Southern Housing (202226713)
REPORT
COMPLAINT 202226713
Southern Housing Group Limited
30 September 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 concerns:
- The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of anti-social behaviour (ASB) by her neighbours.
- The landlord’s handling of damp and mould at her previous property.
Jurisdiction
- What the Ombudsman can and cannot consider is called the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction. This is governed by the Scheme. When a complaint is bought to this Service, the Ombudsman must consider all of the circumstances of the case, as there are sometimes reasons why a complaint will not be investigated.
- Paragraph 42 (c) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme states that the Ombudsman will not investigate a complaint which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, was not brought to the attention of the member landlord as a formal complaint within a reasonable period which would normally be within 12 months of the matters arising.
- In this case, the resident raised concerns about the landlord’s handling of damp and mould from her previous property in October 2022, more than nine years after she had moved into her current property. Due to the length of time that has passed since she lived at this formed property and as this was more than 12 months since the matters complained about had occurred, this element of the complaint is outside of the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction.
Background
- The resident is a secured tenant and has lived in the property which is a one-bedroom bungalow since June 2013.
- The landlord has noted the resident has lived with a number of medical conditions including chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, emphysema and a chronic bowel condition as well as asthma.
- The resident contacted the landlord on 11 October 2022 to raise a complaint. This followed her having submitted some footage from her ‘Ring’ doorbell to it on 8 October 2022.
- The landlord spoke to the resident on 13 October 2022 about her complaint. It then sent her an email which set out the resident’s concerns as follows:
- The resident was unhappy with the action taken to resolve ASB from two of her neighbours (A) and (B).
- The resident had experienced ongoing ASB from her neighbours since she had moved to the property in 2013.
- The resident did not think B should have been moved to the property next to hers, as there had been ASB issues at B’s previous property.
- The resident was unable to use her garden or open her windows due to the ASB and the lack of privacy.
- There had been noise nuisance caused as a result of loud music, swearing, and arguing.
- The resident had been suffering due to the smell of drugs and the smell of petrol from quad bikes coming from B.
- The resident’s car had been scratched several months earlier by either A or B.
- The resident had been threatened by B in the past.
- The resident’s previous property had suffered from damp and mould. The landlord had failed to compensate her for her belongings, or the time taken for the issue to be sorted out.
- To resolve the matter the resident wanted A or B moved. If they could not be moved, she wanted to be moved. She also asked the landlord to compensate her for the time taken to tackle the issues.
- The landlord wrote to the resident on 21 October 2022 enclosing diary sheets which it asked her to complete. The landlord also referred the resident to the noise app.
- The landlord’s internal correspondence on 21 October 2022 included a witness statement by one of its representatives as well as an email from another witness. These related to events from 19 October 2022. The statement from the landlord’s representative noted that loud music was being played by another of the resident’s neighbours (C). The neighbour in question turned down the music when she was informed it was too loud.
- The landlord issued its stage 1 complaint response on 27 October 2022. In terms of moving the resident, it explained a management move required police support and so this was unlikely to happen. It suggested that a mutual exchange might be a better option. In terms of the resident’s concerns as noted by it on 13 October 2022 it stated:
- Where it had been able to evidence incidents had occurred, it had followed these up with the neighbour in question. It noted the resident had contacted it about a previous issue in June 2022 with B and it had visited B in September and taken action in respect of noise, mopeds and the son who had been visiting B. However, the resident had informed it that she did not wish to pursue this as she had a reasonable relationship at that time with the neighbour.
- In terms of the scratching of the resident’s car this had been on a public highway, so this was a matter for the police. Having spoken to the police, it had been unable to identify a perpetrator.
- As it understood the resident wanted privacy, it suggested that she considered installing a trellis along the fence line.
- It had conducted local enquiries and there had been no further evidence of harassment.
- In relation to the issue of noise nuisance which was from a property a distance away from her, there had been no evidence of this when it had visited the property on two occasions. There had also been no other reports from any of the other neighbours nearer to where the noise was alleged to be coming from.
- It added that, in order to open a noise case, it needed two weeks of diary sheets or noise recordings, so it encouraged the resident to “capture what you’re hearing”. It added that, whilst it could offer mediation to resolve some of the issues, it had advised all parties to stay away from each other as “there is clearly a clash with your neighbours”.
- In terms of the issues raised concerning the resident’s previous property it said it was unable to look at complaints more than six months old.
- It could not comment on the individual circumstances of A and B as individuals were “housed on the basis of their housing needs applicable to the accommodation available”.
- The resident emailed the landlord on 31 October 2022 explaining that she wanted to appeal its decision. She requested a face-to-face meeting.
- The landlord emailed the resident on 1 November 2022 in response to the escalation request. It also acknowledged that there had been another incident with her neighbours the previous week. It set out that in order to escalate the complaint the resident needed to complete a Review Panel Request form in which she set out the reasons why she remained unhappy with the outcome and what she wanted as an outcome.
- As the resident was unable to open the Review Panel Request form, despite the landlord sending it to her on a number of occasions, it completed a form for her based on a conversation with her on 28 November 2022.
- The landlord acknowledged further contact from the resident on 6 December 2022 in relation to ASB from her neighbour. The landlord’s email did not specify which of the resident’s neighbours the allegations were against. It asked the resident to record all further instances using her Ring doorbell and it provided her with a number for the open case. It added that it would provide her with updates every fortnight. The landlord’s notes of the case show that it was trying to identify which of her neighbours had been responsible and that, in addition to A, the resident had also complained about the neighbour on the other side of her (E).
- The landlord issued its stage 2 response on 22 December 2022. It explained that this had followed an online review meeting which had taken place on 8 December 2022. It explained it understood the resident’s concerns to be:
- That she did not feel her ASB concerns had been believed, and she added that she had been accused of having mental health issues.
- She had in the past been accused of being violent and aggressive by the housing team which she felt had impacted the way her case had been dealt with. She added she was asked to complete forms which were difficult for her as she suffered from arthritis. She had also provided video to the landlord which she was informed was “not good enough”.
- That recently other residents had complained that A had been verbally abusive. She added that whilst her concerns were being taken seriously now, she should have been listened to before.
- That the impact of ASB meant that she did not leave the property.
- She was now more prone to headaches which she linked to the breathing problems due to damp issues in her previous property. She added the noise nuisance had impacted on this.
- She considered her life had been reduced to nothing as no one realised the impact of the ASB. She added no friends or family visited her and she was unable to use the garden.
- She wanted A and B removed and action to address noise nuisance from C.
- The landlord’s stage 2 response set out:
- That it understood issues with two of the resident’s neighbours (A and C) had quietened down. Although it noted there were issues with B and it understood matters had been raised with the police, the resident had not disclosed anything further to it. It stated the resident needed to continue reporting matters to the police, and that there was insufficient information for it to take tenancy action against the neighbour. It added it would carry out an ASB survey in the neighbourhood.
- It was very difficult to move neighbours unless they terminated the tenancy or there was a court order. It recommended that the resident continued to provide it with diary sheets.
- That it could provide the resident with housing options if she wanted to move.
- It understood the resident did not want home visits to take place. As a result, it could carry these out at its offices instead.
- The landlord carried out a door knocking exercise for the local area near to the resident on 5 January 2023.
- The resident informed the landlord on 12 January 2023 that she had some evidence of noise from A and C but that it was difficult to obtain evidence of the music without going outside of the property which she added put her at risk. The landlord confirmed that it would meet the resident to obtain any evidence which she had.
- The landlord met the resident at a local library on 31 January 2023. This followed on from the resident reporting ASB from B on 29 January 2023. The resident provided her phone which she stated contained videos of ASB from B. The landlord’s internal notes showed it had viewed the resident’s videos. The landlord noted that there was loud revving from bikes and cars, which it had previously contacted the neighbour about. There were also loud banging sounds, however these occurred during daylight hours, and they were therefore not considered to be ASB by it. It also noted there was a video of an argument between the resident and B. Whilst there was swearing from B, it explained that the resident had been seen to be arguing with them. The landlord informed the resident that she should not approach the neighbours in this manner. In relation to the resident’s concerns that drug dealing was also taking place, the landlord informed her to report the matter to the police. The landlord confirmed that it would be writing to B in relation to the revving, shouting and swearing. Its internal notes showed this letter was issued to B on 1 February 2023 and it had spoken to B about the matter later in the month.
- The landlord’s internal notes show that the resident contacted it on 20 February 2023 to explain there had been music playing from C over the weekend. She also stated A had been swearing about her to B and that she felt that he was watching her from his window and so felt harassed. The resident stated she needed to be moved. The landlord had explained that whilst it had taken action against two residents it did not have enough evidence to take matters further. It asked the resident if she could use the noise app to record noises. The resident stated the noise app did not work.
- The resident contacted the landlord again on 21 February 2023 and on 27 February 2023. On the first occasion she explained that C was continuing to play music every night and that there was a smell of cannabis coming into her home which she believed was from B. The landlord asked the resident to record the noise with the noise app and the resident explained that the app could not record what she was hearing. It asked her to try to record it. The landlord also confirmed it could not act on speculation but needed actual evidence to take the matter further. On the second occasion the resident contacted the landlord, she explained her Ring doorbell had recorded her car having stones thrown at it in the early hours. She stated that, whilst the perpetrator was not actually captured on the video, it was B’s son based on his voice. She was worried as she was getting a new car the following month. She added she was going to be staying with a friend to “get away from it”. The landlord advised the resident to report the incident to the police as the car was on a public place.
- Following the resident returning from staying with friends she contacted the landlord on 7 March 2023 to report banging on the wall and a loud sound although she thought this was from E. She also stated she thought B’s son was throwing stones at her car but there was no evidence of this, except stones around her car. The landlord explained that it had taken action as far as it could, and that it would need to prove reasonableness to a judge should it pursue the matter which it did not have enough evidence to do. The resident asked about the possibility of moving to alternative locations, the landlord explained it would pass this on to the relevant team.
- The resident contacted the landlord on 20 March 2023 to explain she had been awoken by a loud bang from B. She had also heard shouting, and whilst she had considered reporting it to the police, she had not done so. The resident explained she had a letter from her GP supporting her move. The landlord asked the resident to send this to it. The landlord’s internal notes showed it closed the ASB case which it had opened in December 2022 on 21 March 2023 following on from its investigation.
Events since the end of the landlord’s complaints process.
- The landlord approved a request for a direct management move for the resident on 19 April 2023. It noted that the resident had previously tried to undertake a mutual exchange which had been unsuccessful as the other party had withdrawn. Despite further requests for the resident to try this again, the resident had not pursued a mutual exchange again. It noted the resident had provided a letter supporting a move from her GP. It explained it had considered the resident’s circumstances including the nature and volume of calls which the resident had made to the landlord and its ASB team in coming to its decision. Internal correspondence show that the police had also supported a move for the resident.
- The landlord advised the resident of alternative properties in June 2023 and September 2023. However, following a viewing on the first property the resident did not accept this offer. In the case of the second property offered, this was in an area the resident did not wish to move to.
- The resident contacted the landlord on 7 October 2023 to explain that she had been confronted by a neighbour with secateurs. Whilst the landlord’s notes did not specify which neighbour had been involved, mediation had taken place between the resident and B. The notes explained that police had been called and they had undertaken door to door enquiries. Following this on 10 October 2023 the police had confirmed that there had not been enough evidence to take the matter further.
- The landlord’s internal correspondence noted that mediation had taken place on 7 December 2023 during which both parties had made allegations against each other. The notes indicated that both the landlord and the police had investigated the allegations but that nothing further had occurred.
- The resident contacted the landlord on 25 and 29 January 2024. On the first occasion this had been in relation to B’s son who was parking his motorcycle near to her car. On the second occasion it concerned loud music being played at the weekend from an unspecified neighbour as well as E slamming doors.
- The landlord’s internal correspondence from 27 March 2024 explained that a housing officer had visited the area in response to the allegation of noise but had not observed any noise during their visit.
- The police emailed the landlord on 5 April 2024 and mentioned that the resident had raised issues concerning her neighbours with regards to noise nuisance. The police had informed the resident that noise related issues needed to be reported to the landlord and not it. The email from the police noted that the resident had been offered a place which was not a bungalow, and the resident believed that the landlord was not assisting her.
- The landlord’s internal correspondence on 10 April 2024 offered mediation between the resident and A and C in regard to the loud music. It also requested someone to attend the property to witness what. if any, noises were occurring. The landlord’s notes show that its representative visited the area at the end of April and again at the beginning of May 2024 but had not heard any noise on either visit.
- The resident reported noise nuisance at the end of May 2024 and despite further visits by the landlord at the time no noises could be heard. Further reports of loud music were reported by the resident in June 2024 which she stated happened all through the night. On occasions the resident was unable to determine which neighbour had been playing the loud music. The landlord made further visits to the resident’s property and adjoining area. This was at different times of the day and sometimes within less than an hour of when the report had been made by the resident. However, the landlord’s representatives did not report any evidence of loud music when they attended. The landlord informed the resident to continue recording any noises using the noise app. It also informed her she could report the issue to environmental health.
- The landlord offered the resident an alternative property on 24 June 2024. It is not clear from the landlord’s correspondence whether this offer had been accepted by her. Its internal correspondence show there were further reports from the resident of loud music from A and C after that date. The resident added that when the landlord attended, the neighbours had turned the music off so nothing could be heard by the landlord at that time. The landlord sent two housing officers to visit the area on 15 July 2024 however no noises could be heard by them.
Assessment and findings
Scope of Investigation
- The resident has continued to contact the landlord since the end of the landlord’s internal complaints process in 2022 with regards to further instances of reported ASB including noise nuisance as well as criminal damage to her car’s brakes which she states was done by one of her neighbours. The resident has also raised concerns about a property the landlord offered her as a management move. She explained that the property contained asbestos which had only been removed the day before she had seen it. This had affected her chest when she had visited it. The resident had also raised concerns over her request for work at the new property which the landlord had offered her which it had refused. The resident has confirmed that she has made a new complaint with the landlord although it was unclear to the Ombudsman as to which area this new complaint was in respect of.
- The Ombudsman is unable to investigate matters where the resident has yet to complete the landlord’s internal complaints process. This report has therefore not considered events shortly after the stage 2 response in December 2022, as those events are outside the scope of this investigation and the resident has the opportunity to raise any further concerns with the landlord via its complaint procedure if she wishes.
The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of ASB.
- Whilst the Ombudsman has provided a summary of events, this is not an exhaustive account of all the communication between the resident and the landlord over the issue. This report covers the communication which the Ombudsman considers is most relevant to this investigation.
- ASB case management is a crucial aspect of a landlord’s service delivery. Effective use of an ASB procedure enables the landlord to identify appropriate steps to resolve potential areas of conflict, improve landlord/tenant relationships and improve the experience of tenants residing in their homes. ASB cases are also often the most challenging for a landlord as, in practice, options available to a landlord or chosen by a landlord to resolve a case may not include a resident’s preferred outcome, and it can become difficult to manage expectations.
- The landlord’s ASB Policy states:
- “We will undertake a risk assessment on the potential harm of the ASB on the person making a report”.
- “We will tell you who will handle your ASB case and agree an action plan with you.”
- “We will take appropriate action to investigate reports of ASB and may use monitoring equipment to assist us”.
- “We will work on partnership with other agencies such as the police, and use a range of preventative measures, early intervention and legal action to tackle ASB. This includes the full range of tools and powers available to us in the ASB, Crime and Policing Act 2014”.
- “Where we become aware a person causing ASB needs additional support we’ll take reasonable steps to help them access support”.
- “We will not take action where there’s insufficient evidence. We will support other agencies in taking action where they have the prime responsibility and powers to do so”.
- “If you’re not happy with how your ASB complaint was handled…you can follow our complaints resolution policy or contact the local authority to see if they can review the case through the ‘community trigger’…”
- The resident contacted the landlord in conjunction with the issue of the noise, possible damage to her car parked on the road outside her property and subsequently the smell and potential use of cannabis by some of her neighbours. The landlord advised the resident to refer the issue of the criminal damage as well as any concerns over drug use to the police. It explained the reasons for this, as it stated it could not deal with the issue until after a successful prosecution had been sought by the police. This was reasonable, due to the nature of the allegations, and whilst this advice may have been frustrating for the resident to hear, the landlord needed independent evidence of any alleged drug use in order to be able to take any action against the neighbour. It therefore required input from the police to progress this.
- The landlord’s ASB policy provides examples of behaviours which it considers to be anti-social. Included within these behaviours was playing loud music, verbal or physical abuse as well as offensive behaviour.
- Following the resident having contacted the landlord in October 2022 concerning the issues with her neighbours, the landlord instructed her to complete an ASB diary in which she recorded details of the ASB she was experiencing. This was an appropriate step for it to take as it helped the landlord understand the nature/frequency of the ASB which the resident was experiencing. It also referred the resident to the noise app as it understood that the primary instances of ASB related to noise nuisance.
- The resident did not provide any completed ASB diaries to the landlord. In terms of the noise app, she explained that the app had been unable to accurately record the loud music which she was experiencing from her neighbours. Instead, she had continued to contact the landlord to report further instances of ASB which she was experiencing. The landlord, despite the lack of further evidence from the resident did undertake visits to the property in response to her concerns. Whilst it had observed some music to be playing loudly when it attended on 19 October 2022 during the day, it noted the neighbour reduced the volume when they were informed of the issue at the time. The landlord explained that the music was not being played during unsociable hours and so would not constitute being ASB. The landlord did observe A acting in an offensive manner towards its staff. The landlord confirmed to the resident that it had followed up matters with the neighbours where it had evidence to support that they had been acting inappropriately. This was entirely reasonable and appropriate.
- The landlord has confirmed that it issued warning letters to some of the neighbours following the complaint made by the resident. These letters set out that the landlord would investigate the reports, and it advised that if it received evidence of the activity than it could imply a breach of the tenancy agreement which could put the property at risk. This was appropriate action given the nature of the resident’s concerns. Whilst it put the neighbours, especially B on alert about the complaint, the letter to B did convey that the landlord would investigate the noise nuisance. This was appropriate as it is important that alleged perpetrators are made aware of concerns and given an opportunity to modify their behaviour.
- In addition to writing to the neighbours the landlord also informed the resident of the option of mediation. This was in keeping with the landlord’s ASB policy in which it explained that it expected residents to resolve minor disputes with neighbours. This was also in keeping with the landlord’s actions being “proportionate to the seriousness, impact and frequency of the behaviour”. In other words, it was not always the case that the landlord had to take formal action following a report of ASB.
- On some occasions where the resident had reported loud music, she was unable to pinpoint exactly from which of her neighbours’ homes the noise nuisance had been coming from. The landlord’s internal correspondence show that it did speak to some of the neighbours about the issue. However, it was clear from the communication with the neighbours that they disputed the resident’s allegations of ASB. Given the conflicting accounts of events and the lack of independent evidence, it was appropriate for the landlord to ask the resident to send in further evidence in the form of recordings made by the noise app to support her allegations of ASB.
- The landlord did not install sound recording equipment in the resident’s property. This was reasonable as the resident had not been able to provide it with any noise app recordings which highlighted the degree of the noise nuisance which she had been experiencing. The landlord had also visited the property on several occasions, sometimes shortly after the resident had raised concerns about loud music. Apart from the one occasion in October 2022 it had not observed any evidence of noise which would be classified as noise nuisance when it had visited. The resident has explained that this was as the neighbours had seen the landlord, and so switched the music off whilst they had been there. However, the landlord’s correspondence showed that several different members of staff had visited the area at various times. In addition, the landlord had stated it had parked away from the resident’s property and waited and had done this at different times of the day including in the evenings. On one occasion the landlord had visited the property unannounced shortly before the resident had contacted it to say there had been ongoing noise which was disturbing her and that this had continued over the weekend up to the time that the resident had called the landlord. Despite this the landlord had not observed any noise was coming from any of the resident’s neighbours and it had informed the resident of this.
- The resident did provide the landlord with video footage showing one of her neighbours being offensive towards her as well the noise of engines being revved up. Although the landlord had observed that the resident had been directly interacting with the neighbour, and this may have contributed to the swearing by the neighbour it did write to the neighbour with regards to the swearing and revving up. This was reasonable action by the landlord given the nature of the interaction with the resident. It also informed the resident to avoid interacting with the neighbour which again was reasonable advice. Although the landlord did mention that it had previously written to that neighbour on a related issue, it was not entirely clear what period had elapsed between each contact with the neighbour. Given this, apart from providing a warning to that neighbour, the landlord did not have enough information at that time to proceed further due to a breach in their tenancy conditions.
- In addition to the numerous visits, the landlord also undertook ASB surveys for the surrounding area and it made door to door enquiries with the other residents in the area. This did not confirm the resident’s recollection of loud music being played in the area. Whilst it was not a requirement for there to be multiple different residents reporting a noise nuisance for it to be followed up by the landlord, the record of other neighbours reporting it would have added weight if the landlord wanted to proceed further with the matter in terms of establishing a breach of tenancy conditions.
- The resident called the landlord a number of times about the loud music and the issue of the possible cannabis smoking from her next-door neighbour (B). Whilst the landlord did not always respond to each and every contact from the resident, it did send her regular acknowledgments and provide her with advice on what she should do next. In terms of the alleged cannabis smoking this involved the resident being advised to report the matter to the police. This was reasonable for it to do, and the landlord’s records show that it did speak to the resident on a few occasions during the period that she had contacted it. The landlord during its contact with the resident offered to act as a mediator between the parties to discuss the matter. This was in keeping with the landlord’s responsibilities under the ASB policy. Whilst the mediation did prove to be unsuccessful, it did give the landlord some understanding of the position from both sides.
- Whilst the landlord did not find any substantial evidence of loud music being played during unsociable hours by the resident’s neighbours, it did agree to a management move for the resident, given her individual circumstances. This was appropriate action as it was clear the resident felt extremely vulnerable and considered that all of her neighbours had been conspiring against her.
- The resident has confirmed that she currently has a one-bedroom bungalow. Whilst she has provided the landlord with a number of areas where she would be willing to move to, she has explained to the Ombudsman that she wanted the landlord to move her to a two-bedroom property, preferably with her own drive and she wanted the landlord to waive the additional ‘bedroom tax’ for the second bedroom. The landlord’s housing options policy sets out that “the size of the home we offer is usually based on the number of people in your household and their age, sex, and relationship to each other. We work out how many bedrooms you need by looking at who is in your household and who can share a bedroom”. The policy continued to explain it will provide one bedroom for “each couple or person over 16”.
- Whilst the resident wanted a two-bedroom property and for the landlord to waive the second room ‘bedroom tax’, in line with the landlord’s housing options policy it was not able to do this. It was able to offer the resident a one-bedroom property under a management move, in line with the resident’s household size and there was no reason for it to offer a larger sized home. The resident has informed this Service that she has the largest one-bedroom property which the landlord has available within its stock for the area she lives in or was looking at. Given this she understood that all other alternative properties would have been smaller. If the resident wanted a larger property than her current one, she did have the option of pursuing a mutual exchange. There was no evidence that she had done this.
- Overall, the landlord’s actions in handling the resident’s requests to be moved to a different larger property were appropriate. It had clearly set out the details of what and where it could offer and highlighted that the resident was free to undertake a mutual exchange.
- Overall whilst was some limited evidence which supported the resident’s reports of noise nuisance coming from her neighbours, the landlord’s investigation of the matter had not highlighted any behaviour for which it was able to take action that would ultimately lead to the eviction of some of the resident’s neighbours. It did write to the neighbours to make them aware of the allegations. Whilst the resident remained unhappy that this would highlight to her neighbours that they were the party reporting it to the landlord, the landlord had not specifically identified in any of the letters sent to the neighbours that it had been the resident who had complained. However given the nature of the allegations, it may have been possible to determine who the likely party was who had raised the concerns with the landlord.
- The evidence provided show that the landlord continued to review the matter regularly including following the end of its complaints procedure when it had opened an ASB case about the resident’s concerns. This case was not closed until March 2023, some three months after it had been opened by the landlord following several site visits and door knocking exercises. Whilst the Ombudsman understands that the situation caused distress and upset to the resident, overall, the landlord’s actions were appropriate and proportionate to the evidence available to it. There was no evidence of maladministration by the landlord.
Determination
- In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reporting of ASB.
- In accordance with paragraph 42 (c) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the resident’s complaint about the landlord’s handling of damp and mould in her previous property is outside the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction.
Recommendation
- The Ombudsman notes that although the landlord had not installed any sound monitoring equipment to record the noise nuisance reported by the resident, it could consider if there are any other alternatives which it could offer to the resident. This is because the resident had stated the noise app was unable to clearly record the noises experienced by her on an ongoing basis.
- The landlord should provide an update to the resident concerning her housing options.