Call for Evidence on housing maintenance now open! Respond by 25 October 2024. Submit evidence online.

Cottsway Housing Association Limited (202209115)

Back to Top

 

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202209115

Cottsway Housing Association Limited

3 November 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

  1. The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of noise disturbance and antisocial behaviour (ASB).

Background

  1. The resident is an assured tenant of the landlord. She has been the sole occupier of a one-bedroom ground floor flat since August 2017.
  2. The resident initially reported noise and ASB from the neighbour above (who was also a tenant of the landlord) on 1 October 2021. The landlord’s records show it opened an ASB case on 25 October 2021. This consisted of domestic noise but escalated to loud music, inappropriate language and behaviour and parties, with youths gathering in and around the flat.
  3. In response to the reports received, the landlord opened an ASB case, contacted the resident and maintained regular contact throughout the duration of the case. The resident continued to supply evidence via emails, calls and the Noise App which the landlord recorded against the case.
  4. On 4 April 2022, the resident submitted a complaint due to the ongoing ASB and lack of action from the landlord. The resident stated she experienced broken sleep and informed the landlord she had stayed with family and friends 4 times due to the noise, and lost earnings as she could not work from home. The resident asked for £3210 compensation for the stress, personal threats, loss of earnings, damage to gardening equipment, rent, travel expenses, counselling sessions, cleaning materials and injury to feelings.
  5. The landlord worked with both parties in its attempts of early resolution before involving other agencies or taking further enforcement action. It offered mediation to both parties on 2 occasions and to purchase carpets for the neighbour’s flat to help reduce the noise levels. Both offers did not progress as the neighbour failed to engage or provide information requested. It carried out announced and unannounced visits to the flat and spoke to other residents who lived close by to witness the behaviour and gather more evidence.
  6. The behaviour of the neighbour did not improve, and the landlord contacted external agencies for advice and help. The local council accepted the case to identify statutory noise and the Police and landlord’s solicitors were contacted. On 31 March 2022, a warning letter was issued to the neighbour, but the behaviour did not improve. A Section 21 Notice was served on 26 April 2022 which informed the neighbour he must leave the property after 28 June 2022.
  7. The landlord’s response at both stage one and two confirmed it was satisfied that all actions within their powers had been followed and it did not award compensation.

Assessment and findings

Policies and Procedures

  1. The landlord’s ASB policy defines ASB as being “conduct capable of causing housing related nuisance or annoyance to any person.”
  2. In the above policy, the landlord outlines what would, and would not, be considered as ASB and refers to the occupancy agreement for details of behaviour considered unacceptable.
  3. The landlord’s ASB procedure states it will work with other agencies for support and will consider the needs of all parties. It states each case is based on a holistic approach with both enforcement and intervention being considered (informal or legal).
  4. The ASB procedure states it will acknowledge receipt of a case with the complainant within 24 hours and will contact the perpetrator within 10 working days.

The landlord’s handling of ASB

  1. It is not the role of this Service to establish whether someone has committed ASB, but to assess the landlord’s handling of the resident’s ASB reports. We will determine whether the landlord’s response was fair and reasonable in view of all the circumstances, considering its own policies and procedures.
  2. The ASB case summary provided by the landlord confirmed it opened an ASB case on 25 October 2021. The landlord acknowledged receipt of this with the resident on 26 October 2021, and contacted the perpetrator by phone and letter on the same day. This was an appropriate and timely response by the landlord and in accordance with the timescales set out its ASB procedure.
  3. The landlord took reasonable and appropriate steps to discuss the problem with the neighbour. He was asked to reduce the noise levels and was reminded that as part of the occupancy agreement, he was responsible for his behaviour and that of any visitors to the property. Although he confirmed he would do what he could, the evidence provided confirmed the noise did not improve.
  4. The landlord suggested mediation early in the case and although both parties agreed to it, this failed to progress due to the lack of engagement from the neighbour. In taking this early intervention approach, the landlord has shown its understanding of the situation and its commitment to take preventative action before it escalated.
  5. Although there was a brief period when no reports were received, the resident provided evidence which demonstrated the behaviour continued. The landlord contacted the resident and discussed the next steps. Due to the noise escalating beyond domestic noise, it was appropriate for the landlord to contact the Environmental Health Team within the local council to ask for advice. The landlord reasonably set out to the resident that aspects of the noise, such as an alarm clock, would not be considered as ASB. This was effective communication from the landlord to the resident and was repeated throughout the case.
  6. The landlord contacted the council on 5 January 2022 and asked for assistance in identifying if the music could be statutory nuisance or was at a level where it could take tenancy action. The landlord acknowledged the resident’s feedback that it took too long to contact the council, however, based on the evidence provided, the delay was reasonable as it had not been necessary to involve them before this time due to the noise being domestic.
  7. The council asked for consent of the resident before they accepted the case. The landlord did contact the resident to obtain this, however it delayed progress with the council for a short time. The delay was to allow it to offer mediation one more time before handing the case to the council. Although this was a reasonable step to take and demonstrated a final attempt for the parties to meet before the involvement of the council, this should have been communicated to the resident, so she was aware of this. This would not however have impacted the outcome to the case.
  8. On 25 January 2022, a bottle was thrown at the resident’s door. The landlord told the resident to contact the Police who advised there was no evidence to confirm the neighbour was responsible. The identity of the perpetrator was unknown, and the Police did not take any further action against the neighbour. As the landlord had the background knowledge of the case, it would have been appropriate for it to carry out more investigative work to try and identify the perpetrator, including contacting the neighbour and surrounding neighbours, however there is no evidence to suggest it did this. Although this was a shortcoming, it did not subsequently prevent the landlord pursuing enforcement action once this was appropriate.
  9. The landlord contacted the council again on 31 January 2022 to progress the case. It communicated effectively with the resident and advised that mediation was suspended as the neighbour had not engaged and also confirmed its referral to the council. This meant the resident was aware of the action taken and that the council would contact her directly.
  10. In line with their commitment to a harm-centred approach to dealing with ASB, the landlord contacted the neighbour to arrange a home visit to discuss his circumstances. It offered additional support by way of supplying carpets, in the hope it would reduce the noise transference. This offer of help was over and above its obligation as it does not supply carpets to residents. The neighbour was asked to supply quotes for a carpet but did not provide these. Although no further action was taken, the landlord demonstrated its commitment to look at measures for reducing the noise transference to the resident below.
  11. On 14 March 2022, the resident reported banging on her door, ringing of her doorbell, a smashed bottle at her door and abusive language. The Police were called, and while this Service acknowledges the resident’s dissatisfaction around the lack of attendance and action from the Police, the Ombudsman is not able to comment on their service.
  12. The landlord’s records show that on 21 March 2022, with the resident’s daughter present, it discussed contacting its solicitor and the resident contacting the council to request a Community Trigger. The resident later said she had not been made aware of the Community Trigger; however, this Service must base an assessment on the evidence provided which confirmed this discussion took place. In its final complaint response to this element of the resident’s complaint, the landlord has demonstrated a positive learning culture within the organisation, and response to resident feedback, by introducing a follow up letter to reiterate the Community Trigger option.
  13. Based on the evidence provided by the resident and the landlord, the neighbour was issued a warning letter which advised their behaviour must improve or further legal action could be taken. The landlord gave the neighbour the opportunity to improve the behaviour, but he failed to do so. A Section 21 Notice was served which confirmed he must leave the property. The resident was updated with the actions taken by the landlord and so was aware legal action had been taken to end the tenancy. The neighbour gave his keys to the landlord on 29 June 2022 and the tenancy ended.
  14. This Service does not find any maladministration in relation to the landlord’s handling of the noise disturbance and ASB. The resident was disturbed by the behaviour of her neighbour and this Service acknowledges the impact the incidents had on her. However, the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports were reasonable. It acted in accordance with its obligations, its policies, procedures and the powers available to it prior to legal action.
  15. The landlord communicated regularly with the resident and was clear in the early stages what it could, and could not, consider as unreasonable noise. It offered early mediation and options to reduce the noise levels, but these were unsuccessful due to the lack of engagement from the neighbour. It explained ASB can be a lengthy process due to the level of evidence required for legal action and it explained the legalities of ending a tenancy and how this is the most serious enforcement action open to it.
  16. In line with its policy and procedure, the landlord worked in collaboration with several external agencies which culminated in the Section 21 being served and the neighbour leaving the property.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration by the landlord in its handling of noise disturbance and antisocial behaviour (ASB).

Recommendations

  1. Within 4 weeks, if not already done so, the landlord should pay £50 to the resident’s account as agreed, for the cleaning of the front door following the incident in March 2022.
  2. This Service produced a Spotlight Report on noise in October 2022. Although this publication was after the events of this case, the landlord should review the recommendations made within the report to determine if any improvements can be made to their approach to ASB management.