Clarion Housing Association Limited (202015995)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202015995

Clarion Housing Association Limited

20 December 2021

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:
1. The landlord‘s response to the resident’s reports of anti-social behaviour (ASB).
2. The landlord’s response to the resident’s request for compensation in relation to a leak in his bathroom in January 2018.

Jurisdiction

What we can and cannot consider is called the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction. This is governed by the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, which gives the Ombudsman his investigatory powers. When a complaint is brought to the Ombudsman, we must consider all the circumstances of the case as there are sometimes reasons why a complaint will not be investigated.
After carefully considering all the evidence, in accordance with paragraph 39 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the following aspect of the complaint is outside of the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction:
1. The landlord’s response to the resident’s request for compensation in relation to a leak in 2018.
We are unable to investigate complaints which in the Ombudsman’s opinion:
1. were made prior to having exhausted a member’s complaints procedure, unless there is evidence of a complaint–handling failure and the Ombudsman is satisfied that the member has not taken action within a reasonable timescale (Under paragraph 39(a) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme)
2. were brought to the Ombudsman’s attention normally more than 12 months after they exhausted the member’s complaints procedure. (Under paragraph 39(d) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme)
3. were not brought to the attention of the member as a formal complaint within a reasonable period which would normally be within six months of the matters arising. (Under paragraph 39(e) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme)
The resident suffered a leak in his bathroom in or prior to January 2018. It was his view that the leak was caused deliberately by his neighbour upstairs and in the circumstances the landlord was at fault for having failed to address reported ASB. He wished the landlord to reimburse him with the costs of redecorating the ceiling, his GP letter, and postage. While the resident raised the issue of the bathroom leak with this service, the issue had not formed part of the resident’s complaint regarding his reports of ASB that he made to the landlord on 31 October 2020. Moreover, the events occurred nearly four years ago. There is no evidence that the resident made a formal complaint about the matter or that it was brought to the landlord’s attention within six months of the relevant event. Even if such a complaint had been made, there was no evidence that it was referred to the Ombudsman within 12 months of the conclusion of the landlord’s internal complaints process. It would not be fair or proportionate to investigate a complaint which, even if it had been the subject of the landlord’s internal complaints procedure, had become so significantly out of time.

Background and summary of events

The resident occupied his home, a ground floor, one-bedroom flat, under an assured tenancy with the landlord. The tenancy began on 3 June 2013. The landlord had not recorded any vulnerabilities in relation to the resident. The resident reported that he suffered from lifelong serious physical disabilities and ill-health, which the resident had made known to the landlord. According to the resident, he was offered his adapted ground floor flat, given of his physical disabilities.
Under the tenancy agreement, the resident agreed that they or anyone living with them would not to do anything which caused or was likely to cause a nuisance or annoyance or to behave in a manner that might be considered to be anti-social. The resident also agreed not to cause any noise so loud or persistent that it caused a disturbance to other residents, and not to fit laminate or other hard flooring in any part of their home without the landlord’s permission. Whilst the Ombudsman has not seen the neighbour’s tenancy agreement, it is reasonable to assume that these terms, or similar terms, would apply to the resident’s neighbours as well.

The landlord’s policies

Under the ASB policy, the landlord expected the resident to report criminal activity to the police and for the police to take action where it had sufficient evidence to do so. It would use any evidence to take enforcement action where appropriate. It recognised the detrimental effect that ASB could have on the lives of residents but would not raise expectations that it could take action where it could not do so or where primary responsibility and powers lay elsewhere.
Harassment included behaviour causing or intended to cause alarm or distress. These were generally criminal offences and were the responsibility of the police. Where appropriate to do so, the landlord would take tenancy enforcement action against a perpetrator as a result of evidence obtained by the police or upon conviction.
While not all behaviour constituted ASB, the landlord accepted that sometimes low level and repeated incidents that were persistent and deliberate could have a harmful impact on a person. It would therefore investigate the matter as ASB. Every–day living situations, and related household noise did not constitute ASB and it set out examples.
The landlord would investigate cases of noise nuisance within five working days of a report, when and if the landlord’s “threshold” for ASB was met. It would advise residents to report excessive noise to their local council’s environmental health team.
The thresholds for noise that constituted ASB were as follows a) three separate incidents reported in the last 7 days or b) five separate incidents reported in the past 28 days. No threshold would apply if the landlord considered the resident to be particularly vulnerable and if the landlord had a “duty of care” towards that resident.
It set out the assessment criteria the landlord used to determine whether the resident could be deemed as “vulnerable”. The landlord should also consider whether the person was upset, distraught, frightened, or that the landlord was concerned the resident was vulnerable.
Where the threshold vulnerability was not met or the landlord deemed there was no duty of care, it should inform the resident that it would only investigate their complaints as ASB if a pattern of “bad behaviour” had been established.
Where the landlord accepted an ASB case, it would assess the reports and whether the resident’s tolerance levels were below what would be generally accepted as reasonable. It would give the resident the opportunity to get their point across and to explain how they felt and it would show empathy. It would discuss what action the resident expected the landlord to take, in order to adjust the resident’s expectations.
The landlord’s aim in tackling ASB was in part to ensure that the resident was satisfied with the outcome, but some cases would have to be closed, even if the resident was not satisfied, for example, if:
1. The reported behaviour could not be reasonably described as a nuisance.
2. There was no evidence supporting the resident’s allegations.
3. The resident or perpetrator would not try other approaches, such as mediation, or where there was not enough evidence to take any more formal action.
4. There was no further action that could be taken.
If the landlord decided to close the case, the resident should be advised that if there were any further incidents, any information already collected would be available and the landlord would open a new case.
The procedure set out non-legal remedies as follows:
1. No action, where the circumstances did not warrant action.
2. Giving advice and information to the resident, witnesses or the perpetrator which could resolve the complaint. If the resident or perpetrator was vulnerable, in many cases this could be the appropriate response.
3. In some cases when it had concerns for a resident, but the resident was not receiving any support services, a safeguarding referral may be appropriate
4. The severity and frequency of noise could often be corroborated by neighbours or professional witnesses. Corroboration by neighbours and professional witnesses was often the best evidence. Even “hearsay” evidence was useful in determining the credibility of a case.
The purpose of the landlord’s vulnerable resident policy was to try to ensure that the resident could access the services they needed. The landlord would try to ensure that the right services were being delivered, whether by the landlord or by statutory and voluntary services. Vulnerability included mental health issues, severe physical ill-health, or severely impaired mobility. It trained staff to recognise potential signs of vulnerability. Where a vulnerable resident had been identified and referred to the sustainment services, this would be recorded on the customer record.
The current vulnerable resident policy adds that the landlord provided a significant amount of support and responded to residents who were facing exceptional circumstances that could make them vulnerable and unable to cope. It aimed to record any vulnerabilities and to take account of known vulnerability factors in provision of services, assist vulnerable residents in accessing additional services and make safeguarding referrals.
The complaint process was in three stages, an informal stage, and an investigation at a formal first stage. The resident was then entitled to request a review of their case. The timescales for a response were 1-3 days, 5 days and 10 working days respectively.
Under the compensation policy, it could award compensation of £50 to £250 for instances of service failure resulting in some impact on the resident including repeated failures but where the failure had no significant impact. Impact would include distress and inconvenience, time and trouble, disappointment, loss of confidence, and delays in getting matters resolved.
It would consider household vulnerabilities when considering compensation.

Scope of this report

The Ombudsman has noted the long history and background to this complaint. The resident had been making reports about his neighbour for a number of years. This report will focus on the 12 months’ period leading up to the resident’s complaint on 31 October 2020 to the conclusion of the landlord’s internal complaints procedure, as the Ombudsman considers that this is a reasonable and proportionate period of time to consider.

Chronology

With some exceptions, which are set out below, the resident’s reports to the landlord focussed on noise consisting of shouting, slamming doors and drawers, dropping objects, banging chairs on the kitchen floor, voices, thumping, banging, and occasionally playing music until after midnight. The resident’s notes were daily. The resident considered that the neighbours created noise in response to his own activities, such as using the washing machine and that it was the neighbour’s son who was causing the noise. The resident considered that the noise was directed at him and constituted harassment. On occasions, he stated that he would turn up his own television in response.
The resident sent diary sheets to the landlord at various times including on 13 January 2020, 18 February 2020, 6 July 2020, 3 November 2020 and 11 January 2021, each of which covered several days or weeks at a time. He also requested various policies on repeated occasions.
The resident that on 1 May 2019, a different neighbour banged several times on his driver side car window, when at a supermarket, shouting about noise. He assumed the incident was related to his neighbour. He also reported that his neighbour reversed her car on 30 September 2019 in order to block his access to the block of flats. He further reported that another person banged on his door on 16 October 2019. On 5 November 2019, he reported someone who looked “very threatening” who told the resident that he lived at the neighbour’s property and who complained that the resident had been banging all night.
The resident made several reports to the police, including on 5 November 2019, 26 September 2020, 14 February 2021, and 13 June 2021. There was no evidence that the police took any action. A letter dated 17 June 2021 stated it was taking no further action.
On 12 December 2019, the landlord had made a referral for mediation having heard from the resident’s MP that the resident was willing to engage.
On 13 January 2020, the resident wrote to the landlord declining mediation until the neighbour’s son had moved out at the neighbour’s property.
On 17 January 2020, the landlord wrote to the resident to state that it had no concerns about the neighbour’s son living in her property and the neighbour was not in breach of her tenancy. It stated that the resident’s reports consisted of general household noise and that the environmental health team in the local authority had previously stated the same.
The landlord wrote to the resident on a number of occasions (including 12 December 2019, 18 March 2020, 2 April 2020, 29 September 2020, 13 November 2020) stating that it would not investigate “one-off “ incidents unless it was reported by several residents.
On 28 October 2020, the landlord closed the resident’s ASB case, without an explanation, stating it would take no further action “on this occasion”.
The resident made a formal complaint to the landlord on 31 October 2020 as follows:
1. The resident was unhappy with the landlord’s letter of 28 October 2020, whch stated that no further action would be taken regarding his report of ASB.
2. He had noted that he was not permitted to use video evidence but to continue to use diary sheets.
A meeting to discuss harassment had taken place many months previously. He had not been informed of any actions that had been taken since regarding the harassment which was continuing and had become more “aggressive and bellicose”.
1. He reported that four people were living in the one-bedroom flat above, including the neighbour’s son who had a conviction for violence. He provided a link to a news article reproting that the neighbour’s son had a conviction for a stabbing incident.
2. He had not received a “risk assesment matrix” in relation to the neighbour’s son.
3. He did not feel he had been able to enjoy the right not to be harassed, in particular as a disabled person of colour and the landlord had not recognised the issues in their entirety, including in view of drug dealing and the alleged perpetrator’s history of violence.
4. While the landlord stated that it would consider taking action if there were further problems, his view was that his reports evidenced ongoing harassment. The landlord had overlooked the long history of ASB and closing and opening new cases would impact on its complying with its duty of care.
5. He had requested a copy of the landlord’s vulnerable persons procedural process on 11 separate occasions and had still not received any information or response.
The landlord replied on 26 November 2020 as follows:
1. The letter dated 28 October 2020 was sent in accordance with its (ASB) policy and procedure.
2. There were no concerns surrounding the neighbour’s son and no action would be taken, resulting in this case being closed. He should make any further reports to the contact centre.
3. It enclosed the requested policy and upheld the resident’s complaint in that regard.
On 2 December 2020, the resident requested that his complaint be escalated, for reasons summarised by the landlord as follows:
1. He felt that the landlord had lost or destroyed over two years of diary sheets.
2. He requested an explanation of the landlord’s protocols with regard to safe–guarding vulnerable residents from harassment.
3. He asked whether there was a risk assessment matrix that accompanied the vulnerable residents policy.
4. He had not been allowed to collate and provide evidence that four adults were living in the property upstairs, yet the landlord stated it would not take action without evidence.
5. He stated that two housing officers informed him that there was “unlawful overcrowding” and that therefore this should not been allowed to continue
6. The landlord had previously guaranteed that the harassment would stop which assurance was witnessed by several councillors present at a meeting.
7. By not taking action, the landlord was endorsing the harassment and disability discrimination he was experiencing.
8. The landlord had a duty of care to avoid acts which could be reasonably foreseen to injure or harm other people.
9. The harassment had affected his health, which required him to be hospitalised at times.
10. He asked what steps the landlord was taking to stop the harassment.
On a date after the resident’s complaint was escalated, the landlord raised the following issues internally for it to address:
1. What was its reasons for the investigations concluding and did the frequency of ASB the resident reported not meet the threshold?
2. Was it able to evidence that it had appropriately investigated all related reported ASB cases?
3. Had it considered the resident’s vulnerabilities?
The landlord wrote to the resident on 19 December 2020 to apologise for the delay in acknowledging the complaint. It aimed to provide a response within 20 working days.
On 18 January 2021, the landlord wrote with its second complaint response as follows:-
1. It reassured the resident that his evidence or diaries were recorded on its systems.
2. The local authority had previously fitted recording equipment in his home to monitor the noise. It showed that the noise being heard was day–to–day living noise and not excessive. The local authority had closed its case, as did the landlord. It was not the landlord’s policy to pursue day–to–day living noise as ASB. It had reviewed the diaries from the previous year, and the noise reported appeared to be day–to–day living noise.
3. It was unable to find any evidence that the noise was created deliberately.
4. The landlord had offered the resident mediation and the offer still stood.
5. If it had concerns that a resident might be vulnerable and at risk. It would refer its concerns formally to the local authority. The evidence relating to the noise nuisance had not provided sufficient evidence to support a safeguarding referral. However, it would review as to whether a safeguarding referral should be made.
6. It would award the resident £50 compensation, given that the vulnerable residents policy had not having been provided, despite his previous requests.
7. The landlord had carried out a full investigation with regard to the allegation that the neighbour’s property was overcrowded on a number of occasions and it was satisfied that there was no issue of overcrowding at this property, and therefore no breach of the tenancy. It would not rely on the resident to carry out enquiries or collate evidence.
8. It had not identified evidence of harassment or discrimination.
9. There was no evidence of breach of its duty of care as it had followed its policies and procedures.
10. It denied it had overlooked “the long history” of ASB. It had investigated his reports.
11. It invited the resident to provide supporting evidence from his GP in relation to hospitalisation, should he wish to move. The landlord would contact him to discuss this further.
12. The reports had been investigated fully and deemed to be day–to–day, normal noise transference between households. No evidence supported the allegations that this was threatening or dangerous to the resident.
13. The review of this complaint had highlighted a need for some of its working practices to be scrutinised, as it had fallen short of expectations. The landlord had not provided the resident a copy of its vulnerable residents policy.
14. The complaint responses were delayed at both stages and it offered a total of £100 in compensation comprising of £50 for the failure to provide the policy and £50 for the complaint delays.
The resident replied on 24 January 2021 to state that the policy provided was out of date. He referred to a “recent recording” of abusive language and an incident of abuse from 2015. He denied the environmental health team of the local authority attended in 2018 and stated that he did not wish to move.
On 15 March 2021, his GP wrote to “whom it may concern” stating that the housing situation was having a detrimental effect on the resident’s mental health.
The resident informed this service on 2 November 2021 that the resident’s neighbour upstairs had moved out of the property.

Assessment and findings

While this investigation focusses on the period after October 2019, the Ombudsman has noted the long history and variety of allegations. The Ombudsman has also noted that the resident has brought his complaint in the context of that history. It is noted that in addition to reports of noise, the resident had made reports of abusive behaviour which occurred before October 2019. It is also noted, however, that those reports included one which concerned individuals other than the resident’s neighbours and one at different locality to where the resident lived and was therefore not likely to be with the remit of the landlord.
The Ombudsman understands that the resident is concerned about the ASB issues he has reported and that he has experienced distress. It is clear that he has spent time raising and pursuing these matters. However, there is no absolute requirement or expectation that a landlord can address all of a resident’s reports. The Ombudsman’s role in such cases is to consider whether a landlord’s responses to its resident’s reports were in line with the landlord’s legal obligations, policies, and good practice. This includes considering whether a landlord’s actions were appropriate and proportionate to the issues being reported and took all the circumstances into account.
It would not be reasonable for a landlord to leave the police to investigate harassment, rather than investigate and take action itself. However, the landlord would be entitled to rely on the police conclusion that there was no evidence of criminality, which would include harassment. While the burden of proof for a criminal act is more stringent than that of a civil offence, the bar for the police to issue a harassment warning is low, given it is merely a warning. The offence of harassment would be a course of conduct that caused a person harassment, alarm or distress, despite the warning. The Ombudsman has noted there is no evidence of the police taking action and there is evidence of the police closing a case. In the circumstances, it was reasonable for the landlord to take into consideration any police response it was aware of when considering its own approach and, taking into account that the police did not take further action, the landlord’s approach was appropriate
It was reasonable that the landlord determined that the reports consisted of household noise, based on the resident’s reports. The landlord’s policy rightly accepted that low–level noise can be harmful, however it would only constitute ASB if the incidents were deliberate. In the Ombudsman’s view, it was reasonable for the landlord to conclude that there was no evidence that the noise, though clearly annoying and distressing for the resident, was the result of deliberate acts of harassment. While the resident mentioned drug taking in his complaint, there was no evidence or reports of drug–taking. Based on the evidence available, the landlord’s responses were therefore appropriate.
However, there were other issues that it would have been reasonable and appropriate for the landlord to consider, even if so doing would not have changed its ultimate conclusion. While there were steps the landlord could have taken, as this report will go onto set out, the landlord’s failures did not effect the conclusion it had reached, that the neighbour’s conduct did not constitute ASB. However, these actions could have provided some assurance to the resident that his concerns had been fully considered by the landlord and could have perhaps helped to manage his expectations about possible outcomes.
The only evidence of the landlord’s responses to the resident’s diaries were standard letters stating it would not investigate “one-off” incidents. It was not appropriate of the landlord to dismiss the reports on the basis they were one-off incidents. While it was not clear from the evidence as to which specific communication the landlord was responding, the resident had been reporting repeated incidents, which according to the resident were occurring on a daily basis. The use of what appeared to be standard letters was therefore inappropriate and failed to take into account or recognise the wider pattern of behaviour that the resident was making allegations about. This failure to recognise the wider context of the situation and the resident’s concerns must have increased his frustration and perception that he was not being listened to.
However, while the ASB policy excluded day-to-day noise unless it was deliberate, under the tenancy agreement the resident agreed not to cause any noise that was so loud or persistent that it caused a disturbance to other residents. There was no evidence that the landlord considered the volume and frequency of the noise and its effect on the resident. There is no evidence that the landlord’s conclusions would have been different but the landlord should consider this potential discrepancy between the tenancy agreement and its policy.
The ASB policy required that the landlord assess the vulnerability of the resident upon reporting ASB. However, there was no evidence that the landlord did so. While the landlord offered to consider making a safeguarding referral, this serves a different purpose to an assessment of vulnerability. A safeguarding referral is for situations in which a vulnerable person is at risk from being abused or may be at risk of any form of mistreatment or neglect.
It may be that there had been an assessment in the past, however that would be insufficient, given circumstances change and, as the policy seems to anticipate, every new case could give rise to a fresh assessment. The evidence showed that the resident was clearly distressed by the level of noise. The impact of an assessment is that the landlord, under its policy, would have opened an ASB case, whether or not it considered that the reports had reached the ASB “threshold”.
Such an assessment may have changed or helped to inform the landlord’s approach. It was reasonable that the landlord offered mediation and considered a safeguarding referral, as well as a move. However, there was no evidence that the landlord considered sound–proofing measures, including whether the property upstairs was carpeted and whether the neighbour’s flooring complied with their tenancy agreement. There was no evidence that the landlord considered interviewing other neighbours despite the policy stating this could be helpful. While the resident expressed distress and concerns about his own safety, there was no evidence that landlord expressed empathy to, or acknowledged the concerns of, the resident. It would have been reasonable for the landlord to have considered whether there were any other steps it could take to alleviate the situation, including speaking to the neighbour and other residents.
Another consequence of an assessment of vulnerability would have meant that the landlord would have also considered any support it could offer. However, given the resident declined the landlord’s offer to review a safeguarding referral, the evidence suggest that the impact of not doing so was likely to have been minimal.
However, as stated above, an assessment of vulnerability may not have had an overall impact on the conclusions the landlord reached in relation to the noise. Even though the resident considered he was vulnerable due to his health needs, and he expressed distress, this would not have necessarily altered the conclusion that there was no evidence of ASB.
It was reasonable of the landlord to close a case when it felt there was no action to take and the resident had declined mediation. It was right to do so in order to manage the resident’s expectations, and to also judge new reports on their merits and take a fresh view. The policy reasonably required the landlord to preserve any history of reports of ASB cases and what actions it had taken in the past. It was reasonable to reassure the resident that his complaint and reports were not lost or destroyed but still in his records. However, it was inappropriate of the landlord to close the case on 28 October 2020 without explanation. The landlord should have provided its clear reasons for closing a case.
In relation to the reported overcrowding, the landlord was entitled to manage its stock and its occupants. It was reasonable that it satisfied itself in relation to the number of occupants in the property above. It was also reasonable that it reassured the resident on a number of occasions that it had no concerns about the neighbour’s son living in her property and the neighbour was not in breach of her tenancy. The landlord was not obliged to share all the details as it could risk being in breach of its data protection obligations towards the neighbour. It was reasonable that the landlord did not share any “risk matrix” regarding the upstairs neighbour. Even if one had existed, in the Ombudsman’s view the resident would not have been entitled to have had sight of it for reasons of data protection. However, it would have been reasonable of the landlord to have addressed this query of the resident.
It was also reasonable that the landlord requested diary sheets rather than video evidence, as recording neighbours may not only constitute harassment but also constitute a breach of data protection by the resident. While the resident acquiesced to the landlord’s request, there is no evidence that the landlord explained its reasons for asking the resident not to use video evidence. It would be reasonable to do so, so that the resident could understand the landlord’s position and in order try and avoid misunderstandings.
The landlord acknowledged the complaint response was late and that it had not sent its policy when requested to do so and offered reasonable compensation in relation to those failings. The evidence suggests that the landlord may have sent the resident the previous policy. The Ombudsman will make a recommendation in that regard.
On the resident’s complaint being escalated, it asked itself a set of reasonable questions. But there was no evidence that this was translated into a conclusion, apart from offering to consider a safeguarding referral. It would have been reasonable to have addressed those questions more fully in its response, as these may have helped the resident to understand its position and how it had reached the conclusions that it had.
In summary, there was no clear evidence of ASB and therefore little scope for action by the landlord. The evidence showed the landlord had taken action in the past, such as meeting with the resident together with councillors. It had offered mediation, it offered to consider a move for the resident. It sought to explain the position regarding the neighbour’s occupation of her property. It accepted its failings for not providing a copy of its vulnerable residents policy and for its late complaint responses and it offered redress for these failings.
However, it is the Ombudsman’s view that the landlord could have taken a more person-centred, empathetic, and proactive approach in its response to the resident’s evident distress and response to the noise. This would not have led to the landlord taking action against the neighbour but the landlord could have considered whether there were any options by which to alleviate the noise the resident was experiencing, rather than respond at most times by sending standard letters which did not acknowledge the extent and history of the issues and the resident’s distress.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman’s Scheme, there was service failure in relation to the landlord‘s response to the resident’s reports of anti-social behaviour (ASB).
In accordance with paragraph 39 of the Housing Ombudsman’s Scheme, the resident’s complaint in relation to the landlord’s response to the resident’s request for compensation in relation to a leak in 2018 was outside the Housing Ombudsman’s jurisdiction.

Reasons

While it was reasonable that the landlord concluded that there was no evidence of ASB, the landlord failed to assess the resident’s vulnerability at the outset of his report. This meant that it failed to take a more proactive, creative approach and consider whether there were any practical steps that it could have taken to alleviate the noise the resident was experiencing. The lack of recognition of the history of the case will have increased the resident’s frustration and distress.
The leak the resident complained of had occurred approximately three years before the resident referred this complaint to this service and there was no evidence that the resident made a formal complaint about the matter or that it was brought to the landlord’s attention within six months of the relevant event. Even if a complaint had been made, there was no evidence that it was referred to the Ombudsman within 12 months of the conclusion of the landlord’s internal complaints process.

Orders

The landlord is ordered to pay compensation of £150 in relation to its service failure in relation to its response to the resident’s reports of anti-social behaviour

Recommendations

While this particular issue was resolved, given the neighbour has now moved out, it is recommended that the landlord arrange for staff training in relation to:
1. Assessing vulnerability in particular as the landlord has amended its vulnerability policy.
2. Ensuring that its responses to reports of ASB and noise are appropriate to the particular circumstances
3. Considering solutions, where reasonable to do so, even where conduct did not necessarily constitute ASB, in particular where a resident is vulnerable.
4. Ensuring that the landlord addresses a resident’s complaint in full, as far as it is reasonable to do so.
The landlord should contact the resident to ensure that it has up-to-date information on his vulnerabilities and review its record of those vulnerabilities, in light of the resident’s report of his poor physical health and the GP’s letter of 15 March 2021.
The landlord should address the apparent discrepancy between the tenancy agreement and its ASB policy on noise.
The landlord should review its complaints policy in light of the Ombudsman’s guidance Complaint Handling Code – Housing Ombudsman (housing-ombudsman.org.uk) and at the very least ensure that the effectively three-stage complaint process does not unduly delay the complaints procedure.