Camden Council (202216147)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202216147

Camden Council

28 July 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 reports of antisocial behaviour (ASB) and noise nuisance.
The Ombudsman has also considered the landlord’s complaint handing and record keeping.

Background

The resident held a secure tenancy with the landlord, who is a Local Authority (LA). The resident occupies a ground floor flat in a block of flats.
The resident begun reporting noise nuisance on 29 April 2021. She said she was disturbed by shouting, loud footsteps and doors banging. The resident requested the landlord soundproof the neighbouring flat above, as she was having trouble sleeping.
From May to July 2021, the resident reported ASB noise nuisance 7 times. She told the landlord she had been advised it was not a repairs issue, and had also been in contact with the local environmental health service. The resident again requested the landlord soundproof the flat above, and stated she had regularly discussed the issue with her neighbour but the noise persisted. The resident provided the landlord with a recording of the noise, and complained that no one was acting on her reports.
On 27 July 2021 the resident reported an incident of her neighbour spitting, swearing and shouting at her door. Two further noise reports of shouting followed in October 2021, and the resident also requested the landlord review her application to be rehoused on grounds of medical, harassment and disrepair. She said she did not feel safe living at the property and would like to move.
On 24 October 2022, there was an incident reported and the resident alleged she had been assaulted by her neighbour. The police responded to the incident, although counter allegations were made and no further action was taken.
Between February and August 2022, the resident reported ASB noise nuisance from shouting and weights dropped on the floor 20 times. On 23 March 2022, the landlord visited both the resident and her neighbour regarding the noise. On 2 April 2022, the resident told the landlord the noise was affecting her mental health and she was feeling suicidal. She again requested to be rehoused.
On 10 June 2022, the landlord acknowledged the resident’s noise reports and gave details for the out of hours response service and responsive security patrol. On 27 September 2022, the resident raised a formal complaint about the landlord’s handling of her reports of ASB noise. She complained she had experienced issues since her tenancy began and was not satisfied the landlord had done anything to resolve it, as she still experienced disturbances daily. The resident alleged she had physical altercations with her neighbour and had been shouted, spat and sworn at and racially verbally abused.
On 26 January 2023 the landlord responded to the resident at stage one of its complaints process. In summary, the response said:
1. The landlord apologised for the delayed response and stated that it had been in contact with the resident between March 2021 and June 2022.
2. General household noise had been established, which did not constitute ASB and therefore no further action was taken.
3. It acknowledged the resident had received support from its ASB support service and had been in contact with the LA’s environmental health services.
4. The resident was advised to consider mediation, and to continue to report any new instances of ASB noise.
5. It apologised for the delay in responding to the incident from October 2022, and partially upheld the resident’s complaint as this was not investigated due to staff shortages. It apologised for the oversight and asked the resident to make contact and provide further information.
Between 30 January and 27 February 2023, the resident requested to escalate the complaint 3 times. She disputed the landlords definition of the noise, and argued she had not been complaining about the toilet flushing, walking noise or talking on the phone. The resident stated she has been experiencing ASB noise for 2 years, including: dropping weights on the floor, banging around, dragging furniture and being shouted and sworn at. She complained the landlord had not acted to stop the nuisance or attempted to mediate the situation.
In communication from 31 January 2023, the landlord advised the resident that statutory noise nuisance had not been established from the noise the resident reported. It advocated for mediation, although stated the resident had advised she had not recently been disturbed and did not wish for her neighbour to be contacted at this point. It stated the resident agreed to keep a record of the noise and provide details of the environmental health officer she had been in contact with. Regarding the incident from October 2022, the landlord stated that no substantive evidence had been provided, and due to counter allegations made no further action could be taken.
On 6 March 2023, the landlord provide its stage two response to the complaint. It stated that general household noise had been established, and counter allegations had been made by the resident’s neighbour, meaning it was not possible for it to take further action. It continued to advise mediation and also suggested the resident register for a home swapper scheme or mutual exchange, but that it was doing everything possible to assist and therefore it was unable to uphold the complaint.
The resident has continued to report noise nuisances, and told the landlord she contacted the out of hours teams who do not attend for noise nuisance from neighbours and referred her to the LA’s environmental health service. The resident complained that nothing happened in response to her reports, and would like the landlord to move her neighbour to another flat in the building, fully soundproof his property, and provide compensation for the distress and inconvenience caused.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

The resident has raised concerns that the reported ASB noise nuisance has affected her mental health. The Ombudsman does not doubt the resident’s statement. However, it is beyond the expertise of this service to make a determination on whether there was a direct link between the landlord’s handling of the reports of ASB and the resident’s mental health. The resident therefore may wish to seek independent advice on making a personal injury claim if she considers that her health has been affected by any action or lack thereof by the landlord.

Policies and procedures

The landlord’s remedies guidance on dealing with noise, nuisance and ASB sets out that it may use conversations, letters and mediation as an informal remedy for complaints. It states: ‘both parties do not always necessarily need to agree and some services will work with one party only as a useful way of learning to manage the issue themselves’.
The landlord’s complaints policy states that its definition of a complaint is: ‘when someone lets us know they are unhappy with our service and they want us to take action to resolve it’. It further states it will response to a complaint within 10 working days at stage one and 25 working days at stage two.

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

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 3 principles driving effective dispute resolution:
1. Be fair- treat people fairly and follow fair processes;
2. Put things right, and;
3. Learn from outcomes.
The Ombudsman must first consider whether a failing on the part of the landlord occurred, and if so, whether this led to any adverse effect or detriment to the resident. If it is found that a failing did lead to an adverse effect, the investigation will then consider whether the landlord has taken enough action to ‘put things right’ and ‘learn from outcomes’. When assessing complaints about the landlord’s handling of reports of ASB, the Ombudsman’s role is to assess whether the landlord has adequately investigated the reported issues and taken appropriate and proportionate action in line with its policies and procedures.
As part of this investigation, the Ombudsman asked the landlord to provide copies of its records relating to the ASB case, such as the resident’s ASB reports, any records concerning the landlord’s investigation into these such as interviews/meetings with the victim, witnesses and alleged perpetrator, and copies of any correspondence or notices sent to the resident or the alleged perpetrator.
The information received included multiple noise reports filed by the resident and several emails she sent to the landlord. There is very little evidence of communication from the landlord to the resident, or the alleged perpetrator. From April 2021 to March 2022, there is one record of the landlord having acknowledged email communication from the resident and one recorded mention of the landlord visiting both neighbours. However, there is no detailed record of this visit, what was discussed or any actions that were agreed. It is unclear whether this visit went ahead. The landlord did not follow its remedies guidance.
Further to this, from April to June 2022 the resident reported noise or emailed the landlord 15 times. The records provided show that the landlord contacted her once in response, and gave details of the out of hours response service. The resident has complained that the out of hours service do not respond to noise disputes between neighbours, and she was frustrated that no one was listening to her complaint. There is no evidence the landlord engaged with the resident or took any meaningful actions in response to her reports. This is a failing and indicates poor record keeping; a landlord should keep accurate and complete ASB records, not only so that it can evidence its actions when requested by the Ombudsman, but so that it can record and track ASB cases and information, ensuring that these are dealt with appropriately. A finding of maladministration is made in this regard.
On the 27 July 2021, the resident reported an incident of her neighbour spitting, swearing and shouting at her door. There is no evidence the landlord took any action following this or investigated this incident, and the next record provided of any communication from the landlord to the resident is not until March 2022. This is a failing in regard to both its handling of ASB and communication with the resident, and again, the landlord did not follow its remedies guidance.
In the stage one response from January 2023, the landlord states that the noise had been established to be general household noise, and as such no further action would be taken. From the evidence provided, it is unclear how the landlord has established the resident’s reports of noise constitute general household noise, as there is no record of any inspection or investigation carried out. The landlord has advised that general household noise applies due to the description and times of the incidents, however it should have investigated this further, due to the ongoing duration of the complaint and the alleged of abusive behaviour from the neighbour.
Furthermore, the landlord has advocated for mediation to resolve the complaint. Whilst this is a fair and reasonable action to take, in communication from 31 March 2023 to this service the landlord has advised mediation was not considered a suitable option due to the neighbour’s age and health. It is unclear whether this was communicated to the resident at any point, as mediation was still advocated for in the stage two response from 6 March 2023.
From the evidence provided, it is apparent the landlord’s failure to communicate effectively with the resident has added to her overall distress, as she chased it for a response several times over the course of two years. Very little evidence has been provided to show that the residents reports were appropriately investigated, and therefore the Ombudsman has made a finding of maladministration in regards to the landlord’s handling of the resident’s report of ASB.
To put things right, orders are made below. The compensation ordered is in line with the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance, where there has been a failure which had a significant impact on the resident. In this case, the landlord’s failure to engage with the resident and follow is own procedure has had a significantly detrimental impact.

The landlord’s complaint handling

The resident made a formal complaint about the landlord’s inaction relating to her reports of noise on 27 September 2022. This service requested the landlord provided a response to the resident on 14 November 2022 and 13 January 2023. The stage one response was provided on 26 January 2023, 84 working days later. This was contrary to the Ombudsman’s request and its own policy which states it will respond to complaints at stage one within 10 working days. This is a clear failing, and falls well outside of this timeframe. The landlord failed to act in accordance with its policy, and the delay contributed towards the resident’s overall distress and belief no action was being taken and her concerns were not being taken seriously.
In the stage one response, the landlord apologised for the delay and partially upheld the complaint for not investigating the October 2022 incident due to staff shortages. Though it has acknowledged it failed to investigate and apologised for the delay, it did not offer redress to the resident for its complaint handling failures.
The stage two response was provided on 6 March 2023, which was 25 working days after it was escalated. This falls within the landlord’s policy of 20-25 working days for response.
Overall, the landlord failed to act in line with its complaints policy and the delays were significant. Redress has not been offered for these failings, which amounts to maladministration from the landlord that has not been ‘put right’ for the resident. The landlord should provide compensation to the resident as detailed in the order below, for the complaint handling failures identified in this report.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord in respect of its handling of the resident’s reports of ASB noise nuisance.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord in respect of its complaint handling.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord in respect of its record keeping.

Orders and recommendations

The landlord must, within the next four week, take the following action:
1. Pay the resident £850, compromised of:
  1. £750 for distress and inconvenience caused by the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of ASB noise nuisance.
  2. £100 for distress and inconvenience caused by the complaint handling failures identified in this report.
2. Carry out a review of its ASB record keeping, and write to the Ombudsman confirming this has been completed and detailing the outcome.
3. Visit the resident, review the case and consider the Ombudsman’s spotlight report on noise. The landlord should carry out a risk assessment on the resident and provide an action plan regarding how it will investigate the issue further (with a copy also provided to the Ombudsman).