London & Quadrant Housing Trust (L&Q) (202114933)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202114933

London & Quadrant Housing Trust

14 June 2023

Our approach

The Housing Ombudsman’s approach to investigating and determining complaints is to decide what is fair in all the circumstances of the case. This is set out in the Housing Act 1996 and the Housing Ombudsman Scheme (the Scheme). The Ombudsman considers the evidence and looks to see if there has been any ‘maladministration’, for example whether the landlord has failed to keep to the law, followed proper procedure, followed good practice or behaved in a reasonable and competent manner.

Both the resident and the landlord have submitted information to the Ombudsman and this has been carefully considered. Their accounts of what has happened are summarised below. This report is not an exhaustive description of all the events that have occurred in relation to this case, but an outline of the key issues as a background to the investigation’s findings.

The complaint

The complaint is about the landlord’s response to:
1. The resident’s reports of anti-social behaviour (ASB).
2. Counter allegation of noise nuisance made about the resident.
3. Staff behaviour.

Background

The resident is a tenant of the landlord with an assured tenancy agreement. The property is a converted terrace house with the resident occupying the ground floor flat. There is a communal entrance that she shares with the flat above, neighbour B.
The property next door is a terrace house, occupied by neighbour A, who is a home owner.
The resident has vulnerabilities in relation to learning difficulties.
The case notes show there was a history of noise complaints in relation to noise being made by the resident. This resulted in her being served with a notice of seeking possession (NOSP) on 29 August 2019.
The noise app is a noise monitoring app which a resident can download to their phone to record the noise they are experiencing. This is a time-stamped record of the noise that can be provided to their landlord.

Summary of events

The resident contacted the landlord on 22 October 2019, saying she was fed up with the false allegations made against her by neighbour A. She was unhappy that the housing manager served her with a NOSP and therefore requested that that particular member of staff not contact her again.
The landlord contacted the resident on 23 October 2019 to discuss her complaint. The case notes say that the resident did not want the case manager to contact her as it was causing her distress. The landlord agreed.
On 8 June 2020, the resident complained that a letter had been sent to her from the previous housing manager.
On 1 July 2020, the case notes show that the landlord telephoned the resident three times during the day without success. It then left a voicemail message for the resident in order to discuss the matter.
The resident contacted the landlord on 13 July 2020, in response to its voicemail message of 1 July 2020. No further details were provided.
The resident reported noise regarding banging and slamming doors as coming from neighbour B on 14 January 2021.
The same day, a complaint was made in relation to the resident banging doors. As a result the resident was contacted by the landlord in relation to this.
On 22 January 2021, the resident contacted the landlord to advise the noise was not coming from her property but a neighbouring flat.
The resident contacted this service on 30 September 2021, as she had not received a response in relation to a formal complaint she raised with the landlord. This was in relation to the landlord’s handling of reports that the resident’s neighbours are causing noise nuisance, and making excessive complaints about the resident. As a result we contacted the landlord on the resident’s behalf requesting it provide a stage one response.
On 18 October 2021, the landlord sent its stage one response saying that:
1. it explained to the resident that there were no active anti-social behaviour cases raised against her address. Therefore, it was unable to investigate the complaints about the handling of her reports, as there had been no recent anti-social behaviour reported
2. it asked the resident to confirm if she was experiencing noise nuisance as detailed in this service’s letter. The landlord said the resident confirmed she was not experiencing noise nuisance. However, she believed the neighbours were reporting that she was causing noise nuisance. The landlord confirmed this was not the case and closed the complaint
3. it again apologised for the delay in contacting the resident and advised her to report any future ASB.
This service contacted the landlord on 28 October 2021 on behalf of the resident explaining that she remained dissatisfied with its stage one response. The issues were:
1. the resident was not happy with the landlord’s apology and felt there was not enough being done to tackle the reported ASB
2. the resident felt her previous housing manager had not acted impartially and wanted the matter investigated
3. the resident wanted the landlord to take the neighbour to court in relation to the ASB.
On 1 November 2021, the landlord wrote to the resident confirming its telephone conversation with her in relation to her request to escalate the complaint. It said that:
1. there was no open ASB case, which it said was in relation to “closing the communal door quietly”
2. the resident confirmed her ASB complaint was regarding neighbour A
3. it confirmed it would be investigating the matters raised in this service’s letter of 28 October 2021.
On 4 November 2021, the landlord sent its stage two response saying that:
1. it apologised for the late stage one response and not providing links for additional support needs. The landlord therefore provided the resident with details of various other organisations
2. it was unacceptable that it did not adhere to timeframes set by this service and would provide staff training on timeframes for complaints
3. in relation to the resident’s report of ASB on 14 January 2021, the landlord confirmed it contacted the other party to try and resolve the issue at the time. The landlord confirmed that it could not take formal action against neighbour A as they were a private resident. It therefore, directed the resident to contact Citizens advice and also offered mediation
4. the resident advised that the noise was not coming from her home but caused by the carer’s visiting the resident upstairs (neighbour B). The landlord said it contacted the care staff, and asked them to be more mindful of closing the door and being noisy. Also, a repair order was raised and actioned in relation to the door for a door closure. (It had been evidenced in the case notes that neighbour B was re-housed around February 2021)
5. when the landlord received the report of noise disturbance, it sent a letter to both flats as it did not know who was making the noise and did not want to accuse the wrong resident. It acknowledged that the resident felt that it had wrongly accused her of slamming the communal front door. The landlord apologised if that made the resident anxious. It explained that it had to find out the full information to get the correct decision
6. the resident had made a complaint regarding her previous housing officer, who dealt with her case between October 2019 and June 2020. Usually, the landlord would expect complaints to be raised within one year of the incident, but understood the resident’s worry and wanted to address it
7. the resident said in October 2019,that she was fed up with false allegations against her and that she felt the landlord was harassing her and threatening her with a NOSP
8. the resident specified she did not want a particular member of staff dealing with her case. It confirmed it acknowledged her wishes, but may have failed to adhere to her request. The landlord apologised at the time that her request was not actioned
9. a new housing officer dealt with the anti-social behaviour incidents from January 2021. The landlord sincerely apologised if the resident felt that she was not handled with care and respect and raised this as future training with the team
10. when considering compensation it takes into consideration whether the resident experienced adversity because of the issues she experienced. Therefore it offered the resident compensation of £110.00 made up of
  1. £20.00 for the late response in the Stage one complaint
  2. £40.00 for the distress these incidents may have caused her, her time and effort
  3. £50.00 for failing to consider her vulnerabilities and communicate her needs
The case notes show that the landlord contacted the resident six times throughout November 2021 to confirm the resident had received its stage two response as she did not have an email address.
On 24 November 2021, the resident contacted the landlord to confirm she had received the final response letter but did not agree with the findings and said she would raise the matter with this service.
The same day the landlord opened an ASB case following the resident’s reports of noise from children running up and down from neighbour A. She said that the parents were encouraging the children to make noise.
The landlord contacted the resident on 29 November 2021 regarding her ASB reports. The resident explained that the noise had been ongoing since 13 November 2021 and that she had noise recordings.
On 1 December 2021, the resident contacted this service as she was unhappy with the landlord’s final response. She explained that she was not satisfied with the level of compensation offered by the landlord. In addition, she wanted the ASB to stop as it was affecting her health.
The resident provided the landlord with a video of the noise she was experiencing on 6 December 2021. The same day the landlord responded requesting the resident download the noise app.
On 11 February 2022, the landlord contacted the resident to explain that due to her neighbour being a homeowner, it could not take any formal action against them. It therefore sign posted the resident to the local authority to report the noise.
Following recent contact with this service the resident explained that she was still experiencing noise nuisance from neighbour A and wanted the landlord to take court action against them.

Assessment and findings

The resident’s reports of anti-social behaviour (ASB) in relation to neighbour A.

The landlord’s ASB policy says where it is the landlord’s responsibility, it will take prompt, appropriate and decisive action to deal with ASB before it escalates and will work with relevant partners (e.g. local authorities and police) to meet its responsibilities.
This policy covers all residents, tenants and leaseholders and their visitors, whether they are the perpetrator or the reporting party, where the ASB affects the housing management functions of the organisation.
If, after considering the complaint, it is unable to take action on behalf of the complainant/reporting party, it will explain why and point residents towards agencies or to information which may be able to offer advice and support.
In the landlord’s response of October 2021, following the resident’s complaint to this service regarding ASB, the landlord explained that it did not have any active ASB cases under her address. This was appropriate and evidenced in the case notes provided.
It was noted in the landlord’s stage one response that the resident confirmed she was not experiencing noise nuisance. However, this was not evidenced in the case notes which was not appropriate. The landlord did encourage the resident to report any issues of ASB she was experiencing going forward. This was appropriate.
Following the resident’s request to escalate her complaint, the landlord telephoned her to clarify matters. The resident confirmed that the ASB she was experiencing was in relation to neighbour A. It was appropriate that the landlord telephoned the resident as this demonstrated that it was taking her complaint seriously.
As soon as the landlord was aware that the resident was complaining about a private resident, it advised her that it could not take any formal action against them. This was in line with its ASB policy that covers its “residents, tenants and leaseholders and their visitors”.
In its final response the landlord directed the resident to contact citizens advice. Although, its policy says if it is unable to take action it will direct residents “towards agencies or to information which may be able to offer advice and support” it should have referred the resident to the local authority. This caused a further delay in a resolution for the resident.
On 24 November 2021, the landlord opened an ASB case in relation to neighbour A. This was not appropriate as it was contrary to its policy and contradicted its final response of 4 November 2021, where it explained to the resident it could not take any formal action against a private resident. This was confusing and frustrating for the resident.
It was not appropriate that the landlord asked the resident in December 2021 to record the noise using the noise app, especially as it was already aware the source of the complaint was a private resident for which it could not take any action. It was not until February 2022, 67 days later, that the landlord clarified to the resident that it could not take any action due to neighbour A being a home owner and correctly sign posted her to the local authority. This was unfair to the resident as it delayed her complaint being investigated by the appropriate agency.
In summary, it was appropriate that the landlord advised the resident that it could not take action against a home owner and directed the resident to the local authority. Further, in its final response it offered the resident £90 for the distress the incidents may have caused her, her time and effort and for failing to consider her vulnerabilities and communicate her needs. At this point the Ombudsman considered reasonable redress had been offered.
Nevertheless, the resident experienced frustration when pursuing her ASB complaint following the landlord’s contradictory advice and delay of 67 days in clarifying its position. The resident had explained that the situation was affecting her mental health, in addition to the landlord being aware of her vulnerabilities.
Therefore, in recognition of the distress and inconvenience experienced by the resident over a two month period from December 2021 to February 2022 following the landlord’s failures in its response to her reports of anti-social behaviour, £100 compensation has been awarded.

Counter allegation of noise nuisance made about the resident

Both the resident and neighbour A made a complaint in relation to slamming doors in January 2021. The landlord sent a warning letter to both flats that shared the communal entrance as it did not know who was making the noise. The landlord explained to the resident how it approached noise allegations. Namely that it raises any such allegation with the other party in order to gain their response, which it then records. The case notes show that the landlord contacted all parties involved in relation to the complaint. This was a reasonable approach to take as a first step and the need for any further action could then be assessed depending on the issue and response received.
Therefore the landlord’s actions were reasonable because it acted impartially and did not make assumptions about who was making the noise.
As a result of the contact the landlord made, it discovered that the noise was coming from carers that were attending to neighbour B. In response to this information, the landlord contacted the agency involved in providing the care, notifying them of the complaint, and asking them to be mindful of the noise they may be making. In addition, following neighbour B being moved to alternative accommodation the landlord closed the case. This was appropriate and in line with its policy.

Staff behaviour

The Ombudsman’s role is not to establish whether the alleged behaviour did or did not happen, it is to consider whether the actions taken by the landlord put things right and resolved the resident’s complaint satisfactorily in the circumstances.
This investigation will therefore assess whether the landlord responded appropriately to a given situation and decide whether its actions were fair and reasonable, taking all the circumstances of the case into account.
As detailed in the summary of events, the resident was unhappy with the actions of the previous housing manager and did not want to deal with them. The incidents relate to events from October 2019 to June 2020.
The landlord’s complaint policy says that it does not cover “issues which are over 12 months old unless there is good reason, for example, the complaint was not recorded when it should have been”.
The resident made a complaint regarding her previous housing manager in October 2021. Her previous housing manager, managed her case between October 2019 and June 2020. Consequently, the complaint was made 16 months after any alleged events. Therefore, as per the landlord’s policy the complaint raised fell outside the reasonable timeframe for raising the complaint.
Despite this, the landlord considered the complaint as it said that it “understood the resident’s worry and wanted to address it”. This was appropriate and resolution focussed.
The resident had said she was fed up with false allegations against her and that she felt the landlord was harassing her by threatening her with a NOSP. In October 2019, she said she did not want the particular member of staff dealing with her case. The landlord agreed to action this at the time, which was reasonable.
However, on 8 June 2020, a letter was sent to the resident from the same member of staff. It was evidenced that the landlord tried to contact the resident regarding the matter on 1 July 2020, leaving a voicemail. This was appropriate. Furthermore, it apologised to the resident for not adhering to the agreement in its final response.
In summary, the landlord recognised its failure and apologised to the resident which is considered reasonable redress for this level of service failure.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 55 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was maladministration by the landlord in respect of the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of anti-social behaviour (ASB) in relation to neighbour A.
In accordance with paragraph 55 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was no maladministration by the landlord in respect of its response to the counter allegation of noise nuisance made about the resident.
In accordance with paragraph 53(b) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was reasonable redress offered by the landlord for its service failure in respect of the complaint regarding staff behaviour.

Reasons

The landlord asked the resident in December 2021 to record the noise using the noise app, which was not appropriate given it could not take any action against a home owner. Furthermore it took the landlord 67 days to advise the resident that it could not take any action and correctly sign post her to the local authority.
The landlord took reasonable and proportionate action to investigate and address the noise allegations, and acted in line with its policy by contacting the resident.
Despite agreeing with the resident that she would not receive any communication from the previous housing manager, it failed to adhere to the agreement. Nevertheless, it tried to make contact with the resident at the time of the incident, and it recognised its failure in its final response and apologised to the resident.

Orders

Within four weeks of the date of this determination, the landlord is ordered to take the following action and provide the Ombudsman with evidence of compliance with these orders:
The landlord to write to the resident to apologise for the service failures identified in this report.
Pay directly to the resident compensation totalling £310 made up of:
1. £110 previously offered to the resident in its final response
2. £200 for the distress and inconvenience caused to her in relation to the landlord’s response to her reports of ASB.
3. This can be reduced by any compensation already paid.
4. The landlord to carry out a case review and identify service improvements it can make to ensure the service failure does not happen again. This should include staff training in relation to correctly signposting residents for appropriate advice.