ‘review it’ complaint stage. In the Ombudsman’s view, the landlord’s complaints process was obstructive and resulted in delays of several weeks at both formal stages. This had the effect of unnecessarily prolonging the resident’s distress.
After agreeing to escalate the resident’s complaint on 12 August 2021, the landlord issued its final response on 15 September 2021. This gave a response time of 23 working days, whereas the landlord had said it would respond within ten working days. The delay obviously frustrated the resident, who sent a letter addressed to “[Responder] who was supposed to be responding within ten working days, it’s now been a month!” The landlord also did not appear to have followed the review process set out in its complaints policy, involving a review by two directors, a panel meeting, and a subsequent written response. There was no reference to a meeting or the involvement of one or more directors. The member of staff who produced the ‘review it’ response did not state their job title in the response, but they are identified in internal emails as a manager rather than a director. This meant that the resident was denied access to the process set out in the landlord’s complaints policy.
The landlord’s ‘review it’ complaint response gave a detailed account of the landlord’s decision making, both in relation to the ASB case and in relation to the resident’s request for a managed let. On both topics it set out evidential requirements and provided useful context. The landlord expressed sympathy with the resident’s circumstances, and having reviewed his recent bids for properties, took the additional step of offering to discuss similar accommodation schemes with him. This represented a meaningful attempt to assist the resident with his housing issue. The landlord apologised for its delay in issuing its final response, but did not identify or apologise for earlier delays and missed opportunities within its complaint response. It also did not award any compensation, despite the evident service failure in relation to its complaints process, delays, and avoidable distress caused to the resident. When outlining next steps if the resident remained unhappy with the landlord’s response, it referred to “external options” rather than naming this Service specifically (although the ‘investigate it’ response had referred to the Ombudsman).
The Ombudsman notes that the landlord revised its complaints process in December 2021, and that its new policy involves a two-stage process which is compliant with this Service’s complaint handling code. Because of this, no order has been made in relation to a policy review.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was:
1. no maladministration by the landlord in its handling of the resident’s reports of noise nuisance;
2. no maladministration by the landlord in its handling of the resident’s request for a move;
3. maladministration by the landlord in its complaint handling.

Reasons

The landlord responded appropriately to the resident’s reports of noise nuisance from his neighbour’s property. It carried out a thorough investigation and based its decisions on the available evidence in accordance with the relevant legal and procedural frameworks. It correctly concluded that the case was not suitable for tenancy enforcement. In addition to interventions previously attempted, it explored a range of solutions to try to address the noise issue, including visits, interviews, discussion of ways to reduce transmission of noise, mediation, and installation of noise monitoring equipment. It addressed concerns raised by the resident and kept him updated throughout its investigation.
The landlord’s handling of the resident’s request for a house move was also appropriate. The resident did not meet the landlord’s criteria for a managed let, but instead the landlord assisted him in registering for a transfer. When the resident told the landlord that information it had provided was unclear, it apologised and put measures in place to correct the issue. As part of its complaint response, the landlord agreed to backdate the resident’s transfer application to the date he first enquired about a move, which was a reasonable adjustment in view of his circumstances. The landlord advised the resident regarding realistic timescales for a transfer and alternative housing options. He later secured a transfer to a suitable property in his preferred area.
The landlord’s complaint handling fell short of the expected standard. It initially failed to take any action at the ‘put it right’ stage, resulting in a delay of over a month. Following its ‘investigate it’ response, it did not identify the resident’s continued dissatisfaction with its handling of his case, resulting in a further delay of almost three months at the ‘review it’ stage. This resulted in the resident investing time and trouble in chasing both of the landlord’s formal responses. The landlord’s review of the resident’s complaint did not follow the stated process, was delayed, and was not completed by a staff member of the stated seniority. It also did not identify or offer redress for earlier failings in complaint handling. The ‘investigate it’ and ‘review it’ responses did not provide sufficient detail regarding escalation options.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

The landlord is ordered to do the following within four weeks of the date of this report:
1. Apologise to the resident for its maladministration in handling his complaint.
2. Pay the resident £300, comprising:
  1. £200 for its delays in responding to his complaint and escalation request;
  2. £100 for the distress and inconvenience caused to the resident as a result.
3. Provide evidence of compliance to this Service.

Recommendations

It is recommended that the landlord considers introducing a summary version of its noise investigation report, highlighting key findings in clear and accessible language, which can be provided to complainants and/or alleged perpetrators in noise nuisance cases.
It is recommended that the landlord reviews the resident’s case in conjunction with the Ombudsman’s spotlight report on noise complaints (published after the events of this report in October 2022), which highlights the importance of distinguishing between antisocial noise and noise transference issues.