Beyond Housing Limited (202207575)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202207575

Beyond Housing Limited

19 December 2023

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. Reports of anti social behaviour (ASB).
2. Reports of noise nuisance.
3. Concerns about staff conduct.
4. Request to be moved by the landlord due to the ASB and noise nuisance.
5. Housing application.
6. Associated complaint.

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.
The resident raised a separate complaint to the landlord about how it’s staff treated him when he visited its office on 5 July 2022. The Ombudsman has not reviewed this matter because the landlord needs to be given the opportunity to respond to this complaint. In accordance with paragraph 42(a) of the Scheme this Service may not consider complaints which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion are made prior to having exhausted a member’s complaints procedure. If the resident remains unhappy with the outcome of the complaint after it has been through the landlord’s complaints procedure he can contact this Service.
The resident raised to the Ombudsman about how the landlord handled his housing application. The Ombudsman has not reviewed this complaint because it is the local authority who manages the housing register. In accordance with paragraph 41(d) of the Scheme this Service cannot consider complaints which concern matters in respect of local housing authorities in England which do not relate to their provision or management of social housing. In accordance with paragraph 42(j) of the Scheme this complaint would fall within the jurisdiction of the Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman.

Background and summary of events

Background

The resident lives in a 1 bedroom flat within a block of flats. He is an assured tenant of the landlord, a housing association. The tenancy began on 7 April 2014.
The landlord is aware of the resident’s vulnerabilities due to his mental health.

Scope of the investigation

The resident has referenced how the landlord’s handling of his reports of ASB and noise nuisance has impacted his mental health and well-being. The Ombudsman cannot draw conclusions on the causation of, or liability for, impacts on health and wellbeing. Nonetheless, consideration has been given to the general distress and inconvenience which the situation may have caused the resident.
The resident told this Service he wants staff members to be held accountable for their actions and dismissed. It is outside the Ombudsman’s role to consider or comment on how a landlord should deal with individual members of staff. This is in accordance with paragraph 42(h) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, which states that this Service may not consider complaints which concern terms of employment or other personnel issues. When investigating a complaint about a landlord, we will consider the response of the landlord as a whole. The Ombudsman’s determination and any associated orders and recommendations will be made against the landlord rather than an individual.

Summary of events

On 13 February 2020 the resident asked to speak to the landlord’s mediation team in connection with his neighbour. On 19 February 2020 the landlord visited all residents within the block to introduce its mediation service.
On the 21 February and 3 and 9 March 2020, the resident told the landlord he wanted to report issues with his neighbour. The landlord visited the resident on 12 March 2020. The resident told the landlord he wanted his neighbour evicted. The landlord told the resident it cannot take any action without evidence, and gave the resident diary sheets, a copy of its ASB policy and discussed its ASB procedure.
From June 2020 to May 2022 the resident contacted the landlord numerous times about issues with his neighbour. The resident reported ASB and noise nuisance which included loud music, damage to belongings, verbal abuse, leaving the communal front door open and graffiti in the communal areas. The resident told the landlord he felt at risk of being harmed by his neighbour and asked the landlord to install cameras in the communal areas. The resident said he wanted his neighbour evicted or to be moved to alternative accommodation.
The landlord has no evidence of its response to the resident’s reports of ASB between July and September 2020. It stated this was due to staff changes. The evidence provided shows the landlord recorded no information between September 2020 to January 2021, it is unclear if this is because the resident did not report any issues at this time or the landlord’s records were not kept up to date.
On 22 February 2021 and 30 March 2021 the landlord responded to the resident’s reports of ASB and said he needed to provide evidence of the ASB and noise nuisance. On 8 April 2021 the landlord attended the residents flat to listen to the alleged loud music he had reported. The landlord told the resident the music was not loud enough to be a nuisance. The landlord also visited the resident on 25 May 2021, no evidence was provided to what was discussed.
On 17 June 2021 the landlord arranged a meeting to discuss the ASB. The resident did not attend. On the following day the resident told the landlord the police had attended his property due to his reports of loud music. The landlord contacted the police and the local authority to share information. No evidence was provided of these conversations. The landlord visited the resident on 3 July 2021 and told the resident it had not yet received any evidence of the ASB or noise nuisance from him, which it needed before it could take any action.
On 15 July 2021 the landlord responded to the local authority’s environmental health team (EHT) request and provided details of all the residents in the block of flats and whether they had reported noise issues about the resident’s neighbour.
On 26 July 2021 the resident contacted the landlord and reported his neighbour threw a hot drink at him and he restrained her. The resident said he felt he was in danger and thought the situation could escalate and someone would be seriously hurt. The resident said dealing with the situation could push him to a breakdown. There is no evidence the landlord followed up on this report with the resident.
On 29 July 2021 the local authority’s community safety team contacted the landlord and raised concerns that the case regarding the resident and his neighbour was escalating quickly. The community safety team asked the landlord to install CCTV in the block of flats and to reduce any immediate risk for doorbell CCTV to be fitted. On 30 July 2021 the landlord contacted the resident to offer him doorbell CCTV.
On 2 August 2021 EHT contacted the landlord and said following a visit to the residents property it was concerned that the sound proofing between the resident and neighbours flat was poor. The landlord replied stating it would organise a survey of the building. A contractor visited the property on 3 September and 7 October 2021. The landlord received the report on 12 October 2021. The report stated that the flooring did not meet the required standard under Building Regulations 2010. It recommended works should be carried out to the floor structure, the voids between joints, and a resilient floor laid onto the existing floor.
On 3 September 2021 the resident was assisted to fill in a complaints form over the phone. The resident stated that 2 years of ASB had made him unwell. He said the landlord had visited his property without an appointment and he felt it was harassing him. The resident asked to be left alone and not be bothered about sound proofing unless he requested it. The landlord sent several internal emails discussing whether to accept the complaint. Concerns were raised of the hostility between the resident and his neighbour and whether all staff were aware of the situation and the safety risks involved. The landlord stated that there was no record of them attending the resident’s property on 3 September 2021 and said, “even if [it] logged a stage 1 complaint, [its] not sure who it would even go”.
On 15 September 2021 the resident asked to speak to the landlord’s chief executive officer (CEO). He was told he would receive a call back on 17 September 2021. On 1 October 2021 the landlord contacted the resident and discussed the ASB. A home visit was arranged for 4 October 2021. This was rearranged to 19 October 2021 as the resident requested the meeting was held at the landlord’s office. The resident attended the meeting and provided photographic evidence of graffiti in the communal areas. The landlord agreed to request a survey to see if CCTV could be installed. The resident stated he was unsure if he wanted to move, but he was bidding for alternative accommodation through the local authority’s choice based lettings allocation process. The landlord confirmed in writing what was discussed in the meeting. No evidence has been provided that a survey was carried out for the installation of CCTV in the communal areas.
Due to the resident reporting loud music, the landlord visited his property on 27 October 2021. The landlord told the resident the music was not loud enough to disturb the peace and it would not take any action against the neighbour.
The landlord arranged a meeting on 28 October 2021, the resident did not attend due to his health. The resident attended a meeting on 11 November 2021. The landlord gave the resident diary sheets and emailed him a link to download a noise app to record the ASB and noise nuisance.
On 15 November 2021 the resident told the landlord due to further incidents with his neighbour he no longer wanted to live at his address and asked the landlord to find him alternative accommodation. The landlord advised the resident to continue bidding for alternative accommodation through the local authority. On 17 November 2021 the resident told the landlord he was living with his sister.
On 7 and 9 December 2021 the resident told the landlord that if his neighbour did not turn down her music it would end very badly for her and he threatened to harm his neighbour. The landlord said it would visit the resident on 9 December 2021 to witness the noise. No evidence was provided to show this visit took place. The landlord tried to contact the neighbour but could not get through to her. There is no evidence the landlord made further attempts to contact the neighbour.
On 15 December 2021 the resident attended the landlord’s office. The landlord advised he needed to fill out diary sheets or make notes of the date and times of the incidents before the landlord could take any action on the ASB or noise nuisance.
On 10 January 2022 the landlord contacted the resident and told him it had spoken to the EHT and the resident should make a complaint to them. It said the EHT would then send him diary sheets he would need to fill in and would write to his neighbour.
The resident made a formal complaint to the landlord on 17 February 2022. He stated the landlord had failed its duty of care for not taking action against his neighbour for the noise and ASB. The landlord acknowledged the complaint in writing the same day stating it would reply within 10 working days.
The resident chased a response to his complaint 6 times in April 2021. On 12 April 2022 the landlord sent a letter to the resident acknowledging receipt of his complaint dated 12 April 2022 and said that a response will be given within 10 working days.
The landlord sent its stage 1 response on 13 April 2022. It rejected the complaint and said it was satisfied it had handled the reports of ASB in line with its policies and procedures. The landlord stated the resident had not reported incidents using diary sheets, its website or app so it could not investigate these matters in line with its policy. It stated it had told the resident to report noise nuisance to EHT so it could consider installing sound recording equipment. The landlord said it was sorry the relationship had broken down between the resident and the neighbour. However, substantial evidence was required to enable it to take appropriate action.
On 4 July 2022 the EHT contacted the landlord and asked for an update on the works to address the sound insulation works identified and recommended in October 2021. EHT stated all the residents in the block were complaining of noise issues and further criminal offences had occurred. No evidence was provided that the landlord responded to EHT.
On 5 July 2022 the landlord received a letter from the NHS stating the ASB was affecting the resident’s mental health. Internal emails were sent asking for an update on the ASB case. The landlord records show that conversations were had between departments stating it felt there was no ASB happening in the resident’s block.
On 13 July 2022 the resident escalated his complaint. He said the landlord had covered up a hate crime, its staff were negligent and he was not offered any support to move. The landlord acknowledged the resident’s request the same day and stated it would respond within 20 working days.
The landlord sent its stage 2 response on 20 July 2022. It rejected the complaint and said it was satisfied it had managed the reports of ASB in line with its policies and procedures. The landlord said the resident had failed to provide any evidence of ongoing ASB despite being asked to complete diary sheets and report incidents through ASB reporting page and app. The landlord stated that although the resident provided photographs of graffiti, there was no evidence to incriminate any person as responsible for these acts and therefore no action could be taken.
The landlord stated in its stage 2 response the resident must only attend its office by a previously arranged appointment due to his language and behaviour towards staff.
The landlord mentioned an additional complaint raised by the resident about staff conduct when he attended its office on 5 July 2022. This complaint is being investigated separately by the landlord so will not form part of this investigation.
The landlord said if the resident wants to raise a complaint about his housing application he needs to do this with the local authority. The landlord stated the resident could also consider a mutual exchange.
The resident contacted this Service to escalate his complaint as he felt the landlord had failed to address the issues he had raised about his neighbour.

Assessment and findings

The Ombudsman’s dispute resolution principles are:
1. be fair
2. put things right
3. learn from outcomes.
This Service will apply these principles when considering whether any redress is appropriate and proportionate for any maladministration or service failure identified.

The landlord’s obligations

The landlord’s ASB policy dated May 2019 states it can only take enforcement action where there is evidence of ASB (and where it is considered a proportionate response). It recognises that noise nuisance, verbal abuse/harassment/intimidation/threatening behaviour, vandalism, damage to property, and physical violence can all be forms of ASB. The policy states customers can report incidents by:
1. telephone or live chat to our contact centre
2. on diary sheets
3. email to the relevant officer or the contact centre via our website
4. in person at our office bases
5. during a home visit by a communities advisor.
The landlord’s complaints policy states a formal complaint is defined as “an expression of dissatisfaction, however made, about the standard of service, actions or lack of action by the organisation, its own staff, or those acting on its behalf, affecting an individual resident or group of resident”. It states it will acknowledge a stage 1 complaint within 2 working days and respond within 10 working days. It states it will acknowledge a stage 2 complaint within 2 working days and respond within 20 working days.
The landlord’s complaints policy states it will pay compensation if it fails to follow its response timescales in its complaints policy. It will pay an initial payment of £10 and further payments of £2 for every day outside of the timescale up to a maximum of £50. The policy states it will not pay compensation for stress and emotional distress.
The landlord’s transfer management policy states if there are exceptional circumstances then a report outlining these, along with any supporting evidence will be forwarded to the communities manager to consider a transfer to another property.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of ASB

The resident requested mediation in February 2020 due to the issues he had with his neighbour. The landlord acted appropriately by visiting the block of flats in February 2020 to introduce its mediator and its service to all occupants. However, there is no evidence that mediation was offered to the resident after this date. We would have expected to see the landlord explain the different forms of mediation with the resident and the neighbour at the earliest opportunity and see if there was a preferred method they could agree on. The landlord acted inappropriately by not exploring mediation as a remedy to resolve the ASB.
The evidence shows a pattern of poor communication from the landlord in responding to the resident’s reports of ASB. The resident regularly reported incidents of ASB by phone and often got no response from the landlord. The evidence shows the resident regularly chased for updates and asked for call backs from the landlord to discuss the ASB. It is acknowledged that the evidence suggests the resident did not always use appropriate language when communicating with the landlord. However, this does not absolve the landlord from its duties.
When faced with unacceptable behaviour from a resident we would expect a landlord to act promptly and proactively and refer to relevant policy and procedures regarding contact restrictions and tenancy enforcement action if required. Drawing up an agreement with the resident that set out a code of behaviour for both parties could have improved communication between the parties. The landlord acted inappropriately by not responding to all reports of ASB in line with its ASB policy, and for not taking any action to improve communication with the resident.
The evidence shows the landlord tried to call the resident back on 24 July 2020, 23 April and 30 July 2021 but there was no answer and no option to leave a voicemail. No evidence was provided to show the landlord attempted to contact the resident after the first attempt failed or tried other means of communication such as letter or text. We would have expected to see the landlord discuss communication difficulties with the resident and ask what his preferred method of communication was. The landlord acted inappropriately by not considering the resident’s individual circumstances and considering reasonable adjustments. This left the resident feeling ignored and that his concerns were not being taken seriously.
The landlord acted appropriately by arranging meetings to discuss the ASB with the resident. However, in these meetings the landlord told the resident it could not take any action as he had not provided evidence in the form of diary sheets, logging incidents on its website or through its phone app. The landlord’s policy states that residents can report incidents by telephone to its contact centre and in person at its office. It was unreasonable for the landlord to tell the resident to provide evidence through other methods when he had already reported issues by telephone and in person. We would expect a landlord to acknowledge all reports of ASB and keep detailed records. If the evidence provided was insufficient the landlord should make this clear to the resident and set expectations on what would be needed. This failing caused unreasonable delays in the management of the ASB case.
The evidence shows the landlord did not keep accurate and complete records in relation to the reports of ASB. The landlord acknowledged it did not keep records of its responses to the resident’s reports of ASB between July and September 2020 as the housing officer was no longer employed by it. The absence of evidence has meant that the landlord cannot demonstrate what action it took during this time. The landlord’s records are vague about the issues the resident reported, what was discussed with the resident or the conversations it had with other services such as the police and the local authority.
This caused confusion between the landlord’s different departments on what action the landlord had taken and what action it needed to take. The landlord’s poor record keeping resulted in delays or sometimes no action being taken at all. On 5 July 2022 internal emails were sent between different departments asking for an update on the case. Despite there being an on-going ASB case open for 2 years, it was stated “as far as we can tell ASB is not happening at this block”. It is reasonable to expect the landlord’s staff to be trained on how to recognise, record and manage reports of ASB.
There is no evidence to show a risk assessment was completed for the resident or the neighbour at any stage throughout the life of the ASB case. This is contrary to statutory guidance and best practice. Risk assessments would have provided the landlord the opportunity to assess the potential for increased harm arising and identify the priority of the case in line with its ASB policy. The resident had notified the landlord of his vulnerabilities and he was clear about the escalation in the behaviour from both parties. Therefore, it would have been appropriate for the landlord to assess any vulnerabilities and level of risk at the earliest opportunity and throughout the life of the case. This would include points of escalation or milestones such as when the resident made threats of violence towards his neighbour. This is evidence of poor case management in handling the residents reports of ASB.
The resident’s vulnerabilities were relevant factors to inform the nature, tone, and communication of the landlord’s handling of the reports of ASB. There is no evidence that the landlord recorded the resident’s vulnerabilities on its systems. The landlord failed to consider what adjustments, support or sign posting may have been required to assist the resident to effectively navigate his reports of ASB. When the resident told the landlord he was concerned he might have a breakdown, he had been arrested, and was living with his sister, these were all escalations. The landlord should have reviewed its response in terms of the level of detriment being caused to the resident.
Under the Equality Act 2010 landlords are required to take positive steps to ensure disabled residents can access their services as easily as non-disabled residents. Landlords should make adjustments when disabled residents are placed at a substantial disadvantage because of their disability compared to non-disabled people. The reasonable adjustment duty is ‘anticipatory’, meaning landlords cannot wait until a disabled resident needs to use its service. It must consider in advance what disabled residents may reasonably need to access its services.
No evidence has been provided to show the landlord considered if any wider adjustments were needed or assessed. This was a significant failing. The landlord failed to take a harm centred approach to managing ASB and there was an over reliance on passing the matter to other agencies. This left the resident with no clear action or agreed actions which caused significant detriment to the resident as he could not see any form of resolution.
The landlord acted appropriately by advising the resident to contact the police when he reported a threat of violence. The evidence showed the landlord contacted the police and shared information. However, the evidence shows that there was an over reliance on the police taking action to resolve the situation, rather than considering what duties it owed as a landlord and the actions it should take in line with its ASB policy. In July 2021 the resident told the landlord he had physically restrained his neighbour in retaliation to her actions. The resident said he thought the situation could escalate and someone would be seriously hurt. The landlord’s contact centre told the resident to call the police and the crisis team. Although it was appropriate the landlord signposted the resident to the police, there was no evidence the landlord carried out its own enquiries into what happened. The landlord did not call the resident back, monitor the situation, or take any action to prevent the situation from escalating. This was a significant failing.
It is clear from the evidence the relationship between the landlord and the resident had broken down. In the landlord’s stage 2 response it did recognise this and tried to remedy the situation by providing the resident a single point of contact going forward. This was a positive step the landlord took to try to improve its relationship with the resident. However, the landlord failed to clearly explain all the options open to the resident to resolve the ASB, the use of evidence and why it needed this. We would have expected the landlord to better manage the residents expectations and create an action plan at the earliest opportunity. This would have allowed the resident to understand what was expected of him and what he could expect from the landlord and allow the parties to agree on the frequency and type of contact.
In summary the landlord’s communication and record keeping was poor. It did not consider the resident’s individual circumstances, vulnerabilities or carry out a risk assessment at any stage of the ASB case. The landlord failed to consider all options available to it to resolve the issues, there was an overreliance on the police to take action and it did not set clear expectations with the resident. The landlord did not acknowledge any of its failings in the complaints process, take sufficient steps to put things right or show any learning. The landlord’s failings caused significant stress and inconvenience to the resident.
Based on the above, the Ombudsman finds maladministration for the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of ASB. This is placed at the higher end of the maladministration band. It would have been a finding of severe maladministration if it was not for the fact the landlord responded to the resident’s initial reports of ASB appropriately, arranged meetings to discuss the resident’s reports of ASB and there was some joint working with partner agencies within the period investigated. The landlord is ordered to pay compensation to the resident to recognise the stress and inconvenience caused.

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

The resident made several reports of noise nuisance from the same neighbour. It was appropriate the landlord made a referral to the EHT on 18 June 2021. However, the landlord did not inform the resident of the referral, explain the process or expected timescales. It also did not discuss the options and outcomes available through EHT such as the installation of noise monitoring equipment and what action it could take against the neighbour if it was determined there was or was not a statutory nuisance.
On 2 August 2021 the EHT contacted the landlord and stated that following a visit to the residents property it was concerned with the level of noise transference between the properties. It said that conversations could be easily heard between floors without any need to shout or raise the persons voice. The landlord acted appropriately by instructing an independent surveyor to complete a survey of the building. The survey was completed in October 2021 and stated the flooring between the flats did not meet the required standard under the Building Regulations 2010. It recommended works that would improve the sound insulation. However, no evidence has been provided to this Service that the landlord has completed the recommended work.
There was poor communication with the resident around the sound insulation issues. There is no evidence to show the landlord spoke to the resident about the concerns EHT raised around the sound insulation between the flats. It also did not notify the resident of the contractors appointment or explain the purpose of their visit. This resulted in the resident making a complaint on 3 September 2021 stating he felt he was being harassed by the landlord. There is no evidence the landlord responded to the resident. The resident had been reporting noise nuisance from his neighbour for 6 months prior to this survey. The landlord acted inappropriately by not keeping the resident up to date with what action it was taking to try to resolve the issue.
There was also a lack of communication and poor record keeping between the different departments of the landlord. The resident’s complaint on 3 September 2021 was not actioned as internal emails show staff discussing it had not instructed anyone to attend the property, when in fact it had. On 27 October 2021 the landlord visited the resident to listen to the neighbours music and said it was not loud enough to be a nuisance and it would not take any further action. The landlord treated this as an isolated incident. There is no evidence the landlord considered the impact of repeated noise nuisance on the resident and it failed to consider the results of the survey. We would have expected the landlord to have accurate up to date records that all departments could access and to have discussed the survey results with the colleagues involved in the ASB case before determining what action to take. This was a significant failing which left the resident feeling his concerns were not being taken seriously and there would be no resolution.
In the landlord’s stage 1 response on 13 April 2022, it told the resident to report all noise nuisance to the EHT. This was 129 days after the survey was completed and there was no evidence the landlord had carried out the recommended works. It was unreasonable for the landlord to signpost the resident to EHT as it was unlikely they could take any action whilst this work was outstanding. We would have expected the landlord to communicate and work with EHT rather than put the responsibility on the resident to speak to EHT. Even if EHT did require further evidence from the resident, the landlord should have supported the resident to provide this.
On 4 July 2022, 9 months after the survey was completed, the EHT chased the landlord for an update on the works. The EHT raised concerns that all tenants in the block were complaining of noise issues and further criminal offences had occurred. No evidence was provided to show the landlord responded to EHT or took any steps to complete the necessary works. The resident had repeatedly told the landlord the noise was having a significant impact on his health and wellbeing and had made threats to harm his neighbour if the noise did not stop. The landlord acted unreasonably by not seeking to complete the work as soon as it became aware of the issues identified in the survey. The delay meant the situation escalated and not only caused the resident significant distress and inconvenience but may have also increased the risk of harm to the neighbour.
The resident has provided us with evidence that the EHT wrote to him in May 2023 stating they cannot deal with the resident’s noise complaints as the landlord has an ongoing investigation regarding the noise insulation between the 2 properties. EHT stated they will not be investigating further. The landlord acted inappropriately by failing to work effectively and proactively with partner agencies to resolve the noise issues.
In summary the Ombudsman has seen no evidence the landlord has completed any of the sound insulation works recommended in the survey dated October 2021. The noise issue has remained unresolved for an unreasonable period, there was poor communication and record keeping, and the landlord failed to work alongside partner agencies. The landlord did not acknowledge any of its failings in the complaints process, take sufficient steps to put things right or show any learning. The landlord’s failings caused the resident significant distress and inconvenience.
Based on the above, the Ombudsman finds maladministration for the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of noise nuisance. This is placed at the higher end of the maladministration band. This would have been a finding of severe maladministration if it was not for the fact the landlord did initially act promptly by referring the case to EHT and completed a survey of the building on their recommendation. The landlord is ordered to pay compensation to the resident to recognise the stress and inconvenience caused.
The Ombudsman has considered whether the issues identified in this investigation are specific to this case only, or whether similar issues are likely in other cases. With this in mind, the Ombudsman has decided to issue a wider order under paragraph 54 (f) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme for the landlord to review its policies or practice in relation to the service failures identified in this determination, which may give rise to further complaints about the matter. The wider order is outlined below.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s concerns of staff conduct

When a resident raises concerns regarding staff conduct, it would be expected that the landlord carries out a thorough investigation into these concerns and, if appropriate, take reasonable steps to mitigate any future instances. The Ombudsman is unable to make a determination on whether the accusations made by the resident were indeed true or whether there was misconduct by the landlord’s staff. However, we can look at whether the landlord responded fairly and appropriately to the resident’s allegations of misconduct by its staff.
When the resident escalated his complaint to stage 2 he reported the landlord’s staff had been negligent and covered up a hate crime. The landlord stated in its stage 2 complaint response that it had discussed this issue with the resident in the meeting on 19 October 2021. No evidence was provided regarding the matters discussed in this meeting, this is an example of poor knowledge and information management by the landlord. Due to the lack of evidence, it is difficult for the Ombudsman to investigate this part of the resident’s complaint.
In its stage 2 response the landlord recognised it was not meeting the resident’s expectations. It acted appropriately by setting up a single point of contact for the resident to report issues to. This was a different member of staff to the ones the resident had raised concerns about. This shows the landlord had listened to the resident’s concerns and that it was trying to prevent further incidents occurring. This service encourages the resident to report matters in this way to ensure any concerns can be addressed appropriately.
Based on the above, in the Ombudsman’s opinion the landlord has resolved the complaint satisfactorily. The Ombudsman finds reasonable redress for the landlord’s handling of the resident’s concerns of staff conduct.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s request to be moved due to the ASB and noise nuisance

The resident requested to be moved to a different property due to the impact of the ASB and noise nuisance on his mental health and well-being. The Ombudsman can understand the resident’s reasons for wanting to move. The Ombudsman would not order the landlord to move a resident as part of our investigation. We can consider how the landlord handled the resident’s request, including if appropriate support had been provided.
In September, November 2021 and June 2022 the resident provided the landlord with letters from his GP and organisations to support his request to move. The landlord acted reasonably by telling the resident he needed to contact the local authority about his housing application. In the landlord’s stage 2 complaint response it stated that the resident could also look to moving through home swapper or a mutual exchange. However, it did not provide any further information on how the resident could apply for this or offer any appropriate support.
There is no evidence to show the landlord considered whether the resident met the criteria for a transfer to another property. The landlord’s transfer management policy states if there are exceptional circumstances a report will be sent to the communities manager. The resident was arrested and had bail conditions restricting his movements around his property. The resident also told the landlord he was residing with his sister. There is no evidence the landlord considered whether it needed to explore alternative accommodation under any temporary measures or make a referral to the local authority for the resident to seek any further advice and support on his housing options. The landlord acted inappropriately as it did not provide any support or signpost the resident to services for advice on moving.
We would expect a landlord to consider all options available to it and if it decided an option was not appropriate to explain why this was to the resident. Whilst the landlord may have been looking at options regarding the resident’s tenancy, it did not communicate this clearly and effectively to the resident. The landlord needed to explain what options were open to the resident and allow him to explore his options, whilst setting clear expectations on its ability to move him.
In summary, the landlord did not consider all options available to it, it did not communicate effectively with the resident and it did not offer any support or signpost the resident to other services to assist him.
Based on the above, the Ombudsman finds service failure for the landlord’s handling of the resident’s request to be moved due to the ASB and noise nuisance. The landlord is ordered to pay compensation to the resident to recognise the stress and inconvenience caused.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s associated complaint

On 3 September 2021 the landlord assisted the resident to fill in an online complaints form. The resident said he felt the landlord was harassing him and 2 years of ASB was making him unwell. The landlord did not take this as a formal complaint, which was not in line with its policy. It was inappropriate the landlord did not take his complaint through its internal complaints procedure. The landlord restricted access to its complaints process and then failed to inform the resident it was not taking action and explain why. It is reasonable to expect a landlord to train its staff to recognise a complaint and respond in line with its complaints policy and the complaint handling code (the Code).
On 17 February 2022 the resident made another formal complaint. The landlord acknowledged the complaint within the timescales set out in its complaints policy and said it would respond within 10 working days. However, the evidence shows there was a dispute between departments on whether the complaint should be accepted. The landlord did not accept the complaint until 12 April 2022 and sent a second acknowledgement email to the resident stating it would respond within 10 working days. The delay and poor communication from the landlord caused the resident to chase a response 6 times in April 2022. The landlord’s failure to action this appropriately is a complaint handling failure.
The landlord issued its stage 1 response on 13 April 2021, 40 working days after the resident’s initial complaint. This is significantly beyond the 10 working day response time outlined in the landlord’s complaints policy. The landlord’s failure to respond to the resident’s complaint in line with its complaint’s procedure meant it missed an opportunity to address his concerns at the earliest opportunity and left the resident waiting for a resolution to his concerns. The landlord did not acknowledge or apologise for this delay. The landlord is expected to offer redress, which can include compensation, when it has failed to provide a required service.
The resident escalated his complaint on 13 July 2022. The landlord acknowledged this within the correct timescales and stated it would respond within 20 working days.
The landlord issued its stage 2 response on 20 July 2022, 6 working days later. This was within the 20 working day response time outlined in the landlord’s complaints policy. However, the evidence suggests the landlord did not carry out an appropriate investigation into the resident’s complaint. In its response it repeated information from the stage 1 response and told the resident to report noise nuisance to EHT so they could install noise monitoring equipment. The landlord records should have shown that the sound insulation works were still outstanding and that EHT had chased the completion of these works. EHT could not take any action whilst these works were outstanding. The landlord acted inappropriately by not carrying out a full investigation into the resident’s complaint and by setting unrealistic expectations that EHT would be able to assist the resident with his noise complaints.
In the landlord’s stage 2 response it focused on what the resident had not done, rather than providing full details of what actions it had taken to try to resolve the ASB and noise nuisance. The landlord failed to explain if there were any alternative options available. Landlords must address all points raised in the complaint and provide clear reasons for any decisions, referencing the relevant policy, law and good practice where appropriate. We would have expected the landlord to discuss what it had done, is currently doing and could do to resolve the residents complaint. The landlord’s response left the resident feeling frustrated and that his complaint had not been taken seriously.
The landlord failed to fully consider the impact of the ASB and noise nuisance on the resident in its complaint responses. The resident had to repeatedly chase for updates from the landlord which would have left him feeling unsupported and distressed. The landlord also failed to acknowledge the health concerns raised by the resident in its complaint responses. This was a failing in the landlord’s service to the resident.
In summary the landlord failed to accept the resident’s initial complaint, there were unreasonable delays, it did not meaningfully engage with the resident’s complaint and did not provide detailed responses to the issues raised. The landlord did not acknowledge any of its failings or offer suitable redress to the resident.
Based on the above, the Ombudsman finds maladministration for the landlord’s handling of the resident’s associated complaint. The landlord is ordered to pay compensation to the resident to recognise the stress and inconvenience, time and trouble caused.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in respect of the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of ASB.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in respect of the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of noise nuisance.
In accordance with paragraph 53(b) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was reasonable redress in respect of the landlord’s handling of the resident’s concerns of staff conduct.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure in respect of the landlord’s handling of the resident’s request to be moved due to the ASB and noise nuisance.
In accordance with paragraph 42 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the resident’s complaint about the landlord’s handling of the resident’s housing application is considered outside of the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in respect of the landlord’s complaint handling.

Reasons

The landlord failed to take a victim centred approach to the resident’s reports of ASB in line with statutory guidance and its own ASB policy. Despite the resident reporting ASB issues for a prolonged period, the landlord failed to consider all available options available to it, work effectively with partner agencies or manage the resident’s expectations. It acted contrary to its ASB policy and statutory guidance by its failure to complete risk assessments and provide timely responses to the resident. The landlord did not have due regard for its duties under the Equality Act 2010 and accordingly failed to offer appropriate support.
The landlord failed to carry out recommended works to improve the sound insulation of the resident’s property. The landlord’s poor record keeping and lack of communication with the resident and partner agencies resulted in the noise issues being left unresolved for an unreasonable period.
The landlord acted appropriately by setting up a single point of contact for the resident to report issues to, as this was a different staff member to those that the resident raised concerns about the Ombudsman feels this sufficiently resolved the resident’s concerns about staff conduct.
The landlord failed to consider and communicate all the options available for the resident to move, and it did not offer any support or signpost the resident to other relevant services.
The landlord restricted access to its complaint procedure. Its complaint response was subject to delays that were unreasonable and outside its policy timescales. During the course of its investigation, it failed to keep the resident appropriately updated and failed to effectively investigate the resident’s complaint contrary to its complaints policy and the Code.

Orders and recommendations

Within 4 weeks of the date of this report, the landlord is ordered to:
1. Provide a written apology to the resident for the failings identified in this report.
2. Review the recommendations made in October 2021 regarding the noise transference and confirm an action plan with the resident for the sound insulation works to be completed within agreed timescales.
3. Pay the resident £1900 compensation comprising of:
  1. £800 to reflect the stress and inconvenience caused to the resident by the failings identified in the landlord’s handling of his reports of ASB.
  2. £800 to reflect the stress and inconvenience caused to the resident by the failings identified in the landlord’s handling of his reports of noise nuisance.
  3. £50 to reflect the stress and inconvenience caused to the resident by the failings identified in the landlord’s handing of his request to be rehoused.
  4. £250 to reflect the stress and inconvenience caused to the resident by the failings identified in the landlord’s complaint handling.
Within 8 weeks of the date of this report the landlord is ordered to review:
1. The ASB case and the failings identified in this report, including its case management and record keeping.
2. If it has not already done so, the landlord should self-assess against the Ombudsman’s spotlight report on knowledge and information management.
3. A copy of this review should be provided to the Ombudsman.
In accordance with paragraph 54(f) of the Scheme the landlord must carry out a review of the failings identified above in its response to the resident’s reports of noise nuisance. The review should be conducted by a team independent of the service area in which we have identified failings, and should include but not be limited to consideration of:
1. An exploration of why the failings identified in this investigation occurred.
2. Identification of all other residents who may have been affected by the noise issues within the resident’s block, including those who have not necessarily engaged with the landlord’s complaints procedure, and what steps the landlord is taking to put things right.
3. How it works in partnership with other agencies such as EHT to resolve noise complaints.
4. Its staff training to ensure frontline staff are aware of:
  1. how to deal with noise complaints and are able to respond to these reports appropriately
  2. the Equality Act 2010 duties so they understand how to respond to residents’ individual needs and complete risk assessments.
5. If it has not already done so the landlord must self-assess against the Ombudsman’s spotlight report on noise complaints and consider implementing a policy/procedure on how it handles reports of noise nuisance, distinct from the ASB policy.
6. The report should set out:
  1. The steps the landlord proposes to take to provide redress to other residents similarly affected.
  2. The learning from the review should inform the landlord’s wider transformation plan.
  3. The report should be shared with the landlord’s governing body and MRC (if appointed) for scrutiny and oversight.
7. A copy of the report is to be provided to the Ombudsman within 12 weeks of the date of this determination.