North Yorkshire Council (202205439)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202205439

North Yorkshire Council

28 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 reports of:
1. Anti social behaviour (ASB).
2. Noise nuisance.
3. The Ombudsman will also consider the landlord’s handling of the resident’s related complaint.

Background

The resident lives in a 2 bed semi-detached house. She has a secure tenancy which began on 15 April 2013. The resident lives in the property with her husband and adult son. The landlord is aware of the resident and her household’s vulnerabilities.
The resident has reported ASB and noise nuisance from her next door neighbour over a 9 year period. The neighbour owns his property. This investigation will consider the resident’s recent complaint to the landlord.
On 14, 18 and 28 April 2022 the resident reported issues with her neighbour. The resident stated the neighbour had flooded her garden and summerhouse by leaving the hose pipe on overnight, entered her garden without permission, and played loud music. The resident told the landlord she would not speak to the neighbour due to his previous verbal abuse and threatening behaviour.
This Service notified the landlord on 26 April 2022 that the resident had tried to report new incidents of ASB. The landlord stated it had not received the initial reports and contacted the resident the same day.
The landlord visited the resident on 28 April 2022 to discuss the alleged ASB. The resident reported the neighbour was continuing to play loud music and bang on the walls at night. She said the stress of the situation was affecting her husband’s health and wellbeing. The landlord asked the resident to fill out diary sheets. The resident said she was reluctant to do this as nothing had been done before. The landlord told the resident it could install noise monitoring equipment and support her to move.
On 30 May 2022, the resident made further reports that her neighbour was playing loud music and banging on the walls. The landlord contacted the resident on 6 June 2022. It asked the resident to fill out diary sheets and explained it would review these and consider whether to install noise monitoring equipment.
The landlord called the resident on 22 June 2022 to get an update. It asked the resident to return her diary sheets by the end of the week. The landlord chased the resident for the diary sheets on 12 July 2022. The resident confirmed she had posted them on 27 June 2022. However, the landlord had not received them.
On 25 July 2022, the resident complained to the landlord about its handling of her reports of ASB and noise nuisance.
On 28 July 2022, the landlord told the resident “Following an extensive search…[it] found two sets of diary sheets”. The landlord could not identify who the diary sheets were from as they had no name or address on them. In addition to the issues raised previously by the resident, the diary sheets recorded verbal abuse, indecent behaviour and the neighbour leaning on the fence. The resident stated that the issues with the neighbour had caused her and her household stress and anxiety, prevented her from using the garden and caused damage to the garden. She said her and her husband spent most of their time in the summer house due to the noise.
The police contacted the landlord on 28 July 2022. The resident had contacted them on 7 and 9 July 2022 stating her neighbour had flooded her garden and summerhouse. The police informed the resident no crime could be established.
The landlord told the resident on 4 August 2022 it had reviewed the diary sheets and would make a referral to the council’s environmental protection team (EPT) for noise monitoring equipment to be installed. The landlord offered the resident a new property that was about to become available. On 9 August 2022, the resident told the landlord she would not move into the property offered as the rent was too high.
The resident contacted the landlord on 16 August 2022 and asked to escalate her complaint to stage 2 as the landlord had not issued its stage 1 response within the correct timescale.
On 16 August 2022, the resident submitted a community trigger form. The landlord emailed the resident the same day offering a face-to-face meeting on 17 August 2022 to discuss the ASB and what outcome the resident was looking for.
On 17 August 2022, the resident told the landlord she would not attend the meeting and said the landlord should put in writing what action it was going to take. The landlord wrote to the resident on 19 August 2022 confirming:
1. A referral had been made to the EPT asking them to provide noise monitoring equipment.
2. It had arranged a meeting with the resident on 17 August 2022, but the resident cancelled. The landlord stated it would be beneficial for itself, the community safety team, and the resident to meet as there was a crossover with her ASB complaints and the community trigger. It asked the resident to provide a suitable date and time to rearrange the meeting.
3. The resident should continue logging incidents and provide any additional photographic or video evidence.
4. The police had confirmed that no crime could be established.
5. The case remained open and active, and any action will be determined by the evidence it received.
On 24 August 2022, this Service contacted the landlord and gave a deadline of 1 September 2022 for it to issue its stage 1 complaint response.
On 31 August 2022, the landlord provided its stage 1 complaint response. The landlord stated what actions it was taking to resolve the complaint:
1. It had received diary sheets covering the periods of 15 to 20 April, 1 to 9 July and 15 to 21 July 2022. It had not received any further diary sheets, photographic or video evidence from the resident.
2. It had made a referral to the EPT and would contact the resident to arrange installation of the noise monitoring equipment.
3. It had asked the resident to contact them to re-arrange a new date for an in-person meeting with the community safety manager.
4. The police confirmed that no crime could be evidenced.
5. The offer of mediation and a transfer to alternative accommodation remained open.
On 2 September 2022, the council’s EPT informed the landlord there was not enough evidence of the alleged nuisance so it would not install noise monitoring equipment. The EPT stated it had installed the equipment on numerous occasions and no issues had been highlighted.
The landlord contacted the resident on the same day to update her. It asked her for further photographic and video evidence and told her to complete further diary logs. The landlord offered to visit the resident on 15 September 2022 to collect the evidence. The resident stated there was no point filling in diary sheets. On 13 September 2022, the landlord asked the resident to provide her own noise recordings or videos and repeated its offer to visit her or arrange an appointment at the office. There is no evidence the resident responded to the landlord.
The resident submitted further diary sheets which the landlord received on 14 October 2022. The resident reported loud music at night, banging on the wall and an incident when the neighbour shouted verbal abuse. The resident said she was spending time in the summerhouse and these incidents happened when she went into the house to use the bathroom or go to bed. The landlord met with the EPT on the same day. The EPT stated it needed a further 2 week’s diary sheets from the resident. On 17 October 2022, the landlord contacted the resident to update her and discussed the issues she was reporting. The resident stated she was reluctant to fill in more diary sheets as no action had been taken. She told the landlord she would not provide video or picture evidence as this had been sent to a solicitor.
On 18 October 2022, this Service contacted the landlord and asked it to provide its stage 2 response by 15 November 2022.
On 21 October 2022, the resident contacted the landlord in response to its stage 1 complaint response. She stated she was frustrated that nothing had been done. She said she had video evidence that she could not fit on an email but the landlord could come and view it. The resident stated she did not attend the meeting on 17 August 2022 because of her health.
On 1 November 2022, the landlord contacted the resident to say EPT had agreed to install the noise monitoring equipment on 8 November 2022. The landlord contacted the resident on 3 and 4 November 2022 and asked her to confirm the equipment could be installed. The resident responded on 4 November 2022 stating there was no point installing the equipment as she had sold her furniture and was living in the summer house. The landlord responded to say the equipment needed to be installed in an area that was lived in and it may be difficult to install if there was no furniture in the room. The landlord said it wanted to try to install the equipment and asked the resident to confirm it could do this. There is no evidence the resident responded to the landlord.
On 11 November 2022, the landlord provided its stage 2 complaint response. It upheld the resident’s complaint and apologised for the delay in investigating the ASB and noise nuisance. In this letter, the landlord said:
1. Noise equipment had not been installed as the resident was not living in the property 90% of the time. A meeting was booked for 25 November 2022 to discuss this.
2. Reoffered a meeting with the community safety manager.
3. Repeated the offer of a referral to mediation services.
4. Repeated the offer of a transfer to alternative accommodation.
5. Acknowledged the resident was unable to attend a meeting and mediation due to health problems and said it would look at support or provide reasonable adjustments to help her attend these in the future.
6. Stated the resident could take her own private legal action.
7. Apologised for the delay in arranging the installation of noise monitoring equipment. This was because the equipment was temporarily unavailable because it had been damaged and required repair/replacement.
8. Recognised the importance of keeping the resident updated, asked the housing team to copy in the head of people & organisational development to avoid further delays.
On 16 November 2022, the resident raised a complaint to the Ombudsman. The resident stated the landlord had not clarified what it was going to do to resolve her reported issues with the neighbour.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

This Service acknowledges the resident has made several reports of ASB and noise nuisance that date back 9 years. The Ombudsman expects that complaints are raised within a reasonable period, which is usually 6 months from the issue occurring. In this case, we have considered the resident’s reports prior to the complaint. We found that the resident reported this matter in April 2022. This investigation has focused on the landlord’s handling of matters between April and November 2022. The Ombudsman carried out an investigation under the reference 202108065 of the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of antisocial behaviour between January and July 2021. If the resident is concerned about the landlord’s handling of more recent ASB reports, then she should raise this with the landlord as a formal complaint in the first instance.
This Service is not able to make findings of fact as to the incidents reported by the resident as ASB and noise nuisance. It is not the role of the Ombudsman to decide whether ASB occurred or who is responsible. This Service will consider the landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns. This includes whether the landlord appropriately and fairly investigated her complaint based on available information, followed proper procedure, and took reasonable steps to respond in a way that was fair in all the circumstances.
Whilst this Service is an alternative to the courts, it is unable to establish legal liability or whether a landlord’s actions or lack of action have had a detrimental impact on a resident or a household members health. The Ombudsman is therefore unable to consider the resident’s claims that the landlord’s handling of her reports of ASB and noise nuisance had a negative impact on her own and members of her household’s health and wellbeing. These matters are better suited to consideration by a court or via a personal injury claim. Nonetheless, consideration has been given to the general distress and inconvenience which the situation may have caused the resident and her household.

The landlord’s obligations

The landlord’s ASB policy recognises that conduct falling under its remit includes verbal abuse, loud televisions/music, and persistent, unnecessary, or excessive noise. For reports of medium level ASB, which include noise nuisance and verbal abuse, the policy gives a 5 working day timescale for initial contact. This was shortened to 1 working day in high priority cases, this included where the complainant was a “vulnerable adult” as defined by section 59 of the Safeguarding Vulnerable Groups Act 2006.
The ASB policy states:
1. Residents will be contacted to establish the basic facts of the case and a follow up written acknowledgement will be sent.
2. A referral can be made to the EPT for recording of noise nuisance to determine any statutory nuisance.
3. If the landlord needs assistance with an ASB case a referral can be made to the multi-agency community safety hub.
4. Each ASB case opened is given a target date for closure of 1 month.
The statutory guidance accompanying the Anti-social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Act 2014 required the landlord to have a clear focus on the impact of reported behaviour and expected good practice of risk of harm assessments to include regard to potential vulnerabilities.
In accordance with its complaints policy, the landlord’s response to a complaint at stage 1 was required within 10 working days and the stage 2 response in 20 working days.

The landlord’s handing of the resident’s reports of ASB

The landlord was informed by this Service on 26 April 2022 that the resident had tried to submit ASB reports to the landlord. The landlord contacted the resident on the same day and arranged to visit her on 28 April 2022. The landlord’s ASB policy requires the landlord to respond to reports of persistent noise nuisance within 5 working days. The landlord therefore acted appropriately.
No evidence was provided that the landlord followed this up with a written acknowledgement as stated in its ASB policy. This would have given the landlord the opportunity to show its understanding of the resident’s concerns and set expectations for both the landlord and resident. It also would have given the resident the chance to correct any misunderstandings and provide further information or evidence. It was inappropriate the landlord did not do this.
There is no evidence to show a risk assessment was completed at any stage throughout the life of the ASB case. This is contrary to statutory guidance and best practice. Risk assessments would have provided the landlord the opportunity to assess the potential for increased harm arising and identify the priority of the case in line with its ASB policy. The resident had notified the landlord of her and her household’s vulnerabilities. Therefore, it would have been appropriate for the landlord to assess any vulnerabilities and level of risk at the earliest opportunity and throughout the life of the case. This would include points of escalation or milestones such as when the resident notified the landlord she had sold their furniture and moved into the summerhouse. This is evidence of poor case management in handling the residents reports of ASB.
The resident’s vulnerabilities were relevant factors to inform the nature, tone, and communication of the landlord’s handling of the reports of ASB. The landlord acknowledged in its stage 2 response that it may need to make reasonable adjustments for the resident to attend future meetings. However, it failed to take this approach holistically and consider what adjustments, support or sign posting may have been required to assist the resident to effectively navigate her reports of ASB. When the resident told the landlord she was no longer spending any time in her property due to the ASB, this was an escalation. The landlord should have reviewed its response in terms of the level of detriment being caused to the resident. No evidence has been provided to show that it considered if any wider adjustments were needed, considered, or assessed, which is a significant failing.
The evidence shows the landlord had regular contact with the resident about the alleged ASB. It responded to all the resident’s reports of ASB within its agreed 5 day timescale. The landlord also contacted the resident by both phone and email to get regular updates on the neighbour’s behaviour. However, the relationship between both parties had broken down and resulted in the resident refusing to provide evidence. This Service has not seen any evidence that the landlord tried to remedy this position. It did not clearly explain the options open to the resident, the use of evidence and why it needed this. If expectations had been better managed and documented in action plans, this would have allowed the resident to understand what was expected of them and what they could expect from the landlord.
The landlord arranged a multi-agency meeting with the resident on 17 August 2022 to discuss the alleged ASB and community trigger. However, the resident cancelled the meeting and said the landlord should have written to her first stating what actions it was taking. The landlord’s ASB policy states the resident will be advised in writing of any actions taken. The landlord acted appropriately by waiting until it had met with the resident before sending a written response. The landlord needed to understand the nature of the ASB, what evidence the resident could provide and her desired outcome. This would have determined the actions of the landlord.
The landlord’s ASB policy states it will try to resolve ASB cases within 1 month. Although landlords should try to resolve ASB complaints as soon as possible, it is unlikely this timescale would be achieved in most cases and therefore is not helpful in setting residents expectations. The landlord acted appropriately in keeping the resident’s case open longer than this. In its letter dated 19 August 2022, the landlord told the resident the case remained open and any action taken would be determined by the evidence received. The landlord repeated its offer to arrange a meeting to discuss the ASB. However, the evidence does not show the landlord explored all alternative options available to it.
The resident provided diary sheets on 14 October 2022 which reported further verbal abuse. The landlord responded on 17 October 2022, and although the noise nuisance was discussed with the resident, there is no evidence the landlord discussed the reported verbal abuse. The landlord’s ASB policy states in its communication with the resident it will provide support and further advice if required. The landlord acted inappropriately as it should respond to all issues being reported in line with its ASB policy and explore all available options to resolve the case.
On 11 November 2022, the landlord issued its stage 2 response. The landlord addressed its actions around the noise nuisance but did not discuss the other ASB issues. The landlord did repeat its offer to arrange a meeting with the community safety team to discuss the resident’s reports of ASB, and mediation and a transfer to alternative accommodation. Although, it is positive these options were repeatedly offered, the landlord did not explore them fully with the resident. There is no evidence the landlord explained the different forms of mediation with the resident and the neighbour, to see if there was a preferred method they would agree to. The resident stated she refused the offer of alternative accommodation because the rent was too high. We would have expected to see the landlord explore why the resident thought it was unaffordable and signpost her to support services for advice around affordability and income maximisation.
In summary, the landlord kept the ASB case open whilst it waited for the resident to agree to a multi-agency meeting and submit further evidence, it maintained regular communication with the resident and offered meetings, mediation, and alternative accommodation to try to resolve the ASB.
However, the impact on the resident was significant as she was not living in the property. The landlord failed to assess the risk and detriment to the resident and her household. There was an over reliance on the EPT and the noise issues, with the other reported matters around the ASB complaint were not fully addressed. Although the landlord had regular contact with the resident, the relationship had broken down and no evidence was provided to show the landlord took steps to recover this position. Whilst it was positive that the resident was offered mediation and alternative accommodation, these options were not fully explained or explored with the resident.
Based on the above, the Ombudsman finds maladministration for the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of ASB.

The landlord’s handing of the resident’s reports of noise nuisance

There is evidence the landlord communicated with the resident in a timely manner and was proactive in seeking updates and gathering evidence on the alleged noise nuisance. The landlord acted in line with its ASB policy and offered the resident alternative methods of communication to submit evidence to try to resolve the case as quickly as possible. This included email, messaging platforms, home visits and meetings. It was appropriate for the landlord to support the resident in providing evidence and it demonstrated it took the resident’s concerns seriously.
There was a delay of 20 working days due to the resident’s diary sheets going missing. From the evidence it was clear the landlord could not identify the diary sheets and took reasonable steps once it found them. The landlord contacted the resident on 29 July 2022, the same day it found the diary sheets, and stated it would review them and decide what action to take. It did not tell the resident when she should expect a response. However, the landlord updated the resident 4 working days later, this was within a reasonable timeframe.
As this was an ongoing noise complaint it was reasonable the landlord sought specialist advice from an ASB officer. The landlord followed up its email with a phone call to the resident on 8 August 2022 to discuss what further evidence the residence could obtain. It said it was going to make a referral to EPT for noise monitoring equipment to be installed. The timescale and method in which the landlord responded to the resident was reasonable and fair in the circumstances.
In relation to the resident’s on going reports of noise nuisance it was appropriate the landlord made a referral to the EPT. However, the landlord did not manage the resident’s expectations in relation to the processes or the timescales for the installation of noise monitoring equipment. On 19 and 31 August 2022, the landlord told the resident the EPT would contact her to organise the installation of the equipment. However, on 2 September 2022 the EPT told the landlord it did not have enough evidence to install the equipment. This caused the resident frustration and she became reluctant to provide further evidence. The landlord attempted to put this right by offering a home visit and a meeting to collect further evidence so the equipment could be installed. There is no evidence the resident agreed to the visit or an appointment.
The resident provided further diary sheets on 14 October 2022, which resulted in the EPT agreeing to install the noise monitoring equipment on 8 November 2022. The resident told the landlord there was no point in installing the equipment as she had sold furniture from the house and moved into the summerhouse. The landlord acted reasonably by stating it still wanted to install the equipment, but it set the resident’s expectations that the equipment may not work effectively if it was installed in an area that is not lived in.
In the stage 2 response the landlord apologised for the delay in arranging the installation of the noise-monitoring equipment. It said this was due to some equipment being temporarily unavailable. The landlord should have policies and procedures in place to ensure effective communication with the EPT, so any issues can be communicated to the resident when they arise. It is a landlord’s responsibility for keeping the resident informed and updated. However, as the delay was short and the resident had declined the offer of the installation, the detriment of the delay did not significantly impact the resident.
In summary the landlord communicated well with the resident and appropriately sought to manage the reported noise nuisance using the tools available to it. It offered the resident a meeting to discuss the noise monitoring equipment. Although the landlord did not appropriately manage the resident’s expectations with the installation of the noise monitoring equipment and there was a short delay with the equipment being available for installation. The landlord acknowledged its failings, apologised to the resident, and stated what steps it was taking to put things right.
The Ombudsman has therefore concluded there was reasonable redress in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s report of noise nuisance.

The landlord’s handing of the resident’s related complaint

The resident submitted a complaint on 25 July 2022. The landlord failed to acknowledge the residents’ complaint within 5 working days as per the Ombudsman’s complaint handling code (the Code). If a landlord knows it cannot meet the relevant timescales it must keep the resident updated on when to expect a response.
On 6 June 2022, the resident contacted this Service as she had not received a response. Following contact by this Service, the landlord issued its stage 1 response after 27 working days on 31 August 2022. This is longer than the 10 working days stated in the Code. In its response the landlord did not acknowledge or apologise for the delay. This was an inappropriate delay. The landlord’s poor communication resulted in stress and inconvenience for the resident as she had to chase the landlord for a response.
The resident asked to escalate her complaint on 16 August 2022. This Service acknowledges the resident escalated her complaint before the landlord issued its stage 1 response. However, it was clear this request was due to the frustration from awaiting an update. It would have been reasonable for the landlord to acknowledge the receipt of the resident’s email on 16 August 2022, explain its complaints procedure and give a date on when the resident should expect its response.
On 18 October 2022, this Service wrote to the landlord and asked it to provide its stage 2 response by 15 November 2022. However, the evidence provided shows the resident wrote to the landlord in response to its stage 1 complaint response on the 21 October 2022. The landlord issued its stage 2 complaint response on 11 November 2022. Therefore, this Service finds the landlord acted appropriately as it responded within its 20 working day response time. The landlord addressed all the resident’s concerns in relation to the current complaint that she raised in her emails dated 16 August and 21 October 2022. It stated what action it would take to resolve these issues, apologised for delays, and recognised the importance of keeping the resident updated. This showed learning and that the landlord wanted to put things right.
In its response the landlord told the resident she could escalate her complaint to the local government and social care ombudsman when it should have referred her to the housing ombudsman. As the resident was in touch with us throughout the complaint procedure this did not impact the resident. However, the landlord must make sure it is referring residents to the correct ombudsman.
In summary, landlords must have an effective complaint process to provide a good service to its residents. An effective complaint process means landlords can fix problems quickly, learn from its mistakes and build good relationships with residents. In this case the landlord did not acknowledge the resident’s complaint until this Service asked it to and it did not respond to the stage 1 complaint within its target timescales. The landlord did not acknowledge these failings in its complaint response or offer the resident reasonable redress.
Based on the above, the Ombudsman finds service failure for the failures identified in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in respect of the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of ASB.
In accordance with paragraph 53 (b) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was reasonable redress in respect of the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of noise nuisance.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure in respect of the landlord’s complaint handling.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

The Ombudsman orders the landlord to provide a written apology to the resident for the failings identified in this report. This must be from a senior member of staff within 4 weeks of the date of this decision.
The landlord is ordered to pay the resident £450 compensation within 4 weeks of the date of this decision. This is comprised of:
1. £350 to reflect the stress and inconvenience caused to the resident by the failings identified in the landlord’s handling of her reports of ASB.
2. £100 to reflect the stress and inconvenience caused to the resident by the failings identified in the landlord’s complaint handling.

Recommendations

If it has not already done so the landlord should self-assess against the Ombudsman’s spotlight report on noise complaints.
The landlord should make sure its ASB policy is accessible to all residents. This Service has been unable to locate the landlord’s ASB policy online since it merged to North Yorkshire Council.
If it has not already done so the landlord should review its ASB policy. The landlord should consider what it is trying to achieve by having a timescale of 1 month to resolve ASB cases, and whether this appropriately manages its residents expectations.