Croydon Council (202009684)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202009684

Croydon Council

30 November 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

1. This complaint is about the landlord’s handling of the resident’s noise nuisance reports.

Jurisdiction

2. What we can and cannot consider is called the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction. This is governed by the Housing Ombudsman Scheme. 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.
3. Paragraph 39(m) of the Scheme states that the Ombudsman will not investigate complaints which ‘fall properly within the jurisdiction of another Ombudsman, regulator or complaint-handling body’.
4. The resident escalated his concerns to this Service following a final complaint response he received from the landlord on 16 February 2021 regarding the handling of his reports by its noise pollution team – the team is responsible for considering reports of statutory noise nuisance in the landlord’s capacity as a local authority.
5. The landlord is also a local authority and this Service is therefore only able to assess its actions in relation to its housing activities so far as they relate to the provision or management of social housing. Given this does not include the actions of the noise pollution team and that such complaints are more likely to be considered by the Local Government & Social Care Ombudsman, the handling of the resident’s noise nuisance reports is out of this Service’s jurisdiction.
6. Paragraph 39(a) of the Scheme also states that the Ombudsman will not investigate complaints which ‘are made prior to having exhausted a member’s complaints procedure’.
7. In his contact with this Service, the resident has raised concerns about the landlord’s handling of information that it obtained in March 2021 and July 2021 through use of a noise recording device.
8. The landlord’s handling of this evidence has not been considered through its complaints process and is therefore out of jurisdiction.

Background and summary of events

Background

9. The resident is a secure tenant of the property. The landlord is a local authority and has described the property as a first floor one bedroom flat.
10. The landlord has advised that its records show that the resident has been diagnosed with a mental health condition.
11. The landlord has a ‘conditions of tenancy’ document that obliges the resident to behave in a way that ‘is not antisocial or causes a nuisance to your neighbours’. Its definition of anti-social behaviour (ASB) includes playing of loud music and it says that it will take all complaints seriously.
12. The landlord has an ASB policy that requires it to:
    1. acknowledge reports within three working days
    2. contact complainants with regular updates and tell them when there is no further action it can reasonably take
    3. use informal remedies such as mediation, warnings and warning letters before legal action.
13. The landlord’s website shows that it has powers under its role as a local authority to deal with noise that is considered to be a statutory nuisance.
14. The landlord has a two-stage complaints procedure that requires it to respond within 20 working days at each stage of the process.
15. This Service previously considered a complaint from the resident about the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of noise nuisance from a neighbouring property – it issued a determination under case reference 202000081 on 9 December 2020. This considered events related to a complaint that exhausted the landlord’s complaints process in June 2020 and made orders that the landlord advise the resident of its plans to install noise recording equipment in his property and pay the resident £300 compensation.

Summary of Events

16. The resident submitted a complaint on 12 October 2020 regarding what he described as a ‘casual approach’ by the noise pollution team. He alleged that they had not followed correct procedures.
17. The local authority noise pollution team issued a stage one complaint response to the resident on 9 November 2020. This included findings that:
    1. no music was witnessed when they attended on 6 June 2020
    2. diary sheets were received from the resident on 7 July 2020 and this led to it issuing an informal notice
    3. no loud music or ‘humming noise’ was witnessed during visits on 15 July 2020, 17 July 2020 and 11 September 2020
    4. no statutory nuisance had been established and the complaint was not upheld.
18. The resident submitted correspondence on 11 November 2020. He advised that the complaint was about the local authority noise pollution team and the dismissal of his noise nuisance case. He said that he should not have loud music affecting him in the early hours of the morning and that noise pollution officers had failed to attend and failed to gain access to the neighbouring address.
19. The resident wrote again on 11 January 2021. He asked for his phone records to be checked and for an explanation as to why nothing had been done.
20. The local authority corporate complaints team wrote to the resident on 14 January 2021. It advised that:
    1. the November 2020 stage one complaint response had outlined steps taken by the noise pollution team from June-September 2020
    2. multiple daily emails and phone calls had been received from the resident since November 2020
    3. the resident was entitled to escalate the complaint if he wished and he was signposted as to how to do so.
21. The resident replied on 15 January 2021. He raised concerns that he had waited for a year for noise monitoring equipment to be installed and was now told that the case was closed. He also queried what a compensation payment of £300 was for.
22. The local authority corporate complaints team responded on 15 January 2021. It advised that:
    1. the £300 compensation related to the December 2020 determination by this Service which was in recognition of the noise equipment delay
    2. the recent stage one complaint was about the actions of the noise pollution team and the resident could escalate this complaint if he wished.
23. The resident replied on 17 January 2021 – he asked for the complaint to be escalated and for his noise nuisance case to be re-opened. He added on 20 January 2021 that he had experienced difficulty in contacting officers.
24. The local authority corporate complaints team issued a final complaint response to the resident on 16 February 2021. It advised that this was about the noise pollution team and concluded that:
    1. his complaint about the tenancy team had been considered by this Service, leading to a compensation award and order for noise recording equipment to be used
    2. five visits had been undertaken by the noise pollution team to assess whether there was a statutory nuisance but these had been unsuccessful so the case was closed
    3. there was a shortage of noise recording devices and the pandemic restrictions meant that it was difficult to retrieve devices
    4. all residents would be written to about the noise and if the problem persisted, the resident should use his mobile phone to record disturbances
    5. the resident should escalate his complaint to the Local Government & Social Care Ombudsman if he remained dissatisfied.
25. The landlord’s internal emails show that it had located a noise recording device for the resident on 17 February 2021 but that it was unable to install this due to pandemic lockdown restrictions.
26. The landlord received incident diary sheets dated 3-11 March 2021 that the resident completed in conjunction with use of a recording device; it is not disputed that a recording device was installed at the resident’s property during this period.
27. The resident wrote to the local authority ‘health, wellbeing and adults’ director on 25 March 2021. He expressed frustration that he had been told there was no record of some of his reports and that he felt he was going around in circles
28. The local authority corporate complaints team wrote to the resident on 12 May 2021, replying to his letter of 25 March 2021. It set out that:
    1. the complaint about the lack of contact from the tenancy team had been considered by this Service in December 2020
    2. a recording device had been installed on 2 March 2021 but this did not establish any noise nuisance during the week it recorded for (the only noise heard were doors opening and closing which were likely to be the resident’s household noise)
    3. the resident’s complaint about the noise pollution team had exhausted its complaints process on 16 February 2021 when it was explained that no statutory nuisance had been evidenced and the team had followed the correct process.