Whitefriars Housing Group Limited (202006631)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202006631

Whitefriars Housing Group Limited

30 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

1. The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of:

 a. The resident’s reports of Anti-social Behaviour (ASB) & noise nuisance by a neighbour.

 b. The associated complaint.

  c. The Ombudsman has also considered the landlord’s record keeping.

Background

2. The resident has an assured tenancy with the housing association which commenced on 2 November 2015. There are no vulnerabilities noted on the landlord’s records. The property is a one bedroom mid floor flat within a block.

3. This Service has seen reports of ASB made by the resident to the landlord in September 2020 against their neighbour. It is also noted that the resident approached this Service about these concerns and he was signposted to address the matter through the landlord’s complaints process in November 2020. The resident subsequently submitted a formal complaint to his landlord in July 2021.

4. This investigation focuses on events that occurred from 18 January 2021, which is six months before the landlord was put on notice of his dissatisfaction up to the period that it issued its final response. The evidence seen substantiates records of active contact and engagement with the landlord from this period.

5. This is because resident’s are expected to raise complaints with their landlords in a timely manner so that the landlord has a reasonable opportunity to consider

the issues whilst they are still ‘live’, and while the evidence is available to reach an informed conclusion on the events that occurred.

Policies and Procedural Documents

6. The landlord has a two-stage complaints handling process. Under the policy, it aims to resolve all complaints at the point of contact, but it would conduct a detailed investigation where required. When a customer makes a complaint it will carry out an initial assessment to determine the actions to be taken, contact the customer and advise what will happen and the anticipated timescales for response within 24 hours. Where further information is required it will advise them of the updated timescales and continue to keep them updated. It will make discretionary payments where there is evidence that the resident has suffered unreasonable inconvenience.

7. The landlord’s ASB policy notes that it will work in partnership with customers the police, local authorities and other agencies to deal with reports of ASB effectively, sympathetically and confidentially. It will adopt a harm-based approach to ensure that reports of ASB receive attention in proportion to the risk of harm they present. It notes that incidents of noise nuisance will be investigated by the environmental health and that it is them who will take any appropriate action. It says not all noise is anti-social and that day to day household activities such as babies crying is not considered as ASB.

8. To address ASB reports, it will ensure that all reports are consistently recorded, make contact with the reporter promptly, agree an action plan and keep parties informed until the case is closed. It would advise residents on self-resolution options but if this does not work, it will look to intervene early to resolve the issue through mediation, restorative justice, warning letters, acceptable behaviour contractors and parenting contracts. Where issues cannot be resolved through these avenues, it will consider and use more formal legal actions.

9. Its lettings statements notes that in most cases properties are allocated through the local authority’s choice based lettings scheme or other partnerships as it does not keep its own waiting list for housing.

Summary of events

10. The landlord’s records note that the resident reported loud music on 18 January 2021 and that his neighbourhood officer advised him to call the noise team to evidence the reports.

11. In response to noise disturbance reported by the resident in May 2021, the landlord sent diary sheets to the resident.

12. There are no further records of noise or ASB reports by the resident until 22 June 2021, when he reported child neglect by the neighbour.

13. The landlord contacted the police on 23 June 2021, regarding the resident’s reports.

14. The resident reported further noise on 10 July 2021.

15. On 11 July 2021, the resident submitted a formal complaint to the local authority. He complained about ongoing ASB being caused by the local authority’s tenants. He cited overcrowding as the main cause as there were multiple people living in a property designed for a maximum of two occupants and that the property should not have been given in this case. He said the high-rise flats are only meant for single individuals or a couple with no children and they should move them as this was the only way to resolve the issue.

16. On 12 July 2021, the local authority wrote to the resident and advised him to contact his landlord to look into his complaint. They said they do not own any residential properties.

17. On 13 July 2021, the resident forwarded a copy of the complaint he sent to the local authority and their response to his landlord.

18. The landlord spoke to him on 15 July 2021 and assured him that it would speak to the neighbour. It also advised the resident that social care and the police had no concerns about the child.

19. On 21 July 2021, the landlord’s records noted that it spoke to the neighbour about noise nuisance and he agreed to keep the noise down.

20. The resident reported further noise on 26 July 2021.The landlord spoke to the resident on 27 July 2021 and advised him that following its conversation with the neighbour they agreed that they would keep the noise down.

21. The resident reported noise, overcrowding and child neglect on 31 July 2021.

22. On 31 August 2021, the resident reported noise regarding DIY and the smoke alarms going off to the landlord.

23. On 10 September 2021, the landlord spoke to the resident and agreed to confirm in writing that it had spoken to the neighbour.

24. The resident contacted the landlord on 11 September 2021 and asked for a copy of the letter.

25. On 22 September 2021, the landlord wrote to the resident and said it had contacted the neighbour who lived above them and advised them to be aware of the noise being created. It said the person was willing and stated that they would

try to do this. It further advised that they have a child and there will be some general noise created. It said it had discussed their housing options with them and given them advice regarding alternative options for rehousing. It enclosed diary sheets with the letter and asked them to complete it over the next two weeks and send them back (neighbourhood officer).

26. On 24 September 2021, the neighbourhood officer hand delivered the letter stating the actions that it had taken. It had spoken to the resident and noted that he agreed to keep diary sheets.

27. The landlord noted that it created an ASB case on 27 September 2021.

28. On 30 September 2021, the landlord wrote to the resident acknowledging his report of ASB. It thanked him for returning the diary sheets/crime reference number it had requested. It said it had now had the opportunity to review the information he supplied and had opened a casefile. The resident was given the case reference.

29. The resident contacted the landlord on 11 October 2021 and provided a link for videos to be downloaded and documents as well. He provided diary sheets he had recorded of a child crying, loud banging and loud arguments in June, July, September and October 2021. The neighbourhood officer also spoke to him and arranged to collect hard copies of the diary sheets.

30. On 12 October 2021, the resident wrote to the landlord and asked it to confirm that it had downloaded the information. The neighbourhood officer also visited the resident and collected the diary sheets.

31. It noted that some more diary sheets were dropped off at the resident’s property on 14 October 2021. Its records also noted that the resident reported noise the same day.

32. The landlord confirmed on 15 October 2021, that it had downloaded the information sent by the resident.

33. The landlord tried to contact the neighbour on 18 October 2021, but there was no answer.

34. On 21 October 2021, the landlord spoke to the neighbour about noise and agreed an action plan.

35. On 7 November 2021, the resident sent an ASB incident diary to the landlord, which contained a record of noise (banging, raised voices, loud tv our music, hitting walls or floor, loud shouting, child crying) between 14 October 2021 and 7 November 2021.

36. On 9 November 2021, the resident contacted the landlord and advised it to review the information he had sent (ASB diary sheets and videos). The resident further said that a substantial amount of documentation and communication from multiple sources had been provided to the landlord which should be sufficient to take the necessary actions. He concluded that he would not be sending any further evidence unless requested in writing by senior managers within the landlord’s organisation.

37. The landlord wrote to the resident on 11 November 2021 and said that the issues raised would be addressed through its formal complaints process. On the same day the local authority also wrote to the resident and advised him that an advisory letter had been sent to the neighbour. It said the purpose of the letter was to advise the occupant that complaints of noise disturbances had been made. The letter pointed out that if complaints continued to arise and a statutory noise is witnessed, then further action would be considered by the local authority. It said it hoped that the letter would serve as a deterrent and that he would no longer experience noise nuisance problems. It advised him to contact them when the noise is occurring, so that its officers can attend and witness the noise. Its out of office hours are noted as 6pm to 3am, seven nights a week, including weekend days.

38. In November 2021, the landlord records note that it sent the resident an acknowledgement letter . It further noted that the resident agreed the action plan as well as the neighbour.

39. On 16 November 2021, the landlord noted that it discussed the resident’s video recordings of the ASB with him. It carried out a detailed assessment of the reports with the resident and advised him of the steps it had taken to address his complaint about the neighbour’s property being over occupied. The landlord contacted social care the same day regarding the resident’s reports of child neglect. It noted that they did not feel the level of reports required a safeguarding referral at the time. Social care recommended that the landlord should complete a visit to assess the situation and contact them back about any further concerns.

40. It also visited the neighbour on 17 November 2021 as part of its investigation. It noted that the neighbour made counter allegations against the resident.

41. On 23 November 2021, the landlord issued its stage one response to the resident’s complaint. The following points are noted from the response:

 a. It had investigated his complaint with regards to his reports of noise nuisance and had also spoken with the neighbour, the police and the local authority’s domestic noise team.

 b. It said the neighbour denied any intentional noise nuisance by way of  shouting or banging and stated that he was aware that his child did cry on occasion. The neighbour asked it to                   apologise to the resident for any nuisance caused from this.

 c. It reviewed the diary sheets of his evidence of noise nuisance from June 2021 and could see reports of a crying baby, shouting, arguing and loud banging. It said some of the entries                       had lasted for several hours and some half an hour. It clarified with the resident if he was experiencing the noise nuisance for the whole of the time listed in the diary sheets, and he                       explained that some instances were shorter and lasted a few minutes or seconds.

 d. It asked the neighbour to ensure that if their baby is playing on the floor, that a rug is put down to prevent any noise from this.

 e. It had contacted the local authorities domestic noise team as part of its investigation, and they advised on 1 February 2021 that the resident reported loud music/loud TV. The team                         attended his property and they deemed that the noise did not meet the threshold to warrant any further action.

 f. On 11th November 2021, the noise team assessed a set of diary sheets that the resident sent to them. As a result, they sent out an advisory letter to the neighbour.

 g. The last time the resident contacted them was 21 November 2021, when the team attended and deemed the noise insufficient to take any further action.

 h. It said in order for it to take action in respect of this type of nuisance, it must be witnessed by the domestic noise team.

 i. Safeguarding – It investigated the resident’s concerns about a baby crying that he reported to the police, other agencies, and its service. There were no concerns following its                                  investigation.

 j. Overcrowding – It confirmed that the neighbour’s property was overcrowded since their baby was born. It advised that the neighbour is registered to transfer through the local authority’s                homefinder scheme, but it was unable to advise on the timescale for when this transfer would take place.

 k. Mediation – It assessed some of the noise he was reporting as everyday living noise common in a block of flats, where there will be occasions they can hear their neighbours in their                       home. It said this does not mean the noise is to a level where it is unreasonable, and it could take action especially with regards to reports of babies crying. It offered mediation to assist                 in resolving this problem said the neighbour has also accepted this and that they were very keen to work alongside the resident to resolve the problem. It said it would be in contact with                 the resident soon to arrange this.

 l. It advised the resident to note any noise nuisance or behaviours that concern him on the diary sheets and send them to it for further investigation.

 m. It concluded that it had introduced a new section on its website which  explains how it deals with reports of anti-social behaviour and would recommend that he reads this as there is                    some very helpful information on there.

42. On 24 November 2021, the landlord wrote to the neighbour and provided a summary of discussions held with them at the meeting attended on 17 November 2021. It advised the neighbour that it was in the process of arranging mediation as agreed by both parties and would update them on when it expects this to take place. It also confirmed their discussion regarding the neighbour’s rehousing options.

43. It contacted the resident by telephone the same day in response to his reports of loud music being played by the neighbour till the early hours of the morning. The neighbourhood officer explained the actions taken and that it would not be taking enforcement action as the neighbour disputed the instances of shouting and arguing. It also said there were no measures it could reasonably put in place to stop a baby from crying. It explained that the neighbour also disputed the other allegations of noise, so it would not be taking any further action unless the noise nuisance is substantiated by the local authority. It said the neighbour agreed to mediation and that it would be in touch regarding this.

44. The landlord further noted that as per its new ASB process, residents are advised that it did not investigate reports of noise that constitute as everyday living noise. It said it is clearly set out on its website that reports of babies crying constitutes everyday living noise. It said the neighbour does not deny his baby cries, as the baby is 18 months old and that they did accept that the resident can hear this. It noted that a certain level of noise is to be expected where residents live in a flat. It noted that reports of banging, shouting, and arguing could lead to enforcement action if proven. It said that the neighbour denied these allegations and that the video evidence was inconclusive in proving this. It concluded that environmental services had visited on two occasions and had taken no action, because the noise is not classed as intrusive and therefore does not constitute a statutory noise nuisance.

45. On 17 February 2022, the landlord wrote to the resident and provided a summary of the actions it had taken following his complaint of noise nuisance against his neighbour in November 2021. The key points to note from this correspondence are:

 a. To support the resident it offered him and the neighbour the opportunity to take part in mediation. It explained that the company providing this service were independent of its                                   organisation.

 b. After several discussions between the resident and the mediation provider, he felt he could not continue with the mediation because they did not consider it a requirement to review all                  the reports and previous history relating to his case. The provider wrote to him on 7 January 2022 to advise that the mediation process would cease.

 c. Following his conversation with his neighbourhood officer on Friday 11 February 2022, he explained that the noise nuisance from his neighbour had reduced and was no longer                               affecting him to the levels reported in November 2021.

 d. It remained committed to continuing to work with him and the neighbour to resolve this problem and it was pleased to hear the noise had reduced. It provided a link to the area on our                     website that explains how it deals with anti-social behaviour.

 e. It advised the resident to record further incidents such as loud banging and loud music onto the diary sheets at the time they occur if possible, recording the date, the start and end time                 of the nuisance noting the impact of this disturbance. To help it assess the level and frequency of the nuisance, it required dairy sheets to be completed and submitted once every two-                   weeks.

 f. It would also require independent evidence from the local authority’s domestic noise team to consider enforcement. Noise occurring between 3am to 9am, is outside of its monitoring                      service hours but can still be logged via the online reporting form, by telephone or email.

 g. His case of anti-social behaviour would remain open for a further four weeks, and at this point his neighbourhood officer would contact him and carry out a review. Should there be no                     further incidents at this time, it would close the case.

46. On February 25 2022, the resident responded to the landlord’s letter of 17 February 2022. The following issues were raised in the letter:

 a. The majority of the information is correct but there were some discrepancies. In regards to the mediation provider, he believes it is a requirement for any mediator to review all the                           information before taking on such a role. He received a follow up email directly from them expressing that it is understandable why he chose not to continue with their offer.

 b. The noise had reduced but it has not ceased completely and the effects are still there when the occurrences. there had been a reduction in the incidents of loud music / TV noise. The                     shouting, raised voices and crying infant remain.

 c. He is aware of the information about reporting to the local council and he has been through that reporting process already.

 d. In regard to the crying infant. It is treated as a safeguarding issue as it always has been primarily.

 e. It is classifying the case strictly as a noise complaint, whereas it is in fact an over-crowding case as well as it had previously said that the neighbour is one bedroom short. This is why                     he had stated numerous times that everything needed to be communicated in writing only.

 f. It did not instruct the landlord to close the case and it shall remain open until it is completely resolved as incidents have not ceased, rather some aspects have reduced only. The officer                  can visit or write again (not telephone call) to carry out a review.

 g. No further records such as diary sheets, environmental team reports etc. will be made as it had been given a sufficient amount of evidence from all sources. Recordings have been                         made but these shall remain in the possession of his lawyer and anyone they see as necessary.

 h. He believed that the landlord have the means to resolve the case properly given the evidence and occurrences and that not doing so will result in direct legal action being taken as the                   next step.

47. On 24 March 2022, the landlord’s internal records note that it communicated regarding the resident’s stage two complaint. It discussed arranging a meeting about the complaint to ensure that all processes had been followed.

48. On 28 March 2022, the landlord wrote to the resident and advised that it was in the process of reviewing its response to his stage two complaint. It said it wanted to confirm in writing that it had not yet been able to fully review all aspects of the complaint. It said it had intended to provide a full answer to the points the resident had raised and it expected to provide a full answer to the resident by 11 April 2022. It apologised for any inconvenience that extending his complaint may cause and thanked him for his patience.

49. The landlord wrote to the resident on 29 March 2022 and said it had asked him to provide any new information to review the outcome of the stage one investigation. It thanked him clarifying that some aspects of the noise was still ongoing. It asked him for his desired outcome from the investigation.

50. The resident responded that the landlord should communicate with the neighbour and help them to register for the home finder scheme and suitable housing. He said the noise pollution hours should be communicated to the neighbour.

51. On 11 April 2022, the landlord sent its final response to the resident regarding his dissatisfaction over its actions following reports of ASB from neighbours (noise and overcrowding). It thanked him for giving it the opportunity to review its response. The key points in the response are noted below:

 a. It was pleased that the mediation group had communicated directly with him concerning his dissatisfaction about their services.

 b. It upheld the information given in its stage one response and said that there had been no safeguarding concerns with regards to the welfare of the baby. It also said the local authority                     attended his home and deemed the noise insufficient to take any further actions.

 c. It had liaised with the NSPCC and the police following his contact with them and from its investigations there had been no safeguarding issues identified.

 d. It had followed its processes following his report of ASB and that support had been given to him and the neighbours on separate occasions.

 e. It was keen to support him to resolve the current issues between him and his neighbour and would require him to provide the evidence he said was in the possession of his lawyer to                     enable further investigation. The resident can continue to contact his neighbourhood officer for any further queries or to submit information.

 f. Regarding overcrowding it said this was addressed in its stage one response and that the information given was correct.

 g. It said it had followed its policies and procedures in ensuring that the neighbour had registered to transfer through home finder. It said it was unable to provide him any further                                 information in relation to a timescale for when the transfer would take place.

 h. It had investigated the ASB and had determined that this did not meet the criteria for a management move.

 i. It concluded the response by advising of other support available if he remained dissatisfied. It also informed him of his right to pursue the matter with his local councillor, MP and the                        Housing Ombudsman Service.

52. The resident expressed further dissatisfaction with the landlord’s response in his email dated 27 April 2022. He said the local authority enforcement team only worked till 3:00am hence they cannot attend and witness the disturbance occurring at approximately 6am – 7am. He said this had been communicated to the landlord multiple times already.

Assessment and findings

Anti-social behaviour

53. It is important to clarify the role of the Ombudsman is not to ascertain whether ASB occurred or not, but to determine whether the landlord responded to reports of ASB and took reasonable and proportionate action in accordance with its policies and procedures.

54. The landlord followed its ASB policy in advising the resident to contact his local authority to report loud music in January 2021. It also acted accordingly in advising him that it would require diary sheets to assess the next steps. In its stage one response to the resident, it demonstrated that it had worked collaboratively with the local authority in liaising with them in February 2021, as part of its investigation. The landlord’s decision to not take any further action at this point was reasonable due to the advice from the environmental health team that their visits determined that the noise did not meet the threshold to warrant further action.

55. Furthermore, from the evidence seen, the landlord has not recorded that it received any further noise or ASB reports from the resident until May 2021. It also acted appropriately in its response by sending the resident diary sheets to record the incidents. It is unclear from the information sent to this Service if the resident sent any completed diary sheets to the landlord during this period. The landlord’s actions were an appropriate response to concerns raised by the resident.

56. It is unclear from the evidence seen if the resident reported any further disturbance until June 2022, when he reported his concern about child neglect. The landlord again appropriately liaised with the police to investigate the concerns raised about the child. In response to further reports of noise from the resident in July 2021 the landlord acted appropriately in contacting the neighbour to notify them of the complaint received against them. It also followed its ASB policy in liaising with social care regarding the resident’s concerns. This demonstrates that it worked in partnership with other agencies as outlined in its policy.

57. It sent a letter to the resident on 22 September 2021, confirming the actions it had taken. It informed the resident that as the neighbour has a baby, some general noise should be expected and it conveyed the neighbour’s response to him. It duly advised him that it had offered rehousing advise to the neighbour and it sent him diary sheets to complete over the next two weeks. The landlord appropriately created an ASB case on 27 September 2021, in response to persistent reports made by the resident against the neighbour. It also acted accordingly in updating the resident on 30 September 2021 of the progress on the case and gave him the case reference. The landlord’s actions are considered appropriate.

58. The landlord acknowledged further reports from the resident in form of video evidence and diary sheets on 11 October 2021, which documented incidents between June and October 2021. The evidence suggests the diary entries for June and July 2021 were being made to the landlord retrospectively as it has not been noted anywhere on the landlord’s records that it received these at the time. There is also no evidence of any concerns to the contrary from the resident. On receiving this information, it spoke to the resident and arranged to collect hard copies of the diary sheet from him. The landlord’s response up till this time in its investigation is therefore considered reasonable.

59. The landlord acted appropriately in contacting the neighbour again on 21 October 2021, in response to further reports of ASB against them. It discussed the concerns raised with them and agreed an action plan. It was also able to demonstrate at review stage that it carried out a risk assessment as outlined in its ASB policy. 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. It is therefore reasonable that the landlord considered the impact of the anti–social behaviour on the resident. However, that this evidence was only provided following the original determination and as part of the landlord’s request for a review of the original determination, this indicates issues with record keeping and the landlord’s ability to store information in a way that means it can comply with its obligations under the Ombudsman’s Scheme. It is important for landlord’s to not just conduct appropriate assessments to ensure the safety of its residents, but also to be able to retain records of these in order to satisfy itself (or the Ombudsman) that it has taken the correct actions. That the landlord did not do that in this case constitutes a failing.

60. In response to further concerns raised by the resident and diary sheets received from him on 7 November 2021, the landlord updated him on its findings following its review of the evidence. It noted the resident’s concerns that a child is living in the block given that it is age restricted and reassured him that the neighbour had been offered advice about rehousing. The landlord took reasonable steps to seek a resolution and mediation to the resident and the neighbour.

61. The landlord took reasonable steps in investigating the residents reports of noise including, shouting, raised voices, loud banging by visiting the neighbour on 17 November 2021..

62. Although the landlord’s ASB policy does not classify crying babies as ASB, it showed that it took appropriate steps in responding to the concerns raised. It informed the resident, following the outcome of its stage one investigation, that it had no concerns about the child’s welfare following its discussion with social services.

63. It reiterated in its complaint response that reports of banging, shouting, and arguing could lead to enforcement action if proven. It said it had not been able to prove the allegations against the neighbour through the evidence submitted by the resident. The local authority’s domestic noise team also visited on two occasions and took no action. The evidence provided suggests that this was because the noise did not constitute a statutory nuisance.

64. The resident said in his correspondence to the landlord, post the landlord’s stage two response, that he had pointed out on several occasions that the local authority had not been able to witness noise occurring between 6am & 7am as its offices were usually closed at this time. Having however reviewed the diary sheets sent to the landlord, noise recorded at these times were mostly of a crying baby. The landlord had previously informed the resident that it would not investigate reports of a crying baby as it is not enforceable. The landlord has appropriately addressed this in speaking to the neighbour and in offering mediation to both parties in seeking a resolution.

65. It is noted from the evidence seen that the resident’s desired outcome from the complaint is for the landlord to move the neighbour and his family to an accommodation deemed suitable for their household. The landlord has however demonstrated that it has taken appropriate steps to address his concerns by offering housing advice to the neighbour. We are unable to disclose any actions taken as it relates to another resident’s personal matter. This assessment can only consider the circumstances surrounding the resident’s individual complaint. In view of the above, the landlord’s advice to the resident is appropriate and in line with its Lettings Policy.

66. The landlord met its policy position and took appropriate steps in responding to the resident’s complaints of noise. It also acted appropriately in referring the resident to the LA, as only the LA has the authority to investigate potential ASB and decide if meets the statutory threshold for it to take action.

67. The landlord made the decision to manage the matter through its ASB policy and procedure. A clearer distinction between these two aspects of noise may have ensured that the resident understood what action the landlord was able to take in each circumstance and bring the matter to a swifter resolution. This Services spotlight report on noise, dated October 2022, highlights best practice in managing complaints of noise nuisance and the distinction between household, day to day living noise and ASB. A review of its processes against this guidance would ensure that the landlord is delivering the level of service required in such cases.

68.Based on the evidence reviewed by this Service, it is clear that the landlord did take reasonable steps in addressing the resident’s concerns regarding issues of ASB, and noise nuisance. It however failed to demonstrate that its record keeping practices are sufficient, as demonstrated by the fact the landlord was only able to provide the Ombudsman with evidence that a risk assessment had been conducted at review stage of the Ombudsman’s procedure. Taken together, the evidence suggests that while the landlord did not maladminister in its handling of the resident’s reports of ASB, it did maladminister in relation to its record keeping.

Complaint handling

69.In terms of the complaint handling, there is no evidence seen by this Service that the landlord acknowledged the resident’s complaint forwarded to it on 13 July 2021.

70.The evidence seen suggests this was acknowledged on 11 November 2021, which is several months, far outside of its 24 hours timescale stated in its complaints policy. Whilst this may have been considered to be an omission, it also did not acknowledge the resident’s stage two complaint within the expected timeframe. The resident requested a review on 25 February 2022, but it only acknowledged it on 7 March. This Service’s complaint handling code sets out the timescales that landlord’s should adhere to when dealing with complaints. The code states that landlord’s should respond to stage one complaints within 10 working days and stage two complaints within 20 working days.

71.Whilst it is noted that the landlord’s complaints handling policy does not set out the timescales for responding to complaints, it is clearly evident that it took an unreasonable period of time to respond to the complaints. Further, the failure to outline agreed timescales within the complaints policy leads to resident’s being left unclear on expectations. This is inappropriate and leads to poor customer service.

72.It is also acknowledged that the landlord requested an extension of the stage two complaint and that it fully investigated and provided an adequate response to both complaints. The delays experienced and its failure to set out clear timescales in its complaints policy would have caused the resident uncertainty and frustration. This is not appropriate on the landlord’s part.

Determination (decision)

73. Having carefully considered the evidence, in accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme (the Scheme), there was no maladministration in respect of the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of noise and ASB.

74. Having carefully considered the evidence, in accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme (the Scheme) there was maladministration by the landlord in respect of the complaint handling. 

75. Having carefully considered the evidence, in accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme (the Scheme) there was maladministration by the landlord in relation to its record keeping.

Reasons

76.The landlord acted appropriately in its communication with the resident and in keeping him updated at all stages of the actions it was taking. It responded promptly and took reasonable steps in investigating the resident’s reports about noise and ASB.

77.It has evidenced that it was unable to take enforcement action as there was insufficient evidence to substantiate the reports made.

78.The landlord took an unreasonable period of time to acknowledge and respond to the stage one complaint. It also took an unreasonable amount of time to acknowledge the stage two complaint which is not in line with this Service’s complaint handling code. This would have caused the resident uncertainty and frustration.

79. There was evidence of significant record keeping issues.

Orders and Recommendations

Orders

80. The landlord is ordered to carry out the following orders within four weeks of the date of the determination:

81. Pay the resident the sum of £200 broken down as follows:

1. £100 for the failings identified in its complaint handling and
2. £100 for the failings identified in its record keeping.

82. Review its complaints handling policy to ensure it aligns with the provisions set out in this Services complaint handling code, particularly with a view to including the timeframes for responding to complaints.

83. Review its record keeping practices, to ensure it aligns with the provisions set out in the Ombudsman’s Scheme, particularly with a view to keeping records regarding formal complaints.

84. Share this report with the relevant staff and ensure that they are reminded of the importance of adhering to its internal policies.

Recommendations

85. The landlord to consider the findings of the Ombudsman’s spotlight on noise complaints Spotlight on noise complaints – Spotlight on: Noise Complaints – October 2022 (housing-ombudsman.org.uk)

86. The landlord to share the findings with relevant staff, including training where appropriate and to incorporate the findings of this report in its management of such cases in future.

87. The landlord should carry out an annual self-assessment against this Service’s complaint handling code to ensure that their complaint handling remains in line with its requirements.