Chelmer Housing Partnership Limited (202122681)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202122681

Chelmer Housing Partnership Limited

25 March 2024

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 antisocial behaviour (ASB) and noise nuisance and her request to move.

Background and summary of events

The resident is an assured tenant of the landlord. She lives in a 1-bedroom ground floor flat. The resident has advised that she suffers with anxiety and depression. The landlord has no vulnerabilities listed on the resident’s customer record.
The landlord’s ASB policy sets out that it does not consider minor differences in lifestyle to be ASB. It states that noise nuisance, which it defines as any “loud or persistent noise causing the resident concern”, should usually be reported to the local authority in the first instance.
The landlord’s complaints policy sets out a 2-stage process. Stage 1 responses should be provided in 10 working days. Stage 2 involves an appeal panel, which should take place within 15 working days of the escalation request. After this, it should send an appeal panel outcome letter (stage 2 complaint response) within 5 working days.
On 11 May 2021 the landlord noted contact from the resident. She said she had requested a visit from the landlord the previous week, but no one had been in touch. She said she was being “targeted” by neighbours but she was unsure who. She said “stuff” had been thrown at her property and her car scratched and damaged. The landlord created a task that day to arrange to visit the resident. The same day the landlord noted it attempted to visit the resident at home and later spoke to her. It noted it discussed her concerns and that:
1. there was no evidence who may have “thrown carrots” into her property and that CCTV did not cover the area.
2. the resident said she had reported the issue to the police and would update the landlord about this.
Later in May 2021 the landlord wrote to the resident about a request she had made to move on medical grounds. It noted she had a medical condition but said that it had assessed that the type of property she had was not a contributing factor. It said the resident had been assessed as band 5 (a social tenant with a desire to move). It also noted that the resident had reported threats and that these had been passed to the relevant team for investigation. The same day the landlord sent an internal email noting the resident had said she had received verbal and physical threats and asked that someone contact her to investigate. The following day an officer for the landlord responded internally that she had spoken to the resident the previous week. The officer noted:
1. The resident had reported an incident of carrots thrown in her garden and damage to the windscreen wiper on her car, which she felt someone had done.
2. The landlord considered there was no evidence to support this.
3. The resident had not reported threats of any kind.
4. The landlord would contact the resident about this.
The landlord created a task to contact the resident, which was marked as complete on 24 May 2021. However, it did not record detail of any further contact with the resident.
The resident made further reports of ASB to the landlord on 25 October 2021. She said her upstairs neighbour was loud and was keeping her awake, and that she was running an air conditioning unit that vibrated on the floor. In early November 2021 the resident chased the matter and said she was struggling to sleep and that her neighbour had wooden floors.
An officer for the landlord recorded on 17 November 2021 that they spoke to the resident about her noise concerns. The officer noted they had also spoken to her neighbour above, who said she did not have an air conditioning unit or anything similar. The officer said they would attend to investigate further and asked that the resident continue to keep a record of noise.
On 24 November 2021 the landlord noted a visit to the resident to check noise from the neighbour above. It noted:
1. the resident had logged noise which included walking, stomping and sneezing.
2. it advised that it would not act on such noise as it was “daily living”.
3. it had attended the flat above and had seen a fan and an air purifier, neither of which made a vibrating noise.
4. it asked the resident to “video” the next time she heard the vibrating noise.
The landlord made further contact with the resident later that day after she had attended a ‘meet the Housing Ombudsman’ event that the landlord held. It noted she had expressed concerns about the lack of assistance she was receiving to move house. It arranged to call the resident about this, but no record of this call has been provided. Subsequently, on 8 December 2021, the resident sent the landlord medical evidence for it to review in respect of her request to move on medical grounds. The following day the landlord passed this information on to be reviewed at its housing allocation panel.
On 12 January 2022 the landlord noted internally that it had reviewed the information the resident had provided at an allocations panel on 16 December 2021. It decided the information submitted was “too old”, as it was mainly information from 2018, and that it would need more up-to-date medical evidence. It wrote to the resident the same day to advise her of this.
In February 2022 the resident raised a complaint with the landlord. She said she had been asking to be moved for 4 years because of ASB and medical reasons. She expressed her dissatisfaction that the landlord was requesting up-to-date medical information. She said she had submitted this evidence to the landlord when it was current, and she considered it should have acted on it at that time. The resident also said:
1. she considered her medical condition was deteriorating and she had updated the landlord, but it failed to address the issues.
2. she was experiencing noise from the property above due to it having no carpet and because of an air conditioning unit which vibrated, and she was experiencing sleep deprivation.
3. because of her medical condition she needed “privacy and compassion” and that her neighbours’ behaviour made her fearful for her safety.
4. rubbish had been thrown onto her plants and her car damaged and scratched but the landlord had done nothing about it.
The landlord provided its stage 1 response to the resident on 23 February 2022. It said:
1. it had spoken to the resident’s neighbour who had denied having an air conditioning unit.
2. it had seen an appliance but was unable to determine if this was an air conditioning unit.
3. it had reminded the resident’s neighbour to be mindful of others in the block but had found no tenancy breach.
4. it had found no evidence the noise was excessive, antisocial or intentional, so it had taken no formal action against her neighbour.
5. it noted the resident said she heard her neighbour’s movements. It said carpet was not a requirement in its flats and so it was a choice for residents to make. While it “recommended” that residents install carpets this was not mandatory.
6. after the resident raised concerns about the lack of assistance, she had received to help her move, it asked her to send in new or supplementary evidence about the impact of her current home.
7. the evidence the resident submitted in December 2021 was reviewed by its allocations panel and found to be from prior to 2018.
8. it apologised if it had not made clear that current evidence was needed to review the resident’s banding. It encouraged the resident to provide this information and to make contact if she had any questions.
The landlord concluded that it had not found any tenancy breaches in respect of her ASB reports but it apologised that she had needed to chase a response to her report of October 2021. It said it was sorry the resident felt unsupported when the landlord assessed her banding. It acknowledged there had been a breakdown of communication where it delayed responding to the resident and an occasion when it had not provided her with any response. It apologised for this and said it would investigate this further internally to prevent this happening in the future.
The resident requested that her complaint be escalated on 8 March 2022. She said:
1. a member of the landlord’s staff had previously seen the air conditioning unit in her neighbour’s flat and she was still hearing it vibrating.
2. the log she had made of noise from her neighbour had been reviewed only once by the landlord and no action was taken following this.
3. she had previously sent an email to the landlord asking how she could appeal the allocations panel refusal of her request to move but received no response.
4. she expressed concern that the landlord would not act on any new medical evidence she had provided, as it had not acted on such evidence previously. She said she had been asking to move for 4 years.
The landlord held an appeal meeting with the resident on 14 March 2022. It noted that:
1. the resident said the person living above her had no carpet due to allergies and this meant that noise echoed.
2. the resident was open to mediation with her neighbour in respect of her noise concerns.
3. it told the resident that its banding system considered whether health conditions were being met or were being impacted by the property. It said this would need to be evidenced by a doctor or other health professional. It said the proof of this did not appear to have been conveyed in previous evidence supplied by the resident.
On 21 March 2022 the landlord issued its stage 2 complaint response to the resident. In this it said:
1. it had investigated the resident’s noise report about her neighbour but did not consider the noise to be antisocial so had taken no action.
2. it considered it had followed the correct processes when investigating her ASB concerns and assessing the available evidence around her banding.
3. based on the information shared it considered the noise the resident had reported was ‘everyday living’ and that it had acted proportionately. However, it said it would support the resident in arranging noise monitoring and advised how she could make contact to arrange this.
4. it would arrange for its team to contact the resident to arrange mediation.
5. it would consider any further evidence the resident provided in respect of the banding decision.
In April 2022 the landlord noted that it had spoken to the resident and her neighbour to agree mediation and that referrals for this were submitted. In August 2022 the mediation service provided the landlord with an update. It said it had met with both parties individually, but the resident had been unwilling to proceed with a joint meeting with her neighbour.
The resident told us that the mediation with her neighbour in August 2022 had not resolved matters and that she was still experiencing noise. She said that after she provided the landlord with updated medical evidence it moved her to band 4 in September 2022. However, she considered she should be in a higher band.
The resident said:
1. there was still confusion over whether her neighbour had an air conditioning unit or not.
2. the landlord had only looked briefly at her log of noise issues and had then done nothing about it.
3. the landlord had concluded that rubbish left on her plant was from foxes, she did not believe this.
4. she was dissatisfied that the landlord had concluded there was no evidence neighbours had damaged her car.
5. she wanted the landlord to clarify whether she could install her own CCTV.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

When bringing her complaint to the landlord in February 2022, the resident raised concerns about its handling of ASB issues she had experience with a previous resident in 2019. She also expressed concerns about the landlord’s handling of her request to move over a number of years. The Ombudsman encourages residents to raise complaints with landlords in a timely manner. This is because the passage of time makes it difficult for a thorough investigation to be completed and for informed decisions to be made. Taking this into account, this investigation has focussed on period from May 2021. This is when the resident made a report of ASB to the landlord and when the landlord wrote to the resident about her request to move on medical grounds.
It is also noted that the resident raised concerns about ASB incidents she has experienced since the landlord issued its stage 2 response in March 2022. It would be appropriate for the resident to raise any concerns she has about the handling of these reports as a new complaint with the landlord. If she remains dissatisfied after exhausting the landlord’s complaints procedure, she can then bring this complaint to us.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of ASB, noise nuisance and her request to move

Request to move on medical grounds

We acknowledge the resident’s concern about the landlord’s banding decision. But we cannot make a decision on banding or whether the banding decided on by the landlord was fair/reasonable. However, we have assessed how the landlord handled the resident’s request and responded to her concerns about the process.
The landlord wrote to the resident in May 2021 outlining its decision that she had been assessed as band 5. In making her complaint the resident outlined frustration about subsequent communication with the landlord about this decision and said that she had received no response to her query about how she could appeal this. The landlord took steps to address these concerns by arranging to call the resident. This was reasonable. However, no record of this call has been provided. It would have been appropriate for the landlord to detail what it discussed with the resident at this time so it could clearly show that appropriate steps were taken to address and respond to her concerns. That it did not was a shortcoming in record keeping. It subsequently corresponded with the resident in December 2021 about submitting medical evidence for it to review. However, it is not apparent that it made clear to the resident at this time that medical evidence provided would need to be current. The landlord should have been clear about this to avoid the resident’s frustration and disappointment at finding that the evidence she had taken time to submit was not sufficient.
The landlord decided at a panel meeting on 16 December 2021 that it could not decide based on the medical evidence the resident had provided. But it delayed until 12 January 2022 to tell her this. It is unclear why the landlord delayed, but it would have been appropriate to communicate this to the resident at the earliest opportunity. This delay would no doubt have added to the frustration at finding evidence submitted was insufficient.
It is acknowledged that the resident raised concerns about whether the landlord has appropriately taken account of medical evidence provided, and that she remains unhappy with the banding decision. It is not for us to direct the landlord on how to consider the medical evidence submitted. In its stage 2 response the landlord said proof did not appear to have been conveyed in previous evidence supplied by the resident. This is a matter for the landlord to consider with reference to its allocations policy. However, as identified by the landlord during its complaint response, there were some shortcomings its communications with the resident about her request to move. This and the landlord’s failure to be clear that current medical evidence was needed to review its decision, would have caused the resident some frustration. It was positive that the landlord apologised for this and undertook to further investigate the issues the resident had experienced in communicating about her request to move. We have recommended that, if it has not done so already, the landlord share with the resident what it has done to ensure the issues she experienced with communication are not repeated.

Handling of the resident’s reports of ASB and noise nuisance

The resident told the landlord on 25 October 2021 of issues with noise from her upstairs neighbour. This was specifically around noise due to them having wooden floors and their use of what the resident believed to be an air conditioning unit. The resident outlined to the landlord that these noise issues were stopping her from sleeping.
The resident expressed some dissatisfaction with the lack of certainty around whether the landlord had identified an air conditioning unit in her neighbour’s property. In responding to the resident’s complaint, the landlord stated that it had not been able to determine if the appliance it had seen was an air conditioning unit. While this did not provide the clarity the resident was seeking, the crucial issue here was whether the landlord took sufficient and appropriate steps to address her reports of noise.
The evidence we have seen shows that the landlord contacted the resident in November 2021 about her reports, that it visited her to observe the issue and view logs she had kept. It also noted at this time that it had visited the neighbour and had not seen an air conditioning unit or any equipment that vibrated. While the landlord directed the resident to record when she heard vibrating noises, there was more it could reasonably have done to explore the issues the she reported.
The landlord’s ASB policy set out that it does not consider minor differences in lifestyle to constitute ASB. But the landlord was aware of the resident’s concern that her neighbour’s wooden floors were leading to greater noise transference, and that she had outlined sleep difficulties. While it set out in its complaints responses that it did not require its residents to carpet floors, it should still have considered whether the type of flooring in the property above was leading to increased noise.
The Ombudsman’s spotlight report on noise was published after the events complained about, however, it makes a number of recommendations around noise transference. It states that landlords should adopt a good neighbourhood management strategy with clear options for maintaining good neighbourhood relationships. This includes recognising that noise transference is often the key issue and address the implications of this. There is no evidence the landlord explored any ways in which noise transference the resident had reported could be minimised. It is acknowledged that the noise may not have been caused deliberately, but the resident was reporting the impact it was having on her. Given this, and that the landlord was aware of the lack of carpet in the property above, there was more it could reasonably have done to establish and monitor the degree of noise the resident was experiencing. That would have allowed the landlord to make an informed decision about the appropriate steps to address the resident’s concerns about the noise. For instance, in addition to asking the resident to keep logs the landlord could have taking steps to arrange noise monitoring at an earlier stage. That it did not offer to do this until its stage 2 response, nearly 5 months after the resident raised concerns, was a failing.
In bringing her complaint to us the resident said the landlord looked at her noise logs then “did nothing”. While this may not have been the landlord’s intention, advising the resident that the noise she was experiencing was “daily living” noise left her with the impression that it was dismissing or doing nothing about her reports. Had it taken steps earlier to offer to arrange noise monitoring it could have avoided this. While its later offer of mediation was positive, ultimately this was unlikely to have any significant or lasting impact on the issues the resident had reported with noise transference.
The resident told us that issues with noise are ongoing. With this in mind, we have ordered that the landlord contact the resident to reoffer her assistance in noise monitoring. It should also consider what steps are appropriate to address the resident’s noise transference concerns, in line with the Ombudsman’s spotlight report on noise. While it is noted that the landlord has said it does not require residents to install carpets, the spotlight report includes a recommendation that new tenancy agreements for flats with other homes below should include clauses that hard flooring is not permitted. In light of this a recommendation has been made that the landlord undertake a review to ensure this is appropriately considered for new tenancy agreements.
It is noted that the resident remains concerned about the landlord’s handling of her reports in May 2021 of damage to her car and of rubbish left on her property. While we acknowledge the resident’s frustration, the evidence demonstrates that the landlord took appropriate steps to contact her about this and that it was unable to progress the matter because of lack of evidence. Furthermore, the landlord’s actions were in accordance with its ASB policy. The resident outlined to us that she would like clarification of what CCTV she is allowed to install at her property. As such, a recommendation has been made that the landlord contact her to provide information about its policy on this.
When assessing the resident’s request to move on medical grounds in May 2021 the landlord noted she had reported physical and verbal threats. While this was passed the appropriate team, who undertook to make contact, there is no detail of what it subsequently did about this. A task was raised to contact the resident, and this was noted as complete on 24 May 2021, but the landlord did not appropriately record the outcome of any contact. The landlord noted it had recently been in contact with the resident, and that she had not raised threats of any kind. But, given the nature of the report, the landlord should have recorded the outcome of any contact with the resident about this, to demonstrate it was acting in accordance with its ASB policy. That it did not was a shortcoming in its record keeping. It is acknowledged, however, that we have seen no evidence the resident made further reports about this.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of her reports of ASB, noise nuisance and her request to move.

Orders and Recommendations

Orders

Within 4 weeks of the date of this report:
1. write the resident to apologise for the failings identified in its handling of her handling of her reports of ASB, noise nuisance and her request to move.
2. make a payment to the resident of £200 compensation, comprised of:
  1. £150 for the impact of the failings identified in its handling of her reports of noise nuisance.
  2. £50 for the impact of the failings identified in its handling of her request to move.
3. contact the resident to reoffer to her assistance in noise monitoring. It should also consider what steps are appropriate to address the resident’s noise transference concerns, in line with the Ombudsman’s spotlight report on noise.
4. contact the resident to ensure that any threats she reported have been appropriately investigated.

Recommendations

Within 4 weeks of the date of this report the landlord should:
1. contact the resident to provide her with details of its CCTV policy and explain what CCTV she is permitted to install.
2. contact the resident to ensure it has accurately recorded her vulnerabilities.
3. share with the resident what it has done to ensure the issues she experienced with communication when requesting to move are not repeated.
Within 6 weeks of the date of this report, with reference to the Ombudsman’s spotlight report on noise, the landlord should undertake a review to ensure:
1. it is appropriately considering the recommendations of the spotlight report with regards to new tenancy agreements.
2. it has adequate policies and processes in place to take account of the findings and recommendations of the spotlight report in respect of noise transference.