East Midlands Housing Group Limited (202305125)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202305125

East Midlands Housing Group Limited

2 December 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

The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of the resident’s report of antisocial behaviour (ASB).

Background

The resident was an assured tenant of the landlord from 22 April 2022 until 26 February 2023. The landlord is a registered provider of social housing. The property is a 2 bedroom bungalow. The property is supported living. The resident has no relevant recorded vulnerabilities and lives with his wife.
On 29 April 2022, the resident completed a diary sheet to record that the neighbour had the television on loud between 2am and 4am. The resident recorded further instances of the same issue on 1 May 2022 and 7 May 2022. The landlord completed a risk assessment and action plan with the resident on 11 May 2022.
Following the resident reporting further instances of the neighbour having the TV on loud through night, the landlord completed a home visit to the neighbour, with the neighbour’s social worker, on 23 May 2022. During the visit, the landlord completed an action plan with the neighbour and encouraged the neighbour to keep the TV volume to a minimum.
The landlord closed the ASB case on 19 June 2022 as it had received no further reports. It offered the resident noise monitoring equipment on 6 July 2022; however, the resident declined this at the time.
The resident reported further noise complaints to the landlord on 29 September 2022, following which the landlord opened a new ASB case.
A home visit took place on 6 October 2022 and then landlord completed a risk assessment and an action plan with the resident, this included:
1. The resident to continue to send diary sheets.
2. The resident to report the noise complaints to environmental health.
3. The landlord to send an email to the neighbour’s social worker and the scheme coordinator.
4. The landlord to issue a warning letter to the neighbour.
The resident continued to provide diary sheets which detailed the neighbour playing the television loud throughout the night. A diary entry on 21 October 2022 detailed the neighbour’s daughter making a threat towards the resident which the resident reported to the police.
A telephone call with the resident, on 24 October 2024, shows the landlord said it would visit the neighbour. With regards to noise monitoring equipment, the landlord explained he had declined this and was therefore now at the bottom of the waiting list.
Throughout November 2022, December 2022, and January 2023 the resident continued to provided diary entries detailing loud nose through the night and loud arguing during the daytime.
The landlord undertook a home visit to the neighbour on 16 January 2023 during which it said it would be using noise monitoring equipment which could lead to action against the tenancy.
The resident raised a formal complaint on 1 February 2023. The key points were as follows:
1. He explained the issue had begun from the start of the tenancy and that he was aware the landlord knew of an ongoing issue with the neighbour which it should have informed them about.
2. He was unhappy as he had paid rent for 9 months to be “tortured” due to the ongoing ASB and requested a rent rebate.
3. The landlord had attended his property once and told him there was nothing it could do. He had also asked the landlord if the neighbour’s social worker could contact him.
4. He was still waiting for the sound monitoring equipment and for a call back from the landlord.
5. He had sent diary entries to the landlord, referred his case to environmental health and contacted the police due to threats from the neighbour’s daughter.
6. The resident said he had suffered a lot, had given up his dogs due to lack of sleep and had faced a £500 moving bill.
The landlord installed the noise monitoring equipment on 16 February 2023 and then resident ended the tenancy on 27 February 2023.
The landlord acknowledged the complaint on 16 March 2023 and provided its stage 1 response on 23 March 2023. The key points were as follows:
1. It understood there had been a delay in progressing the resident’s case as there had been less incident which therefore meant the resident had declined the sound recording equipment.
2. It confirmed it had visited the neighbour multiple times with its partner agencies to resolve the reported nuisance.
3. It confirmed it had removed the sound monitoring equipment but not yet analysed the data.
4. It confirmed that it had requested the social worker to make contact but did not have the authority to force them to call.
5. It confirmed it had closed earlier complaints against the neighbour 9 months prior to the resident moving into the property and therefore, there was no requirement for it to inform the resident.
6. It had acted in line with its policies and procedures and tried all reasonable remedies and confirmed it would not reimburse any rent.
The resident requested escalation to stage 2 of the complaints process on 27 March 2023. The key points were as follows:
1. He was unhappy that the landlord said he had delayed the case as the incidents had improved. He confirmed the break in incidents was only a short and after a short period, they confirmed they did want the sound monitoring equipment, yet the landlord did not provide this until a week before they ended the tenancy.
2. The problems had caused mental and physical “torture,” and the landlord had failed to acknowledge the threats received from the neighbour’s daughter.
3. With regards to the period before they had taken up the tenancy, the resident said other residents had informed him that there was a known issue with the neighbour.
4. He said the landlord had not acknowledged the impact on his mental health, the upset caused or the cost of moving properties again.
The landlord acknowledged the request on 4 April 2023 and provided its stage 2 response on 2 May 2023. The key points were as follows:
1. It gave an extensive history of its handling of the ASB and the actions it had taken.
2. It did not think it necessary to inform the resident of historic noise reports prior to him moving in due to the passage of time and it had no evidence the issues would reoccur.
3. The resident had declined the noise monitoring equipment on 6 July 2022. The resident then requested it again in October 2022 but at that stage there was a waiting list due to demand.
4. It was sorry there was a delay in installing the equipment, but the wait time was out of its hands.
5. Based on the evidence provided, it confirmed its actions were proportionate and in line with its policy.
6. It had however reviewed its file note and found there was a delay in dealing with an incident reported on 24 October 2022 as it did not approach the neighbour until January 2023.
7. It offered compensation of £50 for the time and trouble taken and £100 for its delay in responding to the allegation in October 2022.
In referring the complaint to this Service, the resident requested £5,500 compensation for the stress caused, rent paid and costs for their move.

Assessment and findings

Policies and procedures

The landlords ASB policy sets out that it will respond to reports of ASB as follows:
1. High risk cases which are likely to include matters where there are threats of violence, hate crime or where a resident is highly vulnerable within 24 hours.
2. Medium risk cases which are likely to include drug related or criminal activity within 5 working days.
3. Low risk cases which include noise and fly tipping within 5 working days.
It sets out that it will endeavour to offer support and signposting which may include managing expectations, ensuring a resident has a point of contact and maintaining regular contact until it closes a case.
It sets out that it will take informal action including a range of non-legal remedies such as mediation, advisory letters, warning letters and acceptable behaviour contracts. It may also take legal action including proceedings against the tenancy.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of antisocial behaviour (ASB)

Not every instance of annoyance reported to a landlord will be something it has the power to act on. A landlord has two main duties when anti-social behaviour is reported. The first is to undertake a proportionate investigation to establish the nature and extent of the anti-social behaviour. The second is to weigh in balance the evidence, and each parties’ rights to enjoy their home and decide what action it should take. The Ombudsman’s role is to determine if the landlord carried out a proportionate investigation and whether the actions it took were within its powers.
Additionally, matters where there is a history of ASB over an extended period, such as this, are often the most challenging for a landlord to manage. In practice, the options available to a landlord to resolve a case may not extend to the resident’s preferred outcome and it therefore becomes difficult to manage a resident’s expectations. In such instances, closely following the ASB policy ensures that a landlord is acting fairly, its response is proportionate to the raised issues, and that its approach is consistent, even if it does not lead to the outcome requested by the resident.
The resident first reported an issue with noise from the neighbour on 29 April 2022 and recorded diary sheets on 1 and 7 May 2022. Following which the landlord attended, in line with its policy, on 11 May 2022 and completed a risk assessment and action plan. The landlord has not provided evidence of the contents of this action plan; however, it was appropriate of it to take swift action which would have reassured the resident it was taking the noise reports seriously.
Following the noise reports, the evidence shows that the landlord contacted the neighbour’s social worker to advise of the complaints and to ask if the neighbour’s carers could help in keeping the TV volume to a minimum, which the social worker agreed to do. Again, this swift action was in line with the landlord’s ASB policy and highlights effective partnership working.
Following the noise reports, the landlord conducted a home visit to the neighbour on 23 May 2022 during which it discussed the noise complaints with the neighbour and produced an action plan for the neighbour to help keep the noise complaints to a minimum. This again was reasonable and showed the landlord’s commitment to resolve the issue.
As part of its commitment to resolve the issue for the resident, the landlord arranged for noise monitoring equipment to be installed into the property. However, as the incidents had reduced, the resident declined this at the time. While at that point, it was not known if or when the situation would escalate again, it would have been useful for the landlord to have explained to the resident the implications of declining the equipment at that stage and inform him that he would move off the waiting list.
On 19 June 2022, as the landlord had received no further noise reports, it closed the resident’s case. This was reasonable in the circumstances given that the resident had reported no further issues.
Following a phone call to the resident on 27 September 2022, during which the resident reported the issue was in fact still ongoing, the landlord opened a new ASB case. Given the further noise complaints, this was an appropriate response and in line with the landlord’s policy.
Following the further reports, the landlord arranged a further visit with the neighbour’s social worker. While the social worker cancelled this due to illness, the landlord appropriately emailed to advise of the further complaints and to say it would be considering further action such as noise monitoring equipment. Given the vulnerabilities faced by the neighbour, it was reasonable of the landlord to liaise again with the social worker and showed a commitment by it to help resolve the ongoing issue for the resident.
The landlord conducted a home visit with the resident on 6 October 2022 during which, in line with its policy, it completed a risk assessment and agreed an action plan with the resident. This response was fair and proportionate based on the evidence it had received about the noise issue.
Furthermore, the evidence shows that, on the same date, the landlord sent a warning letter to the neighbour advising it would consider tenancy enforcement action or serve the neighbour with a noise abatement order. This action further highlighted the landlord’s commitment to resolve the issue for the resident.
However, throughout the rest of October 2022 the resident provided further diary entries and contacted the landlord via telephone to report further noise issues. One of which included a threat from the neighbour’s daughter. There is however no evidence that the landlord took any action in relation to the reports or discussed the reports with the resident. Where the landlord’s actions have not been successful in resolving the issue, the Ombudsman would expect the landlord to consider if it should escalate its response or act on the warnings, it had previously given.
Furthermore, given that the resident reported a threat from the neighbour’s daughter, it would have been appropriate for the landlord to revisit the risk assessment to assess the current situation and understand if further action was needed. Not doing so was not in line with its policy and showed a lack of empathy towards the resident.
The landlord did make a telephone call to the resident on 24 October 2022, during which the resident said it had been promised noise monitoring equipment. The landlord explained that he was at the bottom of the waiting list due to his earlier refusal of the equipment. While it was appropriate that the landlord spoke to the resident, it would have been useful for the landlord to have explained that it had a long wait list for the equipment to manage the resident’s expectations.
There is also no evidence to suggest that the landlord said it would or could take any further action in relation to the reports. This would have been a further opportunity for the landlord to have undertaken a review of the risk assessment and consider if the action plan required updating and to consider if it could have signposted to support services for the resident who was finding the situation distressing. Not doing so was a failing and not in line with the landlord’s policy.
The resident continued to provide diary entries to the landlord throughout November 2022 which detailed the TV playing loud through night and the distress it was causing the resident and his wife. However, the landlord has provided no evidence to show that took any action in relation these reports. The landlord’s ASB policy states that it would maintain regular contact with a resident with a single point of contact provided. Its lack of communication was not in line with its policy and would have frustrated the resident at a time where he needed the landlords support.
During a telephone call from the resident on 30 November 2022, the landlord said it would liaise with the neighbour’s social worker and undertake a further home visit. Yet the evidence provided shows that the landlord took no further action in relation to the issue until 10 January 2023 when it arranged a home visit to both the resident and the neighbour. This meant the resident was left without any support from the landlord for over 2 months despite continuing to send in diary sheets detailing the noise and distress it was causing. This lack of action was not appropriate and showed a disregard to the situation the resident found himself in.
It is important to note that the landlord, in its stage 2 complaint response, accepted and apologised for its lack of action during that period and offered compensation of £100 for the delay in responding. However, the Ombudsman is not satisfied that this amount accurately reflects the distress and inconvenience caused during that period. Furthermore, the landlord did not acknowledge the delay at the earliest opportunity, only doing so in its stage 2 response.
On 3 occasions between October 2022 and January 2023 the resident used the emergency intercom system to request support due to the noise. The landlord informed the resident this was not an appropriate use of the system. While that may be the case, the residents use of it highlights how distressing the situation was and how desperate they were for help from the landlord. Yet even after using that function, there is no evidence to show that the landlord acted on the reports and took action. This would have been a further opportunity for it to have escalated its response and considered further action.
During the home visit with the resident on 16 January 2023, the landlord discussed the ongoing ASB and said it would try to prioritise the resident for the noise monitoring equipment. While it was appropriate of the landlord to try to prioritise the resident for the equipment, it would have been useful for the landlord to ascertain how long the wait may have been to manage the resident’s expectations.
On the same date, the landlord visited the neighbour to discuss the allegations. As the landlord had no evidence to prove or dispute the allegations, it appropriately told the neighbour that it would be using noise monitoring equipment which could lead to tenancy action. This was reasonable in the circumstances.
The resident continued to report the noise from the neighbour through January 2023. The landlord contacted the resident on 27 January 2023 to give him an update on the case. It sets out its position that it would need the noise monitoring equipment to take any further action as the neighbour had denied the allegation. While this would have been frustrating for the resident, it was reasonable of the landlord to wait for the noise monitoring equipment before considering if it could take any further action.
The landlord also made contact with the neighbour’s social worker again to advise of the further complaints and discuss if they could also help in encouraging the neighbour to keep the noise to a minimum and discussed if other support was available for the neighbour with regards to noise. This was in line with the landlord’s ASB policy which says it will work with third party agencies in such circumstances.
However, while it considered what support it could give to the neighbour, there is no evidence to show that the landlord offered support to the resident in relation to this issue. A landlord has a duty of care towards its resident and its failure to offer support to the resident was unreasonable in the circumstances and highlights a lack of empathy.
The landlord installed the noise monitoring equipment on 16 February 2023 however the resident ended his tenancy on 27 February 2023. While it was unfortunate that the landlord’s waiting list meant it installed the equipment within weeks of the resident moving out, it did provide it as it said it would. The Ombudsman understands that resources are not finite, and it had previously explained to the resident that it had long waiting lists for the equipment.
In the resident’s formal complaint, he said that the landlord should have informed him about the known noise issue from the neighbour before they moved in. In its responses, the landlord mentioned that there were no open noise complaints, with it closing the last case 9 months earlier. However, evidence provided to this Service suggests that the landlord was aware of potential future complaints about the neighbour’s behaviour just two months before the resident moved in. While the Ombudsman understands that the landlord could not disclose this information due to data protection laws, it would have been helpful for the landlord to have explained why it could not share any information, rather than denying the existence of a current known issue.
In the formal complaint, the resident also requested a rent rebate. In its stage 2 response, the landlord appropriately acknowledged some failings in its handling of the case and awarded compensation for those failings. The landlord appropriately set out its position as to why it would not be able to issue a rent rebate as it had followed its policies and procedures. While the compensation given was not commensurate with the failings identified, it was reasonable that it did not offer a full rebate of the resident’s rent in the circumstances.
The resident also raised in his complaint that he had asked the landlord to arrange for the neighbour’s social worker to contact him, but it had not. There is no evidence to suggest that the landlord did request this, however, it had liaised throughout the whole process with the neighbour’s social worker and ensured it worked together with the social worker to resolve the issues. Furthermore, it was correct in its complaint response when it highlighted it could not force the social worker to contact the resident.
Overall, in the first instance the landlord responded appropriately and in line with its policy to the noise reports. It completed a risk assessment and an action plan and engaged with the neighbour to help resolve the issue. However, its lack of action in October 2022 when the resident reported further issues, including a threat, fell short of the standard expected. It did not take any action for over 2 months and left the resident living in a situation without any support. Of particular importance was the landlords lack of action following the report of a threat towards the resident. Its lack of response ultimately delayed any future potential action the landlord could take. Furthermore, its communication from October 2022 onwards fell below the standard expected and it did not manage the resident’s expectations with regards to the noise monitoring equipment. Once it contacted the resident again in January, the landlord took steps to investigate the resident’s reports. However, its lack of action in October 2022 and empathy towards the resident ultimately caused him to move home.
Therefore, taking into consideration the above, there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of ASB.
During the mediation process prior to this investigation, the landlord offered compensation to the resident of £650. Taking into consideration the above and the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance, the Ombudsman has made a compensation order reflective of that mediation offer.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of ASB.

Orders and recommendations

Within 6 weeks of the date of this determination, the landlord must pay compensation to the resident of £650, made up of the following:
1. £50 for the delay in acknowledging the complaint.
2. £100 for the time and trouble.
3. £200 for the delay in responding to the reports of ASB in October 2022.
4. £300 for the overall distress and inconvenience.
Within 6 weeks of the date of this determination, a senior member of staff must write to the resident to apologise for the failings found in this report.
The landlord is to provide evidence of compliance with the above orders within 6 weeks of the date of this determination.