Clarion Housing Association Limited (202122500)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202122500

Clarion Housing Association Limited

14 February 2024

Our approach

The Housing Ombudsman’s approach to investigating and determining complaints is to decide what is fair in all the circumstances of the case. This is set out in the Housing Act 1996 and the Housing Ombudsman Scheme (the Scheme). The Ombudsman considers the evidence and looks to see if there has been any ‘maladministration’, for example whether the landlord has failed to keep to the law, followed proper procedure, followed good practice, or behaved in a reasonable and competent manner.

Both the resident and the landlord have submitted information to the Ombudsman, and this has been carefully considered. Their accounts of what has happened are summarised below. This report is not an exhaustive description of all the events that have occurred in relation to this case, but an outline of the key issues as a background to the investigation’s findings.

The complaint

1. The complaint is about the landlord’s:
   1. handling of reports of noise nuisance.
   2. complaint handling.

Background

2. The resident lives in a 1-bedroom flat as an assured tenant.
3. In April 2019, the resident reported noise nuisance from the neighbour in the flat above his. The landlord told the resident it was domestic noise and closed the report. A second report of noise was made by the resident in August 2019. The landlord said this was also domestic noise.
4. The landlord responded on 14 August 2020, to an enquiry from the elected mayor about noise nuisance. It told the mayor it had investigated, and the reports were domestic noise.
5. A further report of noise nuisance was made on 15 February 2021. On 26 February 2021, the landlord told the mayor it had agreed to fit carpet in the neighbour’s flat to reduce noise. The landlord closed the case on 26 April 2021, and told the resident it had fitted carpets. It said there may still be noise, but it did not consider this to be antisocial behaviour (ASB).
6. The resident complained on 11 January 2022, that his reports were being closed without resolution and there was a lack of communication. He also complained about other issues, including scaffolding, a leak on the side of the property, discrimination by the landlord’s staff, and missed appointments. The resident wanted an apology, an explanation of what was happening with his reports, and compensation for missed appointments and discrimination.
7. In its complaint response on 14 February 2022, the landlord said it did not have examples of reports closed without resolution or a lack of communication. It said the concerns about the scaffolding had been passed to the relevant team to resolve and it was not aware of any leaks on the side of his property. It said it took allegations of discrimination seriously, had investigated and found no evidence. It said it had previously paid £30 for missed appointments and offered £25 compensation for the delay in responding to the complaint.
8. The resident escalated his complaint on 31 May 2022. He said he wanted the landlord to follow its complaints procedure and provide written responses in a timely manner. He also wanted the landlord to move him or the neighbour to another property and compensate him because of the ASB.
9. In its final response on 20 October 2022, the landlord apologised for delays in escalating and responding to the complaint and offered £300 compensation. On noise nuisance, the landlord said it had acted appropriately and the resident’s circumstances did not meet the housing transfer criteria, but he could consider other rehousing options.
10. The resident escalated his complaint to the Ombudsman as he was dissatisfied with the handling of his noise nuisance reports. He felt that he or his neighbour should be moved. He was also dissatisfied with communication, complaints closed without satisfactory resolution, and the amount of compensation offered.

Assessment and findings

The landlord’s handling of reports of noise nuisance

11. It is not the Ombudsman’s role to decide whether ASB took place. It is the Ombudsman’s role to determine whether the landlord followed its policy and acted reasonably in the circumstances. For example, when a report of noise nuisance was received, did the landlord assess the report and did it offer appropriate support to the resident?
12. The landlord has a clear responsibility to deal with reports of ASB in line with legislation and its policy. The landlord’s policy defines ASB as actions that cause, or are likely to cause, harassment, alarm, distress, or annoyance. The policy also sets out what it does not consider to be ASB. This includes children playing, babies crying, and household noise due to every-day living.
13. The landlord’s ASB procedure says it will record and investigate incidents of ASB in accordance with its policy and keep residents informed about the progress of their case. It says it will use the tools and powers available to it to resolve ASB.
14. The procedure says before it will investigate noise complaints, the reported noise must reach one of its ASB thresholds. It says these are designed to ensure it investigates ASB that reaches a sufficient frequency, severity, and duration to show a pattern of behaviour. The thresholds are: 3 separate incidents reported in the last 7 days, 5 separate incidents reported in the past 28 days, or a serious one-off event where the incident has been investigated by the police or local authority.
15. The ASB procedure says that management transfers will only be considered if the police strongly advise an urgent move because the resident’s life may be at risk, and there is a realistic chance of a suitable property becoming available quickly.
16. The resident first reported noise nuisance from a child in the flat above on 15 April 2019. Records provided by the landlord show that it spoke with the neighbour about the noise, and advised the resident on 15 May 2019 that no further action would be taken as it considered the noise to be domestic noise.
17. A further report about noise from the flat above was made on 18 August 2019. The landlord told the resident it was not able to investigate every incident of noise. It advised him to keep a record of incidents so it could assess whether the noise met the threshold to investigate. The Ombudsman has not seen evidence of any further reports from the resident between August 2019 and January 2020. It is the Ombudsman’s view that the landlord dealt with the initial reports of noise appropriately, and the reports did not meet the threshold for action set out in the landlord’s ASB procedure.
18. The Ombudsman has noted that when the resident first reported the noise, the landlord reasonably suggested he speak with his neighbour to try to resolve the problem. However, when reports continued to be made, the Ombudsman has not seen any evidence the landlord suggested mediation. In addition, although the landlord assessed the initial reports as not meeting the threshold for action, the Ombudsman has not seen any evidence of risk assessments carried out by the landlord. When dealing with noise reports, the Ombudsman recommends that the landlord follows good practice and carries out appropriate risk assessments and considers whether mediation should be offered.
19. The resident told the landlord on 2 January 2020, that he was unable to sleep because of the noise and he wanted to move to another property. He made a further report of noise from the neighbour’s child on 15 February 2020. On 17 April 2020, the landlord issued the resident with an ASB warning following an allegation of harassment made against him by the neighbour, which resulted in the police attending. The resident told the landlord on 23 April 2020, that he was unhappy that no action had been taken against the neighbour.
20. Records provided by the landlord show that on 14 August 2020, it responded to the elected mayor, who had written to the landlord on behalf of the resident about the noise. In its response, the landlord said that it had advised the resident the noise was general household noise, and it was not excessive.
21. On 25 February 2021, the resident said the behaviour of his neighbour was getting worse and this was affecting his quality of life. On the same day, the landlord agreed to fit carpets in the neighbour’s flat to reduce noise transfer. It is the Ombudsman’s view that this was the appropriate approach to take in the circumstances.
22. The Ombudsman has noted that the landlord said in its final complaint response that because of the type of noise reported, there were limited enforcement interventions available to it, as the noise did not meet its criteria for action.
23. The landlord also said that as the block of flats was a Victorian building, it had limited noise insulation, and because of this it took the unusual step of paying to have acoustic underlay and carpet fitted in the neighbour’s property. It considered this to be necessary and proportionate, considering the noise was “normal, expected, general household noise”. The landlord contacted the resident on 26 April 2021, to say it had closed the case as it had fitted carpets. The Ombudsman has found that by fitting carpets, the landlord went beyond its obligations.
24. The resident complained on 11 January 2022, that his complaints had been closed without resolution. In its final response on 14 February 2022, the landlord said there were no noise nuisance cases open, and the last case was closed on 23 April 2021, after it fitted carpets in the neighbour’s property. It said since then, it had received no further reports of noise from the resident.
25. The Ombudsman has found that the landlord managed the reports of noise nuisance from the resident in line with its policy. The initial reports were classed by the landlord as normal domestic noise from a child, which the landlord’s policy clearly says is not ASB. The landlord responded to the resident’s initial reports in a timely manner and reasonably asked him to provide details so it could assess whether the noise met the threshold for action. The Ombudsman has noted the reports made by the resident at this time were made several months apart, and so did not meet the threshold for action.
26. When the case became more complex, due to counter allegations and police involvement, the landlord looked at what reasonable interventions were available to it. Considering the nature of the building, and the type of incidents reported, the Ombudsman agrees that the options open to the landlord were limited. The Ombudsman also acknowledges that ASB cases involving allegations and counter-allegations, sometimes with little corroborating evidence, can be the most difficult for a landlord to resolve.
27. As part of his complaint, the resident asked the landlord to move him to another property because of the noise. In its final response, the landlord said its housing transfer policy was for exceptional circumstances, where there was a risk to life and where the police made a formal recommendation to rehouse a resident. The landlord acknowledged the resident’s circumstances but said they did not meet the management transfer criteria and so it was unable to facilitate a housing transfer. The Ombudsman has noted that the landlord’s ASB policy clearly sets out this threshold and has found that the landlord acted reasonably in advising the resident it would not consider his request. The landlord also reasonably advised the resident to look at other rehousing options available to him.
28. The Ombudsman accepts that the noise caused stress for the resident and affected his quality of life. However, it is evident that there were vulnerabilities with the neighbour and her child, and records show the landlord was working with the neighbour to support her with her tenancy. The landlord also went beyond its obligations and fitted carpets in the neighbour’s flat to reduce noise. Because of these actions, the Ombudsman has found that the landlord responded to the reports about noise reasonably and there was no maladministration.

The landlord’s complaint handling

29. The landlord’s complaints policy says it aims to respond to initial complaints in 10 working days. When a complaint is escalated, it aims to respond in 20 working days. This approach is in line with the Ombudsman’s complaint handling code.
30. The Ombudsman has noted that part of the resident’s complaint was about how the landlord communicated with him. The Ombudsman has noted that the resident sent a significant number of emails to the landlord of a general nature. This made it difficult for the landlord to determine what were specific reports and complaints and what were general comments by the resident.
31. Records provided by the landlord also show the resident asked the elected mayor to raise reports on his behalf. In its final response, the landlord said the resident had not received some responses directly because they had been sent to the mayor to share with him. It is the Ombudsman’s view that the landlord should have asked the resident if he wanted to be copied into communications sent to the mayor.
32. On complaint handling, the Ombudsman has noted that it took the landlord 24 working days to respond to the resident’s initial complaint, which was outside the timescales in its complaints policy.
33. In its final response, the landlord acknowledged that it did not escalate the complaint when the request was made, and then delayed in issuing its final response. Because of this, it said there was a service failure and offered the resident £300 compensation. It is the Ombudsman’s view that this was reasonable redress in the circumstances.

Determination

34. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration by the landlord in respect of handling of reports of noise nuisance.
35. In accordance with paragraph 53b of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was reasonable redress by the landlord in respect of complaint handling.

Recommendations

36. It is recommended that the landlord carries out appropriate risk assessments and considers whether mediation should be offered in cases of domestic noise.
37. It is recommended that the landlord asks residents whether they want to be copied into communications sent to elected representatives on their behalf.