Salvation Army Housing Association (SAHA) (202117550)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202117550

Salvation Army Housing Association

27 November 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:
1. Reports of noise by her neighbours and antisocial behaviour (ASB).
2. Request to install CCTV in the communal kitchen.
3. Request to move to another room.
4. Associated formal complaint.

Background and summary of events

Background

At the time of the complaint the resident was a tenant of the landlord. She had an excluded license, which commenced July 2018, for a room on the second floor next to a communal kitchen. The property is a supported housing scheme for single, young, vulnerable women with low to medium support needs experiencing homelessness.
The landlord had recorded that the resident hadseveral significant health and mental health conditions.

Scope of Investigation

The matters complained about above recognises the complaint made to the landlord which completed the landlord’s internal complaints process on 28 January 2022. On 21 February 2022 the resident asked this Service to investigate the following:
1. Breach of contract by the landlord.
2. Failure to provide access to essential facilities.
3. Sustained and deliberate discrimination, neglect, abuse and harassment.
4. Engineering and creating hostile living conditions.
5. Punitive measures taken against the resident by the landlord’s management.
6. Allowing smoking of illegal substances and drinking alcohol in the house for several years.
7. Deprivation of safety and security in violation of rights and contrary to the licence agreement.
In accordance with paragraph 42(c) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme (the Scheme) this Service may not consider complaints which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, are made prior to having exhausted a member’s complaints procedure. The above were not raised as part of the original complaint and therefore, this investigation will only consider the complaint which has completed the landlord’s internal complaints process.
In accordance with paragraph 42(f) of the Scheme, the Ombudsman may not consider complaints which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion concern matters where the Ombudsman consider it quicker, fairer, more reasonable, or more effective to seek a remedy through the courts. This Service cannot determine whether discrimination has taken place, as these are legal terms which are better suited to a court to decide.
The resident advised this Service that prior to moving to the property she had no health concerns and believes that the landlord’s actions or lack of action have impacted her health. This Service can consider any inconvenience or distress caused, as a result of any service failures by the landlord. However, it is beyond the expertise of this Service to establish legal liability or whether a landlord’s actions or lack of action had a detrimental impact on a resident’s health, nor can it calculate or award damages. Ultimately this would be a matter for the courts.

Policies and procedures

The license agreement contains, but is not limited to, the following clauses:
1. The licence is an excluded licence as the accommodation provided is hostel accommodation. This means that the landlord has the right to exclude a resident from the accommodation provided without first obtaining a court order. The agreement is for a single room along with communal facilities including a kitchen, bathroom, garden, lounge and laundry.
2. The home is part of a communal building and can be changed from time. This can be done without prior notice to the resident and without agreement if the landlord considers such a change necessary for emotional or physical health or safety.
There are house rules for the building which include, but are not limited to:
1. Keep music and noise to a reasonable level. To turn music off and keep noise down between 9pm and 9am.
2. Verbal or physical abuse to staff or other residents is unacceptable behaviour and perpetrators may be evicted without any notice.
The antisocial behaviour interim policy dated 31 January 2021 states:
1. It will take preventative action including mediation. Will seek evidence from witnesses. Hold joint meetings with support agencies involved. Make referrals for support and seek advice from the ASB team. It will use good neighbour agreements, acceptable behaviour agreements and consider managed moves where there is no other action and it would resolve the issue.
2. It will take enforcement action through warning letters, injunctions and legal action.
3. An action plan will be agreed with the victim and perpetrator. Actions will be realistic with timescales. Where necessary a professionals meeting should be called to discuss the case and action plan. The case should be monitored and diary sheets used. All actions should be followed up in writing and letters saved. All promises and commitments should be kept. Cases should be reviewed within 2 to 4 weeks of the initial complaint being received. Where issues persist, an internal case review should be held.
4. Noise related ASB is where noise is causing annoyance, lack of sleep, stress and is affecting the quality of life of another resident. The noise must be coming from somewhere on the landlord’s property which includes loud music, tv, banging doors, shouting and barking dogs.
The landlord operates a 2 stage complaints process. Complaints are acknowledged within 5 working days. Stage 1 complaints are responded to within 10 working days and stage 2 complaints within 20 working days.

Summary of events

The landlord’s records from 2019 showed a number of reports made by the resident about noise which impacted her ability to sleep.
1. On 28 February 2019 the resident wrote to the landlord, identifying a number of her neighbours, who were slamming doors and having loud conversations between 2am and 5am. She also reported loud music between 9pm and 12am.
2. On 21 May 2019 the resident reported being regularly disturbed at night by residents banging the kitchen door next to her room.
3. The records stated that the resident had always had some difficulties with noise since moving in 2018. They also referred to a number of residents mental health being “significantly impacted” by nighttime noise.
4. Further reports were made by the resident in August 2019and a record from November 2019 between the landlord and care co-ordinator suggested that a change of room would be beneficial for her, to alleviate the “negative interaction with communal living.”
In a previous formal complaint made by the resident about noise, the landlord responded at stage 1 on 17 March 2020. The landlord said:
1. A house meeting was held where it had discussed house rules and noise. The landlord agreed in part with the complaint. It was clear from CCTV and staff reports that, on occasion, there was a lot of late activity in communal areas of the house which would generate excessive noise.
2. There was no direct evidence that the activity was specifically aimed at one person. However, excessive noise was likely to lead to conflicts in shared accommodation, especially when prolonged, and it recognised the resident’s frustration. It apologised for the experience relating to noise.
3. As a result of the complaint, it said it would meet with its team and review the code of conduct, lone working procedures and develop local processes to ensure communication with residents improved. It would ensure that staff responded to issues raised in a timely manner.
4. It would implement a reviewed warning procedure that was clear and accessible to all, which would support staff efforts to address any ASB. It would also review the visitor policy, so everyone was clear on the process.
5. It had installed noise dampening patches on the doors to test the impact and ordered the repairs team to tighten the door closures.
In its stage 2 response of 12 May 2020, the landlord said:
1. That the resident believed that CCTV cameras in the kitchen and lounge would reduce ASB and allow for immediate identification of any perpetrators. Staff had failed to properly manage these situations. When she disturbed staff sleep due to noise, they voiced their anger at her. The warning system was only implemented when residents raised a complaint, and this created animosity against the complainant. Warnings should address breaches of the rules and not complaints.
2. The landlord said that it would not install CCTV in the communal areas where this could be avoided as it valued the independence and privacy of residents. It accepted that the many complaints raised by the resident presented ample opportunity to identify perpetrators. This should not have been reliant on CCTV alone but through witness statements and staff observations.
3. It recognised that the recording of these concerns had not been consistent and in line with its own procedures. In certain cases, individuals had been identified and warnings had been issued. However, these had been applied inconsistently and managed poorly, for which it apologised.
4. It repeated the actions outlined in its stage 1 response and added that it would train staff in personal skills and problem solving, managing difficult situations and communication skills.
5. As a result of the investigation review, it confirmed that it disagreed with its original decision made at stage 1. It fully upheld the complaint as certain staff did not follow the policies and procedures in place which would provide timely, effective and transparent management of anti-social behaviour. It offered its apologies and said it was recommending changes as a direct result of the resident’s complaint as well as some solutions to assist her.
Between 10 September 2020 and 4 November 2021, there were 18 reported incidents by the resident. These related to noise from the kitchen, slamming doors, and name calling from other residents.
On 15 October 2020 records referred to an incident with 3 other residents smoking on the balcony. The resident had challenged her neighbours who she reported had called her names and made threats to cause her harm. Staff had offered to go to her room to diffuse the situation, but she declined. Staff had spoken with the 3 residents who stated that no threats had been made and made counter allegations against the resident. The resident had phoned the police. She said she was very ill as she had just returned from hospital. The police attended and spoke with the resident and one of the alleged perpetrators. The police did not file a crime report as there were no witnesses.
On 27 April 2021 the landlord’s records showed that it wrote to two residents following a complaint about noise from the resident. The landlord had reviewed CCTV footage which showed the alleged perpetrator with another resident. They had been walking in and out of the kitchen from midnight until 4am. The noise of doors banging and loud footsteps were disturbing residents and could be heard from the staff room. The landlord reminded the perpetrators of the licence agreement obligations and warned them to refrain from causing noise.
The resident contacted this Service on 29 October 2021 to say that she had complained to her landlord but not received a response. This Service wrote to the landlord the same day to request a stage 1 response. The landlord stated in its response that it would contact the resident and progress her complaint through its complaints process.
The landlord’s records of 1 November 2021 showed an internal email to its customer services team which asked for the complaint to be registered and for a formal response to be issued. The email said:
1. The resident had complained to the office about noise from the kitchen in the early hours of the morning. This was reported on 28 October 2021. She had called the landlord to report that she had established that the perpetrator of the noise was from a specific room, and it was this resident, along with another causing the noise. The resident disclosed that she had recorded footage on her phone as the landlord had refused to install CCTV cameras in the kitchens.
2. The resident had asked what action the landlord would take to reduce noise. It explained that it had spoken with the other residents and had booked a meeting for the following day to discuss the incident.
3. The resident had said that the license agreement stated that the kitchens should not be used after 9pm. She had been prepared to give the neighbour until 10pm to cook and wash up. The alleged perpetrator had complied with their agreement but had since stated “she would do what she wanted, when she wanted.” The landlord said that there was no such term about the use and timings of the kitchen or communal areas.
4. On 29 October 2021 the landlord met with the alleged perpetrator. She advised that she had spoken civilly with the resident. She had previously spoken with the resident about noise and felt “guilt tripped” into making the agreement to cook much earlier than she would normally in order to keep noise down. She had been in trouble with the support team for leaving dirty dishes overnight because she understood washing dishes may cause noise. The landlord spoke to the alleged perpetrator about accepting mediation which she agreed to.
5. The landlord asked the resident to consider mediation, but this was declined. She stated that the landlord was taking sides, not taking action, and she would take matters into her own hands.
In the landlord’s stage 1 response of 5 November 2021, it said:
1. It understood that in order to resolve the complaint the resident was seeking:
  1. For the kitchen to be locked.
  2. A room transfer to the basement.
  3. Consequences for the alleged perpetrator.
  4. For CCTV to be installed in the kitchens.
2. As a result of its investigation, it did not uphold the resident’s complaint. Shared accommodation would always require some compromise regarding the activities and lifestyles of others. It was also constrained by the layout of the property which inevitably put some rooms next to shared spaces.
3. It understood than an informal agreement had been made between the resident and her neighbour which the resident claimed was breached. The counter claim was that the agreement was kept, and lifestyle patterns had changed. The kitchen was used at a later time to which the resident reacted, and this had led to the escalation and complaint.
4. The kitchen could be used at any time. The licence did not stipulate hours of use for the kitchens. This had been monitored by the landlord’s staff since the complaint was made and the offer of mediation had been declined by the resident.
5. The landlord appealed to all residents about the sensitivity of noise, but it could not restrict access for those whose lifestyle did not fit standard patterns. However, it would continue to enforce the message that behaviour should be moderated so that others sleeping or enjoying quiet were not disturbed. It managed persistent and highly disruptive occurrences through its ASB procedures and mediation remained open to the resident.
6. The room in the basement was an office. It had been used as a temporary quarantine room during the pandemic and also temporarily for a resident whose room had flooded. This was a temporary measure and had reverted back to being an office.
7. It did not feel that CCTV in kitchens was appropriate to an environment of support, trust and respect. It recognised this would be an easy solution but said it “sat awkwardly” with its values.
8. Whilst it did not uphold the resident’s complaint, it would regularly monitor and manage ASB through team reviews, supervisions, house meetings, and support sessions. It would apply its policies and procedures. It would continue to follow the actions stated in a previous complaint ensuring that the warning procedure was clear and accessible to all.
9. It recognised that communal living could be difficult and proposed to consult its asset management team about possible sound proofing solutions. It would consult with the resident about other solutions such as high-grade ear plugs or other useful technologies.
The resident responded to the landlord in November 2021 stating that:
1. The landlord did not know the extent of the noise that was being made in the kitchen. She “rejected and resented” that the landlord had insinuated that she begrudged people their chosen lifestyles. Her complaints, for more than 3 years, had always been to request help in dealing with residents’ behaviour. The landlord had created an environment which lacked order and rules.
2. She had been diagnosed with a stress induced, constantly debilitating, painful condition called fibromyalgia among other painful health issues, none of which existed prior to moving in. The landlord had failed to provide any relief to enable her to get better. She had very real health issues and a severe disability caused by the stressful living conditions.
3. In May 2020 the landlord had attempted to move her to the third floor despite knowing she had issues getting to and from the second floor due to her health. Another resident had been moved from a room on the first floor with its own kitchen and the room was given to someone else without considering her. This was despite her countless discussions about relocating to get closer to the ground floor due to her disability, and to avoid the problems she was having with other residents.
4. She had suggested various solutions which the landlord had rejected and failed to come up with any of its own. Its failure to install additional CCTV had resulted in her purchasing her own CCTV cameras.
5. It had suggested ear plugs or other noise cancelling technology. She had done this and none of the solutions “were a match for the insane amount of noise that came from the kitchen.
6. She said she would no longer take any more threats against her, or tolerate any hostility from residents, employees or the person who had responded at stage 1.
On 2 December 2021 the landlord wrote to the resident and thanked her for her response to the stage 1 letter. It noted that a new incident, not considered in the original complaint response had been raised. This had been recorded was being investigated. If she was dissatisfied with the outcome, she could raise this separately as a new complaint in line with its policy. In the resident’s response she had indicated that she wished to take matters into her own hands and the landlord asked for clarification of what her intention was with regard to this.
A second letter was sent the same day by the landlord in which it stated that it was unsure what action the resident wanted it to take. It asked if she wanted the complaint to be considered at stage 2 of its complaints process or to be closed. The resident clarified that she wanted to escalate her complaint to stage 2.
On 4 January 2022 the resident contacted this Service to say she had not received a stage 2 response. This Service wrote to the landlord to advise that the resident remained dissatisfied following its stage 1 response and asked the landlord to provide a stage 2 response within 20 working days. On 13 January 2022 the landlord acknowledged this Service’s request.
The landlord responded at stage 2 of its complaints process on 28 January 2022. In its response it said:
1. It advised that it was limited in its response to the issues raised in the complaint which it understood to be:
  1. ASB that had not been dealt with.
  2. An offer of a move to a different room in a part of the house that was quieter which had not been followed through.
2. There had been 18 cases of reported ASB at the scheme in the previous 24 months many involving noise and nuisance. These had been dealt with in line with its ASB procedure. In light of this, it did not uphold this part of the complaint. However as noted in its stage 1 response, living in shared accommodation often meant that residents needed to make some compromise in their interactions to ensure they are considerate of others living in the same building.
3. In order to manage this, it had asked that the team make regular checks of the building by walking round and checking all communal spaces including corridors and kitchens, at least every 2 hours, taking any action required.
4. It had discussed, during its telephone call with the resident the week before, its concerns about her health. These arose from her being unable to access the bathroom as well as the reported impact of the alleged ASB on her mental health. It agreed that moving from the current room would help resolve many of these issues. It had considered the options available to address this and outlined these for the resident to consider.
5. Option 1. The basement office which had an ensuite shower room had been made available as a room that could be used for residents to move into if they needed to isolate during the pandemic. It had planned to turn this back into an office, however, agreed that this could continue to be used as a room for a resident. This meant it could offer a move to this room but there were a number of things to be taken into consideration:
  1. The room was in the basement and would require the resident to work with its team to meet its obligations under health and safety and agree a personal evacuation plan in case of fire prior to moving.
  1. Whilst the room had an ensuite bathroom, it did not have its own kitchen and she would still need to access a shared kitchen in order to cook meals.
  2. The electrical fuse box was in the room, while locked and did not present a risk, there would be occasions where its staff and contractors would need to gain access.
  3. It was aware that the room was currently being used for storage and would take some time to make it ready. The room would be available from week commencing 7 March 2022.
6. Option 2. It had discussed solutions offered by the single homelessness team. It had been confirmed that a move could be facilitated to an alternative supported housing scheme. For this option there were things to consider:
  1. It understood that the resident was concerned that she would lose her move on points that she had accrued and that contributed to the priority level in bidding for permanent accommodation. The single homelessness team had confirmed that this would not be the case and move on points would not be affected.
  1. The alternative supported housing was likely to be ground floor, self-contained accommodation which may be better suited to her health and mobility needs.
7. The options did not have to be considered in isolation. Should she wish to consider an alternative supported housing scheme it could liaise with the homelessness team to understand the length of time this may take and continue with moving to the basement room while an alternative was sourced.
8. It asked the resident to confirm which option she preferred by 4 February 2022.
On 8 February 2022 the landlord wrote to the resident asking for confirmation of which option she would prefer. It said that if it did not hear from the resident, it would assume she did not want to take any of the proposed options and would close the complaint.
The landlord wrote again on 1 March 2022 noting that the resident had not responded. It repeated that it if it did not hear from her by the end of the week it would close the complaint and withdraw the offer to move to a different room.
On 8 March 2022 the landlord wrote to the resident. It said:
1. Further to its letters dated 28 January 2022, 8 February 2022, and 1 March 2022 it had noted from the resident’s response to an email that she felt unable to accept any of the options that had been suggested to her to provide a solution to the issues arising as a result of her health problems. It was also aware that waiting for her thoughts on the options had delayed the final outcome of the second part of her stage 2 complaint.
2. The letter dated 28 January 2023 outlined the reasons why it had not upheld the first part of the complaint which centred around complaints of ASB. In addition, since that letter, there had been regular documented checks of the building to monitor and manage any further ASB. No other reports or incidents had been received. It was also trying to ensure that noise levels were kept to a minimum.
3. It had partially upheld the second part of the complaint in relation to the service not facilitating a move. The shared accommodation was commissioned to provide housing related support. It had a contract for 23 rooms for single women and 3 rooms for mothers with babies. It repeated that the basement room was an office space and used temporarily during the pandemic. It said the space had never been part of the commissioned contract and was always intended to return to being office space.
4. Despite this it had spent time talking to the resident and listening to her explanations of how her illness affected her and agreed that it could utilise the space as an alternative room to allow her to manage her health better. It outlined the actions that needed to take place for this to happen and provided information about alternative options for accessing accommodation that would better suit her needs.
5. The resident had not responded to these suggestions in the timescale outlined in the letter dated 28 January 2022 and it understood she had also not engaged with the team in the support process that was a requirement of her stay.
6. It was concerned for the resident’s health and wellbeing and her choice not to engage with the on-site staff brought her into conflict with the licence agreement. It empathised and wanted to help but if she chose not to work with the team and enable it to provide her with support then it would ask that she worked with it to find alternative accommodation. The team were ready to either support her to stay or offer help to find somewhere that might be more appropriate to her needs.
7. It had reached the end of its internal complaint process. The offer of the basement room had now been retracted. It also noted the resident’s intention to bring the matter to this Service and said that it was confident that it had acted in line with its policies and procedures.
8. It repeated that its staff were available to provide support and work with the resident and it hoped that she chose to work with the landlord on either of the two options mentioned. It wanted the resident to enjoy living at the scheme and would continue to try and enable this to happen. It asked her to speak with her support worker to explore how best it could work with the resident.

Assessment and findings

In reaching a decision about the resident’s complaint we consider whether the landlord has kept to the law, followed proper procedure and good practice, and acted in a reasonable way. Our duty is to determine complaints by reference to what is, in this Service’s opinions, fair in all the circumstances of the case.

Resident’s reports of noise and antisocial behaviour

This Service empathises that the resident felt her peace and quiet enjoyment of her room was disturbed by noise. While living in shared accommodation it is expected that there would be an element of day to day living noise. This Service has investigated whether the landlord has acted fairly and reasonably in relation to the resident’s reports.
The landlord’s license agreement, house rules and ASB policy stipulate what constitutes noise and sets out its process for unacceptable behaviour. It refers to noise related ASB as “where noise is causing annoyance, lack of sleep, stress and is affecting the quality of life of another resident”. The landlord therefore has an obligation to investigate and take any relevant action.
The evidence provided detailed 26 incidents of reported noise by the resident over a period of time. This Service appreciates that some of the noise reported would have been considered day to day noise from using the shared kitchen, such as resident’s washing up dishes. However, as outlined above the resident described noise which was impacting her ability to sleep, causing her distress and affecting her health conditions.
There are a number of examples where the landlord has responded to the resident’s reports:
1. In one instance the landlord spoke with the alleged perpetrators and issued written warnings. It was not clear however, whether the landlord updated the resident to confirm what actions it had taken in relation to this incident.
2. In another instance the landlord demonstrated that it had tried to use early intervention to resolve a matter between the resident and her neighbour by offering mediation. While the alleged perpetrator had been willing to accept this offer, the resident had declined.
While there is evidence to suggest that the landlord has investigated some of the individual reports, it was not clear whether all 26 logged incidents were investigated fully and consistently.
There was no evidence provided which demonstrated that the landlord had considered other options outlined in its ASB policy:
1. The resident had referred to the landlord “not knowing the extent of the noise being made in the kitchen”. It is not known if the resident was asked to keep diary sheets over a period of time to demonstrate the frequency or level of noise she was experiencing. This would have provided the landlord with a detailed account of the noise and how this was impacting the resident.
2. There was no evidence of any action plans in relation to incidents between the resident and her neighbours. It would have been good practice for the landlord to complete an action plan with the resident.
3. There was no evidence to suggest that the landlord had written to the resident to confirm what actions it had taken in relation to her reports of ASB, that it had taken action or how it proposed to monitor any further incidents other than walking around the building and completing checks.
4. There was no evidence that the landlord had consulted its ASB team or considered the use of good neighbour agreements or acceptable behaviour contracts.
5. Its ASB policy states that it will consider managed moves where there is no other action, and it would resolve the issue. Moving the resident to another room away from the kitchen would have alleviated the situation with both the difficulties the resident was experiencing with her neighbours and the noise from the kitchen.
6. The ASB policy also states that where issues persist a case review should be undertaken. There was no evidence that the landlord considered the number of reports made by the resident over a period of time of the impact this was having on her.
It was evident that the relationship between the landlord’s staff and resident had broken down. There was some evidence of a multiagency meeting to discuss the resident’s reports and detriment this may be causing. However, there was no evidence to suggest the outcome of this meeting or actions which may have come from this.
The landlord could have considered other alternatives such as which residents required the use of the kitchen during later hours and swapped residents rooms to alleviate the situation.
In its stage 1 response the landlord said it had spoken with its asset management team about soundproofing, however there was no evidence that this had been further investigated or followed up. While the resident said she had looked into sound cancelling technology, the landlord had also said it would consult with her about high grade ear plugs. There was no evidence that this had been further investigated.
In summary, while this Service appreciates that residents have different lifestyles and needs, and that the landlord did respond to some individual reports of noise and ASB, it failed to consider other solutions or acknowledge the distress and impact on the resident over a prolonged period of time. It was aware of the resident’s vulnerabilities and since moving in she had difficulties with noise from the shared facilities. This Service therefore finds maladministration in relation to the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of noise and ASB.

Resident’s request to install CCTV in the kitchens

The landlord declined the resident’s request to install CCTV in the communal kitchen, stating it “sat awkwardly” with its values of trust. However, the evidence demonstrated that the landlord already had CCTV cameras in communal areas which it had used to identify perpetrators and issue warnings. This suggests that the CCTV already in place was sufficient to enable it to identify individuals causing noise.
The installation of additional CCTV may have enabled the landlord to identify individuals in the kitchen area, however some of the reported noise issues such as washing dishes and cooking would not be considered unreasonable noise. There would have been a cost to the landlord in installing additional CCTV at the scheme which may not have been feasible.
It would have been good practice for the landlord to have elaborated on its reasoning for not installing additional CCTV, however the landlord’s response was reasonable given that it did not have an obligation to do this. This Service therefore finds no maladministration.

Resident’s request to move to another room

The landlord’s records indicated that it was aware, since 2018,that living next to the communal kitchen had an effect on the resident, in particular her ability to sleep. In 2019 the care co-ordinator recommended that a change of room would alleviate the negative impact of communal living on the resident. However, the landlord appears not to have considered the recommendation or acted on this. It continued to receive reports of noise from the resident over a prolonged period of time without taking any action to resolve this despite the resident explaining the effects on her health.
In its stage 2 response, the landlord offered the basement room to the resident to assist with her mobility issues. It gave a reasonable amount of time for her to consider the options offered but withdrew its offer in later correspondence, stating that the resident had not responded or chosen one of the options offered. It was evident that the relationship had broken down between the landlord and the resident. Its response appeared dismissive given it said it was concerned about the resident’s health. It would have been good practice for the landlord to have considered engaging other agencies, such as the care co-ordinator who may have been able to support it to resolve the matter.
The licence agreement states that the home is part of a communal building and can be changed from time to time, without prior notice to the resident and without agreement, if the landlord considers such a change necessary for emotional or physical health or safety.
1. The landlord could have imposed a move on the resident at any time given this clause. There was no evidence to suggest that the landlord had previously considered or offered an alternative room.
2. The resident had reported difficulties getting to and from the second floor, but the landlord failed to consider a move to an alternative room at a lower level until its stage 2 response. The resident advised this Service that a room had become available on the first floor with its own kitchen but that it had been given to someone else without considering her despite her conversations with the landlord’s staff. Landlord’s will allocate rooms based on the need of individuals and this Service cannot determine whether one resident’s needs are greater than another’s. However, the landlord advised this Service that it was taking deliveries and food to the resident due to her inability to manage the stairs on some days and it was therefore aware of the difficulties the resident was experiencing with her mobility.
Our awards recognise the fact that the emotional impact experienced by an individual resident is unique to them. This might be due to particular circumstances, or as a result of a vulnerability (‘aggravating factors’). Consideration of any aggravating factors could justify an increased award to reflect the specific impact on the resident. The Ombudsman recognises that some residents’ circumstances mean they are more affected by landlords’ actions or inactions than others. We cannot assess the extent to which a landlord’s failings has contributed to or exacerbated a resident’s physical and/or mental health and we therefore cannot directly quantify this. However, where appropriate, this Service will seek to recognise these circumstances in the remedies we set out.
Given that the landlord was aware of the resident’s mental and physical health concerns and that it was aware of her mobility difficulties, it failed to consider any detriment to the resident. For this reason, this Service finds maladministration.

Complaint handling

The resident’s complaint was not initially accepted by the landlord until this Service intervened on 29 October 2021. The landlord did not acknowledge the resident’s request to escalate her complaint on 2 December 2021 until the resident again contacted this Service to intervene.
There were delays in the landlord’s responses. The landlord’s response of 28 January 2022 was 56 working days after the resident asked to escalate her complaint and 24 working days after this Service had requested a response. The landlord did not advise the resident of any delays in providing a response.
While the landlord partially upheld the resident’s complaint it did not demonstrate any learning from the complaint or offer any redress. Appropriate remedies include acknowledging when something has gone wrong, providing an explanation, apologising, providing financial remedy and changing policies and practices. Any remedy should reflect the extent of any service failures and the level of detriment to the resident as a result. Factors to consider in formulating a remedy may include, but are not limited to, the length of time the situation has been ongoing, the frequency with which something has occurred, cumulative impact on the resident and a resident’s particular circumstances and vulnerabilities.
The landlord failed in its responses to recognise any detriment caused to the resident. It failed to offer any compensation or identify any learning to prevent this from happening in the future. For these reasons this Service finds maladministration.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme there was maladministration by the landlord in its response to the resident’s reports of noise and ASB.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme there was no maladministration in relation to the landlord’s response to install additional CCTV.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the scheme there was maladministration by the landlord in its response to the resident’s request to move to another room.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme there was maladministration in relation to the landlords handling of the complaint.

Reasons

The landlord failed to follow its ASB policy consistently. It failed to follow up on sound proofing or investigate or supply of assistive technology. It failed to consider moving the resident to a different room to address the noise being experienced by the resident.
The landlord’s response to the resident’s request for additional CCTV in the communal kitchen was reasonable.
The landlord failed to offer an alternative room to alleviate the resident’s health and mobility concerns.
The landlord failed to comply with its complaints policy timescales, provide any redress or demonstrate any learnings from the complaint.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

The landlord is ordered to pay the resident compensation in the amount of £1,500 broken down as follows:
1. £500 for time and trouble for the landlord’s failure to consistently address the noise and ASB issues reported.
2. £750 for the distress and inconvenience caused to the resident by the landlord’s failure to move the resident to an alternative room.
3. £250 for its failures in its complaint handling.
Issue a written apology from a senior member of staff for the failings identified in this report.
Within 4 weeks of this determination provide evidence of compliance with the above.

Recommendations

Review and consider the findings of this Service’s Spotlight report on Noise from October 2022 and how this may be reflected in its policies.