Camden Council (202125095)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202125095

Camden Council

6 September 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:
1. The resident’s report of antisocial behaviour (ASB).
2. The allocation of Flat 278.
3. The resident’s associated complaint.

Background

The resident is a leaseholder of a first floor flat. The landlord is a local authority.
The resident had been making reports of noise disturbance and ASB from Flat 278 to the landlord since approximately April 2020. The resident said that Flat 278 were consistently leaving rubbish in the communal hallway which was causing a smell, and were also making excessive noise which was transferring into her property.
In response, the landlord contacted the tenant at 278 (Tenant A, who lived there until February 2022). Tenant A said that rubbish was never left for long in the communal hallway and was removed soon after the pictures were taken. The landlord also contacted the resident to confirm the actions that had been taken, and asked the resident to understand that Flat 278 was home to young children and as such noise would be experienced, especially given circumstances with the Covid-19 pandemic meaning people were at home more.
The resident continued to report noise disturbances from Flat 278. In response, the landlord again spoke to Tenant A and informed the resident. It is also noted that the landlord asked the resident to refrain from recording the noise of daily activities and suggested mediation.
The resident submitted a number of further reports from March 2021. These are summarised below:
1. 2 March 2021 – Complaint: Excessive noise from Flat 278 and rubbish left in communal hallway. Landlord spoke to both residents and attempted to mediate. Landlord informed Tenant A to put the rubbish in the communal bins.
2. 2 April 2021 – Complaint: Loud music and screaming children on patio at Flat 278. Landlord Action: Noise Team (part of Environmental Health) attended and concluded that noise witnessed was not a nuisance. Assessment was carried out externally due to Covid-19 restrictions.
3. 9 May 2021 – Complaint: Individuals shouting at Flat 278. Landlord Action: Noise Team attended. Assessed outside and within communal areas. No nuisance witnessed.
4. 17 and 22 May 2021 and 5 June 2021 – Complaint: Loud television (using sound amplifier) at Flat 278. Landlord Action: Noise Team attended on each occasion. Assessed outside and within communal areas. Noise was noted, but concluded it was not a nuisance and instead the result of a poorly insulated building.
5. 21 May 2021 – Complaint: Rubbish left in the communal hallway by entrance to Flat 278 and noise disturbance from a TV. The landlord confirmed that it would contact Tenant A regarding the rubbish and also make unannounced visits to the block. It was also noted that although the resident and Tenant A ‘do not get along, they should tolerate each other’.
6. 1 and 2, 3, 13, 18, 19 July 2021 – Complaint: Television noise and loud voices at Flat 278. Landlord Action: Noise Team unable to attend on 1 July 2021 due to staff illness. On 2, 3, 13, 18 and 19 July 2021, Noise Team attended and assessed outside and within communal areas. No nuisance witnessed.
On 1 September 2021, the resident filed a housing noise complaint with the local authority which was passed to the landlord. The landlord contacted the resident to discuss her concerns and followed this up with an email which confirmed that the resident reported that she was working from home and was experiencing noise nuisance from the young children of Flat 278 playing in the front patio. The landlord informed the resident that it was reasonable for children to play in a garden and as such would not classify the report as noise disturbance.
The resident informed this Service that she made a complaint to the landlord on 22 September 2021 and did not receive a response until 1 December 2021. On 16 February 2022, the resident contacted this Service for assistance as she was unable to confirm with the landlord if this was a final response. The resident said that she was experiencing noise nuisance and ASB from Flat 278 and wanted the landlord to implement its policies, initiate a community trigger process and issue an abatement notice. The resident was also dissatisfied with the landlord’s complaint handling.
The landlord acknowledged the complaint on 25 March 2022 and confirmed it had been logged at stage one of its formal complaint process and would aim to respond within 10 working days. On 8 April 2022, the landlord informed the resident that it had withdrawn her complaint as it believed it could resolve her concerns informally.
On 3 May 2022, the resident raised a further complaint as she was unhappy with the way the landlord had handled her reports of ASB, and also said that the she was dissatisfied with the landlord’s handling of the lettings process. Tenant A moved out in February 2022, but Tenant A’s sister (Tenant B) moved in to Flat 278 in May 2022.
The landlord provided a stage one response in May 2022, although the exact date is unknown, stating that it would not address the aspect regarding ASB as this had been dealt with previously and that Flat 278 was allocated in line with its letting policy. A copy was also provided to this Service.
On 26 May 2022, this Service referred the complaint back to the landlord and asked that it provide the resident with a final response as it had not dealt with all aspects of the complaint in line with the Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code). The landlord confirmed that it would contact the resident and confirm it’s position regarding the complaint.
On 27 May 2022, the landlord wrote to the resident and confirmed that the issues raised fell outside of the formal complaints process. On 14 June 2022 the resident contacted the landlord and further requested to escalate her complaint to stage two as she remained dissatisfied with both of the landlord’s responses. She said the landlord had:
1. acted vexatiously in its decision to let Flat 278 to the relative, and had ‘engaged in discriminatory practise by excluding people on the housing list to be considered for and apply for the property’
2. failed to enforce the tenancy agreement
3. failed to deal with noise nuisance and antisocial behaviour
4. failed to comply with the complaint policy
5. refused to allow her an appropriate escalation through the community trigger process
6. discriminated against her because she worked.
On 27 June 2022 the landlord provided a stage two response, where it confirmed:
1. The noise nuisance was not considered anti-social behaviour as it was classed as every day noise. Mediation between both parties was unsuccessful and that both parties felt they were being harassed.
2. Flat 278 had been re-let in line with housing’s policy and procedures.
3. It recommended carpet was installed in the property as this could help with absorbing noise and assist with noise transference.
4. It did not imply the resident should give up work when it suggested the resident did not work from home.
On 19 September 2022, the resident contacted this Service as she remained dissatisfied with the landlord’s response. The resident said that she wanted this Service to investigate the landlord’s failure to implement and enforce its complaint policy and the way it had dealt with her reports of ASB.

Assessment and findings

Scope

The resident has expressed her complaint about the re-letting of Flat 278 as being about the landlord engaging in discriminatory practice by excluding people on the housing list to be considered for and apply for the property.
Paragraph 42(k) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme states:

“The Ombudsman may not consider complaints which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion: (k) fall properly within the jurisdiction of another Ombudsman,

regulator or complaint-handling body”.

Any matters in relation to housing allocations under Housing Act 1996 Part 6 fall under the jurisdiction of the Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman. Therefore, we will not investigate the allocation of Flat 278. This is in line with paragraph 42(k) of the Scheme.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s report of antisocial behaviour (ASB)

The Ombudsman’s role is to determine complaints by reference to what is fair in all the circumstances and decide if the landlord is responsible for maladministration or service failure.
When investigating a complaint, the Ombudsman applies its dispute resolution principles. These are high level good practice guidance developed from the Ombudsman’s experience of resolving disputes, for use by everyone involved in the complaints process. There are only three principles driving effective dispute resolution:
1. Be fair – treat people fairly and follow fair processes.
2. put things right, and.
3. learn from outcomes.
It is not our role to establish whether someone has committed ASB, but rather to assess the landlord’s handling of the resident’s ASB reports. This investigation will consider whether the landlord’s response was fair and reasonable in view of all the circumstances, taking into account its own internal policies and industry best practice.
The landlord’s website defines ASB as behaviour by a person which causes, or is likely to cause, harassment, alarm or distress to persons not of the same household as the person. It further states that ASB can fall into three main categories, depending on the numbers of people it affects:
1. personal antisocial behaviour – when a person targets a specific individual or group
2. nuisance antisocial behaviour – when a person causes trouble, annoyance or suffering to a community
3. environmental antisocial behaviour – when a person’s actions affect the wider environment, such as public spaces or buildings.
The landlord’s noise and nuisance guidelines, dated May 2019, states that when dealing with noise and other nuisance, it will try to:
1. Act quickly to try to prevent an issue escalating.
2. Take a restorative approach whenever appropriate.
3. Aim to avoid legal action when it can.

The procedure further gives advice on what steps can be taken when dealing with noise nuisance, including the use of mediation when counter allegations are made and utilising other departments, such as housing patrol and neighborhood housing officers. It also confirms that reports will be dealt with under a case by case basis.
Between April 2020 and July 2020 the resident reported that Tenant A was continually leaving bags of rubbish in the communal hallway. She also reported that the resident held a garden party and that noise from the TV was excessive at 8am.
In response to the resident’s reports of ASB, and in line with its noise nuisance guidelines, the landlord contacted Tenant A to discuss the allegations made. Given that there were discrepancies between the resident and Tenant A’s accounts of events, the landlord suggested that they tolerated each other through the pandemic and that it would arrange for mediation once lockdown restrictions were lifted. This was an appropriate response from the landlord.
It is not clear from the information provided whether the instances of alleged ASB declined, but there were no further reports from the resident until approximately April 2021 where the resident made a number of reports regarding rubbish being left in the communal hallway and excessive TV noise from Flat 278. The landlord appropriately responded that it would contact the resident of Flat 278, reference the rubbish and would carry out an unannounced visit so that it could witness any ASB occurring. Have added a bit in to support It also stated that everyday living sounds (such as children playing and TV noise) were to be expected in a block of flats, and that this did not constitute noise nuisance. The unannounced visit did not find any noise nuisance.
It is clear from the resident’s emails that she wanted the landlord to take legal action against Flat 278, including when she made a housing noise complaint on 1 September 2021, where she requested a community impact trigger was activated. The landlord responded to the resident and confirmed that it would not class the reports as noise nuisance as it was due to everyday living noise. Internal emails also show that the threshold for a community impact trigger had not been met.
It is important to note that landlords can only take formal action against tenants for ASB such as acceptable behaviour orders, court injunctions or eviction if there is sufficient evidence to show that formal action is appropriate. In order to secure an injunction or eviction, the landlord would have to go to court and it would be expected to show the court that the ASB was severe and persistent and (except in the most extreme cases) reasonable efforts had been made to resolve the issues informally (mediation, tenancy warnings, acceptable behaviour orders, etc.) before the landlord pursued court action.
The Government guidance ‘Help with anti-social behaviour for social housing tenants’ (available online) sets out what might not be considered as ASB, and this includes things such as the noise of children playing, and noise from household appliances such as washing machines. In line with this guidance, the landlord did not classify the noise reported as ASB, and so it was appropriate for it to not take formal action. In general landlords are unable to take enforcement action where the noise reported is ‘everyday living’ noise such as children playing, or residents moving around their homes.
This Service acknowledges that when the alleged ASB was occurring, it was at a time of a lot of change and residents were having to adapt to the government restrictions regarding Covid-19. However, based on the evidence available, the landlord took appropriate steps when receiving reports of ASB from the resident, took prompt action when responding to the resident and further explained what it could and could not do regarding any legal action, which was in line with its noise nuisance guidelines.

The landlord’s complaints handling.

The landlord’s complaints policy states it will acknowledge all complaints within two working days. It will issue its stage one complaint response within ten working days, and its stage two complaint response within 25 working days.
The policy also says that a report of ASB would fall outside of its formal complaint process.
The Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code April 2020, (the Code), paragraph 3.14 specifies that landlords must address all points raised in a complaint and provide clear reasons for any decisions, referencing the relevant policy, law, and good practice where appropriate.
Information provided to this Service shows that the resident first raised a housing noise complaint on 1 September 2021, however this Service has not been provided with a copy.
The resident also informed this Service that she made a further complaint on 22 September 2021, but again no information has been provided by the landlord regarding this, which indicates an issue with record keeping.

Paragraph 1.3 of the Code states that a resident does not have to use the word complaint in order for it to be treated as such. Landlords should recognise the difference between a service request(pre-complaint), survey feedback and a formal complaintand takeappropriate steps to resolve the issue for residents as early as possible.
On 4 October 2021 the resident emailed the landlord as she was dissatisfied with the handling of her reports of ASB, and that it had failed to implement its own noise policy. The landlord responded to the email reminding the resident that that everyday noise is not classed as noise nuisance and that it had made two unannounced visits to the block and had not heard any noise. The landlord told the resident to stop reporting every day living sounds coming form Flat 278.
Although the resident did not say that she was making a formal complaint, it is clear that the resident was dissatisfied with the service the landlord had provided. Therefore the landlord failed to appropriately acknowledge the resident’s dissatisfaction accordingly, which would have further exacerbated the resident’s frustrations.
As the resident remained dissatisfied with the landlords response, on 8 October 2021 she requested that her complaint was escalated. It is clear from the email that the resident was again requesting her concerns be investigated as a complaint. This did not happen and the landlord took the decision to respond and stated that the resident was making unreasonable complaints of ASB, and if it continued it would take further steps, as she appeared to be breaking the conditions of her lease.
It is clear that the landlord was not applying the Ombudsman’s dispute resolution principles and failed to treat the resident fairly. The resident had a right to raise a complaint regarding the service she was receiving from the landlord and the landlord failed to acknowledge this appropriately. Furthermore, it is the Ombudsman’s view that the landlord failed to acknowledge or respond appropriately and that the landlord’s responses were in such a manner that it treated the resident personally in a heavy-handed and unsympathetic manner. For example, in an email dated the 4 October 2021 the landlord said to the resident ‘You informed me that you are going to continue to work from home. I suggest you consider working in the office because you are not going to have a very quiet atmosphere like your office’.
Because of the landlord’s actions, the resident took further steps to try to register her complaint and contacted her local MP on 11 October 2021, however it was not until 1 December 2021 that the resident received a formal letter from the landlord. It is clear from this letter that the landlord had again failed to acknowledge the resident’s complaint and had simply reiterated what it had already emailed to her on previous occasions. Furthermore, the letter was written by the specific staff member who had responded in October 2021.
Paragraph 4 of the Code states the steps that landlords should take to ensure fairness in complaint handling. By taking the above approach, the resident was denied the opportunity in having the ‘stage one’ response challenge. Furthermore, if the landlord decided not to escalate the complaint, it should have written to the resident to explain the reasons why. The landlord did not do this.
The resident contacted this Service in February 2022 for assistance to progress her complaint through the landlord’s internal complaint process.
Although the landlord acknowledged the resident’s complaint on 25 March 2022, information provided to this Service shows that on 8 April 2022 the resident was sent two emails. The first email explained that the complaint had been allocated a caseworker, but a few minutes later a second email was sent detailing that the complaint had been withdrawn as it believed it could resolve the concerns raised informally, and had passed the email to the relevant service.
It is clear from the information provided by the landlord that it was decided that the resident’s complaint was not about the service the landlord had provided, but was about the alleged noise nuisance which did not meet the criteria of ASB. This was incorrect as the resident was complaining about the service provided. The actions of the landlord and tone of the emails further confirm that the landlord failed to treat the resident with fairness and respect.
The resident continued to contact the landlord expressing her dissatisfaction, and in May 2022 the landlord provided a formal response to her complaint. A copy of the letter was provided to this Service, and it was identified that the landlord had failed to address all of the resident’s points. In line with point 1.9 of the Code, on 26 May 2022, this Service referred the complaint back to the landlord to provide a full response.
Despite the intervention of this Service and the landlord confirming it would provide the resident with clarification of its position, the landlord took the decision to write to the resident on 27 May 2022, where it confirmed that the issues she had raised were outside of the formal complaints process because:
1. The noise that was being reported was family noise and some level of noise should be expected.
2. The offer of mediation was declined.
3. The resident should put carpets down as this would help dampen the noise coming from Flat 278.
4. Tenant A and family had moved from the property.
Whilst the landlord’s policy does state that reports of ASB did not fall within the its formal complaint process, it is clear from the information provided that the resident was unhappy with the handling of her ASB complaints. The approach the landlord took was a missed opportunity for it to review the way in which the reports of ASB had been dealt with and build the relationship with the resident. Furthermore, the resident was responded too each time by the same member of staff that she was complaining about, which would have further caused frustration.
The resident took the relevant steps to request her complaint be escalated to stage two of the process on 14 June 2022 as she remained dissatisfied with the landlord’s response on 27 May 2022. The landlord eventually provided a final response on 27 June 2022. Although this acknowledged all of the resident’s concerns, it did not provide a detailed response regarding the way in which her reports of ASB were handled, which was a further failure by the landlord in the way in which it handled the resident’s complaint.
This Service is satisfied that the email sent by the resident on 4 October 2021 was a complaint regarding the way in which the landlord had handled her reports of ASB. It then took until 27 June 2022 for the resident to receive a final response. This was a total of 266 working days and was considerably outside of the landlord’s policy.
Furthermore, the landlord missed multiple opportunities to resolve the resident’s complaint and take the necessary steps to conduct a fair and impartial investigation. The repeated failure to acknowledge her complaint over a prolonged amount of time would have caused the resident further frustration. This amounts to maladministration and as such would attract a level of compensation.
In assessing an appropriate level of compensation, the Ombudsman takes into account a range of factors including any distress and inconvenience caused by the issues, the amount of time and effort expended on pursuing the matter with the landlord, and the level of detriment caused by the landlord’s acts and/or omissions. It considers whether any redress is proportionate to the severity of the failing by the landlord and the impact on the resident. The Ombudsman also takes into account the evidence that has been provided.
Ultimately the Ombudsman considers what would be fair and proportionate. The aim of compensation is not to be punitive, but to provide redress for the impact of any failings by the landlord on the resident. In the case of compensation for distress and inconvenience, this Service is not able to quantify a definitive loss and the intention of such an award is to recognise the overall distress and inconvenience suffered by the resident.
The Ombudsman has first considered the distress and inconvenience suffered by the resident as a result of the delay in dealing with her complaint within a reasonable timeframe. In line with the Ombudsman’s remedy guidance where there has been severe maladministration but the redress needed to put things right is at the lower end of the scale, payments between £600 and £1000 are recommended. Overall there was a delay of over 10 months in which the landlord failed to acknowledge the resident’s complaint. The prolonged amount of time the resident was trying to register a complaint, and the continued heavy handed responses was not reasonable or fair. In recognition of this, the Ombudsman has made an order for the landlord to pay the resident £700 compensation.
In summary, a finding of severe maladministration has been made as the landlord failed to acknowledge the resident’s complaint within a reasonable timeframe and furthermore responded to the resident in a heavy handed manner.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was no maladministration in the landlord’s handling of reports of ASB.
In accordance with paragraph 42 (k) of the Scheme, the landlord’s handling of the allocation of Flat 278 is outside of the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was severe maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the associated complaint.

Orders

The landlord is ordered to pay the resident £700 in compensation within four weeks of the date of the report.
The landlord is ordered to carry out a case review to identify any lessons that can be learnt from this complaint and any changes which may be needed to the landlord’s complaint processes and policies in view of this. The landlord should write to the resident and this Service to confirm the findings of this case review within eight weeks of the date of this report.
The landlord’s Chief Executive to provide a written apology to the resident for the complaint handling failings identified within four weeks of the date of this report.

Recommendations

The landlord should carry out training with staff regarding the tone of written communication.
It is also recommended that staff complete the Ombudsman’s complaint handling e-learning.