The new improved webform is online now! Residents and representatives can access the form online today.

Incommunities Limited (202234772)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202234772

Incommunities Limited

25 July 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

  1. The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of noise nuisance.

Background

  1. The resident has an assured tenancy with the landlord. The property is a one-bedroom flat. The landlord has recorded that the resident suffers from anxiety and mental health issues.
  2. On 27 April 2022 the resident reported to the landlord that she was experiencing noise nuisance from a neighbour living above her. When informal action did not resolve the noise nuisance, the landlord made an application to court for an injunction order with power of arrest against the resident’s neighbour. This was granted by the court on 14 December 2022 and served on 14 January 2023. The injunction order was regarding antisocial behaviour including noise nuisance and the condition of the property.
  3. On 10 May 2023 the resident raised a complaint with the landlord. She was unhappy with the landlord’s handling of her reports of noise nuisance and felt her neighbour had breached the court order. The resident was dissatisfied with the landlord’s communication. She advised the neighbour’s intercom did not work which meant the concierge was unable to contact the neighbour when he was causing noise nuisance. The resident felt the landlord showed no duty of care towards her and expressed she felt suicidal because of the noise nuisance.
  4. The landlord issued its stage 1 response on 26 May 2023. It said it would not discuss the property conditions of the injunction order with the resident as that was between the landlord and the neighbour. The landlord said it would return to court if the injunction order was breached but it had not received any evidence to prove noise from the neighbour’s property was excessively loud. It said due to a lack of evidence it currently could not return to court. The landlord advised it had 5 working days to reply to emails and was sorry if she had not received a timely response. It asked for specific examples when it had not responded in time so it could investigate further. The landlord advised that it had contacted its repairs department and expressed the urgency of the intercom repair to the neighbour’s property. It said it was saddened to hear how the resident had been affected by the noise nuisance and said it had asked the resident’s neighbourhood officer to contact her to discuss her support needs. The landlord said it did not offer mental health support but could signpost her and refer her to agencies that might be able to help.
  5. On 1 June 2023 the resident escalated her complaint. She was dissatisfied with the landlord’s responses to her questions. The resident provided two examples in May 2023 when she had not received a reply from the landlord. She said she was aware of the difference between general domestic noise and noise nuisance. The resident stated she was experiencing noise nuisance and felt the injunction order had been breached. She requested the landlord reviewed her questions and provide adequate answers.
  6. The landlord issued its stage 2 response on 28 June 2023. It reiterated it would not discuss the property conditions of the injunction order with the resident as that was between the landlord and the neighbour. The landlord confirmed the intercom repair had been completed. It partially upheld the complaint regarding communication and delays in responses. The landlord apologised for the emails that the resident sent on 7 May 2023 which had not been acknowledged. It said the officer apologised and this was an oversight. The landlord explained the recordings it had received did not evidence ongoing, excessively loud or persistent noise nuisance. It also stated environmental health said the recordings were not considered to be statutory nuisance so there was no evidence of the injunction order being breached. The landlord said it hand delivered 2 letters to the resident’s property which offered the resident further support through referrals to agencies, but she had not taken up this offer. It advised the resident this offer was still available.
  7. On 3 July 2023 the resident contacted this Service as she was dissatisfied with the landlord’s final response. The resident felt the landlord had not answered her questions regarding the court order and had not kept her updated. She was unhappy with the length of time the process had taken to get to court and felt she had not been supported. The resident wanted the neighbour moved or for the landlord to offer her another property.

 

Assessment and findings

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of noise nuisance.

  1. The landlord’s antisocial behaviour (ASB) and hate crime policy defines antisocial behaviour as “conduct capable of causing nuisance or annoyance to any person”, in line with the Antisocial Behaviour, Crime and Policing Act 2014. The policy summarises the landlord’s approach to managing ASB which includes “support and prevention”, “enforcement tools”, “support for victims and witnesses” and “partnership working”.
  2. The landlord’s tenancy agreement states “You should keep noise to a minimum between the hours of 11pm and 7.30am”. It defines “playing a radio, television or amplified music loudly” and “banging on walls or ceilings” as nuisance.
  3. On 27 April 2022 the resident reported noise nuisance by her neighbour to the landlord. The landlord opened an ASB case on the same date. It conducted a “complainant interview” with the resident on 28 April 2022. This was in line with its policy which stated, “We will contact the complainant to take details of the complaint within 5 working days”. At this meeting the landlord issued the resident with an ASB action plan which listed the actions the landlord was going to take in response to the report of noise nuisance. The action plan stated the resident would be supplied with ASB incident logs to complete, the landlord would contact other complainants, collect evidence and request a “handy recorder” for the resident to record the noise. The action plan stated the neighbour would not be contacted at this stage. It said the neighbour would be contacted after the ASB incident logs had been received. Both the resident and landlord signed this action plan. The action plan was appropriate and a proportionate response. It managed the resident’s expectations of the steps the landlord was going to take.
  4. The landlord completed the tasks listed on the ASB action plan which was appropriate, and resolution focused. Complainant interviews took place with other tenants within the block on 3 May 2022. These tenants were also issued with ASB incident logs and recording devices. While the resident and other tenants completed the logs and took recordings, the landlord issued a letter on 16 May 2022 to all residents in the block including the resident’s neighbour who was causing the noise nuisance. The letter stated the landlord was aware that “loud music with a heavy bass” was being played late at night and throughout the day. The landlord said it was investigating the issue to ensure it did not continue. It asked for anyone affected by the noise to contact their neighbourhood officer. This was an appropriate and reasonable approach to gather more evidence about the noise nuisance from other tenants.
  5. After the landlord received the completed ASB incident logs and recordings from the resident and other tenants, the landlord wrote to the resident’s neighbour on 14 June 2022. It arranged to meet with the neighbour on 21 June 2022. The landlord carried out a “perpetrator interview” at this meeting and discussed an action plan with the neighbour which was appropriate and proportionate. On the same date, after the meeting, the landlord wrote to the resident’s neighbour and issued him with a formal tenancy warning. It stated it was satisfied the complaints about him discussed at the meeting were true and quoted sections of the tenancy agreement which he had breached. The neighbour was advised that he should keep noise to a minimum between the hours of 11pm and 7.30am which was appropriate and in line with the terms of the landlord’s tenancy agreement. The landlord advised the neighbour that legal proceedings against him might be initiated if it continued to receive further substantiated reports of tenancy breaches.
  6. The approach the landlord took with the resident’s neighbour was appropriate and in line with its policy which states it may issue written warnings to tenants about their conduct. The landlord’s ASB and hate crime policy states, “Officers will interview the complainant and perpetrator (if possible) before issuing a warning and must be satisfied that there is evidence of unreasonable behaviour”. The landlord’s written warning also complied with its policy which states “Warnings will be specific about what behaviour has caused the issue and the consequences of non-compliance”. On 22 June 2022 the landlord wrote to the resident’s neighbour to provide the action plan which had been discussed the previous day in the meeting. It arranged to re-visit the neighbour and made a referral to a support agency. This was appropriate and in line with its policy which states the landlord “will adopt a twin track approach to ASB and hate incidents which balances the provision of support and intervention to address underlying needs with the use of enforcement action to bring an end to ASB and hate incidents”.
  7. The landlord repeatedly addressed the resident’s neighbour’s behaviour in writing and during visits to his property. It issued a final warning to the resident’s neighbour on 22 July 2022, in line with its policy. When reports of noise nuisance continued, the landlord referred the case to its tenancy enforcement team on 16 August 2022. This resulted in the landlord making an application to the court and it was granted an injunction order with power of arrest against the resident’s neighbour on 14 December 2022.  The resident stated her frustration at the length of time it took for the case to get taken to court. While the Ombudsman appreciates this, the landlord needed to go through the steps stated within its policy to demonstrate it had taken the appropriate action and had the relevant evidence before approaching the court.
  8. The resident said she experienced continued noise nuisance from her neighbour after the court injunction order had been served on 14 January 2023. The evidence showed the resident had made 3 reports of noise nuisance on 30 April 2023, 1 May and 7 May 2023. The landlord said 3 reports did not demonstrate persistent noise nuisance. In line with its policy the landlord worked in partnership with the local council’s environmental health department. The environmental health officer advised the landlord that the noise recorded by the resident was not considered a statutory nuisance. The officer said the noises were “general living noises such as cupboard doors closing, walking around etc” and “very short in duration which further indicates that they are general living noises”. The volume levels were also not deemed high enough to be considered a statutory nuisance. The environmental health officer said formal notices would not be appropriate and suggested mediation.
  9. The landlord followed the advice of the environmental health officer which was reasonable and appropriate. It offered the resident and her neighbour mediation, but this did not go ahead as the neighbour declined the offer. On 1 June 2023 the landlord received reports from the resident of loud music and door banging by the neighbour. On the same day, it issued the neighbour with a “letter before action”. It reminded the neighbour of the terms of the injunction order and the consequences of breaching it. This was an immediate and appropriate response from the landlord. This demonstrated that when noise was deemed a nuisance the landlord acted proportionately and in a timely manner. The landlord acted in line with its policy which states “We make a commitment to take timely, consistent and proportionate action to tackle all forms of ASB and hate incidents”.
  10. The resident was unhappy with the landlord’s communication and raised this in her complaint. In its stage 1 response the landlord stated that the neighbourhood officer and tenancy enforcement officer had kept the resident informed of updates regarding the case. It said its policy was 5 working days to respond to residents’ communications. The landlord apologised if the resident had not received timely responses and asked the resident to provide specific examples so it could investigate. This was reasonable.
  11. This Service has only received copies of communication between the landlord and the resident about the complaint the resident made. However, the evidence showed other communication would have occurred between both parties as a complainant interview was arranged and diary sheets and recording devices were sent to the resident. The landlord also provided the resident with a copy of the injunction order. Without copies of these communications this Service is unable to establish if the landlord kept the resident updated on the case and communicated within a timely manner and/or responded in line with its policy of 5 working days. However, when the resident escalated her complaint to stage 2, she provided 2 examples of when she had not received timely communication from the landlord.
  12. The first example the resident gave of being dissatisfied with the landlord’s communication was regarding 3 emails she sent to the landlord on 7 May 2023. The resident said these emails had not been acknowledged. In its stage 2 response the landlord apologised for not confirming receipt of these emails and said it was an oversight. It confirmed the emails had been actioned. The second example the resident gave was regarding a delay in the resident receiving a report from the local council’s environmental health department. The evidence showed the landlord chased this up with the environmental health department on 23 May 2023 and advised internally that a holding email should be sent to the resident. However, there was no evidence which showed the resident was contacted about the delay. In its stage 2 response the landlord apologised that the resident had not received the report sooner. It was appropriate and reasonable that the landlord apologised. While these 2 instances might have been frustrating for the resident, in the Ombudsman’s view there was no detriment to the resident caused by these oversights.
  13. When the resident contacted this Service on 3 July 2023, she said the landlord had not answered her questions regarding the court order. In its stage 1 response the landlord advised the resident it would not discuss this matter because “Property inspection visits that take place at your neighbour’s home are matters between [landlord] and your neighbour”. This was an appropriate and reasonable response. The resident had complained about noise nuisance and was only aware of the property conditions because the landlord had given her a copy of the injunction order. This Service is satisfied by the evidence it has seen that the landlord took appropriate action regarding the property conditions.
  14. The resident stated she felt unsupported by the landlord. The Ombudsman appreciates this would have been a very stressful time for the resident. However, there was a limit on what support the landlord could offer. The evidence showed the landlord acted appropriately and with urgency when the resident said she felt suicidal. On 10 May 2023 when the resident expressed feeling suicidal in her complaint, the landlord attempted to contact the resident the same day. This was appropriate. When the landlord was unable to contact the resident and did not hear back from her, it followed up with a letter on 11 May 2023 which was hand delivered to her property. The letter signposted the resident to appropriate services and provided telephone numbers of support options. The landlord also hand delivered a letter to the resident’s property on 8 June 2023 when there were further concerns about the resident’s welfare. This letter signposted her to appropriate services. This was an appropriate response from the landlord.
  15. The landlord offered to refer the resident to support agencies in letters dated 11 May 2023, 8 June 2023 and in both its stage 1 and stage 2 responses. In its stage 1 response dated 26 May 2023 the landlord attempted to manage the resident’s expectations by advising that it did not offer mental health support. However, it said it could refer the resident to support agencies. The landlord advised it needed the resident’s consent to make the referrals. In its stage 1 response the landlord also signposted the resident appropriately and provided telephone numbers of services that could help. The landlord’s stage 2 response dated 28 June 2023 advised the resident that the referrals to support agencies which it had offered her in its previous 3 letters were still available should the resident wish to access this further support. This was appropriate and reasonable.
  16. Considering the above, the Ombudsman has determined there was no maladministration by the landlord in respect of the resident’s reports of noise nuisance. It acted proportionately and in line with its ASB and hate crime policy. The landlord took appropriate legal action when the evidence supported it. Due to data protection and privacy, it was appropriate that the landlord did not go into detail with the resident in answer to her questions that related to the condition of her neighbour’s property. The landlord worked in partnership with the local council’s environmental health department and offered to refer the resident to support agencies.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was no maladministration by the landlord in respect of its handling of the resident’s reports of noise nuisance.