Eastlight Community Homes Limited (202337462)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202337462

Eastlight Community Homes Limited

2 August 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:
1. The resident’s reports of anti-social behaviour (ASB).
2. The resident’s associated complaint.

Background

The resident and her husband are assured tenants of the landlord, living in a 2-bedroom house. For ease of reference, this report refers to “the resident”, which represents both tenants. The landlord does not have any vulnerabilities recorded for the resident. However, in the course of my investigation, she has disclosed that she suffers from physical and mental health issues.
There has been a longstanding dispute between the resident and her neighbour, with each reporting the other to the landlord, local authority and police for various issues since 2021. On 12 September 2023, the resident reported that the neighbour had installed cat deterrent devices that emitted screeching sounds and a flashing light, which she said had triggered her photosensitive migraines. She also reported, among other things, noise nuisance, surveillance and threatening behaviour, which she said left her fearful for her safety. The landlord referred the nuisance reports to the local authority’s environmental health team and advised the resident to report intimidation and harassment to the police. It suggested mediation, to which the parties agreed.
The resident complained to the landlord about its handling of her ASB reports on 19 October 2023. She said it was unacceptable that it had taken over 2 years for the landlord to visit and witness the situation and its failure to take action in response to her ASB reports had resulted in serious harm to her health.
The stage 1 response, issued on 12 December 2023, stated that the resident’s complaint had not been upheld because:
1. The landlord had dealt appropriately with her ASB reports.
2. It had referred her concerns about the cat deterrents to the environmental health department and requested an inspection of the cavity walls on 18 September 2023 due to the reports of noise transference.
3. At a Community Safety Partnership meeting on 20 September 2023, it was agreed that the evidence submitted sounded like everyday living noise.
4. Her reports regarding children and the position of a trampoline were unreasonable and not progressed.
5. A mediation referral had been made.
The resident responded to the landlord on 23 January 2024, saying she was dissatisfied with the outcome. Whilst environmental health was investigating her reports of light and noise nuisance, she insisted that it was the landlord’s responsibility to deal with her reports of intimidating behaviour, for which she had supplied evidence. She said mediation was not an option for this reason and, also, the neighbour had refused to participate. She felt there was an urgency to close the ASB case, but no one had taken time to visit and witness the issues she had raised. She said the landlord did not appear to have an action plan and she asked how it intended to manage the matter.
The stage 2 complaint was acknowledged on 8 February 2024 and the landlord provided its final response to the resident on 8 April 2024. It upheld her complaint stating:
1. Whilst it had taken appropriate action to try resolve the ASB issues she had reported, decisions and outcomes of investigations were not explained to her and not all the information was considered.
2. A formal action plan had not been developed and, consequently, she did not understand the steps it was taking.
3. As she continued to report ongoing issues with her neighbour, it would reopen her ASB case.
4. It apologised for her not feeling listened to, for not visiting her to investigate/experience the issues she was reporting, not responding to her emails, and not calling her to discuss her complaint at stage 1.
5. To resolve her complaint, a named manager (“the manager”) would prepare an action plan and deliver the outcomes of this.
6. As communication had been an issue, the complaint handler committed to a regular personal phone call for oversight of progress.
The resident referred her complaint to this Service as she feels the landlord has failed to safeguard her as a vulnerable person given she is of pensionable age. She has told this Service that the landlord’s failure to intervene or take any action against her neighbour has resulted in physical health consequences which have ultimately led to her losing her job. She has said she would like her neighbour to be moved.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

This assessment is based on the landlord’s response to the resident’s formal complaint, which is broadly reflected in the above timeline. It may help to explain that the scope of an Ombudsman investigation can be time-limited in relation to when a complaint was brought to the landlord’s attention. It is noted that the resident reported ASB from her neighbour in 2021 but the case was closed due to the intermittent frequency of reports. This assessment is, therefore, focussed on the events from September 2023 onwards, which is the date from which the resident raised new reports of ASB from her neighbour.
The resident has told this Service that the cat deterrents have impacted negatively on her health. This Service recognises that this situation has caused the resident significant distress as she has experienced the issue over several months. Where this Service identifies failure on a landlord’s part, we can consider the resulting distress and inconvenience. However, unlike a court, we cannot establish what caused the health issue, or determine liability and award damages. This would usually be dealt with as a personal injury claim through the courts.

The resident’s reports of anti-social behaviour (ASB) by her neighbour

This investigation has not assessed whether the ASB has taken place, nor does it apportion blame. The investigation has focussed on whether or not the landlord dealt with the resident’s reports reasonably in all the circumstances.
The landlord’s records show that it categorised the resident’s ASB reports as “Category B Verbal abuse/ Harassment/Intimidation/Threatening behaviour”. It completed a risk assessment on 13 September 2023, but the outcome was not clear.
The risk assessment was an opportunity for the landlord to establish the risk posed to the resident and put in place any appropriate support. In line with good recordkeeping practice, the landlord should clearly record the outcome of risk assessments in ASB cases. That being said, the case severity was updated from “standard” to “medium” risk, suggesting there was cause to treat the matter with more consideration. In the circumstances, it acted reasonably in offering to signpost the resident to other sources of help and support.
Records show that the landlord immediately referred the resident’s concerns about the flashing light from the cat deterrents as a potential light nuisance to the local authority’s environmental health team. It also contacted the police for a status update on the resident’s reports of harassment by her neighbour. These were timely and appropriate steps to take given the issues the resident had reported and were consistent with the multi-agency approach referenced in its ASB policy.
An email from the landlord to the environmental health team on 13 September 2023 noted that it had spoken to the neighbour about relocating the cat deterrents but they refused as they alleged the resident’s cats were soiling their garden. Therefore, environmental health would need to carry out an investigation. This demonstrates that the landlord took steps to try to find an early resolution to this aspect of the resident’s reports, which was appropriate.
In its email to the resident later the same day, the landlord stated that the installation of cat deterrents was not a breach of the tenancy and it could only enforce relocation of the devices if environmental health found they were causing a light nuisance. Although the installation of the cat deterrents was not expressly prohibited or subject to consent in the tenancy agreement, it would have been reasonable for the landlord to have carried out its own investigation to ascertain if the nuisance and annoyance being caused constituted a breach of tenancy. That it did not was a failure and demonstrates an over-reliance on the local authority’s investigation.
The landlord acknowledged the resident’s ASB reports on 14 September 2023. Although this was outside the 1-day timeframe specified in the landlord’s ASB policy, it had already taken steps to deal with her concerns by referring a potential nuisance to environmental health, making enquiries of the police, making early contact with the neighbour, and calling the resident to discuss her reports. Therefore, the slight delay in acknowledging the report had no detrimental impact on the resident or its initial handling of the report.
Part of the resident’s complaint to this Service was that no action plan was put in place by the landlord. However, its letter dated 14 September 2023 clearly provided an action plan to deal with the ASB reports. For example, it said that:
1. It needed evidence of ASB in order to take action against perpetrators and asked her to complete diary sheets before it could investigate matters.
2. The resident should report any criminal activity to the police and continue to use the noise app to capture concerns about noise nuisance.
3. It would raise this case at the Community Safety Hub meeting on 20 September 2023 to ensure all partners played an active role in resolving concerns of ASB.
4. It was agreed that it would speak to the neighbour to discuss the resident’s allegations.
5. It suggested mediation to help the parties resolve matters between themselves and asked if she was happy to participate.
6. It offered to refer her to victim support if she required further support.
7. It would review the case in 2 weeks.
Given the nature and number of issues reported by the resident, it was appropriate for the landlord to deal with these under its ASB policy and the proposed actions were reasonable in the circumstances. However, these actions were not managed properly by the landlord. For example, there is no evidence that it reviewed the ASB case as it said it would do in 2 weeks. Also, it appears that the focus of the Community Safety Partnership meeting on 20 September 2023 was the cat deterrents, which was being investigated by the environmental health team. There is no indication that any other aspects of the resident’s ASB reports were considered at this meeting, which was inconsistent with the plan proposed by the landlord.
As required by the landlord, the resident completed and submitted diary sheets, detailing the issues she was experiencing with her neighbour. The landlord’s initial response on 20 September 2023 explained that some of the noise being reported was everyday living noise, on which it could only take action if it amounted to a statutory nuisance, so she should continue to use the noise app to capture future incidents. This advice was inaccurate as the threshold for the landlord to take action for breach of tenancy, including noise reports, is the civil standard (balance of probabilities), which is lower than the threshold required for statutory nuisance (beyond reasonable doubt).
The inaccurate advice given by the landlord was inconsistent with the victim-centred approach it said it would take in its ASB policy applicable at the time. It further highlights that the landlord relied too heavily on the local authority’s investigation.
The landlord could also have been clearer with the resident from the outset about the limitations of its investigation into her reports of everyday living noise and aspects of her concerns that it would not consider or could not investigate. For example, it did not explain that noise from children was not deemed ASB under its policy or that passive aggressive behaviour would be difficult to evidence. Consequently, it mismanaged her expectations and she continued to submit diary sheets reporting ongoing issues that it could not investigate.
The landlord updated the resident on 4 October 2023 following a meeting with the neighbour and its communications with the environmental health team. As the resident did not trust or engage with environmental health’s investigation, the landlord suggested mediation. This was agreed by both parties but the landlord failed to make the mediation referral at the time, which was inappropriate.
The landlord did not respond to the resident’s emails of 6 and 18 October 2023, which was unreasonable and compounded matters further. This caused the resident frustration and distress, as reflected in her emails of 18 and 25 October 2023 and her formal complaint of 19 October 2023 in which she reported feeling physically unwell because of the cat deterrent devices. Her disillusion with the process can also be seen from the final set of diary sheets she completed, dated 24 October 2023, in which she stated that she would no longer contribute as “no one is prepared to intervene or resolve the issue”.
In its emails to the resident on 30 October and 16 November 2023, the landlord explained that its responses to her communications had been delayed because the member of staff dealing with her ASB reports had been absent. This is not acceptable and shows a lack of oversight of the ASB process. Its records state that it made the referral for mediation on 1 November 2023, although this Service has not been provided with evidence of this.
This Service has not been provided with evidence of all the steps the landlord says it took to address the resident’s ASB reports in its stage 1 response. Specifically, we have not seen its correspondence with the neighbour, records of the inspection of the cavity walls, or any evidence that it told the resident it would not investigate everyday living noise or the position of the trampoline in the neighbour’s garden. That is, despite the resident repeatedly reporting these issues, which were clearly causing her distress. In the circumstances, the lack of evidence means this Service cannot be satisfied that it took reasonable steps to properly address these aspects of her reports.
In January 2024, the environmental health team advised the landlord that they could not investigate the resident’s reports about the deterrent devices emitting an inaudible ultrasonic frequency. The police also advised that the matter had been closed without any action. There is no evidence that the landlord updated the resident on how these matters affected her ongoing reports, despite her emails of 12 and 23 January 2024. It continued to signpost her to the local authority and the police, which was unreasonable and further demonstrates its over-reliance on these agencies instead of conducting its own investigation.
The landlord also mishandled the local authority’s communications. There is no evidence it responded to an email of 21 February 2024 asking if it could take any action on any of the matters raised by the resident, further highlighting its failure to consider and address all of the issues in a timely and effective manner. Additionally, it overlooked environmental health’s email of 1 March 2024 querying the status of mediation. It took no action as a result of this email when it would have been reasonable to do so, nor did it update the resident. In fact, it did not make the mediation referral until 13 May 2024, almost 2-and-a-half months after this was brought to its attention, which was unreasonable. The delay prolonged matters for the resident, who continued to report issues, and contributed to her feeling ignored, as per her emails of 8 and 10 May 2024.
Meanwhile, the resident was updated on the outcome of the ASB case review on 3 May 2024: that there was insufficient evidence to meet the threshold for statutory nuisance and formal action. This prompted the landlord’s email to the resident of 7 May 2024, stating that all agencies had taken appropriate measures to address her ASB reports. Dissatisfied with this, the resident queried the action plan referred to in its stage 2 response. Then, on 14 May 2024, it clearly advised that the cat deterrents were not illegal, nor classed as ASB or a breach of tenancy. Similarly, under its policy, children playing was not classed as ASB unless they were damaging the resident’s property. Each matter was confirmed as closed in its email of 20 May 2024.
More recently, on 13 June 2024, the landlord visited the resident in response to her ongoing reports. It told her it would discuss the issues with her neighbour to try to resolve matters between the parties. It managed her expectations by noting that the agreed actions were unenforceable but it hoped its discussions with the neighbour would produce a positive outcome. This ought reasonably to have been done much earlier and would have helped to promote good neighbour relationships sooner.
The Ombudsman published its Spotlight report on noise complaints – time to be heard in October 2022. One of the key recommendations made in that report was that landlords should have a proactive good neighbourhood management policy, distinct from the ASB policy, with clear options for maintaining good neighbour relationships. This should include mediation, which should be offered to residents at the earliest opportunity in an attempt to establish a mutual understanding of each other’s lifestyles. In this case, although the landlord offered mediation in its acknowledgement of the ASB report, there were significantly delays in arranging this.
Overall, the landlord dealt with some aspects of the resident’s ASB reports in a timely and appropriate manner. For example, it put in place an action plan following the initial report and offered mediation at the earliest opportunity. However, its handling of matters fell short on a number of points. It failed to carry out its own investigation into the resident’s reports of nuisance, intimidation and harassment and relied too heavily on the statutory investigations by its partner agencies. It gave the resident inaccurate, unclear and untimely advice, and it has not evidenced the actions it said it took to address her reports of noise transference. It also failed to respond to some of her emails, delayed in responding to others, and delayed in making the mediation referral.
Given the number of failings by the landlord and the collective impact of these on the resident, it is appropriate to make a finding of maladministration in respect of its handling of her ASB reports. This resulted in a mismanagement of the resident’s expectations and caused her distress, frustration and inconvenience, for which she should be compensated by the landlord. It is acknowledged that a significant proportion of the distress and frustration experienced by the resident was due to the issues with her neighbour. A payment of £200 is fair and reasonable to reflect the impact attributable to the landlord’s failings.

The resident’s associated complaint

The resident submitted her formal complaint via the landlord’s online feedback form, so she received an automated acknowledgement straight away. This stated that new queries would be logged within 1 working day and a full response provided within 10 working days. Despite further contact from the resident expressing her dissatisfaction, the landlord did not register the complaint as such until 6 December 2023, 35 working days after receiving it. The delay was unreasonable and caused her frustration and inconvenience.
The stage 1 response was issued on 12 December 2023, 39 working days after receipt. This was outside the 10-working-day timeframe advised to the resident on 19 October 2023.
The landlord’s poor handling of the resident’s complaint at stage 1 was likely due to its complaints policy in place at the time. Inappropriately, this made a distinction between an ‘expression of dissatisfaction’ and a ‘complaint’ and set out separate procedures for dealing with each. This was not consistent with the Ombudsman’s Dispute Resolution Principles or the Complaint Handling Code at the time. It is acknowledged, however, that the complaints policy dated May 2024 does not make such a distinction.
The stage 1 response advised that, if the resident remained dissatisfied, she should provide her reasons and the complaint would be escalated. However, the complaints policy at the time did not provide a clear and consistent process for escalating complaints after the stage 1 response, with much being left to the discretion of managers. This is likely to have contributed directly to its failure to escalate the complaint to stage 2, as it should have done, on 23 January 2024. Consequently, the resident repeated her request for escalation on 26 January and 5 February 2024. This compounded her feeling that her ASB reports had not been taken seriously and caused her evident inconvenience.
The landlord’s internal emails dated 8 February 2024 suggest that escalation of a complaint to stage 2 required agreement from the complaints team. This is not consistent with this Service’s Dispute Resolution Principles or Complaint Handling Code. It is acknowledged, however, that the landlord updated its complaints policy in May 2024 and this provides a 2-stage complaints process that is compliant with the (now, statutory) Complaint Handling Code.
The Complaint Handling Code applicable at the time expected the landlord to acknowledge the stage 2 complaint within 5 working days of receiving an escalation request. In this case, the stage 2 acknowledgement was sent to the resident on 8 February 2024, 13 working days after the complaint ought reasonably to have been escalated. This advised that the landlord aimed to provide its final response within 20 working days, so by 7 March 2024. If this was not possible, it would contact her beforehand to discuss a new date for its response.
The stage 2 response was issued on 8 April 2024, 41 working days after its delayed acknowledgement and a total of 53 working days from the date it should have been escalated. No updates were provided to the resident in the intervening period, which was inappropriate.
The landlord’s stage 2 response was not consistent with the Ombudsman’s Dispute Resolution Principles. It did not address the crux of the resident’s complaint relating to her reports of ASB by her neighbour. Whilst it acknowledged that decisions and outcomes of investigations were not explained to the resident, it failed to take the opportunity to provide such explanations as part of its complaint response, nor did it offer any compensation for the distress, frustration, concern and inconvenience caused as a result of its shortcomings.
The resident has told this Service that the landlord failed to carry out the actions proposed in its final response to her complaint. She said she only received one phone call from the complaint handler and the manager handed the case back to the member of staff who had previously ignored her reports and concerns.
The lack of regular phone contact as promised, as per the resident’s email of 17 May 2024, compounded the landlord’s poor complaint handling. With regard to the manager’s handling, the evidence shows that they visited the resident at her home and proposed actions to address her ongoing concerns about ASB by her neighbour. As it was clearly explained to the resident that the matters she was raising were not enforceable under the ASB policy, the manager’s withdrawal from the matter seems reasonable.
The number of failings and delays in its handling of the resident’s complaint amount to maladministration. This clearly caused concern and inconvenience to the resident, for which it is appropriate to direct a compensation payment. The level of impact to the resident was moderate, so a payment of £200 is fair and reasonable to reflect this.
Additionally, to improve its service to residents, the landlord must ensure its staff are familiar with its new complaints policy and this Service’s Complaint Handling Code. It must also ensure that it uses an effective system to log and monitor complaints as they progress through its complaint handling process.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was:
1. Maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s ASB reports.
2. Maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the associated complaint.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

The Ombudsman orders that, within 4 weeks of the date of this determination, the landlord must:
1. Apologise in writing to the resident for its failings in this case, in accordance with this Service’s Apologies guidance | Housing Ombudsman Service (housing-ombudsman.org.uk).
2. Pay the resident compensation of:
  1. £200 in recognition of the distress, frustration and inconvenience caused to her as a result of its maladministration in the handling of her ASB reports.
  2. £200 in recognition of the concern and inconvenience caused to her as a result of its maladministration in the handling of her complaint.
  3. These sums should be paid directly to the resident and must not be offset against any arrears.

Recommendations

It is recommended that the landlord consider improvements it can make to its processes and systems for logging, tracking and monitoring ASB cases to ensure appropriate oversight and to avoid delays in its handling of matters.