Bernicia Group (202219357)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202219357

Bernicia Group

22 February 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:
1. Concerns about the suitability of the allocated property;
2. Reports of antisocial behaviour (ASB) and noise nuisance;
3. Concerns about the conduct of the housing director;
4. Concerns about the condition of the windows;
5. Request for a move;
6. Request for compensation, including reimbursement for carpets, fitted furniture and removal costs.
The Ombudsman has also considered the landlord’s complaint handling.

Jurisdiction

What the Ombudsman can and cannot consider is called the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction. This is governed by the Scheme. When a complaint is brought to this Service, the Ombudsman must consider all the circumstances of the case, as there are sometimes reasons why a complaint will not be investigated.
After carefully considering all of the evidence, in accordance with paragraph 42 of the Scheme, the following aspect of the complaint is outside the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction:
1. The landlord’s handling of the resident’s concerns about the condition of the windows.
Under paragraph 42a of the Scheme, the Ombudsman may not consider complaints which are made prior to having exhausted a member landlord’s complaints procedure. The resident did not raise concerns about the condition of the windows in the property in her complaint, and this matter was therefore not addressed in the final complaint response. This Service can only investigate matters that the landlord has had the opportunity to respond to formally. The resident may wish to make a new complaint to the landlord about this issue, which she may then refer to this Service if she is dissatisfied with its response.
Other aspects of the resident’s complaint are within the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction and are considered below.

Background and summary of events

Background

At the time of the complaint, the resident held an assured tenancy with the landlord which commenced in 2022. She lived in the property, a 2-bedroom semi-detached house, with her adult son. Both the resident and her son are autistic and experience hyperacusis (reduced tolerance to sound).
The landlord’s allocations policy states that its aim is “to ensure that new or vacant homes are let in a consistent, fair, and transparent way that matches available housing to need and makes the best use of stock”. The policy sets out the landlord’s priority banding system for housing applications (Bands A to E), whereby a higher banding indicates a higher priority. Each application is considered on its own merits and a risk assessment undertaken if appropriate. Band A may be awarded in cases of serious harassment, serious violence or threat of violence, domestic abuse, severe medical need, or “urgent social reasons”. Transfer applicants with no recognised housing need wishing to move to a similar property type would normally be awarded Band E. Applicants for housing may make an appeal or request a review of an assessment of their needs.
The allocations policy also confirms that “a number of categories of housing need will be recognised” and “investigations will be undertaken to establish and verify the circumstances of an individual applicant”. The landlord may implement local or special lettings plans to enable “neighbourhood centred initiatives to manage special circumstances such as crime, drugs, or ASB”. Existing tenants applying for rehousing must have held their tenancy with the landlord for a minimum of 12 months, although the landlord may waive such eligibility criteria where not doing so would have “a significant detrimental impact on the applicant”. The landlord says it is committed to treating all customers positively regardless of characteristics such as disability, and to taking all complaints seriously.
The landlord’s void property procedure states that, on receipt of keys following the end of a tenancy, the landlord will carry out an inspection of the vacated property. During the inspection it will fit a key safe, take meter readings, identify any health and safety issues, and identify whether a specialist clean and any clearances are required. Properties requiring a clean or clearance will be held until this work is completed. A void inspector will then visit and itemise any repairs and works required. Handover of the property will be agreed once the landlord is satisfied that it meets the agreed lettable standard.
The landlord’s ASB policy adopts the definition of ASB used by the ASB, Crime & Policing Act 2014, namely “acting in a manner that caused, or was likely to cause, harassment, alarm or distress to any persons”. It provides a list of behaviours that it considers to be antisocial, including “unreasonable and excessive noise”. The policy states that the landlord will work with partner organisations in tackling ASB, and will use a range of measures appropriate to the circumstances such as mediation.
The landlord’s safeguarding adults policy notes that the landlord will offer accommodation to individuals known to be vulnerable or will become aware that an existing tenant is (or has become) vulnerable. When it becomes aware of an adult at risk, it will take reasonable steps to ensure that they have help, advice and appropriate support.
The landlord’s compensation policy states that it will consider awarding compensation in circumstances where: a complaint is upheld; a tenant experiences loss of services; its repairs cause damage to decoration; where programmed works take place; or a tenant carries out major improvements to their home. The policy sets out the level of authorisation required for awards of compensation up to £1,000, and clarifies that it does not deal with awards over £1,000.
The landlord’s compensation for improvements policy states that tenants may have the right to claim compensation when they terminate their tenancy for qualifying improvements they have made during the course of the tenancy (with the landlord’s consent). In order to be eligible for compensation tenants must follow the agreed procedures. These include obtaining 3 written quotations from “bona fide contractors”, providing these to the landlord, advising which contractor is to undertake the work, and notifying the landlord within 14 days of completion of the works so that they can be inspected. Compensation will only be paid at the end of the tenancy and depreciation will be deducted at an appropriate rate. Compensation will not be paid where the level is over £3,000. Applicants for compensation may appeal a decision not to grant compensation or the level of compensation offered.
The landlord operates a 3-stage complaints process. Its complaints procedure states that it will call customers within 2 working days of receiving a complaint. It will then acknowledge the complaint in writing within 5 working days. The landlord aims to respond to complaints within 10 working days at stage 1, 10 working days at stage 2 (the ‘review’ stage), and 20 working days at stage 3 (the ‘determination’ stage). At stage 1, if it is unable to complete its investigation within its target timeframe, it will still send a substantive response within 10 working days and provide updates at least every 10 working days thereafter. At stages 2 and 3, it will explain the reasons for any delay to the complainant and provide a revised target response date. Stage 3 ‘determinations’ are carried out by 2 members of the landlord’s Customer Service Committee, one of whom will be a tenant member. The complaints procedure states that the landlord will not treat as a complaint “any matter for which there is an established internal or external appeals procedure”.

Summary of events

Before the resident’s tenancy began, a void inspection report dated 21 December 2021 described the condition of the property as “fair to good”. The report stated that a clean was required, that some items were to be kept, and that full redecoration was not required. A list of tasks to be completed included the item “keep all flooring”.
The resident’s housing application stated that she had a disability relating to a mental health condition. It said her reasons for moving from her previous property were “home unsuitable due to ill health or disability” and “medical/social conditions affected by your housing”. The resident wrote on her housing application: “My son and I are both autistic and need to be able to live in a quieter area than where we are currently living.”
The resident was subsequently offered the property. After viewing and accepting it, her tenancy began on 20 January 2022 and she moved in on 5 February 2022. Around the time of viewing and/or moving into the property, the resident expressed her concern about the smell and condition of the carpets in the property. The landlord advised that the smell would reduce over time. However, this did not appear to happen and the resident later replaced the carpets throughout the property at her own expense. The new carpets cost £1,370.
On 10 February 2022 the resident reported a number of incidents of neighbour noise to the landlord. These occurred between 5 and 9 February 2022 and related to her next-door neighbours talking loudly and banging doors until late at night. The landlord visited the resident on 16 February 2022, and she described the noise from her neighbour’s property as “unbearable”. The landlord listened to recordings made by the resident, in which voices and a baby crying could be heard. The resident said she had already had to move house multiple times due to noisy neighbours. The landlord assisted the resident’s son in downloading a noise app and sending it a log of incidents. It also sought internal advice regarding safeguarding.
The resident sent noise recordings to the landlord using the app on 20 February 2022, and on 23 February 2022 the landlord installed noise monitoring equipment in the resident’s property. It showed the resident how to use the equipment and asked her to fill in an accompanying diary. Following a week-long installation, the landlord collected the noise equipment on 2 March 2022. During this appointment, the resident spoke about her autism and previous properties she had lived in. She said she struggled to cope with noise from things like traffic, babies crying, and people talking at night. She also said her son needed “near silence” for 7 hours at night, and expressed her hope that the landlord might install soundproofing. The landlord advised her to seek support from the local social services, as she had received this support previously in a different area. It later found that the noise equipment had not worked properly.
On 22 March 2022 the landlord called the resident to arrange reinstallation of the noise equipment. The resident mentioned being disturbed by the sound of her neighbour’s bathroom extractor fan being left on at night. She said she had asked her neighbour to switch their light off at night, which would resolve the fan issue, and they did this for one night before the issue resumed. The landlord advised that noise from an extractor fan did not constitute ASB and that the resident was unlikely to experience complete silence in a semi-detached property. It arranged to reinstall the noise equipment on 28 March 2022. It later did so, and collected it on 4 April 2022.
When the landlord listened to the resident’s noise recordings on 5 April 2022, it found that these mostly contained “daily living noise” such as cars, muffled voices, windows closing, and birds tweeting. The landlord informed the resident of its findings on 7 April 2022. It agreed there was one recording where it could clearly hear the lyrics of a song, and said it would speak to the neighbour about this and ask them to be mindful when playing music or having their TV on. The resident disagreed with the landlord that the noise on the recordings was “not excessively loud”, saying it was “so loud [her] eardrums were nearly bursting”. The landlord’s officer said they would get a second opinion from a colleague.
The resident mentioned a window repair that was due to take place that week, but was put back until May 2022 as she had contracted COVID-19. She then expressed concern about noise from her neighbour singing, laughing, having visitors at night, and recently calling an ambulance. The landlord explained that this was not considered ASB, and asked if the resident would consider mediation. She agreed to this. The neighbour also agreed the following day, and the landlord made a referral for mediation through an external agency.
On 9 April 2022, the resident called the landlord to ask about moving to a different property. On 11 April 2022 the landlord wrote to the resident regarding its findings from the noise monitoring recordings, and said it would be closing its case due to a lack of evidence of ASB. The resident said she intended to speak to the local authority.
The same day (11 April 2022), the landlord sent the resident a second letter regarding an application she had made to improve her property by installing fitted wardrobes. The letter stated that the landlord gave permission for the work to proceed, subject to certain conditions. It also noted that “this improvement is a qualifying repair as laid down in the Department of the Environment Statutory Instrument 613/94”, with any claim for compensation to be made during the period “starting 28 days before and ending 14 days after the tenancy comes to an end”. It highlighted the importance of retaining receipts.
On 26 April 2022 the local authority contacted the landlord about the resident’s noise reports. The landlord responded to the local authority the same day and provided an update. It also liaised with the police about 3 recent reports made by the resident. On 17 May 2022 the landlord received details of an agreement made between the resident and her neighbour during mediation.
On 7 June 2022 the resident arranged for fitted wardrobes to be installed in her property, at a cost of £1,300. On 13 June 2022 she asked the landlord again if it would soundproof her property. The landlord returned her call on 14 June 2022 and told her it would not soundproof the property, noting that it had explained this at sign-up. The resident requested a callback regarding neighbour noise on 22 June 2022, and the landlord called her the same day.
Around June or July 2022, on an unspecified date, the resident contacted the landlord’s housing director by phone. It was a brief conversation during which the resident felt the director was rude and dismissive of her concerns.
On 18 July 2022 the resident contacted the landlord to say that things had been better since mediation took place, but that her neighbour’s dog was barking for 12 hours on 11 July 2022 and had been barking for 3 hours that day. She also said she could still hear her neighbour talking loudly. The landlord returned the resident’s call on 19 July 2022. It said it had previously closed its case, but could reopen it if she sent details of the noise. The resident confirmed that she and her son had been keeping a diary of incidents and would email this over. She mentioned that the windows in her property were “very poor”, and even after the landlord had replaced the seals, she could still hear “every noise from outside”. She was particularly upset by noise from people coming home drunk from a nearby pub, people walking past talking, and a recent music event at a local park. The landlord explained that it could not do anything about this.
On 27 July 2022 the resident complained to the landlord by phone. Its record of her complaint stated that:
1. She wished to complain about the fact that the property was allocated to her.
2. Her housing application had stated that she and her son were autistic and needed a quiet area. However, they were given a property where she knew the landlord had dealt with previous noise and neighbour issues.
3. She had been told the landlord could not disclose information about the previous noise reports due to data protection. If this was the case, it should have said the property was unsuitable and not offered it to her.
4. She understood the previous tenant had given up their home of 38 years due to the noise, but the landlord had disregarded this when allocating the property, saying it was “just hearsay”. Other neighbours had told her noise was an issue when the previous tenant was living there.
5. She had now lived in the property for 6 months, spent money on it, and tried her best to settle in. She had reported incidents and taken part in mediation but nothing had worked in reducing the noise.
6. She now wanted to be reimbursed for the costs of carpets, fitted wardrobes and a large purpose-built desk, as well as her moving costs.
7. She also wanted a transfer to a quieter area. She did not want to seek a move using the online Homefinder service as she knew she would be classed as adequately housed and the process could take years.
The landlord called the resident on 29 July 2022 to discuss her complaint, then followed this up with an email acknowledgement the same day. It said it aimed to issue its stage 1 response by 12 August 2022. On 11 August 2022 the landlord called the resident to request an extension until 26 August 2022, which she agreed to. She asked it to add to the complaint the fact that she would like to be considered for a bungalow, as she was due to turn 55 that month. The landlord confirmed in writing that it had included this and had extended its target response date.
On 12 August 2022 the resident called the landlord in a distressed state and said there had been an incident involving her neighbour’s dog, which the police attended. She said the police would contact the landlord about the situation. On 15 August 2022 the resident requested an urgent callback regarding incidents that occurred on 12, 13 and 14 August 2022. These related to dog barking, a verbal exchange with her neighbour’s visitor, noise that stopped her from sleeping, and water being sprayed at her closed window when her neighbour washed their car. She said she “had never cried as much in her life” and “can’t live like this much longer”. The resident told the landlord she believed her neighbours were in breach of their tenancy agreement, and that she expected “some kind of resolution” in its complaint response.
The landlord issued its stage 1 response on 26 August 2022. This stated that:
1. It was sorry the resident felt its service fell short of her expectations.
2. In relation to her concerns about the allocation of the property:
  1. It had discussed her concerns with its ASB officer and their line manager. It found that there were no ongoing ASB or noise matters at the time of allocation. It was therefore satisfied that it had acted in accordance with its allocations and ASB policies and procedures in this respect.
  2. It would have informed the resident if there were any “ongoing serious ASB complaints” when she moved into the property.
  3. It therefore did not uphold this aspect of her complaint.
3. In relation to the resident’s reports of noise nuisance since moving to the property:
  1. It had investigated her reports. It provided a summary of events, including reported incidents, its visits and advice, its noise equipment installations in February and March 2022, its liaison with the local authority, and the mediation agreement.
  2. As it had previously explained, the resident would experience a level of daily living noise from her neighbour. All buildings transferred a degree of noise, which could include people talking outside and noise from neighbours and babies. It did not consider this type of noise to be ASB.
  3. Its investigation found that it had acted in accordance with its ASB policy.
  4. It therefore did not uphold this aspect of her complaint.
4. In relation to the resident’s request for rehousing:
  1. As its tenant, she was entitled to register on its waiting list.
  2. To increase her options, it also encouraged her to consider registering for Homefinder and/or other local authorities’ choice based letting schemes.
  3. In the circumstances, it was unable to allocate any priority for ASB in respect of the reported noise.

In relation to the resident’s concerns about its housing director’s attitude:
1. Another director had investigated this element of the complaint and had discussed it with the director concerned.
2. The housing director apologised if their response to the resident was perceived by her as being rude and dismissive.
3. It assured her that the director in question and their team would continue to do what they could to support her in moving to alternative accommodation.
4. The director continued to maintain an overview of the resident’s complaint regarding the service delivered by the landlord, to ensure all reasonable actions were being taken to address the problems she had highlighted.
If the resident felt the complaint outcome had not resolved the matters she raised, it asked her to contact it by 12 September 2022 explaining the reasons why and the resolution she would like to see.

On 30 August 2022 the resident phoned the landlord to say that she was unhappy with the outcome of its stage 1 investigation and wanted to escalate her complaint to stage 2. The landlord’s record of the conversation stated that:
1. The resident felt it was obvious that there was no ongoing ASB case at the time the property was allocated to her, as the previous tenant had moved out and any case would have been closed. She maintained that the landlord was not dealing effectively with a continuing noise problem.
2. As her housing application clearly stated that she needed somewhere quiet to live, the landlord should have bypassed her for the property.
3. She clarified that while her tenancy began in January 2022, she did not move in until February 2022, and made 2 reports of noise in the first week. She also noted that of her previous house moves, 2 were due to noise issues and 1 was due to the property being uninhabitable. She had hoped her current property would be the one she stayed in.
4. She disagreed that the noise was “reasonable living noise”. It consisted of dogs barking every day, noise from a visitor who also brought their dog, regular loud music, shouting, and loud TV. This sometimes went on until 2am or 3am, with “loud banshee laughter” late at night.
5. With regard to the housing director’s attitude, she felt that saying sorry was not enough. She believed the director was not compassionate and was “not worthy of [their] job title”. She said they should “step back up to the job” or be demoted.
6. She had now lived in the property for 7 months. She had bought brand new carpets as the previous tenant smoked and had dogs. She had also bought fitted wardrobes, and a corner desk which she could not dismantle as it was glued together. She wanted to be reimbursed for these and for her removal fees of £350 when she moved to the property.
7. There had been other issues with the condition of the property since she moved in. The kitchen units, doors and tiles had a stale smell of cigarettes from the previous tenant and were stained yellow with nicotine. She was not able to clean this off. When she viewed the property, the landlord said this was the previous tenant’s smell, and when she had been in the property for a while this should go. However, if she went out and returned to the property, the smell “hits you again”.
8. She also felt the property had poor quality windows and inadequate soundproofing. The landlord had told her she could soundproof the property at her own expense.
9. The road the property was on led to a primary school and was very busy. There was noise from “joyriders” and “loud cars with subbed up exhausts”, including at 1am or 2am. Noisy drunk people passed by at the weekend and her neighbour opposite had a party in July with music until 2.30am. Another neighbour had recently got a new puppy which barked in the garden. If she had known any of this, she would not have accepted the property.
10. The landlord’s policy said tenants should not make noise at any time.
11. She also experienced noise in an amplified way due to her autism.
12. She wanted to be rehoused in a 2-bedroom house or bungalow. Her new property would need to be in “a good area with no ASB”.
The same day (30 August 2022), the landlord wrote to the resident to acknowledge her escalation request. It said it aimed to respond at stage 2 by 13 September 2022.
On 2 September 2022, the resident called the landlord and asked to speak to her housing officer about her neighbour. The housing officer called her back the same day and told her they had passed the details on to the landlord’s ASB team. On 7 September 2022 the resident called the landlord again. Its record of the call stated that the resident said the noise had never stopped, but she had been putting up with it because of the mediation. The landlord said it would reopen its case and asked her to keep a diary of incidents. The resident said she had been keeping a record, and that her neighbour’s back garden was “full of dog faeces and rubbish”. The landlord said it would do a home visit to the resident’s neighbour without notice. It did so the same day (7 September 2022) and addressed the condition of the garden with the neighbour. It also responded to an MP enquiry regarding the resident’s case.
On 14 September 2022 the landlord informed the resident that it required more time to respond to her stage 2 complaint. She agreed to an extension until 28 September 2022, and the landlord confirmed this in writing.
On 16 September 2022 the resident’s son sent the landlord details of incidents that took place between 2 and 16 September 2022. These concerned noise from her neighbour shouting, swearing, and playing with their child. On 20 September 2022 the resident’s son reported that the neighbour’s dog had been barking for 40 minutes. On 22 September 2022 the resident requested contact from the landlord’s complaints officer. She also reported that her neighbour had been burning items in their garden using a supermarket shopping trolley, and said she had video evidence. She described other incidents of noise from shouting, dog barking, TV and music. She referred to having a Band 2 housing application and said she had bid on 2 properties that day, but asked why the landlord could “not just give her a different house”.
On 24 September 2022 the resident’s son reported noise in the form of repetitive banging. The landlord listened to a recording provided and concluded that it sounded like DIY noise. It spoke to the resident on 26 September 2022 and offered to install noise equipment again. On 27 September 2022 the landlord called the resident after she requested an urgent callback, and she described TV noise at 3am and her neighbour waking her son at 8.30am. The landlord advised that it could not tell her neighbour not to watch TV (although the volume should be at a low level at night), and that some noise at 8.30am was not unreasonable. At the resident’s request, it liaised internally about her request for a move and confirmed its arrangement to visit that week.
The landlord returned a further callback requested by the resident on 28 September 2022, and visited her on 29 September 2022. It was unable to hear any noise from the neighbour’s property at the time. During the visit, it reviewed video footage made by the resident and/or her son. This contained sounds of talking and a baby crying. Another video showed the neighbour burning rubbish on a shopping trolley in their garden. The landlord told the resident it would speak to the neighbour about having garden fires, as this was a breach of tenancy. It also said it would carry out an information gathering survey on the street to see if others were affected. The resident was happy with this.
On 4 October 2022 the landlord further extended the target date for its stage 2 response to 14 October 2022. It also discussed the complaint internally, including the resident’s disability and her preferred outcomes. It went on to issue its stage 2 response on 12 October 2022. This stated:
1. It had now had an opportunity to review the allocation of the resident’s tenancy and the way her ASB reports had been dealt with. It had also separately reviewed its response to her complaint about its housing director’s attitude.
2. In relation to allocation of the property:
  1. It was satisfied that, at the point the property was offered, it was not aware of any ASB or noise issues that would impact the resident.
  2. It understood she had requested reimbursement for having to replace carpets that were left by a previous tenant. These would have been left as they had been deemed to be in good condition. In addition, it was not responsible for the fitting or replacement of floor coverings.
  3. As it did not find that it had been negligent in offering the resident the tenancy, it regrettably could not compensate her for costs such had incurred such as removal fees and furniture.
3. In relation to ASB:
  1. It was satisfied that it had followed its ASB policy and investigated all reported incidents in line with its procedures.
  2. It reiterated that the resident would experience a level of daily living noise from her neighbour and outside noise. It did not consider this to be ASB.
4. In relation to its housing director’s attitude:
  1. It was of the view that its stage 1 responder undertook a thorough investigation into this element of the resident’s complaint.
  2. It was satisfied that its director’s attitude was entirely professional and that there were no grounds to discipline them.
  3. It noted its previous apology if the behaviour was perceived as rude and dismissive.
  4. It again reassured the resident that its director would do what they could to support the resident’s move.
5. It was unable to uphold any aspect of the complaint.
6. However, it was aware of the resident’s desire to move to another property. It would therefore arrange for her housing officer to contact her in order to review her application for rehousing and ascertain whether her priority banding could be reconsidered in the current circumstances.
7. If the resident felt that the review and stage 2 outcome had not resolved the matters raised, it asked her to contact it by 26 October 2022.
The same day (12 October 2022), the landlord hand delivered ASB surveys on the resident’s street. It asked for responses by 24 October 2022. It later received 2 responses, 1 of which was from the resident and 1 anonymous.
On 14 October 2022, the resident sent text messages to the landlord which stated she was getting anxious as it was “quite late in the day” and she had not yet received its stage 2 response. The landlord replied that the response had been posted to her on 12 October 2022, and offered to resend it by email. The resident requested a callback from the landlord on 17 October 2022. She then informed it on 25 October 2022 that she was unhappy with the stage 2 response and wished to escalate her complaint to stage 3. An internal email by the landlord noted that the resident refuted its claim that it was not aware of any ASB or noise issues before it allocated the property to her, and that she disagreed it had followed policy and procedure. She maintained that the noise caused by her neighbour was unreasonable. The landlord repeated its offer to reinstall noise equipment, and subsequently arranged this on 26 October 2022.
The landlord spoke to the resident on the phone on 28 October 2022, then visited her to install the noise equipment the same day. When it visited, it agreed to the resident’s request for it to park away from the neighbour’s property, but declined to “go in disguise”. It again listened to the resident’s recordings and addressed her concerns about vacuuming noise and suspected drug use. The landlord contacted the resident on 1 November 2022 to arrange collection of the noise equipment, but agreed to her request to “keep it a bit longer as [the neighbour] had been quiet”. On 3 November 2022 it collected the noise equipment, and also authorised a priority move for the resident the same day. The resident asked the landlord if she could claim compensation for her fitted wardrobes if she terminated her tenancy at the property, and it advised on 4 November 2022 that this was not something it would agree to.
The resident reported a further incident involving her neighbour “laughing, whooping and setting the dog off” on the afternoon of 4 November 2022. In a voicemail to the landlord at 2.04pm, she was distressed and swore. The landlord followed the incident up with the neighbour on 9 November 2022 and told the resident it had done so. It also informed her that it had listened to the recordings from the recent noise equipment installation, and found that these did not contain evidence of ASB. The resident said the local authority had installed its own noise equipment in her property that day and would collect it the following week. The landlord said it would liaise with the local authority regarding its findings.
On 17 November 2022 the landlord wrote to the resident to confirm that it had escalated her complaint to stage 3 of its complaints process and would respond by 28 November 2022. However, an independent member of its Customer Service Committee then issued their stage 3 response the same day. This stated that:
1. The Customer Service Committee was sorry that the resident was not satisfied with the landlord’s previous responses to her complaint.
2. Its stage 3 responder had discussed the complaint with another member of the committee on 14 November 2022. Together they had reviewed and considered all the available information, including reports, details of ASB investigations, the resident’s housing application, and her complaint about the landlord’s housing director. They had also considered whether the landlord’s policies, procedures and any regulations had been followed correctly.
3. The stage 3 responder was satisfied that appropriate action was taken by the landlord each time a report of noise nuisance was received, in line with its policy. This action included speaking to the resident’s neighbour, installing noise equipment, use of mediation services, and liaising with external agencies, in order to investigate the reports.
4. They agreed that the landlord was not aware of ASB or noise issues that would impact the resident at the point it offered the property to her.
5. They also agreed that the landlord could not reimburse the resident for costs related to carpets, furniture and removals, as it had not been negligent in offering her the tenancy.
6. They were satisfied that the landlord had acted in line with its policies and procedures in relation to the resident’s request to be rehoused. Her medical needs and current situation were fully assessed and taken into account in respect of her application.
7. They confirmed that the landlord had awarded the resident priority banding for a move to a suitable 2-bedroom or 3-bedroom property in her areas of choice.
8. They advised that it would be beneficial for the resident to widen her areas of choice to other areas with alternative registered landlords and local authorities. This may assist her in finding alternative accommodation sooner.
9. They had discussed the resident’s complaint about the way she perceived the landlord’s housing director spoke to her on the phone. This complaint was investigated and responded to. While the director felt they were professional and courteous throughout the conversation, an apology was given on 2 occasions.
10. The stage 3 responder agreed that the landlord’s decision not to uphold the resident’s complaint was correct. Its complaints process had now concluded. If the resident was still dissatisfied, she could refer her complaint to the Ombudsman.
The resident subsequently referred her complaint to this Service on 23 November 2022.

Post complaint

On 1 December 2022 she reported to the landlord that her neighbour’s boiler was keeping her awake, and asked if the neighbour could be told to use an electric heater instead as this would be less noisy. The landlord replied that it was not unreasonable for the neighbour to have their heating on during the winter.
On 13 December 2022 the local authority contacted the landlord with an update. It advised that it had reviewed diary sheets completed by the resident earlier in the year and formed the opinion that the noise consisted of day-to-day living noise, which did not have the frequency or duration to be considered unreasonable. It had informed the resident on 25 July 2022 that the reported noise would not constitute a statutory nuisance and that it was unable to take formal action at that time. Its case relating to a separate report by the resident (of noise from dog barking) was closed on 6 October 2022 as no supporting evidence was received. However, the resident had made further reports and returned new diary sheets on 25 October 2022. Due to the ongoing nature of the reports, and the fact that the resident documented disturbances into the early hours of the morning, it had decided to install noise equipment. It had now retrieved this and would inform the landlord of the outcome.
The local authority also told the landlord that its assessment of recordings from a previous noise equipment installation indicated that there may be a high level of noise transference between the resident’s property and her neighbour’s property. As it noted that the party wall was of a solid construction, which could aid noise transference, it suggested a joint monitoring exercise to check the level of noise reduction provided by the structure and to ensure Part E of the Building Regulations was being complied with.
On 15 December 2022 the landlord made an appointment for the local authority to test the sound transference between the properties. The appointment took place on 10 January 2023 and revealed low levels of noise transference. The landlord and local authority concluded that no intervention or works were warranted as a result.
On 9 February 2023 the resident requested an urgent callback from the landlord. She told it that the previous night, after hearing noise from her neighbour’s computer, she knocked on the wall. The neighbour knocked back, and when the resident knocked again, the neighbour banged the wall so hard that her bed moved and she felt damage must have been caused. She reported this to the police as she felt threatened. During a phone call on 14 February 2023, the resident told the landlord she had now been given Band 1 priority for a house move. On 15 or 17 February 2023, the landlord visited the resident’s neighbour to inspect the wall and saw no damage. It therefore closed its ASB case due to a lack of evidence.
On 14 March 2023 the resident reported that her neighbour’s dog barking was affecting her sleep patterns. The landlord told the resident on 17 March 2023 that it would visit that afternoon to discuss the matter. On 21 March 2023 the resident contacted the landlord again to discuss the noise issues, and it advised that it would be visiting her neighbour that day and on 28 March 2023.
On 28 March 2023 the local authority informed the landlord that it had served an abatement notice on the resident’s neighbour in relation to a statutory nuisance from dog barking and howling. The neighbour had 2 months in which to comply with the notice. The resident reported further noise from her neighbour’s boiler to the landlord on 29 March 2023, and told the landlord on 14 April 2023 that the neighbour was “taking no notice” of the abatement notice. The landlord advised the resident to contact the local authority regarding any breach of the notice. It also reopened its ASB case, sent an acknowledgement letter to the resident, and provided diary sheets.
The landlord responded to 12 further reports of noise and queries from the resident between 19 April 2023 and 3 September 2023. On 4 May 2023 the resident told the landlord that it was hard for her and her son because “for normal people living here would be OK, but for us with our hypersensitive hearing we cannot cope”. On 9 August 2023 the landlord carried out a joint visit with the police following a report by the resident of her neighbour’s children being noisy and allegedly unsupervised on 2 August 2023. The resident then moved to a different property in September 2023.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

The resident has advised that she believes the landlord was negligent in the allocation of her property. The Ombudsman is unable to determine whether the landlord has been negligent, as establishing negligence requires a binding decision from a court. Paragraph 42f of the Scheme states that the Ombudsman may not consider complaints concerning matters where it would be quicker, fairer, more reasonable, or more effective to seek a remedy through the courts, other tribunal or procedure. The role of this Service is to consider whether the landlord handled the resident’s complaint in line with its policies and procedures, and whether it treated the resident fairly in the full circumstances of the case.

Concerns about suitability of the property

The resident moved to the property from a different area via a choice based lettings (CBL) scheme. She was therefore not previously known to the landlord. The landlord’s allocations policy states that it will consider each housing application on its own merits and carry out a risk assessment if required. However, the policy further states that risk assessments are usually carried out on applicants who have declared criminal convictions, or for whom a ‘safer estates check’ has been requested. This indicates that risk assessments are carried out for applicants who have been identified as a possible source of risk, but not necessarily for applicants whose needs mean that they are at higher risk of being affected by criminal and/or antisocial behaviour. A recommendation has been made for the landlord to consider carrying out risk assessments for all housing applicants where the available information suggests that they may be at higher risk of being affected by ASB, as well as perpetrating it.
The resident stated on her housing application that she and her son had autism and needed to live “in a quieter area than where we are currently living”. It would not have been possible for the landlord to know, as a result of the limited information on the application, what the resident’s exact requirements were or how her autism affected her. It would also not have had knowledge of the area she was moving from, and even if it had, it would have been difficult for it to assess whether another area was quieter. As a result, it would have been appropriate for the landlord to conduct “investigations … to establish and verify the circumstances of an individual applicant”. Had it discussed the resident’s requirements with her, it would have gained a better understanding of her hyperacusis and the type of property she may find suitable. This would in turn have supported it in delivering its policy aim of treating disabled customers positively.
The Ombudsman has not had the opportunity to inspect any correspondence relating to the offer and acceptance of the property. Consequently, it is unclear whether the resident was made aware in advance of her right to appeal or request a review of the landlord’s assessment of her needs. While this right is stated in the allocations policy, no timescale is set out for applicants and residents to make an appeal; only the timescale for the landlord’s response is specified. A further recommendation has been made in relation to this. Though the resident raised concerns about noise and the condition of the property within a week of moving in, she did not specifically question the suitability of the allocation until July 2022, more than 5 months later. In view of this timescale, it was reasonable of the landlord to deal with her complaint through its complaints process rather than through its allocations appeal process. However, it would have been good practice for it to state this in its acknowledgement email and explain the differences between the 2 processes.
With regard to the resident’s claim that the landlord moved her to a property where it knew there had been previous noise issues, limited detail can be included in this report for reasons of data protection. Nevertheless, it is apparent from records provided by the landlord that it had received reports of noise as recently as November 2021, 2 months before the resident’s tenancy began. It was therefore disingenuous for the landlord to tell the resident that, at the point of the property being offered to her, it “was not aware of any ASB or noise issues which would impact on you”. It was also misleading for it to explain this by saying that there was no open noise case at the time of the offer – as in order for any offer to be made, the property would have needed to be vacant and any report or complaint by the previous tenant would presumably have been closed. If the landlord had concerns about data protection, it should have sought advice on this and/or explained its limitations to the resident, but it should not have provided inaccurate information. The noise reported to the landlord prior to the resident’s tenancy may not have justified a local or special lettings plan, but, in combination with the information on the resident’s housing application, it gave the landlord cause to further explore whether the property was suitable.
A finding of maladministration has been made in relation to the allocation of the property to the resident, as while the landlord acted in accordance with some aspects of its allocations policy, it should have been more proactive in establishing the resident’s needs in light of her disclosed disability. It also repeatedly provided inaccurate information regarding its awareness of previous noise issues at the property, upon which the resident based her decision to accept the property.

Reports of ASB and noise nuisance

The Ombudsman understands and appreciates the extreme impact of noise on the resident and her son as a result of their hyperacusis. The distress caused to them by noise from their neighbour’s property and outdoors is not underestimated. However, the purpose of this investigation is to establish whether the landlord followed its policies, treated the resident fairly, and took the action it would have been expected to take in the circumstances.
Throughout the period investigated, the landlord responded promptly and appropriately to the resident’s reports of neighbour noise and ASB. Where possible, it kept her updated regarding action taken and outcomes. It installed noise monitoring equipment on 3 occasions within a 7-month timeframe; while it is unfortunate that the equipment did not work during the first installation, this was outside the landlord’s control, and a second installation soon followed. The landlord also liaised with partner agencies (including the police and local authority), signposted to support (such as social services), and sought safeguarding advice in accordance with its obligations.
To address the reported issues, the landlord explored a range of proportionate solutions. These included visiting and interviewing the resident’s neighbour; reviewing recordings provided by the resident and/or her son; giving practical advice, resulting in solutions such as the neighbour moving their TVs away from the party wall and changing their children’s bedtime routine; referring the case for external mediation; carrying out a street survey; and conducting a sound transference test. There is evidence that the landlord made sensitive efforts to set realistic expectations with the resident, who had an awareness that other people did not experience noise the way she and her son did. It also kept her informed of key decisions, including when it closed a case.
Overall, the Ombudsman considers the landlord’s handling of the noise and ASB issues reported by the resident to have been satisfactory. It gave appropriate advice in relation to the options available to it in view of the level of evidence, and addressed the possibility of a structural fault giving rise to increased transfer of sound. Though the landlord was unable to take formal action against the resident’s neighbour as a result of her reports, it responded proactively and sympathetically, explained its decision making, accommodated reasonable requests where appropriate, and communicated effectively. No maladministration has been found in relation to this aspect of the complaint.

Concerns about conduct of the housing director

Limited information is available in relation to this aspect of the complaint. The resident informed this Service that she spontaneously contacted the landlord’s housing director by phone around June or July 2022, as she had seen information about them in the local media and felt they may be able to help her. The landlord has no contemporaneous record of the conversation, although it documented that it had taken place on 26 July 2022. This was the day before the resident complained to the landlord. While the conduct of the housing director was not mentioned in the landlord’s summary of the resident’s verbal complaint, it was addressed in the stage 1 response. This raises concerns in relation to the landlord’s record keeping.
In the absence of any written record of the call or other documentary evidence, it is difficult for the Ombudsman to assess the landlord’s initial handling of the resident’s concerns (besides its complaint responses). The resident is understandably unable to recall exactly what was said, but felt that the housing director’s tone was inappropriate, their attitude unhelpful, and said they made a comment to the effect of “I don’t know why you’re phoning me about this problem.” She said she reflected following the call that it had been “a waste of time”. This led her to doubt the director’s suitability for their role and caused her to lose confidence in the landlord’s leadership.
It was appropriate for the landlord to investigate the resident’s concerns, although it is unclear why it did this separately from the rest of its complaint investigation. The separation of the 2 aspects may have meant that the officer investigating the resident’s staff conduct concerns lacked a full appreciation of her situation and the context of the call. While it was reasonable for the landlord to include an apology in its stage 1 response, the resident felt that this was conditional, as well as inadequate because it was not made directly to her in person. The apology stated that the housing director “apologised if [their] response was perceived by [the resident] as rude and dismissive” and assured the resident of their continued support in respect of her move. The Ombudsman agrees that, if the landlord felt an apology was warranted, this could have been worded in a more personal and understanding way.
When the resident expressed her dissatisfaction with the stage 1 apology, the landlord stated in its stage 2 response that it “noted [the director’s] apology if [their] response was perceived as rude and dismissive”. The stage 3 response then stated that “an apology was given on 2 occasions regarding this”. This was inaccurate, as the stage 2 response had simply noted the stage 1 apology. No attempt was therefore made to reissue the apology with which the resident said she was unhappy. As above, if the landlord’s position remained that an apology was deserved, it missed further opportunities to deliver this in a way the resident felt able to accept.
It is noted that the resident told the landlord in her stage 2 escalation request that “saying sorry is not enough” as it was “just a 5-letter word”, which may have prevented the landlord from pursuing a more personal apology at the time. According to the landlord’s records, she also did not apparently refer to the housing director’s conduct or the associated apology in her request to escalate her complaint to stage 3. Nevertheless, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, since the housing director had been prepared to discuss the resident’s case with her personally (albeit during an unexpected call), it would have been a reasonable adjustment in light of the resident’s vulnerability for them to follow up her concerns personally when she requested this.
It was appropriate for the landlord to confirm that it had discussed the conduct issue with the housing director, and to state its conclusion that their conduct was “entirely professional” and there were “no grounds to discipline [them]”. It later stated that the director felt their attitude was “professional and courteous” and that it did not uphold the complaint. However, this too was at odds with the fact that it apologised. It is the Ombudsman’s view that, while there was no evidence of misconduct, the landlord’s handling of the resident’s concerns was confusing and at times appeared contradictory. A finding of service failure has therefore been made, together with an order for the apology to be repeated.

Request for a move

The resident first enquired about a move to a different property on 9 April 2022. The landlord told her in its stage 1 response (on 26 August 2022) that it could not award any priority banding in connection with the ASB and noise. However, in its stage 2 response (on 12 October 2022) it said it would review her housing application and reconsider whether her priority banding could be reviewed in the circumstances. On 25 October 2022 it informed the resident on the phone that it was “actively looking to see if it could consider her for a priority move”, and on 3 November 2022 it authorised Band B priority. This was after the resident called it on 2 November 2022 referring to her request to move on the grounds of noise and health reasons. The resident later referred (on 14 February 2023) to being in the highest priority banding, with a note by the landlord on 4 May 2023 confirming this.
The documents provided to this Service do not explain the reasons for the landlord’s decisions regarding the resident’s priority banding. There are various stipulations within its allocations policy that would have allowed it to award increased priority: for instance, awarding Band A priority for “urgent social reasons” or due to “severe medical need”. It was also appropriate for the landlord to waive its requirement for the resident to have held her tenancy for 12 months before applying for rehousing, in recognition of the fact that enforcing the requirement would have had a “significant detrimental impact” on her.
While the landlord’s changing position and lack of clear explanation could have been confusing for the resident, it ultimately supported her request for an urgent move, meaning that the move itself occurred within 17 months of her initial request and 10 months of priority banding being awarded. In the apparent absence of any detailed medical evidence, this response was satisfactory. A minor point of note is that references within correspondence to ‘Band 1’ and ‘Band 2’ differed from ‘Band A-E’ system detailed in the allocations policy; however, it appears that the landlord mainly recorded and repeated the terminology used by the resident, and the intended meaning was clearly understood by both parties throughout. An overall finding of no maladministration has been made in respect of the resident’s request for a move.

Request for compensation

The resident asked the landlord to reimburse her for costs she incurred as a result of moving to the property and improving it to meet her requirements, as she said she would not have moved there if she had known what living there would be like. The costs she cited totalled £3,020, comprising £1,370 for the carpets she replaced, £1,300 for the fitted furniture she installed, and £350 for her moving costs.

Moving costs

The allocation of the property to the resident is discussed above. It is unfortunate that, having accepted and moved into the property, the resident felt unable to continue living there and sought a further move. Despite this, the landlord would not be expected to reimburse her for the costs she incurred when moving to the property, as she would have incurred these when moving to any property.

Replacement carpets

The landlord’s void report for the property contained the instruction “keep all flooring”. However, this was 1 of 3 items listed under the heading “external”, and may therefore have referred to flooring in the outhouse. There was no specific instruction relating to carpets. It is possible that this caused confusion internally and led to the old carpets in the property being retained when they would usually have been routinely removed. An internal email by the landlord dated 4 October 2022 noted that the carpets were “covered in dog hair” and “smelly” with a “sticky patch to [the] bedroom carpet”. Significantly, this email also stated “I’m surprised [the carpets] had been left in”.
The landlord’s void property procedure refers to the need for properties to comply with its lettable standard. However, the lettable standard is not detailed in the procedure and could not be located on the landlord’s website. In the absence of any specific standard against which to measure the condition of the carpets, it is reasonable to assume that carpets with an obvious smell – in a property where the previous tenant smoked and owned a dog – would require replacement or at least a deep clean. While the void report stated that a clean was required, it did not refer to the carpets or make any stipulation in relation to the level of cleaning. It also referred to the general condition of the property as being “fair to good” and to redecoration being unnecessary, indicating that a deep clean would not have been carried out.
When the resident raised concerns about the smell in the property when she viewed it and/or first moved in, it would have been appropriate for the landlord to review its void report and make arrangements for additional cleaning (even if it provided vouchers for the resident to do this). Instead, it advised her that the smell would dissipate over time, which was unhelpful and untrue. It is the Ombudsman’s view that the landlord should have removed the carpets before the resident moved in, allowing her to base her decision on whether to accept the property on the known cost of carpet replacement. Since it did not do so, it should have responded more proactively when she mentioned the smell. Replacing the carpets would have been an appropriate use of its discretion, despite its usual position of not fitting or replacing flooring. In particular, the landlord should have been mindful of the resident’s autism and the additional disadvantage caused to her by sensory issues as a result. Compensation has therefore been ordered in relation to this.

Fitted furniture

The resident complied with her responsibilities under the tenancy agreement by requesting the landlord’s permission to install fitted furniture. When the landlord granted written permission on 11 April 2022, its letter stated that the proposed improvements were “a qualifying repair” for which a claim for compensation could be made at the end of the resident’s tenancy. According to the resident, she later received confusing advice from an officer of the landlord, who said that a previous officer (who had since left the organisation) included the reference to qualifying repairs by mistake and should have taken this out of the letter. The Ombudsman has not had the opportunity to inspect evidence of any such advice, but would note that the behaviour described was unhelpful, and would have caused understandable distress and uncertainty to the resident. If the landlord had identified an error in its earlier communications, it should have written again to the resident to highlight its error, apologise, and clarify its position with reference to its policies.
The resident initially requested reimbursement for her fitted furniture while she remained living in the property. It was reasonable for the landlord to decline this request, as its policy was to pay compensation for qualifying improvements on termination of the tenancy. However, it missed an opportunity to explain this (and to outline the relevant request and appeal process), and simply refused to pay the compensation. This was again unhelpful, and meant that the resident was unaware of her ability to re-request compensation when she moved out of the property in September 2023. She has since confirmed that the landlord did not remind her of this when her tenancy ended. While the period within which the resident could have requested compensation for a qualifying repair has passed, it is the Ombudsman’s opinion that it previously indicated it would make a payment towards the costs of the fitted furniture, and should honour this. Further compensation has therefore been ordered, which takes account of the current circumstances and depreciation since the furniture was installed.
It is noted that the landlord’s compensation for improvements policy does not deal with awards of compensation over £3,000, and states that “where it is considered that the compensation paid should be greater than detailed within the policy then this shall be dealt with under the compensation policy”. However, the compensation policy states that it deals with awards up to £1,000. There therefore appears to be no provision for consideration of awards over £3,000. While this does not apply to the resident’s case (as her fitted furniture cost £1,300, and her replacement carpets would not be considered qualifying improvements), a recommendation has been made for this to be reviewed.

Summary

An overall finding of maladministration has been made in relation to the landlord’s handling of the resident’s request for compensation. This is due to its failure to remove or replace old and smelly carpets in the property, in circumstances where its internal correspondence indicated it would usually have done so; its inadequate response to the resident’s concerns about the carpets; its confusing communication in relation to compensation for qualifying improvements; and its failure to revisit the matter of compensation when the resident’s tenancy ended, having regard to the history of her case and her vulnerability.

Complaint handling

The landlord acknowledged the resident’s complaint verbally and in writing within 2 working days. This was acceptable and in line with its policy. When it needed more time to produce its stage 1 response, it was appropriate for it to inform the resident of this in advance of the deadline, provide a revised target date, and to frame the extension as a request rather than a decision. The landlord could have provided a more detailed explanation for why it required an extension – rather than vaguely attributing this to “certain elements of your complaint” – but overall, its initial handling of the complaint was satisfactory.
When the resident requested to escalate her complaint to stage 2, the landlord acknowledged this the same day. This, again, was acceptable. However, this time when the landlord required more time to respond, it did not inform the resident until the day after its response was due. This could have caused her some avoidable anxiety, and as before, a more detailed explanation would have helped to demonstrate why the extension was necessary.
The stage 2 response was delayed by 10 working days without explanation. There was also no acknowledgement of the delay or apology in the response. These aspects were unsatisfactory. In addition, it is unclear why the stage 2 response was posted rather than emailed, causing obvious concern to the resident who sent text messages to the landlord 2 days later. It would have improved the resident’s experience if the landlord had followed the contact arrangements used earlier in the complaints process, to avoid unnecessary distress and further delays.
The landlord’s records indicate that it discussed the resident’s request to escalate her complaint to stage 3 with her verbally on 25 October 2022. However, it apparently did not send any written confirmation of the escalation until 17 November 2022, the same day the stage 3 response was issued. Its communication regarding the stage 3 escalation could therefore have been improved. Despite this, the stage 3 response was issued 17 working days after the stage 2 complaint was escalated, which fell inside the landlord’s target timeframe of 20 working days. Due to the timescales involved, no significant detriment was caused to the resident as a result of the communication issues.
The complaint responses were detailed and engaged with all aspects of the resident’s complaint. Other than providing inaccurate information regarding previous noise issues (discussed above), they were of an appropriate length and tone. It would have been appropriate for the responses to consider whether certain aspects of the complaint could or should have been addressed through other routes – such as the allocation of the property and the landlord’s decision regarding compensation for property improvements, both of which had dedicated appeals processes. The responses therefore missed an opportunity to clarify certain points and signpost to other procedures. Despite the minor delays referred to above, they did not identify or make suitable redress for these. The stage 2 response also stated that its responder “did not find that [the landlord] had not been negligent” – likely a human error, but nevertheless a typo which could have caused confusion. A finding of service failure has been made in recognition of these elements, which had a detrimental impact on the resident’s experience of the complaints process.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 42 of the Scheme, the landlord’s handling of the resident’s concerns about the condition of the windows is outside the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was:
1. Maladministration by the landlord in its handling of the resident’s concerns about the suitability of the allocated property;
2. No maladministration by the landlord in its handling of the resident’s reports of ASB and noise nuisance;
3. Service failure by the landlord in its handling of the resident’s concerns about the conduct of the housing director;
4. No maladministration by the landlord in its handling of the resident’s request for a move;
5. Maladministration by the landlord in its handling of the resident’s request for compensation;
6. Service failure by the landlord in its handling of the resident’s complaint.

Reasons

The matter is outside jurisdiction.
The landlord did not conduct sufficient investigations to establish the resident’s circumstances and requirements – particularly in relation to her autism – when she applied for a property. It also repeatedly provided misleading information in relation to its awareness of previous noise issues at the property, which subsequently significantly impacted the resident.
The landlord investigated the noise and ASB reported by the resident promptly, appropriately and consistently. Though it was unfortunately unable to resolve the issue while the resident remained living in the property, it implemented a wide range of proportionate measures to deal with the reported behaviour and seek a resolution. Its communication was swift, detailed and sensitive. It was also mindful of the additional impact on the resident as a result of her disability and took steps to set realistic expectations.
The landlord investigated the resident’s concerns about the conduct of its housing director. Despite concluding that the director’s conduct was appropriate, it apologised. It later said it had apologised twice when it had not. While there was some confusion in relation to the outcome sought by the resident, the landlord did not sufficiently explore the reasons for her continued dissatisfaction.
The landlord exercised appropriate discretion in awarding the resident priority banding for a move. This meant that she was able to move to a more suitable property within 10 months of the priority banding being awarded.
The landlord acted reasonably in declining to pay the resident’s moving costs. However, it did not remove or replace old and smelly carpets in the property when the resident raised concerns about these, in circumstances where it would normally have done so (according to its internal correspondence). Its response to the resident’s concerns about the smell in the property was inadequate, and its communication in relation to qualifying improvements confusing. It also failed to make the resident aware of her ability to request compensation for improvements, and of the relevant appeal process, when her tenancy ended.
The landlord acknowledged the resident’s complaint promptly. However, it repeatedly required more time to complete investigations and did not always inform the resident of this in advance. It delayed in acknowledging her stage 3 escalation request, and did not always fully explain and apologise for its delays. The overall timeframe of the complaints process was not excessive and the responses were appropriate in content, detail and tone. The resident’s experience of the process may have been improved if the responses had referred to other relevant processes (such as appeals processes), had clarified the landlord’s position on certain matters, and had been proofread to avoid confusing typos.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

The landlord is ordered to do the following within 4 weeks of the date of this report:
1. Apologise to the resident for its failures in relation to its handling of the allocation of the property, her concerns about the housing director’s conduct, the condition of the property upon letting, her request for compensation, and her complaint. The apology should be made in writing by the housing director and should refer specifically to the phone conversation during which the resident felt the director’s behaviour was rude and dismissive. The apology should be unconditional, should express genuine regret, and should acknowledge the disproportionate impact of events on the resident due to her disability. The resident should be offered the opportunity to speak to the housing director on the phone following receipt of the written apology, and this conversation should not be rushed.
2. Pay the resident £2,000, comprising:
  1. £400 for its inadequate investigation of her stated requirements and the inaccurate information it provided in relation to noise issues prior to the start of her tenancy;
  2. £100 for its service failure in relation to her concerns about the conduct of the housing director;
  3. £200 for its poor communication in relation to the condition of the carpets and request for compensation for qualifying improvements;
  4. £1,000 in contribution towards the costs she incurred in replacing the carpets in the property and improving the property by installing fitted furniture;
  5. £100 for its complaint handling service failure;
  6. £200 for the distress and inconvenience caused to her as a result of the above failures, including the additional impact as a result of her disability.
3. Review its mechanism for reviewing previous noise and ASB issues at a property and factoring these into allocations. In particular, any assessment of a currently vacant property should not be based on whether or not there is an open case. Staff involved in allocations should be trained in use of relevant systems (for example, those used to record ASB and noise reports) and should receive guidance regarding timeframes to consider.
4. Provide evidence of compliance with the above to this Service.

Recommendations

It is recommended that the landlord considers amending its allocations policy and process to include risk assessments for any housing applicant where there is an indication of additional risk. This should include applicants with vulnerabilities that may place them at additional risk, as well as applicants with a history of perpetrating risky behaviours. It is further recommended that the allocations policy clarifies the time period within which a housing applicant can appeal an allocation and/or an assessment of their needs.
It is recommended that the landlord reviews its compensation policy and compensation for improvements policy, and considers whether there is sufficient provision for payments of compensation exceeding £3,000.