Norwich City Council (202223488)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202223488

Norwich City Council

13 September 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 resident’s complaint is about the landlord’s handling of reports of anti-social behaviour from a neighbour.

Background

2. The resident is a shared ownership leaseholder of the landlord. The property is a flat within a communal building.
3. In June 2022 the resident reported that the neighbours in the flat above him were making excessive noise. The resident submitted recordings via the Noise App as evidence of the noise. The landlord spoke to the resident’s neighbours about the complaint, and issued them with a warning letter about the noise on 4 July 2022. The anti-social behaviour (ASB) case was closed on 25 August 2022, and the resident made a further report of noise nuisance on 26 October 2022.
4. The resident raised a complaint on 7 November 2022 about the landlord’s handling of his reports of ASB. The landlord issued its stage one response on 15 November 2022. The landlord found that it had spoken to the resident on 18 July 2022 and advised that it would contact him for an update in two weeks’ time. However, it was identified that the ASB case was closed without the resident being contacted first. The landlord noted that there were gaps in the recordings submitted by the resident, and it acknowledged that this was due to the resident being away. The landlord apologised and stated that it would speak to staff to ensure cases are not closed where the resident may be away from their property. It confirmed that the resident’s further noise complaint had been allocated to a case officer.
5. The resident escalated the complaint and the stage two response was issued on 16 December 2022. The landlord found that there was in delay in contacting the resident after he made his second report of ASB, and that it had amended its processes to prevent this from reoccurring. The landlord acknowledged that the resident did not have confidence in the member of staff who had been assigned the second ASB report, and it stated that it would identify a new case officer.
6. The resident raised his complaint with the Ombudsman in January 2023. In August 2023, he informed this service that the issue was ongoing, but that the noise levels had improved since he first raised his complaint. He stated that a suitable resolution would be for the landlord to send a final written warning to the neighbours stating that they would be evicted if the noise continued.

Assessment and findings

7. This service acknowledges that the noise disturbance incidents reported by the resident have caused him distress in his property. However, it is important to note that it is not the Ombudsman’s role to determine whether ASB occurred or not. What the Ombudsman can assess is how a landlord has dealt with the reports it has received and whether it has followed proper procedure, followed good practice, and behaved reasonably, taking account of the circumstances of the case.
8. The landlord has an obligation to investigate reports of ASB and respond appropriately. The resident reported noise nuisance caused by the neighbours who live in the flat above his. This would fall under the heading of ASB, as set out in the landlord’s ASB policy. Therefore, the landlord would have been expected to investigate and take reasonable steps to resolve any ASB which was identified following its investigation. The landlord’s ASB policy states that it takes a preventative approach where appropriate, using measures such as mediation and warnings. The policy explains that it will provide the resident with regular updates about the steps it is taking to deal with the ASB complaint, as well as explain the support that can be offered.
9. The resident reported noise nuisance to the landlord on 15 June 2022 which was coming from the flat above. He reported that new residents had moved in around 3 months previously, and since then, there had been constant banging and stomping which he said was beyond everyday domestic noise. The resident had also started to submit recordings of the noise via the Noise App from 5 June 2022.
10. The evidence indicates that the landlord contacted the resident on 16 June 2022 to discuss his report. This call was followed up with an email setting out the agreed actions on both the part of the landlord and the resident. An ASB risk assessment was completed on the same day, and the risk was assessed as medium.
11. The ASB file notes reflect that the landlord contacted the resident’s neighbour on 4 July 2022 after reviewing the recordings submitted by the resident. The call notes state that the landlord informed the neighbour that it would be issuing a warning letter as the noise was intrusive. The landlord advised the neighbour that the situation would continue to be monitored through the Noise App recordings, and that further action may be taken if more reports were received. It is noted that the neighbour said that they would moderate their behaviour. A warning letter was sent to the neighbour on the same date.
12. The initial steps taken by the landlord to handle the reports of ASB were appropriate. The landlord conducted an assessment of the severity of the report, communicated with both the resident and his neighbour in a timely manner and took positive action to warn the neighbours after listening to the recordings submitted by the resident.
13. The ASB file notes reflect that the landlord contacted the resident on 6 July 2022 and notified him that a warning letter had been sent to the neighbour. The notes state that the resident was advised to keep using the Noise app. The landlord contacted the resident again on 11 July 2022, and the resident reported that the noise level had improved, but that there were banging noises in the early hours of the morning. The landlord contacted the neighbour on the same day and discussed the noise nuisance. The call notes reflect that the neighbour had reported that the laminate flooring in their flat was noisy. They also said that they left their property at around 5am for work which was likely to be why the resident could hear noise in the early hours of the morning.
14. The evidence reflects that appropriate steps were taken to make contact with the resident and monitor the situation after the initial warning was sent to the neighbour. The landlord was proactive in contacting the neighbour to further discuss the complaint after the resident had reported that the noise was still occurring. However, there is no indication that the landlord gave consideration to inspecting the flooring in the neighbour’s property, or whether alternative flooring could be fitted at this stage. Given that this had been raised by the neighbour, it would have been a reasonable line of enquiry to explore.
15. The landlord contacted the resident for a further update on 18 July 2022. The landlord told the resident that it would monitor the case through the Noise App, and would contact him again after two weeks. On 27 July 2022, the resident emailed the landlord and stated that the neighbours had taken no notice of the landlord’s warning letter, so they should be sent an eviction letter.
16. In its stage one response, the landlord identified that it contacted the neighbour on 8 August 2022 but that it did not also contact the resident as previously agreed. It also found that it had closed the ASB case on 25 August 2022 without notifying the resident. The rationale for closing the case has not been provided. The resident told this service that he went on holiday for 2 weeks and the case was closed during this time. It is noted that there was a gap in the recordings submitted via the Noise App between 6 and 31 August. The landlord found that had it contacted the resident as promised, it would have been aware that he had not been at the property and therefore did not submit any recordings during this period. The landlord’s ASB policy states that it will notify the complainant when it is closing their case and explain the reason for the closure. The landlord did not properly communicate with the resident in line with its policy and it has accurately identified this as a failing.
17. On 26 October 2022 the resident contacted the landlord and reported the noise nuisance again. The landlord contacted both the resident and the neighbour on 14 November 2022. The landlord’s ASB policy states that it will contact the complainant within five working days to acknowledge their ASB complaint. The evidence therefore reflects that this timeframe was not adhered to. In its stage two response, the landlord accurately identified that there was a delay in contacting the resident, and that it should have engaged with him earlier. It said that it had amended its processes to prevent this from occurring in future. While it is appropriate that the landlord identified a failing in this regard, the specific action taken is unclear. The landlord should provide further information regarding the measures it has taken to prevent this occurring again.
18. This service has viewed call notes made by the landlord of the conversation it had with both the resident and his neighbour on 14 November 2022. The notes reflect that the landlord confirmed to the resident that the further recordings he had submitted were evidence of ongoing noise nuisance. The notes state that the neighbours had already been served a written warning letter, and that they would be served with a Community Protection Warning. It is unclear as to whether this specific action was communicated to the resident during the phone call.
19. The 14 November 2022 call notes also reflect that the landlord discussed mediation with both the resident and the neighbour. The resident declined to take part in this. However, it is noted that the offer of mediation is appropriate and in line with the actions set out in the landlord’s ASB policy.
20. The landlord’s internal emails dated 21 November 2022 reflect that the landlord’s officer had visited the neighbour’s property, and identified that the laminate flooring had not been secured which meant that it creaked and banged regularly. It was also identified that there was no underlay between the laminate and the concrete floor, and that two doors are stiff and had to be slammed shut. It was appropriate that the landlord attended the neighbour’s property to inspect the flooring. The visit highlighted issues which may have been contributing to noise transference. However, this is an action that ought to have been taken sooner, especially given that the neighbour had raised a possible issue with their flooring in July. Further, despite identifying the flooring and doors as a possible cause of the noise, there is no indication that the landlord took action to address this at the time (it took three months for carpet to be fitted for example, and there is no indication that repairs were carried out to ease the doors).
21. The stage two complaint response was issued on 16 December 2022. The landlord agreed to allocate the ASB case to a different case officer, as requested by the resident. The landlord found that it had taken appropriate action in relation to the first report of ASB, but it again acknowledged that the case was closed incorrectly.
22. The stage two response states that the landlord could see no evidence that it had committed to issuing a Community Protection Warning during the handling of the initial ASB report. On review of the evidence, this appears to be accurate. However, the stage one complaint response, issued after the second report of ASB, stated that the resident’s recordings had been assessed, and the matter would be escalated to a Community Protection Warning. This was also referred to within the call logs dated 14 November 2022. There is no evidence that this action took place. It is possible that, upon further consideration, the landlord felt that this was not a necessary or proportionate step. However, the resident would have expected any actions set out in the initial complaint response to take place, and his expectations were therefore not met in this regard. Any change in approach should have been explained to the resident.
23. After the stage two response was issued, the ASB case was allocated to a different case officer. Carpet and underlay was laid in the neighbour’s property in February 2023. The resident contacted this service in March 2023 and stated that the carpet had not blocked the noise, and that he had sent more recordings to the landlord. The landlord provided the resident with Norsonic recording equipment between 3 April 2023 and 10 April 2023. The landlord wrote to the resident on 27 April 2023 and informed him that it was satisfied that there was no noise nuisance, and that the ASB case would be closed. The letter informed the resident that no button presses were identified on the Norsonic device, and that the recent recordings submitted via the Noise App did not indicate noise that would be deemed a statutory nuisance. The resident informed this service in August 2023 that he had pressed the button on the device approximately 10 times, and that he had requested the recordings from the landlord but these had not been provided.
24. The evidence supports that the landlord took some appropriate steps to address the report of noise nuisance by issuing a warning letter to the neighbours, attending the neighbour’s address to inspect the flooring, and offering mediation. When the issue was first raised, the landlord engaged in regular communication with both the resident and the neighbour about the matter. As outlined above, further actions were taken to address the noise nuisance since the stage two response was issued.
25. While appropriate steps were taken, there is also evidence of some failings by the landlord in how it addressed the resident’s report of noise nuisance. The landlord identified that it wrongly closed the resident’s first ASB report and that there were delays in contacting the resident after he raised the noise nuisance a second time. Furthermore, certain actions such as attending the neighbour’s property to inspect the flooring, and providing recording equipment could have reasonably been taken sooner. For example, it is noted that the carpet was laid in the neighbours’ property approximately 8 months after the resident first raised the ASB report. As such, there were unreasonable delays in the noise reports being investigated. These factors amount to a service failure by the landlord.
26. Where there have been failings by the landlord, the Ombudsman’s role is to consider whether the redress offered by the landlord was in line with the Ombudsman’s Dispute Resolution Principles: be fair, put things right and learn from outcomes. Although the landlord has identified some learning, it has not taken sufficient steps to put things right.
27. It is clear that the resident incurred time and trouble in pursuing his reports about noise nuisance due to the case being closed before the issue had been suitably resolved. The delays in contacting the resident following his second report would have caused further frustration. Furthermore, certain steps to investigate the noise complaint were not taken until several months after the initial report was made. The resident outlined to the landlord the detrimental impact that the ongoing noise issue was having on him. The overall delays in investigating the matter are likely to have caused distress and inconvenience to the resident.
28. In order to remedy the impact on the resident, the landlord should pay£250 compensation. This amount is in accordance with this service’s remedies guidance which suggests compensation of between £100 and £600where there has been a failure which adversely affected the resident, but no permanent impact.
29. The resident stated that a suitable remedy would be for the landlord to send the neighbours a final warning about the noise nuisance, with the threat of eviction. Landlords should usually attempt to resolve ASB informally in the first instance such as by contacting the parties involved to discuss the matter. A landlord should generally only consider taking formal action if informal attempts have been unsuccessful in resolving the issues. For a landlord to take formal action in respect of ASB, such as written warnings, injunctions, evictions etc. the landlord would require extensive evidence of the alleged behaviour to support formal action. Eviction is used as a last resort in the most serious cases, and must be ordered by the courts.
30. It is noted that the ASB case was closed after the stage two response was issued. The Ombudsman cannot comment on whether this was an appropriate decision, or whether the landlord should have progressed to more formal actions. This is because the landlord has not had the opportunity to give a rationale for this decision within the formal complaints process. However, the landlord should ensure that any further reports from the resident are dealt with appropriately and in line with its amended procedure.
31. A landlord should use the complaints process to identify issues with its service delivery and take remedial action to prevent these reoccurring. The stage two response stated that the landlord had amended its process to prevent cases being closed down without a resident’s involvement. The landlord told this service that it has informed staff members that they must ensure residents are consulted at case closure, and that cases must now be approved by a peer prior to closure. This supports that the landlord has taken appropriate steps which should help to ensure there is no reoccurrence.
32. Regarding the delays in contacting the resident upon the second ASB report, the landlord again stated that it had amended its process to prevent this occurring in future. However, it is unclear what measures have been put in place to address this. To ensure that learning has been taken from the complaint outcome, the landlord should provide the Ombudsman with details of its amended process.

Determination

33. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure by the landlord in the way it handled the resident’s reports of anti-social behaviour from a neighbour.

Orders

34. The landlord is ordered to pay the resident a total of £250 compensation for the distress and inconvenience caused by the landlord’s failings in its handling of his reports of anti-social behaviour.
35. The landlord should provide the Ombudsman with details of its amended process for responding to ASB reports within the timeframes stipulated in its ASB policy.
36. The landlord should evidence compliance with these orders to this service within 28 days of this report.

Recommendation

37. The landlord should ensure that any further reports from the resident are dealt with appropriately and in line with its amended procedure.