Incommunities Limited (202207367)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202207367

Incommunities Limited

4 December 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

The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of:
1. Neighbours littering.
2. A fence needing repair.
3. Issues with her rent account.
4. A noise nuisance.

Background and summary of events

Background

The resident has occupied the property, a two bedroom house, with her 2 children, on an assured shorthold tenancy, since 2019.
Although the resident did not complain to the landlord at stage 1 about an issue with her rent account being in arrears, she did raise it at stage 2 and the landlord chose to address it in its stage 2 response. As a result, this issue is considered as part of this investigation.

Summary of Events

On 23 June 2021, the resident reported that a fence near her property had not been secured properly, and she was concerned in case it fell in high winds.
The resident reported an issue with littering by her property on 21 February 2022. She provided photographs and said littering had been ongoing for months, and it was a result of how 3 neighbouring properties kept their bins.
On 24 February 2022, the resident reported that her adjoining neighbour was playing loud music late at night. The landlord sent her a noise complaint log to complete and explained this would help it decide whether to fit noise monitoring equipment at her property. It also said it had written to the neighbour asking them to alter their behaviour.
The landlord sent a letter to all residents on 25 February 2022, to advise of reports of littering, and it asked that bins be kept in gardens and for residents to ensure all litter is disposed of securely.
The resident reported on 10 March 2022, that she was still having issues with noise from her neighbour, and that she would be making a complaint to the council. The landlord acknowledged her concern on 17 March 2022, and said it was right for her to report the matter to the council, as it dealt with noise complaints. However, it explained it would also record it as a formal complaint, and would arrange an antisocial behaviour (ASB) interview with her.
On 28 March 2022, the resident told the landlord the council was dealing with her noise complaint and noise equipment should pick up the noise she was experiencing. She said she had reported it to the landlord, to see if it would speak with the neighbour before the complaint escalated formally. She said there was still an issue with littering and a neighbour had left a child’s potty outside for months.
The resident sent the landlord a copy of her completed noise complaint log on 31 March 2022, and explained that the same had been sent to the council.
The landlord wrote to the resident on 4 April 2022 acknowledging her report of ASB. It also wrote to her next-door neighbour the same day, about the noise and litter complaint, saying that it did not tolerate this behaviour and it needed to interview them on 12 April 2022. The resident informed the landlord on 8 April 2022 that the loud music next door had stopped and she thanked it for resolving the issue promptly.
An interview with the neighbour took place on 12 April 2022 and the neighbour denied the noise allegations but agreed to keep their bins in the back garden.
The landlord updated the resident on 13 April 2022. It made her aware the neighbour had denied the allegations and it was therefore hard to prove the source of the litter. It said it was important to gather evidence in support of the noise complaint and she should use the noise app to take recordings for a week. It said it hoped the bins would now be moved, but asked her to let it know if that was not the case. The neighbourhood officer said they would visit when in the area.
On the same day, 13 April 2022, recordings from a noise app were submitted to the landlord, but it was unable to hear any noise nuisance. The resident thanked the landlord for speaking with the neighbour, and said she wanted to close her noise complaint rather than raise a formal complaint and she would liaise with the council. The landlord responded and explained as it had already opened a formal complaint, it would need to interview her to complete the case file and close the complaint. She could continue to raise noise issues with the council’s noise team if she needed to, as it had enforcement powers.
The landlord sent another letter to all residents about littering on 10 May 2022. It again asked them not to leave bins by the roadside as litter was escaping in to the road and it reminded them of their obligations under their tenancy agreements. It said it would be monitoring the situation going forward.
The resident complained to the landlord on 8 July 2022. She said she reported a fence needed to be repaired in June 2021, but it had still not been fixed. In addition, she had been told in the past the landlord would not write to residents about littering, without evidence, but she had received a letter about littering in her street, which she was unhappy about. She said she had reported littering and provided photographic evidence, and bins were still being kept out in the street by her neighbours. She commented that “it is with DISGUST I write this email in response to your repulsive, disrespectful, and unprofessional handling of the attached letter sent to me”.
In the landlord’s stage 1 response of 11 July 2022, it explained that, in response to the resident’s reports of people littering, a neighbourhood officer had spoken with the households that she had highlighted as being responsible. Despite the photographs she had provided they had denied littering and explained due to adverse weather, it was difficult to control where some loose litter ended up. It explained that littering was hard to manage, but it had sent a letter to all residents in May 2022 as a response to her reports. However, other than asking residents to ensure spillages and debris were contained, it was not something it would take tenancy enforcement against. It did not think the neighbourhood officer’s approach had been “repulsive, disrespectful or unprofessional”. In terms of the broken fence, it said it had passed the information to its Repairs Team and someone would contact her to arrange the necessary works.
The resident asked for the complaint to be escalated to stage 2 on 4 August 2022. She denied calling the neighbourhood officer repulsive, disrespectful or unprofessional and said her comment related to the overall service. In terms of littering, she accepted weather was an issue, but said her photographs showed overflowing bins and lids not being closed properly, and that was causing the littering. She felt there was no reason to write to the whole street, and she was unhappy to receive no apology for the “unnecessary stress caused”, or an explanation of how things would improve in the future. In terms of the fence repair, she said no one from the Repairs Team had contacted her and its response had not explained why there had been a delay in addressing the repair. She also commented on receiving letters and not emails, and having been recently advised her rent was paid in arrears. She said she did not set up the direct debit, and had been making payments for 4 years.
On 9 August 2022, the landlord sent the resident a copy of her rent statement from the start of her tenancy. It explained the account fell in to arrears 2 weeks before her direct debit was paid. Therefore, to ensure she was not in breach of the tenancy agreement, she needed to arrange for her rent to be paid a full month in advance.
The landlord acknowledged the escalated complaint on 10 August 2022, and explained a response would be issued within 20 working days. It then sent its stage 2 response on 31 August 2022. It noted the resident was unhappy because:
1. She had asked for email communication but received letters.
2. Her comments had been taken out of context.
3. A letter was sent to all residents about littering, rather than just those littering.
4. The landlord had not explained why there had been a delay repairing the fence.
The landlord detailed the chronology of the resident’s littering reports and its responses between February and May 2022. It explained that no one had made a complaint about the resident, but appreciated it could have included a covering letter to her, so she understood the letter was being sent in response to her reports.
The landlord said there seemed to have been a misunderstanding about her comments being taken out of context. It set out what the resident had said in her complaint and its response, and said it did not infer that she had made personal comments. It noted she was referring to its handling of the matter and it apologised for any confusion.
The landlord explained that a structure change and confusion over ownership had led to the fence not getting fixed. It apologised for that and confirmed it would be inspected to ascertain the repairs needed. It said it would track the progress of this work so there was no further delay.
Although rent payments had not formed part of the original complaint, the landlord explained that, from 1 May 2019, her direct debit was to collect 3 weeks rent in advance, but it should have been one month. This was adjusted in June 2019 so her account was only 2 weeks in advance, so in-between direct debits the account went in to arrears. It said an investigation was taking place as to why this adjustment took place, and the Income Team would contact her.
It concluded by saying that, although it was standard practice to write to all residents, in this case there was evidence of the perpetrator(s). Therefore, it was sorry for any distress caused by sending the general letter.
On 1 September 2022, the landlord logged that a repair to the fence was needed, and an appointment was arranged for a joiner to attend on 7 October 2022. The landlord’s records show a voicemail was left for the resident, and a text message and email sent to her on 6 September 2022, advising of the appointment. The repair was carried out on 7 October 2022.
On 15 March 2023, the landlord emailed the resident and explained it had set up a new direct debit for her rent, as a result of changing its system. This was acknowledged by the resident the same day.

The landlord’s obligations, policies and procedures

The landlord’s Responsive Repairs and Maintenance policy says the landlord is responsible for repairing fences and, with exterior repairs, it will explain to the customer how long they will have to wait for the repair.
Section 3.0 of the landlord’s Antisocial Behaviour and Hate Incident Policy says littering and noise nuisance are forms of ASB. It says there is a cross-over of work with councils when dealing with complaints of noise nuisance. It can take practical measures, such as using noise recorders or it can install noise recording devices. Section 7.2 sets out tools and action the landlord can take as issues escalate. It says early and informal interventions can be “making an individual aware of the impact of their behaviour” and it would be for the frontline officers to decide how and when to use a particular approach.
The landlord’s Complaints policy says it will respond to complaints at stage 1 within 10 working days. Where a complaint is escalated to stage 2, it aims to respond within 20 working days.
Its Compensation policy states it may make a payment if there has been a service failure and costs had been incurred. It could also consider a goodwill payment, made out of kindness and this would not usually exceed £100.

Assessment and findings

Neighbours littering

Within 4 working days of being advised there was an issue with litter being scattered outside properties, the landlord wrote to all residents asking that bins were moved and litter disposed of. Therefore, it took prompt and proportionate action in the first instance, to prevent the issue from happening again.
In response to the resident’s further report in March 2022, the landlord took various steps throughout April 2022 to address her concerns and update her on the action taken (as detailed above). The evidence shows that it took the resident’s reports seriously and acted quickly to take practical steps to improve the situation. It also took appropriate steps to ensure the neighbour was made aware of the impact of their actions, in line with its Antisocial Behaviour and Hate Incident Policy.
Again, in response to further reports by the resident, the landlord sent another letter to all residents in May 2022. Whilst the resident questioned why this letter was sent (as she felt it contradicted advice given to her previously), it is clear that the landlord had taken the same action in response to her reports in February 2022. As the resident had not raised an issue with this approach at that time, it was reasonable for the landlord to adopt the same approach and to not anticipate an adverse reaction from the resident. As there was evidently an ongoing litter problem, it was appropriate for the landlord to send a further warning letter making all residents aware of the issue and the fact it was monitoring the situation.
In response to the resident’s concerns that the May 2022 letter was directed at her, and not just the reported perpetrators, the landlord took the opportunity of its stage 2 complaint response to clarify its position and highlight how it could have improved its service. Particularly given that the resident had not found it necessary to have received a covering letter on the similar warning letter of February 2022, the landlord’s response was appropriate and proportionate.
The landlord also clarified its position on the specific wording in the resident’s complaint and the evidence demonstrates that it did not allege that she had made comments about the neighbourhood officer. However, it apologised for any confusion caused, which was a professional and reasonable response.
Overall, the landlord took a fair and practical approach to the resident’s reports regarding neighbours littering, so there was no maladministration in that regard.

Fence repair

It is clear that the resident reported the fence repair in June 2021 and that the work remained outstanding in July 2022, more than a year later. Whilst there is nothing to suggest that the resident followed up her report within that time, this period of delay represents a failing on the part of the landlord.
As per the landlord’s Repairs Policy, it was responsible for fixing the fence. While it was not an emergency situation, a repair should have been arranged within a reasonable amount of time, and the resident told when that would take place, in accordance with the Policy. That evidently did not happen in this case.
Once prompted by the resident in July 2022, the landlord advised that she would be contacted about the repair, but this did not happen until 6 September 2022, some two months later. The repair was then ultimately completed on 7 October 2022, 16 months after it was first reported. While the landlord apologised for the delay in fixing the fence, its further delay in arranging and completing the repair following the complaint, would have been understandably frustrating for the resident.
The Ombudsman has seen photographs of the fence before the repair and it appeared to be in good condition. It may have needed the fixings repaired or replaced, but it was still a functional fence. Therefore, the delay in completing the repair, did not negatively impact the resident’s living situation. Further, it is taken into account that the resident could have chased the outstanding repair earlier if it was causing her any detriment. However, it is accepted that the resident should not have had to go to the time and trouble of reporting the repair more than once and complaining about it, and waiting a prolonged period for the repair to be completed.

Rent account.

In response to the resident’s concerns about her rent account, first raised in August 2022, the landlord explained the timing of the direct debit and advised it would look into why the adjustment was made in 2019. It is not clear what steps the landlord took immediately after this, but it is evident from the rent account, that it had accepted the resident’s payment schedule for over 3 years, before raising an issue with it.
As the Tenancy Agreement says the resident must pay rent in advance the landlord was entitled to raise the issue to ensure compliance and ask the resident to change her payment schedule. However, it is understandable that it would have come as a surprise to her to be told she was in regular arrears after so long. Leaving it over 3 years before bringing the matter to the resident’s attention is unreasonable. This caused her worry and concern which could have been avoided if it had been addressed promptly in 2019.
The landlord has since changed the system it uses for payments, and in March 2023 it confirmed it had set up a new direct debit for the resident, which the resident acknowledged. However, the distress caused to her in 2022, has been taken in to account with the order made.

Noise nuisance.

Following the resident’s reports of noise nuisance in February 2022, the landlord responded promptly by writing to the neighbour and asking the resident to complete a noise complaint log. Both were reasonable steps to take in order to both tackle the issue and monitor the situation going forward.
When the resident informed the landlord two weeks later that the issue was ongoing and she had reported the matter to the council, it said it would record the matter as a complaint. As the resident had made it clear she remained unhappy with the situation, this was an appropriate response. The landlord then acted promptly again once it received the noise complaint log from the resident. Within 2 working days, it confirmed that it was treating her report as ASB and it contacted the neighbour to make them aware of the issue and arrange an interview.
The landlord took a proactive and reasonable approach to dealing with the resident’s reports of noise nuisance. In just over a month, it issued her with a record log, opened a complaint, encouraged her to use a noise app, wrote to and conducted an interview with the neighbour, and reported back to the resident. It also said it would consider installing a noise recording device if required. The resident then told the landlord that the noise had stopped and she wanted to close her complaint. No further action was then taken, but it rightly advised the resident that even if it closed its complaint, she could still report noise concerns to the council if she needed to.
All of the steps taken by the landlord, were in line with its Antisocial Behaviour and Hate Incident Policy. Overall, it complied with its obligations to deal with the reports of noise nuisance as ASB and took prompt and efficient action to address matters.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was:
1. no maladministration in relation to the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of:
  1. neighbours littering.
  2. noise nuisance
2. maladministration in relation to the landlord’s handling of the resident’s:
  1. report of a fence requiring repair.
  2. rent account.

Reasons

The landlord responded promptly and proactively to the littering problems by issuing warning letters to the neighbouring properties.
There was a significant delay in dealing with the fence repair and the landlord had to be chased to complete the works. There were then further delays after the landlord was prompted.
The landlord waited over 3 years before notifying the resident there was an issue with the rent payment schedule.
The landlord addressed the noise complaint quickly and efficiently, by employing appropriate methods to resolve the reports and ensure they were proactively managed.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

Within the next four weeks the landlord should;
1. Pay the resident £250 compensation, made up of:
  1. £150 for the inconvenience due to the delay in repairing the fence.
  2. £100 for the delay in advising the resident about an issue with her rent payments.