Clarion Housing Association Limited (202016918)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202016918

Clarion Housing Association Limited

26 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:
1. The landlord’s response to the resident’s reports about noise nuisance from a neighbour.
2. The resident’s reports that the landlord has been biased in favour of the alleged perpetrator.
3. The landlord’s complaint handling.
The landlord’s communication and record keeping has also been considered.

Jurisdiction

What we can and cannot consider is called the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction. This is governed by the Housing Ombudsman Scheme. When a complaint is brought to the Ombudsman, we must consider all the circumstances of the case as there are sometimes reasons why a complaint will not be investigated.
After carefully considering all the evidence, in accordance with paragraph 42(a) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the following aspects of the complaint is outside of the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction:
1. The resident’s reports that the landlord has been biased in favour of the alleged perpetrator.
Paragraph 42(a) states that “the Ombudsman may not consider complaints which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion are made prior to having exhausted a member’s complaints procedure, unless there is evidence of a complaint-handling failure and the Ombudsman is satisfied that the member has not taken action within a reasonable timescale”. Whilst the resident reported this aspect of his complaint to the Ombudsman, he did not raise the issue as part of his formal complaint to the landlord. The resident may wish to consider raising a further complaint to his landlord concerning this.

Background and summary of events

Background

The resident has an assured tenancy which started on 9 September 2013. The property is a one bedroom flat within a purpose built block.
The tenancy agreement sets out the landlord’s responsibilities for repairing the structure and outside of the property. It requires the landlord to repair the systems for supplying water, gas, electricity and getting rid of rubbish and waste water.
The tenancy agreement sets out the tenant’s responsibilities “neither to cause, nor to allow to be caused any noise so loudly that it causes a nuisance or annoyance to other persons in the locality or can be heard outside your home”.
The landlord has a two stage complaints policy. Its policy at the time the complaint was made does not contain a timescale for stage one or stage two “peer review”. The landlord’s updated complaints policy June 2022 however gives a ten working day response time for stage one and twenty working days for stage two. For the purpose of this investigation these timescales are considered reasonable in the review of the landlord’s complaint handling. These timescales are also consistent with the Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code.
The landlord’s compensation policy sets out its approach to compensation and/or financial redress. This includes compensation for a “loss of service” or “out of pocket expense” at a “quantifiable rate or amount incurred by a resident as a direct result of Clarion’s actions or failure to act”. It considers discretionary compensation using different ranges:
£50 to £250 – service failures, such as not returning calls, meeting service standards or using the complainant’s preferred method of communication.
£250 to £700 – considerable failure. This can include:
1. Giving poor/incorrect/inadequate advice concerning a complainant’s rights.
2. Failure to respond appropriately to a complaint such as a complainant having to continually chase up responses or to correct mistakes, a complainant being passed between different people/departments with no one taking ownership.
3. Failure over a “considerable period of time” to act according to policy – this includes responding to antisocial behaviour.
4. Failure to address or deal with the different complaint aspects or “considerable delay” in resolving a complaint.
£700+ – this is where there is “significant and serious long-term effect on the complainant, including physical or emotional impact, or both”. This includes the “mishandling or partiality in an antisocial behaviour case leading to exacerbation of tenant relations”.
The landlord’s responsibility to respond to reports of antisocial behaviour made by its tenants is set out in Section 218 of the Housing Act 1996 (as updated by S12 of the Anti-Social Behaviour Act 2003). This requires housing associations to prepare a policy and procedure on antisocial behaviour.
The landlord’s antisocial behaviour policy 2020 states that the landlord will investigate a case of antisocial behaviour (which includes noise complaints) within five working days “when our threshold is met”. The thresholds are:
1. “Three separate incidents reported in the last seven days by the same person or a member of the same household.
2. Five separate incidents reported in the past 28 days by the same person or a member of the same household.
3. Two separate incidents reported in the past 28 days by two or more people from different households”.
If a case is then accepted for investigation it will be placed in a queue to be allocated for investigation. There is no timescale for carrying out an investigation, however, the policy states that “the complainant will be contacted by a tenancy specialist within five working days” after a new case is logged. It states that mediation can be a “useful course of action in neighbour disputes, but requires the commitment of all parties to work”. Where mediation is offered it states that a “monitoring alert” should be set up which can be for “a specific date or for a specified frequency, e.g. once a month”.
The landlord’s separate antisocial behaviour and crime procedure 2020 states:
1. That a key step in the investigation is to “agree an action plan – this must be completed in all cases that cross the ‘threshold’ to an investigation”.
2. “An action plan is a critical part of our response to incidents of antisocial behaviour and lets the complainant know what action Clarion will take”. It states that the action plan may be updated following further investigation. The action plan is to be “agreed and understood by the complainant”.
3. “It is equally important for the complainant to agree what action they will take, for example, to keep an incident diary, to speak to the perpetrator…”
4. “A copy of the plan should be sent to the complainant”.
It also states that the landlord should keep “regular contact with the complainant”.
The landlord’s repairs policy 2020 states that emergency repairs are to be completed within 24 hours, non-emergency repairs should be completed within 28 calendar days, communal repairs should be completed within 28 days.
The Ombudsman issued a special report published October 2022 following the use of its powers under paragraph 49 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, which states that:
1. ‘The Ombudsman may conduct further investigation beyond the initial complaint or member to establish whether any presenting evidence is indicative of systemic failing’.
The landlord’s records detail some prior reports of noise nuisance from his neighbour in the flat upstairs made by the resident in 2018 and one incident in 2019. However, as the resident has not raised a formal complaint with the landlord at this time, this investigation considers the period from 25 December 2020 when the landlord records the more recent incidents reported by the resident. Earlier reports are referenced in the assessment and findings section of this report. More recent events that postdate the landlord’s internal complaints process are detailed in the summary of events and in the assessment and findings section of this report.
The investigation of this landlord that took place under paragraph 49 considered cases brought to the Ombudsman between December 2021 and June 2022. It is recognised that the events for this case on the whole pre-date the paragraph 49 investigation. However, this case was still ongoing during the timescale of the paragraph 49 investigation and it is therefore referred to in the assessment and findings section of this report.

Summary of events

The landlord recorded the resident’s more recent report of noise nuisance on 25 December 2020 concerning the neighbour upstairs allegedly stamping and banging on the resident’s ceiling.
The resident reported further antisocial behaviour on 18 January 2021. However, the resident’s antisocial behaviour case was closed on 3 February 2021 and raised as a general enquiry. The landlord states this was due to the antisocial behaviour concerning “low level domestic noise”.
The landlord’s records provides details of a phone call with the resident on 20 April 2021. It is not clear whether this was initiated by the resident or the landlord. It states that as noise nuisance was ongoing and had hit the landlord’s antisocial policy’s threshold “a few times” the general enquiry would be closed and the case would then be investigated as antisocial behaviour. The records provided to this Service do not detail that any actions that were taken by the landlord prior to this point. However, one record states that the landlord “will need to address the case with the perpetrator”.
The resident contacted this Service on 4 May 2021 to chase up a response to a complaint that he said he had submitted to his landlord. This concerned noise nuisance emanating from the flat above his. He stated that he had received a stage one complaint acknowledgement from his landlord but no further response. The resident’s reported initial complaint has not been seen by this Service, nor any acknowledgement sent at that time.
This Service contacted the landlord the same day to request a response be sent to the resident within ten working days. The landlord advised this Service on 7 May 2021 that it had “raised a stage one complaint” and that “a coordinator will be in contact to acknowledge and investigate the complaint”.
The resident called in to speak to the landlord’s tenancy sustainment officer on 10 May 2021 who was unavailable at the time. In response the landlord sent diary sheets and requested that the resident keep a seven to fourteen day record of any antisocial behaviour incidents on these.
Following contact by this Service, the landlord’s complaint handler tried to phone the resident on 11 May 2021 to ask him about his stage one complaint. As there was no response, it emailed the resident the same day to acknowledge the complaint and to ask him to provide some further information on what he was unhappy with and what outcome he was seeking. In the email the landlord’s complaint handler stated that it was “unable to access antisocial behaviour processes and cannot see the full extent of what has been reported”.
The landlord sent its stage one response on 28 May 2021, 15 working days after the stage one complaint was requested by this Service. This detailed:
1. That it understood that the complaint concerned the “landlord’s handling of reports concerning noise nuisance”. The remedy being sought was “action to be taken”.
2. The landlord had logged the resident’s antisocial behaviour reports regarding his neighbour and had attempted to contact him on 20 May 2021 by phone and email but had received no response.
3. “Visits and investigations” had been made by the landlord’s tenancy sustainment officer. The officer had visited the resident on 27 May 2021 but there was no answer. Contact had been made “by phone and email”.
4. There had been a delay in responding to one of the resident’s calls due to sickness. An apology was made for this delay. The antisocial behaviour investigation was ongoing.
5. No service failure was found and the complaint was not upheld.
6. If the resident wished to escalate the complaint he would need to contact the landlord within 20 working days to explain why he was dissatisfied and what outcome was being sought.
The landlord emailed the resident on 19 August 2021 following a review of his antisocial behaviour case to ask if there had been any recent reports of noise nuisance. The landlord advised the resident that it had spoken to the alleged perpetrator who had denied any “deliberate noise nuisance”. It advised that the alleged perpetrator was prepared to consider mediation and asked the resident whether this would be something he would consider.
The resident phoned the case handler on 27 September 2021 to discuss his case but was unable to get through and left a message for a call back.
The resident emailed the landlord on 7 October 2021 with his escalation request which was outside of the timescale for escalation requests. In this he stated:
1. He had spoken to the landlord’s tenancy specialist officer “explaining my experiences and how I have been affected by noise at night over the last 18 months” indicating the noise was heard at antisocial hours. This was emanating from the flat above.
2. The landlord had said that it would speak to the tenants and had suggested a “plan of mediation to resolve this case”.
3. He had called 27 September 2021 to enquire about the case and had been advised that an email would be sent to the tenancy specialist officer requesting contact “which has not happened”.
4. He was “still being disturbed by noise” from the tenants of the flat above and was “very unhappy”.
The landlord commenced a stage two peer review of the stage one complaint on 20 October 2021. Internal emails advise that the landlord was unable to contact the resident to discuss his complaint which concerned antisocial behaviour and communication issues. In the landlord’s undated internal document it identified a service failure due to the stage one complaint being outside of the ten working day deadline.
On 2 November 2021 the landlord’s antisocial behaviour timeline records seem to detail that it instructed its mediation provider and emailed the resident. Its antisocial behaviour records state that both parties had agreed to mediation. The landlord states the resident wished to consider mediation to get “to the bottom of the nuisance”. The landlord states that it “feels the relationship between the two parties has diminished since the allegations of noise nuisance which the alleged perpetrator believes is a repair issue”. The landlord’s repair records did not show that the repair issue was investigated at this time.
The landlord’s records detail that the tenancy sustainment officer had attempted to call the resident on 4 November 2021. The landlord’s notes made at this time state that voicemails and text messages were left that week but the resident had not responded. On 4 November 2021 the landlord wrote to the resident giving him until 12 November 2021 to get in contact or his case would be closed. The landlord’s contact centre recorded a message on 11 November 2021 to say that the resident had been trying to get in touch with the landlord and this was passed to the tenancy sustainment officer.
The landlord’s stage two response was then sent to the resident on 11 November 2021. This detailed that:
1. The landlord had been contacted by the Ombudsman on the resident’s behalf regarding the “landlord’s handling of reports concerning noise nuisance”
2. It had understand from the resident’s email of 7 October 2021 that his reasons for dissatisfaction were that he “had not been contacted by our tenancy specialist team” and was still being “disturbed by noise from your neighbours”.
3. To resolve the complaint the resident wished to be “contacted by our tenancy specialist team” and to “be updated” on the anti-social behaviour (ASB) case.
4. The tenancy specialist team had attempted to contact the resident by email on 19 August 2021 to ascertain whether the ASB was ongoing as the resident had been in contact. The landlord left voicemails on 24 and 27 August 2021 asking the resident to call back or email.
5. The resident had advised that he had spoken to the landlord on 27 August 2021 but the landlord had not been able to see any record of the call and an apology was made for this.
6. On 27 September 2021 the resident requested a call back but as this had not been logged correctly the call did not get passed on. An apology was made for this.
7. The tenancy specialist team had attempted contact with the resident on 2 and 4 November 2021 but there had been “no answer”. Two voicemails were left. The resident was asked to make contact to be updated on his case. A “further action plan” would then be agreed for the case to be progressed.
8. An offer of mediation had been made between the resident and his neighbour and if he wished to take this up he should get in touch with the landlord.
9. An offer of £100 compensation was made comprising £50 for a delay in the complaint response and £50 for a missed call back.
The resident contacted this Service 12 November 2021 to state he had tried to contact the landlord in response to the letter that was sent to say his case would be closed if there was no contact by 12 November 2021. This Service therefore contacted the landlord the same day to request it contact the resident.
The landlord’s records detail that it attempted to phone the resident on 17 and 24 November 2021. Voice mails were left requesting the resident to call back.
The resident tried to contact the landlord on 3 December 2021 to request a call back as he was unable to get through and a message was left with a colleague who emailed the tenancy sustainment officer.
The resident phoned the landlord again on 21 December 2021. The landlord’s record of this call details that the resident advised that the most recent incident was the previous night. He advised that the alleged perpetrator was “banging on the floor” and keeping him awake. He also advised that the antisocial behaviour was not being taken seriously by the landlord and wished a different officer to be assigned to the case. The landlord advised the resident that the case officer had attempted to call him on 6 December 2021 but did not get through. The 6 December 2021 call is not noted on the landlord’s records. The resident requested the tenancy sustainment officer to call him back.
The resident phoned the landlord in response to a missed call on 22 December 2021. The landlord’s call record with the resident detailed:
1. That the noise would happen from around 11.30 pm until midnight and then at regular intervals. The noise could still be heard before the resident went to work. The noise had “got worse over the last two years in terms of increased frequency”.
2. On asking if the resident had spoken to the alleged perpetrator about the noise, the resident had advised that he had, but that the alleged perpetrator had been “aggressive and unreasonable”. As such he would be unable to speak to the alleged perpetrator.
3. The resident had kept a record and had contacted the local authority noise team who advised him to “contact them as and when the noise happens so they can record it”. The resident advised he had contacted the Police who were unable to help other than recording a log.
4. A request for the tenancy sustainment officer to contact him. On asking when is the best time to call, the resident advised that due to him working it would be best to call during his lunch between 1 pm and 2 pm. The landlord advised that the tenancy sustainment officer would be back in the following day.
The resident phoned the landlord on 24 December 2021 to request a call back. The landlord reports it sent an email as a response. This response has not been seen by this Service. However, the resident confirmed to this Service on 29 December 2021 that the landlord sent the email.
The resident referred his complaint to this Service on 29 December 2021 to ask for a review of the landlord’s handling of the noise nuisance complaint. In his email the resident stated that the landlord had not given any “decisive plan of action” to resolve his case. He also felt that the landlord had showed bias in favour of his neighbour.
Since the resident referred his complaint to this Service the landlord’s records detail that it phoned the alleged perpetrator on 11 January 2022. The landlord’s call record details that the alleged perpetrator agreed that there was noise nuisance but that this noise was not from her actions. She advised that there was “sporadic banging throughout the day”. She advised that gas engineers had called to the property to check the boiler but had been advised by the gas engineers that the banging noise was possibly caused by the pipework. Records have not been seen that detail when the gas engineers referred to by the alleged perpetrator attended their property. The landlord advised the alleged perpetrator that it would request the repair team to investigate this further. The landlord’s records detail that it offered mediation and the resident and the alleged perpetrator were happy to proceed with this. The landlord agreed to make a referral to its mediation service.
The resident contacted this Service on 31 January 2022 and mentioned that he had been advised by the landlord that there could be a “structural defect on the block roof”. The landlord would “contact a building surveyor to inspect the roof for an airlock issue”.
The landlord emailed its mediation provider on 22 February 2022 to make a referral for mediation. In this email it stated that both parties had consented to the mediation. It is not clear from this whether the earlier instruction of mediation from 2 November 2021 was recorded accurately. This Service has not seen any indication that this action on the landlord’s antisocial behaviour log was acted upon. The mediation service requested a purchase order from the landlord by email on 9 March 2022 and again on 16 March 2022 so it could “open the case and contact clients on this case”. Internal emails from the landlord detail that the purchase order was then approved on 17 March 2022.
The landlord advised this Service on 17 March 2022 that it was organising mediation between the resident and the neighbour and had instructed its mediation service. The landlord’s records show that the mediation service emailed the landlord 3 May 2022 to update on the mediation. This was six months after the landlord recorded an action that it instructed the mediation service on 2 November 2021 and four months following the later instruction of 22 February 2022. The mediation service stated that “over the past few weeks we have been attempting to get in touch with client one”, i.e. the resident but had not managed to contact. The mediation service gave a deadline of 4 May 2022 for the resident to get in touch or the assumption would be made that the resident did not require the service. No contact has been seen that the resident got in contact with the mediation service and on 9 May 2022 the mediation service emailed the landlord to advise of this and to advise that “unfortunately we have not received a response from our final email” and that “due to this we have assumed that client 1 is no longer able to engage”.
The landlord states in an internal email of 22 March 2022 “reading through the notes – the complaints may relate to pipework”. It states “this should not really be something that is taken to mediation as this should be something that we explore”.
The landlord wrote to the resident on 20 October 2022 to advise that “on this occasion no further action will be taken and the case will be closed”. This was five months after the mediation service confirmed to the landlord that the attempt at mediation had failed.
The resident subsequently sent an incident diary with three separate noise nuisance entries of banging and stamping noises allegedly from the flat above that took place between 29 November 2022 and 17 December 2022. The landlord phoned the resident on 17 December 2022 and the resident advised that the noise was ongoing. The landlord wrote to the resident the same day enclosing some further incident diary sheets to “help support our investigation”.
The landlord then wrote to the resident on 28 December 2022 to advise that “no further action will be taken and the case will be closed”. The letter did not detail why the case would be closed. The landlord has since advised this Service that the flat above where the resident report the noise nuisance was void from 1 December 2022.

Assessment and findings

The landlord’s response to the resident’s reports about noise nuisance from a neighbour.

Following the resident’s initial report of noise nuisance on 25 December 2020 the landlord’s antisocial behaviour policy above states that the report should be investigated within five working days. In this case the landlord determined that the case be closed 3 February 2021, over the five working days deadline due to noise being “low level domestic noise”. It would be reasonable for the landlord to advise the resident in writing the reason why the case was closed and opened as a general enquiry. In this case the cited reason is due to not meeting the thresholds set out in the landlord’s anti-social behaviour policy above. If it did write to the resident at this time, no record has been seen that confirms this happened. Therefore, there is no evidence that the landlord made clear to the resident how it would be handling his initial report, in particular that it has closed his antisocial behaviour case having applied its policy threshold.
When the case met the landlord’s threshold for investigation on 20 April 2021, according to the landlord’s policy above, the resident should have been interviewed and an action plan put in place being a “critical part” of the investigation. However, this Service has not seen that any action plan was put in place. The next recorded contact was when the resident contacted the landlord again on 10 May 2021 after his stage one complaint was logged with the landlord. The failure to agree an action plan in conjunction with the resident was a service failure by the landlord as it did not act in accordance with its own policy and procedures.
This Service has not seen evidence that the resident submitted his diary sheets after they were sent by the landlord in May 2021 in response to the resident’s missed call. Whilst it is not clear what prompted the landlord to review of the case after three months, it was reasonable for the landlord to make contact with the resident in August 2021 when the offer of mediation was made. In its email to the resident at this time, the landlord advised the resident that it had spoken to the alleged perpetrator who had denied any deliberate noise nuisance. However, the landlord’s records provided do not give any detail of when the visit or discussion took place and there is no supplied file note of the conversation that took place with the alleged perpetrator at that time. This indicates poor record keeping practices.
The only record that has been seen by this Service of a conversation with the alleged perpetrator is one that took place on 11 January 2022. During this phone call the alleged perpetrator mentioned to the landlord their belief about the noisy pipework. The landlord advised at this time that it would request the repairs team to look into this. The landlord records do show on 2 November 2021, a record of the fact that the noise was felt by the alleged perpetrator to be a repair issue. Therefore, the landlord already clearly knew of the possible repairs issue prior to the conversation that took place on 11 January 2022. This indicates poor communication and record keeping issues. Accurate and complete records ensure that the landlord has a good understanding of the issues raised, the actions agreed and/or taken and any remaining issues. Thereby good record keeping will assist the landlord in monitoring completion of agreed actions and also inform further actions. These communication and record keeping failings are consistent with the factors that led to the Ombudsman’s launch of a paragraph 49 investigation. This detailed that “poor record keeping and communication were recurring themes in the majority of the cases we reviewed, both in the response to the service request and in the subsequent handling of the complaint”.
This also means that a critical factor in the landlord’s investigation appears to have been overlooked, i.e. the possibility that the reported noise nuisance could be coming from pipework indicating that it could be a structural issue as opposed to emanating from the actions of the neighbour. The resident reports that the landlord advised him that a surveyor would be instructed according to his contact with this Service of 31 January 2022, however, the landlord has confirmed to this Service that no works orders have been raised to check the potentially noisy pipework or an airlock issue. This was a significant failure by the landlord as it did not investigate the potential pipework noise issue since it was first reported as a possible causative factor by the alleged perpetrator.
The landlord states it attempted to contact the resident on several occasions, and that the resident had not contacted it following missed calls and a visit. Whilst it has been seen that there have been attempted contacts with the resident, the landlord could have provided a written update to the resident on his case where it was not possible to reach him, or when the resident rang and was unable to speak to the case officer. This would have maintained contact with the resident in line with its antisocial policy to keep “regular contact with the complainant”. This would have thereby reassured the resident that his case was being given appropriate attention. This Service has not seen evidence of any such updates.
Given that there was apparent difficulty in telephonic communications to the resident, it would have been reasonable for the landlord to enquire when would be a good time to call or visit. However, the landlord’s records detail that it only asked the resident of his availability in its successful phone call of 22 December 2021, 12 months after the resident’s initial contact about the noise issues. Clearly the resident attempted calls with the landlord on at least five recorded occasions where he was unable to speak to the tenancy sustainment officer. The landlord could have therefore enquired of the best times to contact at an earlier point. The resident at this time advised that he worked and was only available at lunch times. Given this knowledge, the landlord could have then made sure it contacted the resident when he would be more likely to be available. This was a service failure by the landlord.
There was delay from the landlord first offering mediation to the resident on 19 August 2021, the resident confirming that he was happy to participate, and the landlord acting on this. The landlord did not instruct its mediation service until 2 November 2021. Records seen by this Service indicate that contact by the mediation service with the resident did not happen until after the landlord’s later referral in February 2022. By this time the resident did not wish to participate with the mediation service. Had the landlord organised the mediation earlier there could have been a more positive resident engagement outcome. This is due to the fact that the resident at that earlier point had expressed interest in mediation.
Mediation requires the commitment of each party and is more effective if offered at an earlier point where possible as it can prevent relationships from completely breaking down. No records have been seen by this Service that the mediation option was explored earlier in the landlord’s investigation. This was a missed opportunity to deal effectively with the resident’s complaint. It may have also highlighted the structural issue mentioned by the alleged perpetrator to be the source of the noise. Records have not been seen that the landlord contacted the mediation service to chase up their instructed engagement with the resident and the alleged perpetrator. It was six months after the initial referral and four months after the subsequent purchase order was sent before the mediation service emailed the landlord with any update. The landlords antisocial behaviour policy states that regular “monitoring alert” should be set up either for “a specific date or for a specific frequency, e.g. once a month”. There was therefore a service failure by the landlord in its management and oversight of the mediation process following its initial instruction to its mediation contractor.
The only incident diaries seen by this Service postdate the landlord’s internal complaints procedure and detail noise reports made by the resident on three occasions between 29 November 2022 to 17 December 2022. However, these reports are not ones that have been filled in by the resident. This concerned a banging noise to the resident’s ceiling from the flat above that had allegedly been ongoing for “a few weeks” according to the resident. The landlord reports being aware that the flat above was void as of early December. Given this knowledge, the landlord might be reasonably expected to undertake an investigation into this. Such an investigation may have resurfaced the possibility that the noise nuisance was mechanical in nature but likely to be a result of property factors. A further opportunity was missed as a result, and it was unreasonable that the landlord did not act on the reports.
The landlord’s letters to close the resident’s case sent in October 2022 and December 2022 gave no explanation as to why the case was being closed. The fact that the resident sent some incident diaries indicates that the noise was an ongoing issue. This demonstrates, along with the fact that no works orders were raised to check and remedy any noisy pipework, that the landlord failed to fully act on the information presented and investigate accordingly before closing the case. This would have undoubtedly caused frustration and distress to the resident. It would likely have left the resident feeling that his complaints of noise nuisance were not important to the landlord.
In summary, our focus during this investigation is on the actions of the landlord and whether or not the actions taken were in line with relevant legislation and the landlord’s own policy and procedures. In this case the landlord has not acted in accordance with its own policy in the handling of the case. As described, the lack of a decisive action plan agreed with the resident and updates will have undoubtedly left the resident feeling that the landlord was ignoring the noise issues that were causing him distress and frustration. Importantly, the potential source of the noise was not investigated. This is despite the fact that the landlord was aware it could be a repairs issue before November 2021. No evidence has been seen that the preventative measure of mediation had been offered at an earlier point of the landlord’s investigation. The landlord failed to progress the mediation in a timely manner. In addition communication and recording keeping has been inadequate. As there was no written updates and the time that had elapsed since the resident’s initial contact, missing calls that the landlord had made at inconvenient times would have likely caused increased frustration and distress to the resident. Furthermore the communication issues could have easily been resolved. The resident has therefore been left without any recourse other than having to put in the time and trouble to pursue the matter through the formal complaints route. The service failings in this case cumulatively amount to maladministration. An order has been made below in respect of these failings.

The landlord’s complaint handling

The landlord’s response to the stage one complaint of 4 May 2021 was delayed and during its investigation at stage one, the landlord stated that it could not make contact with the resident to discuss his complaint. The stage one response was sent on 28 May 2021 outside of a 10 working days timescale. It did apologise for the delay in responding to the resident at the time which was appropriate to do so in any event. The fact that the landlord was unable to “access antisocial behaviour processes” and as such it was “unable to see the full extent of what has been reported” indicates that there were internal communication and record keeping issues as identified above. It would be expected that the landlord could find out what had been reported by accessing its own records in order to provide its complaint response at stage one.
The landlord stated in its stage one complaint response that it had investigated the resident’s case. However, it did not advise what actions were taken or would be taken on his case or any results of its investigation. The landlord could have used the stage one response to provide this update in line with the key outcome being sought by the resident for an update. The Ombudsman’s complaint handling principles outlined in the Ombudsman’s Code stipulates that a “complaint should be resolved at the earliest possible opportunity, having assessed what evidence is needed to fully consider the issues, what outcome would resolve the matter for the resident and whether there are any urgent actions required”.
The provision of an update in the landlord’s stage one response could have reassured the resident that he was being listened to and also managed his expectations in terms of any actions that could be taken. The opportunity to consider mediation could have also been mentioned at this point. However, this did not happen and the stage one response focussed on how the landlord attempted to contact the resident rather than any substantive actions that would address the issue raised in his complaint.
The landlord’s stage two response was sent within 20 working days. It acknowledged and apologised for a service failure that the stage one response was sent out of time. It offered £50 compensation in line with its compensation policy to the resident for the delayed stage one response. It was appropriate for the landlord to recognise its service failure and offer compensation in addition to the apology previously offered as further redress. However, this would have been appropriate in the stage one response at which point the delay was already known.
Once again the stage two response of 11 November 2021 did not give any detail of the actions taken on the case or actions that would be taken. The main details were to outline the attempts to contact the resident. It put the onus on the resident to get in touch for an update on his case stating “once contact has been made the team will be able to update you on your case”. As an update on the substantive noise case was an outcome being sought by the resident, the landlord again missed the opportunity to provide this to assist in resolving the complaint.
It would be understandable for the resident to feel frustrated at the lack of update provided on his case. Communication issues referred to above were prevalent in the landlord’s complaint responses. The failure to provide an update on the resident’s case or advise on any actions taken or to be taken would cause distress for anyone and given that the noise issue was happening at night time this could cause further distress particularly if sleep was affected. Importantly the issue raised in the complaint by the resident is still outstanding. These failings are cumulatively considered to be maladministration. The landlord has offered compensation of £100 – £50 for a missed call back and £50 for the delay in its stage one complaint response. However, it is the Ombudsman’s opinion that this does not adequately address the unresolved complaint outcome sought by the resident. This is because the substantive issue of the complaint was not addressed and remains outstanding. An order has been made below in respect of these failings.

The landlord’s communication and record keeping

Evidence of poor communication and record keeping has been a feature seen throughout the investigation as already detailed above. Some of the key areas that demonstrate this are the lack of written updates to the resident on his case to keep him “informed about the status and progress of” his case which is contrary to the landlord’s policy. There is also no evidence seen by this Service that an action plan was agreed with the resident or evidence of any update to any action plan as required by the landord’s policy. The landlord demonstrates further poor communication in the formal complaint responses detailed above that again could have afforded the opportunity to update the resident on his case.
The lack of the landlord’s consideration of the best form of communication and timing of this to suit the resident’s working patterns also demonstrates this poor communication and record keeping. The resident took the time and trouble to call into the office on 10 May 2021 to speak to the tenancy sustainment officer but rather than anyone updating the resident on his case he was simply given diary sheets to complete. The landlord should have been able to provide some information to the resident at that time or at least provide an appointment for a visit or phone appointment that would have been at a convenient time. Whilst a visit was reportedly made by the tenancy sustainment officer of 27 May 2021, it is not clear whether this was an unplanned visit or whether any appointment letter was given. If a letter was sent then it was not seen by this Service.
The missed opportunities to discuss the case when the resident rang and missed the tenancy sustainment officer, or when the tenancy sustainment officer reportedly rang and could not get through to the resident, evidence that call backs were not adequately monitored. For example, a call back was requested on 3 December 2021 and no record that a call back was made as reported on 6 December 2021, and the resident was told on 22 December 2021 during a phone call that the tenancy sustainment officer would be back the following day. However, no record has been seen that he was called the following day. The resident had to call again on 24 December 2021 and left a message and the landlord’s antisocial behaviour record log states “email sent” but this Service has not seen a copy of this email.
There are a lack of records seen detailing the conversations with the alleged perpetrator, in particular the earlier discussion that the landlord refers to in its email to the resident on 19 August 2021. It is crucial to document such conversations to enable a full understanding of the alleged perpetrator’s response as well as any issues arising such as the potential noise being from the pipework.
The mediation service provider appears to have been instructed at an earlier point in the antisocial behaviour log on 2 November 2021 but then the later emails suggest that an instruction was sent on 22 February 2022. There was a lack of oversight of the actions of the mediation provider and no records have been seen that the landlord was updated on the dates and times of any attempted contact. More importantly records have not been seen as to whether the landlord passed on the information concerning the resident’s availability which was known by then. when they attempted any contact with the resident. This left the resident with an extended length of time of uncertainty and increased the level of time and trouble required to chase up the landlord. This cumulatively amounts to maladministration. An order has been made in respect of these failings.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was maladministration in respect of the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports about noise nuisance from a neighbour.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was maladministration in respect of the landlord’s complaint handling.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was maladministration in respect of the landlord’s communication and record keeping.

Reasons

The landlord has failed to act in accordance with its own policy and procedures concerning its handling of the noise nuisance reported by the resident. It failed to provide adequate updates to the resident, or to make adjustments to consider the availability of the resident so it could speak to the resident at a convenient time and date. It failed to progress mediation in a timely manner and importantly failed to address the potential root cause of the noise nuisance.
The landlord’s stage one response was delayed. The landlord failed to respond to the main aspect of the resident’s complaint or provide an update in its complaint responses. It did not offer any redress in its stage one response. In its stage two response it did offer some redress in the form of the £100 compensation in respect of a missed call back and as an apology in respect of the delay to its stage one response. However, the outcome sought by the resident was an update on his case and the landlord failed to provide this in its complaint response causing distress and inconvenience to the resident.
The poor communication and record keeping featured throughout this investigation show the landlord has not kept track of the calls made by the resident and the call backs have not been adequately monitored. Records of the earlier communication with the perpetrator outlined by the landlord an email in August 2021 have not been seen and the resident has been left over an extended period of time with uncertainty and taken time and trouble to chase up the landlord to progress his reports of noise nuisance.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

Within four weeks of the date of this report the landlord is ordered to:
1. Provide a written apology to the resident from a Director level or above. A copy should be provided to this Service.
2. Pay the resident £900 compensation in respect of the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of noise nuisance.
3. Pay the resident £500 compensation in respect of the landlord’s complaint handling (comprising £100 already offered by the landlord and a further £400 recognising the failure to address the issues raised by the resident in his complaint).
4. Pay the resident £400 in respect of the landlord’s communication and record keeping.
Within four weeks of the date of this report the landlord is ordered conduct an investigation into the reported noisy pipework. The landlord must then carry out any works required, and advise this Service of the effective completion date which must be no later than ten weeks from the date of this report.
Within 12 weeks of the date of this report the landlord is ordered to initiate and complete a review of this case, identifying learning opportunities and produce an improvement plan that must be shared with this Service and the landlord’s Board and Residents’ Panel outlining as a minimum:
1. The learning points identified from this case and what improvements it intends to make to its policy and procedures in dealing with noise complaints, it’s monitoring of call backs and early use of alternative communication methods. It should set out a clear timescale for improvement actions, overall case management, its mediation processes and associated partner arrangements, and oversight by named postholders and a monitoring process.
2. The intentions and a timescale to carry out a self-assessment of its approach to noise complaints using the Ombudsman’s Spotlight on noise complaints self-assessment toolkit (available on our website). It should pay particular consideration of a neighbourhood management policy, the landlord’s data and record keeping, the handling of noise reports and the landlord’s data and record keeping.
3. The intentions and a timescale to refresh the self-assessment of its complaints policy using the Ombudsman’s self-assessment toolkit (available on our website). It should pay particular attention to Section 4 – Complaint handling principles and Section 5 – Complaint stages.
4. The intentions and a timescale to conduct a review of its training programme and proposals to carry out the training on tackling noise nuisance complaints for relevant case workers and complaints management officers.
Within twelve weeks of the date of this report the landlord must carry out a self-assessment on its approach to noise complaints using the toolkit available on our website. It must refer the Ombudsman’s Spotlight report, Time to be Heard October 2022 to identify areas it can improve performance on, including record keeping and closing complaints without explanation.