Hammersmith and Fulham Council (202322547)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202322547

Hammersmith and Fulham Council

25 September 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 noise and antisocial behaviour (ASB) reports.

Background

The resident has been the leaseholder of the property, a 1-bedroom flat on the top floor of a converted street property, since 5 September 2021. The landlord is a local authority and the freeholder of the building. The resident’s neighbour (the neighbour) lived below her on the first floor, and another elderly neighbour lived in the ground floor flat.
On 15 September 2021, the resident contacted the local authority’s noise and nuisance (N&N) service, which sent diary sheets, and offered to send an ‘alleged noise’ letter to the neighbour. The resident also attempted to contact her housing officer the same day. She said she had experienced severe noise disturbance (loud music, hoovering, banging, and slamming doors) by the neighbour every day, as well as a strong smell of cannabis.
The housing officer called the resident on 17 September 2021, saying he would contact the neighbour to warn her about the noise. The housing officer then emailed the resident on 20 September 2021, asking her to report noise at unsociable hours to him, and suggesting that some of the noise could be caused by the elderly neighbour. After reports of loud music, the N&N service attended the building the next night. It said it would issue a noise abatement notice to the neighbour and told the resident to report noise whether it happens day or night.
The housing officer emailed the resident on 22 September 2021. He asked her to complete diary sheets and said he had warned the neighbour about her conduct (no evidence of the warning has been provided).
The resident continued to report loud music, banging and hoovering (regularly at unsociable hours) over the following 2 weeks. She emailed the landlord on 6 October 2021 and said being constantly woken during the night caused her distress and had started to affect her health. The housing officer visited the neighbour the same day, but there is no evidence to confirm the outcome of the meeting. He also emailed the resident and offered to conduct a noise test and open an ASB case. The next day, the resident temporarily moved out of the property.
The resident emailed for further details in relation to the noise test on 8 October 2021. She said despite the landlord’s meeting with the neighbour 2 days earlier, she had been disturbed by loud music from the neighbour’s flat.
The N&N service called the resident and said it had added her to the waiting list for a Noise Monitoring Device on 10 October 2021.
The resident asked her MP for help on 14 October 2021. She said the landlord’s actions had not been constructive and had aggravated the situation. The MP wrote to the landlord 5 days later and, following his contact, the landlord allocated the resident a new housing officer, apologised for its handling of the situation, and arranged to meet her.
The landlord interviewed the resident on 5 November 2021. It said she should continue to complete diary sheets and record noise and it would act depending on the evidence provided. It also opened an ASB case, completed a risk assessment and sent a warning letter to the neighbour on 9 November 2021. The letter said there had been a complaint in relation to loud music and various other issues and proposed to meet with the neighbour.
On 23 November 2021, the landlord interviewed the neighbour. She said she had not played loud music since the first housing officer visited, she had a faulty door that was difficult to close (the landlord noted she would report this to its repair team immediately), she had a visitor who had used cannabis once, and and she was happy to attend mediation.
The next day the landlord wrote to the resident to provide an update. It said her neighbour was waiting to be moved for personal reasons and would move once a suitable property was found. It said it had issued her with another warning letter, advising her to keep her music down, and she had agreed to update it when the faulty door had been raised to its repairs team.
The following week the resident emailed the landlord to ask if it could address the neighbour carrying out housework at unsociable hours. She continued to report the same issues.
On 30 November 2021, the landlord emailed the resident. It said if the issues continued, the neighbour would be invited for a second interview where it would discuss an Acceptable Behaviour Agreement (ABA) and offer mediation. It wrote to the neighbour and said she should not use her washing machine or hoover after 9pm.
The resident continued to report being woken by loud music, slamming doors and the smell of cannabis between 1 and 13 December 2021 before she temporarily moved out a second time.
It is not clear exactly when, but the landlord conducted a second interview with the neighbour. It emailed the resident on 14 December 2021 and confirmed the neighbour had signed an ABA and agreed to stop banging and smoking cannabis. However, 2 weeks later the landlord’s Law Enforcement Team (LET) attended the building and witnessed cannabis smoke in the communal hallway.
In an email to the landlord of 15 December 2021, the resident said she would install soundproofing insulation under her floor to reduce the noise (this was completed in June 2022).
The resident emailed the landlord on 4 January 2022 saying she continued to experience noise disturbance and 4 people had witnessed the smell of cannabis (including a LET officer) on 4 separate occasions between 20 and 29 December 2022. The landlord initially suggested conducting a noise test and said it would refer the case to mediation. However, it also said it would issue a Notice of Seeking Possession (NOSP) the next day after its LET confirmed the cannabis smell.
The landlord issued a pre-NOSP warning letter to the neighbour on 11 January 2022. It visited the resident 3 days later and explained it not issued a NOSP, but would do so if the neighbour continued to breach the ABA. After a phone call with the neighbour following the pre-NOSP letter, the landlord wrote to her on 18 January 2022, reiterating the behaviours which it considered to be unacceptable and confirming that the case would be referred to mediation (which it did on 3 February 2022).
The police and landlord attended the property on 3 March 2022 following the reports of cannabis use, but the neighbour did not answer her door.
The landlord’s second housing officer emailed the resident the next day and said she would be changing role on 18 March 2022. She emailed again a few days later and said she hoped the noise issues would improve, but converted houses and living routines were difficult to always get right. She said the N&N service could investigate what is unsociable noise, as some noise may not be ASB.
The resident and the neighbour attended mediation on 14 March 2022. The N&N service also contacted the resident to update her in relation to the Noise Monitoring Device.
The landlord attended the neighbour’s property on 18 March 2022 to check the flooring, for signs of drug use, and the front door closing mechanism. It noted mediation had taken place and an agreement had been reached. The resident emailed the landlord on 8 April 2022 and said things had improved. A few days later the landlord confirmed the neighbour was offered another property and was in the process of moving.
From 11 to 27 April 2022 the resident reported banging and the smell of cannabis. She wrote to the landlord and her MP on 27 April 2022. She said the neighbour had been issued with a pre-NOSP warning letter despite continually breaching the ABA. She felt mediation placed the onus on her to resolve the situation and the neighbour’s behaviour had not changed. She said the impact had been horrendous and debilitating and the constant noise felt torturous and had a psychological impact. Finally, she said that she felt her ASB case had been abandoned.
It is not clear exactly when, but the neighbour moved out in May/June 2022. The resident continued to report noise, bangs and occasional cannabis smell albeit less frequently up until this point. On 17 June 2022, the landlord confirmed to the resident’s MP the neighbour had moved out and the ASB case was closed.
The resident raised a formal complaint with the landlord on 29 June 2022. She said she had tried to raise a complaint in April 2022 but it was not acknowledged. She stated that she had not been updated about the neighbour and she asked whether the property below could have soundproofing installed. The landlord had taken 4 weeks to open an ASB case and failed to escalate it even though she believed she had provided substantial evidence, it did not communicate effectively, and when her housing officer changed role a new officer was not assigned nor any update provided.
The landlord acknowledged the complaint the next day before issuing its stage 1 response on 20 July 2022. It acknowledged and apologised for the delay in opening an ASB case and poor service. It said there was insufficient evidence to change the case grading as it could not link the drug smell to the neighbour, but it acknowledged poor co-ordination between departments. It said it would review its mediation process with its provider. It apologised for the impact the handling of the case had on the resident and said her case had been discussed to learn from mistakes. It would not soundproof the property but would ensure the new tenant puts down adequate flooring.
The landlord wrote to the resident on 1 August 2022 and said her ASB case had been closed. The resident escalated the complaint 2 days later.
An internal landlord email of 8 August 2022 said the LET could not substantiate the claim there was drug consumption in the neighbour’s property.
The landlord issued its stage 2 response on 1 September 2022, as follows:
1. The ASB reported did not warrant a higher classification (dealt with by its ASB unit) as there was insufficient evidence to conclusively determine if the neighbour was intentionally noisy.
2. It would not reimburse or compensate the resident for installing insulation to reduce the noise.
3. It regretted the resident felt mediation made the situation worse, but she had the opportunity to decline, and it could not guarantee the mediation outcome.
4. It was sorry for the impact the situation had on her and apologised for poor communication and wrong information, but it did not think the failures warranted compensation.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

The resident has told the landlord about the impact the noise/ASB had on her health. The Ombudsman does not doubt these comments, but it is beyond the remit of this Service to determine whether there was a direct link between the landlord’s actions and the resident’s health. While the Ombudsman cannot consider the effect on health, consideration has been given to any general distress and inconvenience which she experienced as a result of any service failure by the landlord.
The N&N service (now the Environmental Public Protection Nuisance Team) and LET are services which operate within the environment and crime departments of the local authority, respectively. They sit outside the landlord’s housing function. Therefore, actions and decisions made by either of these teams fall under the jurisdiction of the Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman and not the Housing Ombudsman. Whilst noted above for context, the Housing Ombudsman cannot draw conclusions on the action or lack of actions by the N&N service or LET.
It is evident that this situation has been distressing for the resident and this Service does not doubt her experience. However, it is important to note that it is not the Ombudsman’s role to establish: whether ASB took place; the source or severity of the reported noises; or the credibility of the reports. Instead, this Service considers the landlord’s response to the reports, and weighs up the evidence to assess whether it acted in line with its policies, fairly and reasonably in all the circumstances of the case.
The Ombudsman acknowledges other issues the landlord has addressed including the resident’s concerns about communal door locks. No evidence has been provided of this being raised as part of the complaint under investigation here. As a result, issues with the locks are not considered further (reflected at paragraph 42.a. of the Scheme). Instead, this investigation is focused solely on the issues fully investigated as part of the formal complaint which the landlord has had an opportunity to investigate and resolve in the first instance.

Landlord’s handling of the resident’s noise and ASB reports

The landlord’s ASB policy says staff must respond promptly to ASB complaints and take preventative/deterrent measures early to stop difficult situations early. The policy also says:
1. Following an initial report, the landlord will open a case on its ASB database. It will then carry out an initial interview with the complainant where it will encourage the resident to keep diary sheets, grade the case (to establish which department will manage the case), and devise an action plan. The initial report form, action plan consent form, action plan and risk assessment must be uploaded to the ASB database.
2. The investigating officer must ‘keep accurate records and record all interviews and action taken in investigating a case on the ASB case management database.’ The officer is also required to advise the complainant in writing of their actions and keep them informed of progress on at least a monthly basis.
3. Mediation must be considered as a remedy in all appropriate cases such lifestyle differences, low level noise nuisance and one-on-one neighbour disputes.
4. It can issue warning letters, agree ABAs (which if breached, the perpetrator should be invited for a further interview), or start possession proceedings.
5. Further investigation would be appropriate if there is a suspected breach of tenancy or report of criminal activity, and a NOSP can be served if there is justification and reasonable evidence of a tenancy breach.
While the housing officer contacted the resident within 2 days, the initial handling of the reports was poor. He originally appeared to be dismissive of the reports and although he visited the neighbour, there was no evidence to confirm what was discussed or the outcome of the visit, which was not in line with policy. It took a further email from the resident explaining the affect the noise had on her before the housing officer asked her to complete diary sheets.
There was no evidence an ASB case was opened, initial interview completed, case graded, or action plan discussed. This was not in line with policy, delayed a formal start to the investigation, and represents a failing in the landlord’s handling of the matter. The lack of timely response to the resident’s questions regarding the noise test, and failure to appropriately manage her expectations caused frustration and left her feeling overwhelmed. This led her to temporarily move out and contact her MP to progress the case, which caused inconvenience.
Following the MP involvement, the landlord’s handling of the reports improved. It sent an initial warning letter before it interviewed the neighbour and sent a further letter. It also wrote to the neighbour promptly to address the domestic noise after 9pm. After continued reports, it conducted a second interview and agreed an ABA. It then issued a pre-NOSP warning letter and followed this up with the neighbour by phone and a further letter.
Whilst this Service acknowledges the frustration to the resident, the steps taken by the landlord at this stage were reasonable and proportionate, particularly given that the neighbour was due to move. Even if a NOSP was issued, it would not have meant the neighbour would have been evicted quickly, and there was no guarantee the issues would have improved. The landlord also demonstrated that it worked with partner agencies by visiting the property with the police, and other departments (LET and N&N), which was reasonable.
However, the landlord’s policy says suitable cases should be referred for mediation. It noted the neighbour agreed to mediation on 23 November 2021, so it is unclear why the no referral was made at this point. The evidence suggests this could have been because the neighbour was on a waiting list to be moved which would have resolved the ASB/noise issues. However, the neighbour did not move for another 6 months. Had the landlord referred the case for mediation at the earliest opportunity, it could have avoided months of distress to the resident.
Further, whilst conducting an interview with the neighbour was a reasonable step to take, it noted she would report the faulty door to its repairs team. There is no evidence this was followed up and it did not check the front door closing mechanism until March 2022, almost 4 months later. Either proactively arranging a door repair or following up with the neighbour could have avoided months of loud bangs and stress to the resident, which represents a further failing.
Once the landlord referred the case to mediation, it appropriately managed the resident’s expectations in relation to noise issues in converted houses and what would constitute unsociable noise. However, there is no evidence the resident’s expectations were managed at the earliest opportunity. After the second housing officer moved role, the communication from the landlord slowed. Its approach was that, as mediation had taken place, and given the neighbour was due to move, it stopped monitoring the case. This led the resident to raise a formal complaint and to feel her case was abandoned, which represents a further failing.
Overall, the landlord failed to manage and address the ASB/noise reports effectively, which impacted the resident and ultimately led to her moving out of the property on more than one occasion. It was slow to open an ASB case and failed to follow policy. There is no evidence it managed the resident’s expectations until March 2022, it could have referred the case to mediation earlier, and it failed to monitor or follow up issues with the front door.
The landlord did acknowledge some failings and that it had learnt from the complaint (in accordance with the Ombudsman’s Dispute Resolution Principles), but it failed to fully address the detriment to the resident. As a result, there was maladministration in its handling of her noise and ASB reports and further action is needed to resolve this complaint satisfactorily.
The lack of compensation offer was not reasonable in the circumstances. An award of £250 compensation has been made to reflect the failings identified during the course of this investigation, which is in line with this Service’s remedies guidance.

Determination

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

Orders and recommendations

Within 4 weeks of the date of this report, the landlord is ordered to:
1. Provide a written apology to the resident for the failings identified in this report.
2. Pay the resident £250 for the inconvenience, distress, time, and trouble caused by its failings.
3. Provide compliance evidence to this Service.