Wandsworth Council (202201050)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202201050

Wandsworth Council

25 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 reports of anti-social behaviour (ASB).

Background

The resident was a lease holder. The lease began on 18 May 2020. The property is a one bedroom 15th floor flat.
The landlord’s vulnerability record stated that the resident is partially sighted.
The neighbour who is the subject of the resident’s main ASB reports was a tenant of the landlord, and their flat shares a wall with the resident’s property. They are referred to in this report as ‘the neighbour’.
The other residents of the same block mentioned in this report live in the flat above the resident. They are referred to in this report as ‘the above neighbouring tenants’.
The landlord is a local authority. Other departments of the same local authority were also involved in the resident’s reports of ASB, along with the police. Complaints concerning other service areas of the local authority are not within the jurisdiction of the Housing Ombudsman, nor are the actions of the police. As such, references to the police or other service areas of the local authority in this report are for context only, and do not form part of the assessment.
For clarity, this report will refer to the local authority’s housing service as ‘the landlord’. All other service areas of the local authority (LA) are referred to as ‘the LA’.

ASB policy

The landlord’s definition of ASB includes conduct that causes harassment, alarm or distress to any person. It goes on to quote from its ‘tenancy conditions’ and states that, “We will take responsible steps to investigate your complaints and take action where appropriate”.
The policy states that landlord is committed to keeping witnesses and victims of ASB updated on its actions during investigations.
It states that it will aim to remove 98% of offensive graffiti within 24 hours, and all graffiti within three days.

Noise nuisance procedure

The procedure explains that noise complaints should be made to the LA Joint Control Centre, which will dispatch an ‘estates services officer’ as soon as possible to attend and witness the noise.
The estates service officer must complete a report, and the procedure explains the information that must be recorded. Completed reports are passed to the landlord, who will decide on the appropriate action based on the available evidence.

Hate incidents procedure

The procedure defines hate incidents and crimes as those that are motivated by hostility or prejudice based on a person’s characteristics, including sexuality and disability. It states that residents should always be encouraged to report any form of hate incident or harassment to the police.
It says that on receipt of a report of hate crime, an estate manager should contact the resident within 24 hours to make an appointment to visit. It goes on to state that the resident should be provided with a Hate Crime form, with support offered to complete it where needed.

Summary of events

The landlord’s record showed that over the course of May and June 2021, it corresponded with the local Member of Parliament (MP), regarding the resident and his reports of noise. The reports concerned the above neighbouring tenants at the resident’s block. The landlord explained to the MP that it had been encouraging the resident to report any incidents of noise to the Joint Control Centre (JCC), who would dispatch an estate services officer to deal with and witness the noise. It said that to date it had gained no evidence of noise that would allow it to take tenancy enforcement action, but that it had spoken to the above neighbouring tenants and mediation had been initiated.
On 25 June 2021, the resident made a noise report online to the LA, and regarding the neighbour in the adjoining flat. The report came to an incorrect department and so an estate services officer did not attend as would be normally be the case. (This information was taken from the landlord’s complaint response sent on 7 July 2022. Evidence of this event has not been seen by this Service).
On 1 July 2021, a local mediation service emailed the resident regarding its meeting with him. It confirmed that the resident’s above neighbouring tenants were also willing to move to joint mediation, and it proposed a date of 15 July 2021.
On 7 July 2021, the resident replied to the local mediation service. He highlighted further noise and other issues with the above neighbouring tenants. The resident forwarded both emails to the landlord the same day.
On 7 July 2021, the resident separately emailed the landlord to report further noise from the above neighbouring tenants. The resident’s email also went on to complain about noise and aggressive behaviour from the neighbour in the adjoining flat. He said he had reported this to the LA ‘emergency control’ and to the police.
On 13 July 2021, the landlord replied to the resident’s email. It said it was sorry that there had not been a significant improvement in the noise issues with the above neighbouring tenants. The landlord’s key points were as follows:
1. It asked the resident to confirm whether estate services officers had attended his property in response to his complaint, and to witness the noise.
2. It said it had not received any of the reports it would normally receive after such visits. It said that this was necessary to allow it to take tenancy enforcement action.
3. It confirmed it had spoken with the neighbour about the resident’s allegations of noise nuisance, which she had denied.
4. It said that the neighbour had also made similar allegations of banging on the walls against the resident, and that she had provided video evidence where banging could be heard. She had also considered the letters the resident had sent her to be threatening.
5. It said that it was aware that both the resident and the neighbour had contacted the police about the matter, and that the police had visited. The police had told the resident not to approach the neighbour directly.
6. It advised the resident to report any noise nuisance from the neighbour to the joint control centre (JCC) so that it could be investigated by an estates services officer.
7. It said it was grateful that the resident had agreed to mediation with the above neighbouring tenants, and that it hoped this would result in an improved situation.
On 2 September 2021, the resident emailed the landlord during the evening and reported noise from the neighbour. He said he had reported it to the police. He also stated that an unknown liquid had recently been put through his letterbox, which he had also reported to the police. The resident emailed the landlord again later that night. He said that he was waiting for an ambulance after having been assaulted outside his property, and that he had reported it to the police. He asked for the landlord’s help.
On 3 September 2021, the landlord replied to the resident, expressing its sympathy for the assault incident. It asked the resident to let it know if he received crime reference numbers, which it would use to liaise with the police. It offered assurance it would act if his assailants were found to be its tenants.
The landlord emailed the resident again later that day. It advised it had recently visited the neighbour, and did not believe it would be anyone from her property that was responsible for squirting liquid through his letterbox. The landlord advised it had also received a complaint from the neighbour about the resident banging on the wall late at night. It advised it would continue to liaise with the police, and offered to arrange an appointment to visit the resident.
Later the same day, the police emailed the landlord. The police email summarised the assault and incidents to date, and the reports of ASB it had received from both the resident and the neighbour. It said that its mediation referral had taken longer than it would hope, and that mediation may not now be the best course of action. It noted the resident’s partial sight, and stated that he had said he was planning to move to more suitable accommodation.
On 7 September 2021, the local authority (LA) emailed the landlord. It advised that it was supporting the resident with his sight loss. It enquired about any progress towards resolving issues at the resident’s block, including mediation, and safeguarding concerns for the resident.
On 8 September 2021, the landlord replied to the LA. It advised it was liaising with the police, who were still investigating the assault on the resident. It said it had spoken with the resident’s neighbour, who had made similar counter-allegations of noise against the resident. It advised that one mediation session with the resident and the above neighbouring tenants had recently taken place, and a further session was scheduled. It stated that it had an appointment to visit the resident on 9 September 2021.
On 9 September 2021, the police emailed the landlord and advised that it had requested any available CCTV footage from the LA. It said it had advised the resident and the neighbour to install doorbells and spyhole cameras to build up evidence of issues in the communal areas. The police advised that having spoken to both parties, they had now submitted a referral for mediation between the resident and the neighbour.
On 13 September 2021, the JCC logged an ‘incident note report’ following a call from the resident. It said the resident had reported that his neighbour was deliberately slamming her door to disturb him. He had asked that the issue be logged for the landlord’s named staff member who had been dealing with the matter.
On 13 September 2021, the LA emailed the landlord in relation to safeguarding concerns it said it was dealing with for the resident. It asked the landlord for an update on the outcome of the mediation with the resident and the above neighbouring tenants. It advised of the call it had just taken from the resident regarding the neighbour. It asked if the landlord had a police crime reference number for the assault of the resident.
The landlord replied to the LA later the same day and provided the crime reference number that it had requested. The key points of the landlord’s email were as follows:
1. It had visited the resident on 9 September 2021. There had been no significant noise nuisance from the above neighbouring tenants since the mediation, and further mediation was scheduled.
2. The police were still investigating the assault but had no evidence of who was responsible. The resident believe it was connected to the neighbour.
3. It had spoken to the neighbour who strongly denied having anything to do with the assault. She had made several reports to the police of ASB and noise nuisance by the resident. As such, the police had made a referral for mediation.
4. It had viewed videos provided by both the resident and the neighbour in support of their own noise allegations against each other. Banging could be heard in both videos, but it was not clear in either where the noise was coming from.
5. It had held reasonable discussions separately with both the resident and the neighbour, but they were also inconclusive. The landlord stated that it was very unclear what was going on between them.
On 21 September 2021, the LA emailed the landlord to advise it had received a Community Trigger (CT) from the resident. The CT referred to the resident’s assault and the noise nuisance by the neighbour. It said the resident believed that these issues were linked to his sexuality. The LA asked the landlord to provide details of any reports it had that were relevant to the CT, and of any associated actions it had taken. The landlord replied the same day with a comprehensive response covering all of the information above in this report. It concluded by saying that no formal action had so far been taken against either the resident nor the neighbour, due to a lack of evidence of any breaches of lease or tenancy.
On 27 September 2021, the police replied to an email from the landlord regarding the assault of the resident. It confirmed that the resident had alleged the attack was by his neighbour, but that the police had not identified a suspect and that the neighbour was not being investigated for this allegation.
On 2 October 2021, the resident emailed the landlord and reported that while he was in bed that morning, the neighbour had been banging on the shared wall and shouting homophobic slurs. He said it was now the evening and that the neighbour had started the same again. He said that he had reported it to the police and that they had attended. He provided a police reference number.
On 4 October 2021, the landlord replied to the resident and expressed sympathy regarding the incident. The key points of the landlord’s email were as follows:
1. It advised it would liaise with the police and find out what, if any, actions they were taking.
2. It asked that the resident forward a copy of a recording of the noise and harassment if he had one.
3. It said it would check with the police if they were happy for the landlord to speak directly to the neighbour and, if so, asked for the resident’s thoughts on it doing this.
4. It attached a Hate Crime form for the resident to complete. It offered to visit the following day if the resident required assistance completing this.
On 6 October 2021, the landlord received a letter from the office of the local MP. The letter stated that the resident’s neighbour had reported details of the ASB she was experiencing from the resident. It asked that the landlord look into the neighbour’s case, and consider rehousing her and her son.
On 19 October 2021, shuttle mediation was facilitated by a local provider between the resident and the neighbour.
On 22 October 2021, the resident emailed the landlord and reported loud banging by the neighbour on the shared wall. He said the same had happened the previous night, and he had called the JCC. He said he was just letting the landlord know, and that this was a breach of the mediation agreement.
The landlord replied to the resident the same day and thanked him for his email along with the others recently received from him. The key points of the landlord’s response were as follows:
1. It had spoken with the neighbour. She had said that there was nobody at her property at the time the resident had reported the noise occurring as she would have been at work, and her young son was at his father’s home.
2. The neighbour had also denied making noise at the other times the resident had said.
3. It was awaiting the report from when an estate services officer had attended, and would provide a further update if the report confirmed any evidence of noise.
On 25 October 2021, the local mediation provider emailed the landlord to provide an update of the resident and neighbour’s mediation on 19 October 2021. It said that they had reached an agreement that included communicating via the landlord. It said it would share the rest of the agreement once the resident and neighbour had consented.
On 1 November 2021, the landlord emailed the police and advised that the neighbour had requested a management transfer. It asked if the police were able to provide a “310 response” regarding the situation with the resident, and to confirm if the police would support a transfer for the neighbour. The police and landlord subsequently set up a meeting to discuss this.
On 3 November 2021, a multi-agency ‘Safeguarding Adults Planning Meeting’ was held. The attendees included the resident and the landlord and also included the LA, the police, social services and a hate crime advocacy charity. It was recorded that neither the police, nor the landlord, had sufficient evidence to support formal action, and that the neighbour had requested a move. It was agreed a further meeting would be held on 6 December 2021. Several key actions were agreed. Those assigned to the landlord were as follows:
1. Speak to the neighbour regarding the camera she had pointed at the resident’s door.
2. Advise everyone once a decision had been made about the neighbour’s request to move.
On 5 November 2021, the LA chaired a Community Trigger meeting, that the landlord and resident attended. The ‘chair’s summary’ recorded that the resident was clearly suffering from stress during the hearing. It noted that although the neighbour had not been in attendance, both the police and landlord had reported that she was also very stressed by the circumstances. It noted the lack of evidence regarding either the identity of the resident’s assailant, or the reported noise issues. It recommended the landlord and police look into having ring doorbell cameras fitted to both properties. It concluded with the belief that with support, the resident would be able to find peace with the neighbour, “especially if he was made aware of the stress the situation was causing them”.
On 12 November 2021, the police emailed the landlord concerning its support for a management transfer for the neighbour. It advised that it declined its support at this time, and gave its reasons why.
On 19 November 2021, the resident emailed the landlord and reported further daily deliberate banging by his neighbour that he had reported to the JCC. The landlord replied the same day and thanked him for his recent emails. The key points of the landlord’s email were as follows:
1. It had spoken to the neighbour several times that week. She had strongly denied she was banging on the wall and had provided explanations concerning other reports about her and her son that the resident had made.
2. It was aware that the resident had contacted the JCC, but that he had only asked for incidents to be logged rather than attended.
3. It emphasised how much more beneficial it would be if the resident allowed an estate services officer to attend. It explained that without this, and the evidence it might provide, the landlord was unable to take formal action.
4. It sympathised with how stressful the resident was finding the situation, but explained that the neighbour was also very concerned and upset, and that it was having a serious effect on her 11 year old son.
5. It reiterated that the neighbour had stated she did not see the resident as an ‘enemy’, and held no personal animosity. It believed that further mediation would be beneficial.
6. It confirmed that it had checked the camera above the neighbour’s front door and it was not recording his property.
On 30 November 2021, the police emailed the landlord with regards to a report it had received from the neighbour. The police described the events of a 13 minute video they were in possession of. The video showed the behaviour of the resident and had been provided by the neighbour.
On 6 December 2021, social services chaired a further multi-agency safeguarding meeting, with a similar make up of attendees to the previous meeting on 3 November 2021, including the resident and landlord. The key outcomes of the meeting were as follows:
1. An incident had taken place on 1 December 2021, but had not been recorded as it was the day before the ring doorbell cameras had been installed.
2. The police had contacted various other neighbouring residents but no other noise issues were reported.
3. An incident between the resident and the neighbour had been recorded on a mobile telephone. The resident had apologised for losing his temper.
4. The LA did not currently have access to noise monitoring equipment.
5. Use of an acceptable behaviour contract (ABC) was discussed. The resident preferred this to mediation.
6. The neighbour’s request to move had been turned down, but was being appealed.
7. The following actions were agreed for the landlord:
  1. Explore the possibility of fitting CCTV cameras for both properties.
  2. Discuss an ABC with the resident and neighbour.
8. It was noted that, “all professionals involved are doing everything they can”, and would continue to work in partnership.
On 20 December 2021, the resident submitted a formal noise nuisance complaint to the LA. The LA forwarded it to the landlord the following day.
On 6 January 2022, the landlord emailed the resident with reference to his noise complaint. The landlord advised the resident to continue reporting all incidents of noise nuisance to the JCC. It urged the resident to ask that the JCC send an estates services officer, rather than just log the call. It said that if this then confirmed an incident of noise nuisance, the landlord would be able to take formal tenancy enforcement action.
On 6 and 20 January 2022, the resident reported noise nuisance to the JCC, and an officer attended on both occasions. The landlord wrote to the resident after both attendances to advise it had been unable to confirm noise nuisance.
On 6 February 2022, the resident emailed the landlord to complain of noise from the neighbour and the above neighbouring tenant.
On 9 February 2022, the landlord replied to the resident and advised a warning letter had been sent to the above neighbouring tenant, who had apologised that he had fallen asleep with his television on loudly. With regards to the neighbour, it confirmed that the officers who had attended had witnessed no incidents of noise nuisance, but that it was waiting for confirmation of what actions the police intended.
On 27 February 2022, the resident reported to the landlord that there was homophobic graffiti in the stairwell on his floor of the block of flats. The landlord’s report confirmed that this was accurate.
On 1 March 2022, the resident emailed the landlord to complain of noise nuisance from the neighbour and the above neighbouring tenants, as well as the homophobic graffiti. He said that he had emailed the landlord with regard to the Hate Crime process he had previously been advised of, but the landlord had not replied. At the same time as the resident sent his email, the landlord emailed the resident advising that it would be at the block the following morning. It asked the resident if he could be available in order that it could assist with completing the Hate Crime form.
On 4 March 2022, the landlord emailed the resident and confirmed the works to remove the graffiti had been completed. It confirmed it would attend the resident’s property on 8 March 2022 to complete the Hate Crime form, as the resident had been unavailable on 2 March 2022.
On 7 March 2022, the resident emailed the landlord to report more homophobic graffiti near to where the previous graffiti had been removed from. The landlord replied immediately, expressing its sympathy and assuring him it would have the graffiti removed.
On 7 March 2022, a further multi-agency safeguarding meeting was held with similar attendees to the previous two meetings, including the landlord and resident. The key outcomes and actions were as follows:
1. The landlord provided an update on its previous two actions:
  1. It was still exploring fitting CCTV cameras to both properties, as it needed to identify a power source.
  2. The neighbour had not agreed to an ABC, as she denied she had done anything wrong and so could not see what it would achieve.
2. The handwriting of the homophobic graffiti did not match the neighbour’s. It was unclear who was responsible for it.
3. Evidence from the neighbour’s own camera indicated, but did not confirm, that she was not responsible for the noise.
4. The resident was still not calling the JCC which was the LA method for dealing with noise complaints.
5. Several further actions were agreed. The following two were for the landlord:
  1. It was to send a generic zero-tolerance letter to all neighbours concerning graffiti.
  2. Check the area of the graffiti to see if CCTV could be installed as a deterrent.
Between 12-15 March 2022, the resident sent several emails to the landlord reporting noise nuisance from the neighbour, which the landlord responded to. It concluded with the landlord asking if the resident now felt up to completing the Hate Crime form, and confirmed it would attend on 17 March 2022 to assist him with this.
On 14 March 2022, the landlord submitted a ‘request for information 310’ form to the police. The form included a further request for the police to confirm whether they would support the neighbour’s request for a managed transfer move. It said that the police response would be used to determine whether to grant the transfer request, and to decide whether tenancy enforcement action was necessary.
On 10 April 2022, the resident emailed the landlord to report noise nuisance from the neighbour. He asked that the landlord install a noise recording device.
On 13 April 2022, the landlord replied to the resident. The landlord’s key points were as follows:
1. Neither the landlord nor LA had any sound recording equipment. It was also thought that even if it did, it would be unlikely to pick up noise from the neighbour’s property that would be adequate to establish whether it constituted statutory noise nuisance.
2. It accepted that it was proving difficult to obtain evidence of noise from the visits of estate services officers when the resident made reports.
3. It suggested an alternative arrangement, whereby the landlord attended for a longer period and recreated the circumstances which the resident had said would always prompt deliberate noise from the neighbour.
4. It asked if the resident was happy to try this, and explained this may provide the evidence essential for it to take formal action. It reiterated there had been no such evidence to date.
5. It advised that the police and the LA were still investigating some of his allegations, and that if any were proven appropriate action would be taken.
On 29 April 2022, the landlord emailed the resident in response to several emails that he had sent. The landlord reiterated the points from its email sent on 13 April 2022, and its offer to “spend a significant amount of time in your property in the bathroom to attempt to capture the noise you have reported is being made by your neighbour in response to you entering the bathroom”.
On 13 May 2022, the resident emailed the landlord reporting further deliberate noise being made by the neighbour, and the effect it was having on his health and wellbeing.
On 17 May 2022, the landlord replied to the resident’s email, expressing its sympathy for his health issues. It repeated the points of its previous emails that it had no evidence whatsoever that would support it taking formal action against the neighbour. It also repeated its offer to spend significant time in the resident’s property in an effort to gain evidence of noise nuisance.
On 2 June 2022, the resident emailed the landlord and summarised all of the ASB, hate crime and noise nuisance he said that he had experienced over the preceding year, and his dissatisfaction with the landlord’s handling of the matter. The resident sent further emails to the landlord reporting the neighbour’s actions over the following days.
On 9 June 2022, the landlord replied to the resident’s further emails. It repeated its offer to visit his property to try and obtain the necessary evidence for it to take formal action. It advised that it was flexible and this could be done at the resident’s convenience, as long as it was between 9am and 5pm Monday to Friday. The resident replied the same day, stating that he was not satisfied with the landlord’s response and wanted his complaint escalated to stage two of its process.
On 10 June 2022, the landlord replied to the resident and explained that he would need to go through stage one of its complaint process, before escalating to stage two. It reiterated its offer regarding attending his property at his convenience, and advised that he should provide as much detail as possible if he wished to make a formal complaint.
On 21 June 2022, the resident emailed his complaint to the landlord. He stated he was suffering from noise and harassment from the neighbour. He said that it had begun in June 2021 and was still ongoing despite the “hundreds of complaints” he had made to the landlord. He explained that his neighbour’s actions were impacting his health and his enjoyment of his home. He highlighted that most landlords use noise monitoring equipment, and said that the landlord had not taken the issues seriously. He asked for the landlord’s support in resolving the problem. The resident’s further key points were as follows:
1. His neighbour was making the noise deliberately to harass him. This included banging on the shared wall and kicking his front door.
2. His neighbour had also smashed the glass on his door, graffitied walls, and behaved abusively towards him.
3. His neighbour’s behaviour was a hate crime, as it was targeted at his sexuality. The harassment was almost daily.
4. The landlord had visited the neighbour, but she denied everything and no further action was taken. This had encouraged the situation to continue and escalate.
5. He had video evidence that he wanted investigated.
On 21, 22 and 23 June 2022, the resident emailed the landlord complaining about the behaviour of his neighbour, and the lack of action by the landlord. He said that he had managed to record clear evidence of the neighbour verbally abusing him.
On 23 June 2022, the landlord replied to the resident and asked if he could email it a copy of his recording. It said that if he was unable to, it was happy to visit him at home to listen to it.
On 23 June 2022, the landlord separately emailed the resident with an acknowledgment of his complaint, and advised it would respond within 20 working days.
On 29 and 30 June 2022, the landlord and resident exchanged several emails discussing a date for the landlord to visit. They agreed the landlord would visit on 6 July 2022.
On 4 and 6 July 2022, the resident sent further similar emails to the landlord, complaining about the behaviour of the neighbour and stating he had recordings.
On 7 July 2022, the landlord sent its stage one complaint response letter to the resident. It provided a lengthy chronology of relevant events and actions since June 2021, all of which are covered above. The key points of the landlord’s “investigation and findings” were as follows:
1. All allegations and reports made by the resident had been fully investigated by both the police and landlord, in line with its policies.
2. It had liaised extensively with the LA and external agencies, and had sought to provide support to the resident in respect of the issues he had reported.
3. The resident had made a significant number of complaints against his neighbour.
4. Complaints of noise nuisance had been investigated by attending estate services officers on many occasions, but no evidence of statutory noise had been gained.
5. Complaints of harassment and homophobic abuse had been investigated by the landlord, LA and police but they had been unable to identify a perpetrator. As such, the police had been unable to take any formal action against his neighbour or anyone else.
6. It asked that the resident continue to report issues of noise nuisance to the JCC and landlord, and issues of harassment to the police and landlord.
7. It would continue to investigate all matters the resident reported, and the landlord would continue to liaise with him.
8. It was unable to uphold his complaint.
On 11 July 2022, the resident replied to the landlord’s stage one complaint response, expressing his dissatisfaction with it. The resident’s key points were as follows:
1. Over the last year he had emailed the landlord around 100 times, that were not listed in the landlord’s chronology.
2. The issues were all ongoing and he was unhappy they had not been resolved.
3. He strongly disagreed that the recorded evidence was insufficient, and that it could not be confirmed the noise on it was being made by the neighbour.
4. He questioned how his complaint had been investigated when the landlord had only heard the recorded evidence on 6 July 2022, and the stage one response was received the next day.
5. He questioned how long he would have to go on reporting issues without them being resolved.
6. He said that he had asked for a recording device to be installed, but the landlord had always rejected this
On 12 July 2022, the landlord emailed the resident further to its visit to his property on 6 July 2022. The key points were as follows:
1. It had sent an information request to the police to ascertain what action they were taking regarding his complaint about the neighbour.
2. It explained that as it might be a criminal matter, it needed to avoid hindering any police action. As such, it had asked the police to confirm if it was ok for it to interview the neighbour.
3. If the police gave it permission, it would arrange to meet the neighbour and play her the recordings.
4. It stated that the voices and banging on the resident’s recordings were clearly audible. However, it could not identify the person on the recordings, nor where they originated from.
5. It would update the resident once it had heard back from the police. It would then look to interview the neighbour, and carry out a noise and sound test between the two properties.
The resident replied to the landlord the same day. He said that its stage one complaint response showed that it had already made its decision regarding his recorded evidence. He expressed his dissatisfaction.
On 15 July 2022, the landlord replied to the resident’s response received 11 July 2022, to its stage one complaint letter. It said it was sorry the resident was unhappy with its stage one response. It said that it did not dispute the volume of emails the resident had sent, nor that he had shown it videos that purport to be noise recordings of the neighbour. It maintained that it did not have sufficient evidence to take action, and repeated its advice around who to continue reporting the issues to.
On 18, 19 and 20 July 2022, the resident emailed the landlord describing the issues he said he was experiencing, the homophobic reasons for them, and the impact they were having on him.
On 19 July 2022, the landlord emailed the resident to advise it was escalating his complaint to stage two of its process, and would contact him shortly with further details.
On 20 July 2022, the LA corporate complaints team emailed the resident and advised the name of the landlord’s executive who would review his stage two complaint, and that it would respond within 15 working days.
On 25 July 2022, the landlord emailed the resident and said that the police had confirmed that their investigations into the noise nuisance and harassment were ongoing. It explained that it needed to avoid hindering a police investigation into a criminal matter, and that the police had asked that it hold back from interviewing the neighbour. It said the police had been asked to confirm as soon as they were happy for the landlord to speak directly to the neighbour about the incidents, and it would let the resident know as soon as the police did this.
On 26 July 2022, the resident emailed the landlord and said that the police had asked that he give a statement at the police station earlier that day, which he had. He said he was told the neighbour would be interviewed at the police station, and that the police would visit him at home to take a further statement. He said he was sorry to keep bothering the landlord with his emails, but that he had no other options in the circumstances.
On 27 July 2022, the landlord replied to the resident and said that it had also been in contact with the police. The police had said that they would update the landlord with the outcome of their actions once their investigation was concluded, and at that point the landlord would confirm what actions it could take.
On 5 August 2022, the landlord replied to a further report from the resident. It said it was awaiting an update from the police regarding their recent interview of the neighbour. It advised that it had spoken to the neighbour several times in recent days. It reminded the resident to keep reporting incidents to the JCC.
On 5 August 2022, the landlord separately sent the resident its stage two complaint response. The landlord’s key points were as follows:
1. The chronology provided in its stage one response had clearly documented the issues reported by the resident since 25 June 2021 in relation to noise and harassment from the neighbour.
2. The chronology had also detailed the actions taken by agencies including the landlord. The landlord’s actions had been proportionate and in line with its procedures.
3. The evidence obtained to date had so far been insufficient for the police to take formal action in relation to a criminal offence, nor for the landlord to take formal breach of tenancy action.
4. It had kept the resident informed throughout, and his reports had always been responded to promptly.
5. It would continue to liaise with the resident, and continue to investigate all reported issues. It would take appropriate action if there was sufficient evidence to do so.
6. It was unable to uphold the resident’s complaint.
7. It referred the resident to this Service if he remained dissatisfied.

Summary of events after the completion of the landlord’s complaint process

The resident continued regularly emailing the landlord about issues with the neighbour over the course of August and September 2022. This included her leaving rubbish and shoes outside her front door. The landlord discussed this with the neighbour, and sent her a written warning about it.
On 6 October 2022, the landlord emailed the resident with regards to his ongoing reports of issues with the neighbour, and his queries regarding noise recording equipment. It advised it was still not in a position to take formal tenancy action against the neighbour, and that the police had confirmed that they were also unable to take action against her. A separate email sent by the landlord the same day reiterated that it did not have recording equipment to issue to residents, and that the process of reporting incidents to the JCC and allowing an estate services officer to attend needed to be followed.
The landlord has since advised this Service that the resident sold his lease and no longer lives at the property.

Assessment and findings

The resident had reported incidents of noise, assault, hate crimes and harassment, and had clearly described the distress this caused him. The evidence provided for the case, in particular the minutes from the safeguarding and Community Trigger meetings, also indicated just how stressful both the resident and the neighbour were finding the events described above. The Ombudsman recognises how distressing this would have been for the resident, and the negative impact it had on him. Nevertheless, it is the view of the Ombudsman that the landlord acted appropriately, and that there was no maladministration in its handling of the matter.
The resident’s report of noise was emailed to the landlord on 7 July 2021, and concerned both the above neighbouring tenants and the neighbour. The landlord’s reply was sent three working days later. It was appropriate that it detailed the actions the landlord had taken with both parties, including the mediation already in hand with the above neighbouring tenants. This would have ensured the resident was aware that it was taking the matter seriously. It was also appropriate for the landlord to encourage the resident to report incidents to the JCC, and to allow an estates services officer to attend to gain the evidence it would need to take formal action, in line with its policy. The landlord had not gained any evidence of noise, but it was reasonable for it to take a proactive approach and to have already initiated mediation with the above neighbouring tenants.
The landlord received the resident’s email concerning his assault on 3 September 2021. It was appropriate in this circumstance for the landlord to respond to the resident, liaise with the police, and explore mediation options with the neighbour which it did on the same day. The action taken by the landlord at this stage was reasonable.
The evidence showed that the landlord stayed in contact with the resident, and continued liaising and cooperating with the police and LA throughout. This was the case during September 2021, when the landlord visited both the resident and the neighbour. It was appropriate for the landlord to consider their respective recorded evidence. The resident initiated a Community Trigger the same month, and the landlord has evidenced its prompt and comprehensive cooperation with the LA in support of this.
On 2 October 2021, the resident reported to the landlord that he had suffered homophobic abuse from the neighbour. It was appropriate for the landlord to respond empathetically within 24 hours and to offer assistance with the Hate Crime form, all of which was in line with its policy. The resident and the neighbour agreed to mediation, and it was reasonable that this began the same month.
On 3 November 2021, the landlord participated in a multi-agency ‘Safeguarding Adults Planning Meeting’ with the resident. It was asked to speak to the neighbour regarding her camera that it was thought could be pointed at the resident’s door. The landlord completed this action in a timely manner, and it was appropriate that it provided its findings to the resident in its email on 19 November 2021, which would have provided reassurance. It was also appropriate that the same email was used to update the resident on the discussions it had been having with the neighbour, which was in line with its policy regarding keeping all parties informed. It also highlighted that the resident had been asking the JCC just to log incidents, rather than send an estates services officer. It was reasonable for the landlord to explain again that it needed an officer to attend, in order that it might gain evidence that could support formal tenancy enforcement action.
The resident emailed reports of noise issues with both the neighbour and the above neighbouring tenants on 6 February 2022. An estate services officer had attended and had witnessed noise nuisance (accidental) by the above neighbouring tenants, but not by the neighbour. It was reasonable that the landlord confirmed by email to the resident on 9 February 2022 that it had addressed this with the above neighbouring tenant, and had issued a warning letter. This was in line with the landlord’s policy. It demonstrated the landlord’s willingness to act promptly when evidence supported formal action, as it also did when it sent a warning letter to the neighbour about rubbish in September 2022.
The resident reported homophobic graffiti in the common area of the block on 27 February 2022. It was not clear from the evidence provided whether the landlord had this removed within the timescales stated in its policy. However, the landlord did continue to demonstrate its regular and effective communication with the resident when it confirmed to him that the graffiti had been removed, in its email sent on 4 March 2022. The same email also offered to support him with the completion of the Hate Crime form.
At the safeguarding meeting held on 7 March 2022, it was appropriate for the landlord to provide updates on the actions it had been given regarding CCTV and implementing an ABC. This demonstrated that the landlord was engaged with the multi-agency approach that had been implemented in response to the resident’s reports. On the 14 March 2022, the landlord made a formal information request to the police, as it had done in November 2021, asking whether the police would support a managed transfer request from the neighbour. Again, this demonstrated the landlord’s willingness to explore any options available towards resolving the issues.
On 10 April 2022, the resident asked the landlord about getting sound recording equipment in his property. The landlord advised the resident that it did not have sound recording equipment, and further advised that it did not think sound recording equipment would be useful anyway. However, it would have been more appropriate to fully explain to the resident why it thought this was the case, which it failed to do albeit it did acknowledge that the attending estate services officers had not gained any evidence to support the resident’s reports of noise against the neighbour. It was reasonable to offer an alternative solution that would involve it spending significant time at the resident’s property recreating the circumstances in which the resident had said the banging would occur, in an effort to obtain evidence. This again demonstrated the landlord’s commitment to find a resolution and support the resident.
On 2 June 2022, the resident sent an email to the landlord that contained ‘formal complaint’ in the subject line, and expressed his dissatisfaction with the situation with the neighbour, and the landlord’s handling of it. The Ombudsman acknowledges that the landlord was receiving a high volume of emails from the resident at that time, which it generally handled effectively. Nevertheless, it was a shortcoming that the resident’s email was not recognised and handled by the landlord as the formal complaint it clearly was, which caused some subsequent confusion. However, the landlord did continue to respond empathetically and in a timely manner through June 2022, and this initial failing did not unduly delay or impact the landlord in providing a comprehensive complaint response on 7 July 2022. As such, this does not constitute maladministration.
Regular communications between the resident and landlord continued through July 2022. The landlord continued to respond promptly and appropriately, and maintained its ongoing cooperation with the police.
The resident’s complaint was escalated to stage two of the landlord’s process on 11 July 2022. The resident had continued to request that the landlord provide him with sound recording equipment to assist with the collection of evidence, and had correctly pointed out that this was common practice for many landlords. Given the significant amount of contact, including in-person, that the landlord and resident had had, it may have been the case that this had been verbally discussed. However, the Ombudsman has seen no evidence of this. Either way, the landlord knew that this was a point of concern for the resident, and it would have been reasonable for the landlord to provide its reasoning for not using recording equipment in its stage two complaint response.
Nevertheless, the landlord’s final complaint response was sent to the resident on 5 August 2022, and represented a reasonable summary of events and the actions it had taken. It was appropriate that it offered the resident its continued support.
The evidence provided demonstrated that the landlord acted promptly and in line with its policies throughout the events described in this report. Whilst it was not always able to achieve the results the resident would have hoped for, the landlord did maintain very regular contact, and demonstrated a commitment to supporting him. The vast majority of communications and actions by the landlord detailed above were carried out by one person. The Ombudsman has noted the significant time and effort this individual put in to supporting the resident, and the professional and empathetic way in which they did so.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration in respect of the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of anti-social behaviour.

Reasons

The resident was suffering from ill health over the course of this period, which would have further added to the stress of the situation. Nevertheless, the landlord invested significant resource in supporting the resident and maintaining regular contact. It acted appropriately both in line with its policies, and with the evidence available to it when handling his ASB reports.