Innisfree Housing Association Limited (202127950)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202127950

Innisfree Housing Association Limited

10 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

The complaint is about:
1. The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of nuisance and antisocial behaviour (ASB) following its decision to allow neighbours to keep dogs in their property.
2. The landlord’s handling of allegations of ASB made against the resident.
3. The landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns about its decision to ban BBQs in the communal area and her request for a safe area to be identified.
4. The landlord’s response to the resident’s request for a key to the main entrance door of an attached block within the scheme.
5. The landlord’s handling of the associated complaint.

Background

The resident is an assured tenant of the landlord. Her tenancy began in February 2020. The property is a flat within a block of similar properties and a wider scheme with connected blocks and a shared courtyard. The landlord is a housing association. The resident’s neighbours live in the property above hers.
Within its communication with the resident, the landlord refers to the local authority’s nuisance control team. This report will refer to the local authority’s nuisance control team as the “nuisance control team”.

Scope of investigation

The resident has raised concern about the landlord’s ongoing handling of her reports of noise nuisance and ASB from the neighbouring property as well as her request that a safe space was found on the scheme to hold BBQs and her request for a key to a door within another block on the scheme. She raised a new complaint with the landlord and received a stage 1 complaint response in June 2023. It has been explained to the resident that the scope of this investigation is limited to the landlord’s handling of her reports up until its final complaint response in June 2022.
This is in line with paragraph 42(a) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, which states that the Ombudsman may not consider complaints which are made prior to having exhausted a member landlord’s complaints procedure. The landlord will need the opportunity to investigate and respond to the additional concerns raised by the resident. If the resident remains dissatisfied with the landlord’s handling of her reports, she may wish to escalate her separate complaint to stage 2 if she has not already done so. She may then approach this Service for further investigation if she remains dissatisfied with that response.
In her communication with this Service, the resident has also raised concern about the landlord’s handling of her reports that her neighbours’ use of washing lines was blocking light to her property and concern that the landlord had previously advised that the washing lines would be removed. While the resident raised concern about the intended removal of the ground floor washing line at the scheme alongside her formal complaint, the issues were not raised as part of the resident’s formal complaint to the landlord on 4 August 2021 or addressed by the landlord at each stage of its formal complaints process. As such, these issues will not be investigated as part of this report.
In her communication with the landlord and this Service, the resident has maintained that the landlord’s handling of her reports of noise nuisance has impacted her and her family’s sleep, health and wellbeing. It is beyond the remit of this Service to draw conclusions on the causation of, or liability for, impacts on health and wellbeing. Nonetheless, consideration has been given to the general distress and inconvenience which the situation may have caused the resident.
The resident has also expressed concern about the actions of the local authority’s nuisance control team in response to her reports. The Ombudsman cannot comment on the actions of the local authority as these matters are better suited to be dealt with by the Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman (LGSCO). The resident would need to raise a separate complaint with the nuisance control team to resolve her concerns and may then approach the LGSCO if she remains dissatisfied with the local authority’s response.

Summary of Events

The resident raised concerns about noise from a dog in the property above hers on 9 March 2021. She said that the dog continued to “stampede” from 5am until 2am the following morning. She asked the landlord to check the type of floor covering in the upstairs property. She also asked for a timeline on when the dog would be removed. The resident continued to report noise from the dog throughout March 2021 and maintained that this was impacting her and her family’s sleep as her son worked nights and could not sleep during the day. She also asked the landlord to send a letter to all residents to remind them that BBQs were allowed as several of her neighbours had complained the previous summer.
The landlord wrote to the neighbour in the flat above on 19 March 2021, regarding the resident’s concerns in relation to a dog being kept. On 25 March 2021, the landlord confirmed that it had discussed the dog with the neighbour and was going through the necessary steps under its pets policy.
A fire risk assessment was carried out at the scheme on 30 March 2021.
On 31 March 2021, the landlord contacted the resident and confirmed that it had granted permission for the neighbour to keep their 2 dogs following consultation with its management team and pet policy. It said that it would monitor the situation and behaviour over the coming weeks. It confirmed that it had discussed the sound issue with the neighbour.
The resident asked to appeal the landlord’s decision on the same day. She requested a copy of the landlord’s pet policy and expressed concern about how she would be able to live in the property with the disruption caused by the dogs. She added that the impact on her ability to sleep was affecting her focus at work.
Between April 2021 and August 2021, there was extensive communication between the resident and the landlord concerning its decision to permit the dogs to live in the property above hers and the noise transference she experienced, among some other issues. In summary, this included the following:
1. The resident expressed dissatisfaction with the landlord’s decision to allow the neighbour to keep 2 dogs in the flat above hers and said that she had been advised that it was against the tenancy agreement to keep pets on site. She felt that the neighbour was doing little to control the dogs in the property and wanted the dogs to be removed.
2. She continued to report noise, including the “pounding” and stampeding” of the dogs on regular occasions, and maintained that the dogs were waking her up during unsociable hours which was having an impact on her sleep, her son’s sleep during the day, and overall health and wellbeing. She did not feel any consideration had been given to her family or the impact of the dogs.
3. On 9 April 2021, following a phone call with the resident, the landlord confirmed that the agreed actions were for it to research what noise nuisance support could be offered by the local authority, for it to provide further information about its complaint policy, for the resident to keep a log of new incidents and for the landlord to monitor the situation.
4. The landlord confirmed the steps the neighbour had taken to minimise the noise transference. It had received photographic evidence of baby-gates, carpeting, and rugs in the neighbouring property. It had also discussed the noise reports with the neighbours and was satisfied that they had taken steps to minimise noise transference. The neighbours also had monitoring devices to oversee the dogs’ actions when they were left alone.
5. The landlord logged the resident’s reports and said that the noise reported did not constitute ASB but was everyday living noise as it was not deliberate or intentional. It advised and maintained that she would need to engage with the nuisance control team who could establish whether the noise experienced constituted a statutory noise nuisance, and use the local authority’s noise app to provide evidence. It said that it was unable to take action against the neighbours without evidence to confirm that the noise was a statutory noise nuisance.
6. The resident invited the landlord to visit the property to witness the noise she experienced on a number of occasions. She also asked that it supply professional noise monitoring equipment. The landlord initially said on 21 April 2021 that it was not able to evaluate whether the noise was considered a statutory noise nuisance and did not believe a visit was appropriate. It later explained in June 2021 that it was unable to carry out home visits due to the impact of Covid-19, but that it and its contractors had attended communal areas and had not heard the dogs. It said that it did not have noise monitoring equipment to provide and maintained that the resident would need to engage with the nuisance control team.
7. The landlord advised the resident to communicate with her neighbour to try and resolve any dispute amicably as they may not be aware of each others’ schedules. The resident said that she would not approach her neighbours without witnesses. During this time, the landlord asked the resident whether she would consider mediation with her neighbour.
8. The landlord communicated with the nuisance control team who initially advised on 5 May 2021 that there were delays in delivering its service due to demand and explained that it expected the landlord to take steps to resolve the complaints in the first instance.In June 2021, the landlord had further communication with the nuisance control team. The team said that they could not investigate the resident’s concerns further as they could not force her to use the specified Noise app to record the noise experienced.
9. The resident’s neighbour had reported that someone in the resident’s household had banged on the dividing ceiling/floor on a number of occasions and that someone in the resident’s household was often heard shouting at a games console late at night. The resident was informed of the allegations by the landlord and advised not to retaliate to noise heard. It later explained that deliberately banging on the ceiling was inappropriate and placed her in breach of her tenancy agreement. The resident admitted to banging on the ceiling as a last resort due to the noise and denied allegations that someone had been shouting.
10. The resident provided the landlord with audio recordings of the dogs barking on several occasions. The landlord contacted the neighbours to discuss the barking following her reports. It advised the resident to report the noise through the nuisance control team’s Noise app as this was a more accurate way to record noise. The resident advised that she was unable to download the Noise app as she did not have enough memory space on her phone.
11. The resident requested permission to erect a temporary shelter over the external area where she dried clothes and expressed concern that fleas and ticks from the dogs in the property above would fall onto her washing. The landlord refused to grant permission as there were purpose built washing lines in the main communal courtyard for residents to use. It provided a leaflet on ticks to the resident.
12. The resident reported being splashed by water from the neighbours’ balcony which hit her clean laundry. She believed that this was intentional. The landlord took steps to discuss the incident with the neighbour who said that this was accidental and had apologised. The landlord confirmed that the incident would not be investigated further.
13. The resident also reported that the dogs were being exercised in the communal courtyard and were seen urinating and defecating. The landlord said that it was acceptable for the dogs to be exercised in the communal area during a period of extreme weather. It asked the resident whether the area needed to be cleaned.
14. The landlord wrote to all residents on 23 April 2021 to explain that following a Fire Risk Assessment, it found that some of the communal areas were not being kept clear and asked that items be removed with immediate effect. The letter also advised that BBQs of any type were not permitted within the perimeter of the scheme. It listed the terms of the tenancy agreement which residents had agreed to including insurance risks, common areas and regulations.
15. The resident maintained that the situation was not a “neighbour dispute” but a dispute between her and the landlord regarding its decision to allow the neighbours to keep 2 dogs. She maintained that the noise was not everyday household noise but ASB and noise nuisance.
The resident raised a formal complaint on 4 August 2021 and detailed the following:
1. The landlord had not considered the impact of giving retrospective permission for her neighbours to keep 2 dogs. She said that the dogs were causing annoyance and nuisance on a daily basis and that the issues had impacted her health.
2. She had reported that the dogs were being exercised in the communal courtyard and that she had seen the dogs urinating and defecating. She expressed dissatisfaction that the landlord had asked her to provide physical evidence of this and that it had also said that this was permissible due to a heatwave. She wanted the landlord to withdraw its consent for the dogs to be kept.
3. The landlord had said that BBQs in the external communal areas were no longer permitted. There had been no tenant consultation and no investigation into finding a safe BBQ area. She asked that this matter was reviewed as she had not been provided evidence to support the landlord’s decision.
4. She had requested to erect a temporary shelter to hang her clothes under. She asked why another tenant had been allowed to place a permanent shed in the communal courtyard but she had been denied permission for a temporary shelter.
5. She had requested a set of keys for another block to allow her to exit the buildings more conveniently and safely. She said that it was also a fire escape but was denied a key. She said that other tenants in her block had access to this entry point and was dissatisfied that her request was denied.
6. She was concerned that her family was accused of ASB after banging on the ceiling due to the noise from the dogs. She asked why an accusation was made against her family but no action had been taken in relation to the dogs.
7. She was dissatisfied that the landlord had categorised her complaint as a “neighbour dispute” as she had no issue with the neighbours above. Her complaint was specifically regarding her tenancy agreement with the landlord and the retrospective decision to allow dogs to reside in the flat above.
On 6 August 2021, the landlord confirmed that it had listened to the audio files the resident had previously sent. It did not believe that the noise was intentional and said this would not be considered antisocial. It explained that the nuisance control team could not consider audio recordings that had not been made through the Noise app. It maintained that there was no further action for it to take but that she could send recordings to the nuisance control team.
The resident responded and maintained that the landlord had failed to assess the effectiveness of the steps taken by the neighbours as it had refused to visit her property. She maintained that she was unable to download the Noise app. She wanted the landlord to provide recording equipment so that she could give the nuisance control team evidence.
In response, the landlord maintained that the local authority was the correct body for investigating noise nuisance. It said that the app recorded a wider range of sound and that the local authority had advised that it could not accept recordings made in other ways. It said that the resident would need to contact the nuisance control team to discuss other ways of recording and reporting noise.
The landlord’s records show that it contacted the neighbour regarding the resident’s reports of barking from the dogs. The resident also reported concerns about another neighbour hanging washing from the line above her property which was impacting the light into her property during this time.
On 11 August 2021, the landlord contacted the resident to confirm that her complaint would be handled at stage 1 of its complaints process. It aimed to respond by 18 August 2021.
Between 18 August 2021 and 3 September 2021, the resident continued to report noise from the dogs “stampeding” and provided further recordings of barking to the landlord. She again asked it to provide monitoring equipment. The landlord asked the nuisance control team whether there were other ways the resident could report the noise. The resident remained dissatisfied that the landlord kept asking her to use the Noise app when she could not. The landlord maintained that it relied on the local authority as the investigating body for noise and that she would need to work with the nuisance control team.
The landlord issued a complaint response to the resident on 6 September 2021 and explained the following:
1. It had reviewed the steps taken in handling the resident’s reports of nuisance from the dogs and said that staff had responded in line with its policy.
2. When giving retrospective permission for her neighbours to keep dogs, it had agreed a number of expectations with the resident’s neighbours, including:
  1. Fitting baby-gates throughout the property to limit the dogs’ movement.
  2. Laying carpets to dampen the sound of the dogs moving or playing.
  3. Laying extra padding on the floor in the room where the dogs were kept at night or when left alone.
  4. Installing monitoring devices to be used when the dogs were left alone.
  5. Exercising the dogs away from the building other than in extreme circumstances.
3. It also considered the positive impact of owning pets and the changes made across the housing sector in relation to the Model Tenancy Agreement and that landlords should not automatically ban pets. It apologised if the resident felt it had not taken action. It confirmed that it had been in regular contact with the neighbours and had seen evidence that the arrangements were being followed.
4. It noted the resident’s concerns that a member of staff had asked her to gather evidence of dog fouling in the communal area and explained that it did not feel that the email of 22 July 2021 was a request for the resident to gather evidence, but to confirm whether any fouling had not been cleared away.
5. It acknowledged the resident’s concerns that a member of staff had said it was permissible for the dogs to be exercised in the communal area. This was only on that occasion as the Met office had issued a weather warning of extreme heat. This was under the agreement that the dogs were otherwise exercised away from the scheme.
6. In relation to the BBQs, it explained that when changes were required by law or regulations, it would not be obliged to consult tenants. Its latest fire risk assessment required a ‘no BBQ’ rule to be introduced. It did not currently believe that a safe area for BBQs was possible within the scheme but it had asked its fire risk assessor to provide specific advice on this.
7. As alternative washing lines were available in the main courtyard, it found its decision to refuse the resident’s request to erect a temporary shelter to be reasonable. Following a recent fire risk assessment, all residents were advised that the communal areas were to be kept clear.
8. It confirmed that it had not issued keys to any residents in the resident’s block for the main entrance to another block.
9. It noted that the resident felt it was unfair that she was challenged about the behaviour of her household following reports of banging on the ceiling of the flat above. It explained that it often received different reports from residents about the same situation. It needed to gather information from both sides to ensure it was being fair and challenge any behaviour that either party in a dispute was exhibiting when necessary.
10. It confirmed that a “neighbour dispute” was a commonly used term within the housing sector, government guidance, regulation and legal proceedings. It assured that there was no intention for this to carry any other meaning about the resident’s relationship with her neighbour.
11. It said that once the resident had the opportunity to consider the letter and respond, it would finalise its response at stage 1 of its complaints procedure.
Between September and October 2021, the following events occurred:
1. The resident provided audio recordings of the dogs barking and screenshots of the times and dates of the early morning and late night noise from the dogs. The landlord explained that the screenshots would not be considered as evidence as they did not demonstrate that the resident had witnessed the noise in question or the length of time the dogs were barking. It said that the nuisance control team would require evidence of the times, duration, frequency and tone of the barking. The resident maintained that she did not have access to the noise app.
2. The landlord sent the audio recordings to the nuisance control team. The nuisance control team contacted the resident on 22 September 2021 to explain that in order to evidence the noise, she would need to use the Noise app. It explained that if the resident was unable to use the noise app, she could complete an attached noise diary for a period of 4 weeks.
3. Between 12 and 14 October 2021, the resident reported faeces in the communal area and the landlord asked its cleaning team to attend the scheme. The resident maintained that the areas had not been cleaned and the landlord confirmed that cleaners had attended and could not locate animal faeces and it assumed that this had been cleaned.
The landlord’s records show that it received communication from the resident on 4 November 2021 where she attached annotated versions of her complaint and the landlord’s initial complaint response. She asked the landlord to provide a response and explained the following:
1. She maintained that her neighbours were in breach of their tenancy agreement which had not been addressed by the landlord within its response. The landlord had not considered withdrawing consent for her neighbour to have 2 dogs in the property at any stage.
2. She said that the landlord had not acknowledged the impact on her family and her reports about the impact on her health.
3. She believed that the main communal courtyard had ample space for BBQs to be used safely and said that her tenancy agreement noted that tenants should be consulted.
4. She believed that the landlord had shown bias in favour of the dogs over her family’s wellbeing in relation to her request to erect a temporary shelter to hang her clothes under due to ticks from the dogs. She was also unhappy that the landlord had ignored her concern about a permanent shed in the communal area.
5. She maintained that neighbours within her block used the exit door through another block and that the landlord’s decision not to give her a key for the door showed bias. She maintained that she wanted a key for fire safety and evacuation reasons.
6. She said that it had been 8 months since the dogs had moved into the flat above but the only action she had seen taken was against her and her family when accused of ASB. She said that she had been advised not to speak to other tenants directly by her GP.
7. She maintained that her dispute was with the landlord regarding its application of the pet policy. She did not feel that the baby gates were being used and said that the padding on the floor was not working to prevent the noise transference. She also said that the dogs had defecated in the communal area and this had not been disinfected for 3 days which was a health and safety risk.
Between 8 November 2021 and 2 December 2021, the following occurred:
1. The resident raised concern that the communal areas were not being cleaned regularly or to a suitable standard.
2. On 9 November 2021, the landlord asked the resident whether she wished to escalate her complaint to stage 2 and the resident confirmed that she wanted the landlord to provide its finalised stage 1 complaint response.
3. The resident contacted the landlord on 17 November 2021 following a call the previous day. She expressed concern that the landlord intended to remove the washing lines at the scheme.
4. The landlord contacted the resident on 26 November 2021. It explained that all personal items needed to be removed from the communal areas, including her BBQ. In relation to the washing lines, it explained that it would usually consult tenants on changes, however, not in cases where the change was required by law or regulation. It was being careful to ensure that all fire safety arrangements were in place with the introduction of the Fire Safety Act 2021. Its fire risk assessor had advised that the proximity of the hanging combustible clothing near to the building and its balconies could contribute to external flame spread should the washing itself be ignited. It confirmed that the washing lines needed to be removed to ensure that the building complied with legislation. It had provided alternative options for drying clothing. It also provided its complaints procedure to the resident.
5. A survey of the scheme by a fire risk assessor took place on 30 November 2021. In relation to use of the rear access door to a block, the assessor said that there were other means of escape to the front of the building and the door to the rear was not a designated means of escape.
The landlord issued its finalised stage 1 complaint response to the resident on 2 December 2021 and explained the following:
1. It apologised that the resident felt its response to her stage 1 complaint was incomplete. Is said that granting retrospective permission to keep a pet was at its discretion. It had taken several considerations into account and agreed some clear measures with the neighbours to help mitigate noise transference. It had seen evidence of the measures in place. It did not agree that no consideration was given to the possible impact on the resident’s family and believed that the considerations and measures agreed were reasonable.
2. It noted that the neighbours had taken additional steps to ensure that they limited the time the dogs played with some toys and created noise. The noise nuisance report the resident had compiled did not form part of its consideration as this was compiled after permission had been granted for the dogs to be kept.
3. It was not currently considering withdrawing consent for the neighbour to keep the dogs but noted that permission was given with information that consent could be withdrawn in the future. If all of the measures taken to resolve the nuisance were not effective, it would consider all of the evidence and make a decision on whether or not to withdraw permission.
4. The resident had reported dog faeces in the communal area, but its cleaners had attended on 3 consecutive days and could not find this. The resident had also reported that the dogs were being exercised in the communal courtyard during a heatwave. It had spoken to the neighbours who agreed to otherwise exercise the dogs away from the estate.
5. It noted that the resident did not believe that it was following Government guidance regarding pet ownership in rented properties. It explained that the government new standard tenancy prevented landlords from issuing a blanket ban on pets; this was the approach it had adopted. It noted that each social landlord was responsible for setting out its own pet policy.
6. In relation to the BBQs, it acknowledged that it was reasonable for the resident to expect it to consult tenants about a change in its management arrangements, but this did not include where there had been changes in law or regulations. Its latest fire risk assessment required a ‘no BBQ’ rule to be introduced. It had arranged for its fire risk assessor to attend that month and look at the possibility of a safe place for BBQs. It confirmed that all communal areas needed to be kept clear, both internally and externally, of personal belongings in its properties and BBQs were not permitted.
7. In relation to the resident’s request to erect a shelter to hang her clothes under, it noted that the resident believed it had shown bias. It had taken steps to ensure that it adhered to all fire safety regulations. Its fire risk assessor had advised that the proximity of the hanging washing near to the building could contribute to fire spread should the washing lines be ignited.
8. It had sent letters to all residents advising that the communal areas and balconies needed to be kept clear, including the removal of washing lines. In view of this, it considered it reasonable not to grant permission for a temporary shelter to be placed. A neighbour’s shed had also been taken into consideration and was being removed.
9. It had not provided any keys for the door to another block to anyone within the resident’s block. It said that if the resident was able to advise which residents, she believed to have keys, it would address this directly with them. Its fire risk assessment had identified that the main entrance door for the resident’s block was the fire exit for the block. It had asked its fire risk assessor to look at this again and it would notify residents if there were any changes.
10. It noted that the resident felt it was unfair for her family to be challenged about banging on their ceiling. It explained that it needed to gather information from both sides of an issue and if it did not, it would not be being fair. It did not believe that it was unfair for it to challenge the resident’s family about allegations that they were banging on the ceiling as it needed to challenge behaviour that either party to a dispute was exhibiting when necessary.
11. It was standard practice for landlords to advise tenants to speak to their neighbours when issues arose. It recognised that this was not always appropriate and in these circumstances, it would work with parties involved with the aim of reaching a resolution. It had been in regular communication with both the resident and her neighbours when issues had been reported. It offered the resident use of an independent mediation service to help resolve differences with her neighbour.
12. The term “neighbour dispute” was commonly used and there was no intention to imply any particular meaning about her relationship with her neighbour. It confirmed that the resident could escalate her complaint if she remained dissatisfied.
The resident asked for her complaint to be escalated on 11 January 2022 and provided annotations on the landlord’s stage 1 complaint response. She said the following:
1. She maintained that her neighbours had breached their tenancy agreement by having 2 large dogs as the scheme had a no pets policy.
2. Her housing officer had been removed from their position following their decision to give permission for the dogs. She wanted the landlord to provide the documentation, procedures and process followed when granting permission.
3. Following a visit from the nuisance control team, they had advised that the sound insulation was not to modern standards. She had been unable to sleep properly since March 2021 due to the noise from the dogs and the steps taken by her neighbours were not working. She said that the nuisance control team said it would be reasonable for the landlord to ask her neighbours to avoid allowing the dogs into the room above her bedroom.
4. She wanted the landlord to make a decision on whether or not to withdraw consent as soon as possible and maintained that the tenancy agreement she signed clearly stated that the landlord had a no pets policy.
5. She asked the landlord to provide a copy of the fire risk assessment completed including information about the BBQs and pending removal of washing lines as she wished to seek legal advice.
6. She said that the language used by the fire assessor in relation to the washing lines was open to interpretation. She said that her washing line on the ground floor was 2 metres from the building with nothing above. She said that she wished to appeal the decision to remove the washing lines.
7. In relation to her request for a key to the other block, she did not feel that neighbours who had keys would admit to this. She asked for an update on the fire risk assessor’s visit.
8. She believed that the landlord’s decision to challenge her family about banging on the ceiling was contradictory as the dogs “pounded” on the ceiling, but no changes had been implemented.
9. She said that there was an open neighbour harassment case with the police due to the landlord’s decision making and the lack of consideration given to her and her family.
The landlord’s internal records show that it had received a response from its fire risk assessor in relation to the use of BBQs in communal areas on 18 January 2022.
The resident sought an update on her complaint on 22 February 2022. On 23 February 2022, the landlord contacted her to apologise for the delay. It then spoke to the resident on 24 February 2022 and said it aimed to provide its response by 11 March 2022.
The landlord issued its stage 2 complaint response to the resident on 14 March 2022 and explained the following:
1. It apologised for its delayed response following previous communication.
2. It confirmed that the decision made for the upstairs neighbour to keep dogs was made in line with its policy. It had considered the particular circumstances of the dogs within the flat block and scheme and was satisfied with the decision. It acknowledged that the resident disagreed with its judgement but had reviewed the circumstances and believed that it was reasonable.
3. In relation to its handling of the resident’s reports of noise nuisance, it had asked the resident on 24 February 2022 about the involvement of the nuisance control team as it had been informed in January 2022 that the investigation into the case would be closed. It had checked this, and the local authority confirmed on 4 March 2022 that it did not consider the matter to constitute a statutory noise nuisance but required a tenancy management solution.
4. It explained the importance of having evidence of the nuisance when dealing with noise nuisance through a tenancy management perspective. In order to reconsider its decision, it would need to have continued to gather evidence about the frequency and intensity of the nuisance. This could be done through diary sheets and the Noise app. It said that it would consider this by the end of May 2022 and confirm its position on the matter.
5. It was awaiting a response from its risk assessor in relation to the BBQs and washing lines. It confirmed that issues of fire safety would remain a priority.
6. It was awaiting a response in relation to the use of entrances to other blocks. If the use of the door was not identified as creating a problem in terms of fire safety, it would consult residents for their views about allowing residents entry to other blocks.
7. It disagreed with the resident’s comment that it had been inconsistent in challenging her and her family about banging on the ceiling. It said that if it did not challenge the resident in response to reports, it would be being unfair to other tenants.
8. It recognised that the resident had said that her complaint was with the landlord and not her neighbour in reference to the term “neighbour dispute” and asked the resident if she wished to consider mediation with her neighbour.
9. It confirmed that this was its final complaint response and advised the resident that she was able to approach the Ombudsman if she remained dissatisfied.
The resident continued to report noise from the neighbours’ dogs following the landlord’s response. She also raised concern that her neighbours hung blankets low on the washing line above which blocked light into her flat. She said that the neighbours swept dirt from their balcony onto her laundry and continued to use the exit door through another block. She asked again for a key to this door. The neighbour had also reported that the resident had banged on the ceiling and the resident was made aware of the allegations on 12 April 2022. It confirmed that it had not provided keys to tenants of her block for the other main entrance door to another block and it would not be issuing keys.
The resident emailed the landlord on 20 April 2022 to request an update on:
1. A key and access to the exit door within a separate block.
2. The neighbours continuing to hang washing and block light to her flat.
3. The ongoing investigation into a safe area for BBQs in the communal area.
The landlord completed a tenancy audit visit to multiple properties, including the resident’s and her neighbour’s, on 27 May 2022. The dogs were not present at the time of the visit. It established that the neighbour’s hallway had thick carpet and underlay, the kitchen and living room had laminate but had heavy rugs on them, and there were 3 baby gates sectioning off the flat so the dogs could not run around. It visited the resident’s property; however, the resident did not want the landlord to enter the property and believed that the dogs had been taken out of the flat above on purpose so the noise could not be witnessed.
The landlord issued a follow-up complaint response to the resident on 16 June 2022 and explained the following:
1. It had continued to monitor the resident’s concerns and noted that it had previously said it would provide her with a response at the end of May about its reconsideration of permission for her neighbours to keep the dogs. It apologised for the delay.
2. It confirmed that it would not be withdrawing permission for the dogs to remain in the neighbour’s property at this time. It understood the potential for noise transference between the properties but said that the available evidence did not demonstrate chronic or excessive noise transference.
3. It had discussed the resident’s request for a key to another block with its fire risk assessor and confirmed that the fire exit route for the resident’s flat was through the main entrance to her block. It said that it would not be issuing keys to households for other blocks at this stage but would carry out a survey with all residents regarding the doors and access.
4. It had not yet received a response to its query to its fire risk assessor as to whether there was a safe area for a BBQ within the complex. It confirmed that it acted in line with the Fire Safety Act 2021 and, to ensure it had the most up to date fire risk advice, it would be completing another fire risk assessment. It confirmed that it did not currently give its consent for a BBQ of any kind to be used within the building grounds and the washing lines would remain in place in the communal areas.
Following the landlord’s response, the resident continued to report noise from the dogs above and that her neighbours continued to use the exit door through the attached block on a daily basis. She again invited the landlord to attend and witness the noise.
The landlord wrote to the resident on 29 July 2022 to confirm that it had completed a survey with residents into the various communal doors within the scheme blocks. From the results, it established that the current arrangements were satisfactory. As such, it would not be changing the way residents used entrances to enter their blocks and would only issue keys for residents to enter the block they lived in.
In communication with the Ombudsman, the resident has advised that the issues reported within her complaint are ongoing and have escalated, necessitating the involvement of the local authority and the police. The resident raised a separate complaint about the landlord’s handling of her ongoing noise and ASB reports, BBQs in the communal areas and her request for a key to the entrance door of another block. She received a stage 1 complaint response from the landlord in June 2023.

Assessment and findings

Policies and procedures

The Ombudsman has been provided with a signed copy of the resident’s tenancy agreement, which states that:
1. The premises comprises of the flat and shared use of the communal courtyard. The landlord is required to keep the common parts in reasonable repair and fit for use by the tenant and other occupants. The tenant agrees not to leave, or allow to be left, any obstacles and rubbish in common areas used by other occupants.
2. The tenant agrees not to do or allow anything on the premises which might invalidate any insurance of the premises.
3. The landlord would consult with the tenant before making changes in matters of housing management or maintenance which may affect a substantial proportion or number of tenants.
4. Residents must not keep any pet on the premises without first obtaining the landlord’s consent. The granting or refusal of consent is within the absolute discretion of the landlord. The landlord’s consent can be withdrawn at its discretion, in particular if the pet causes nuisance or annoyance to neighbours or to other tenants.
5. Tenants agree not to cause, or allow members of their household to cause, a nuisance or annoyance to neighbours or other tenants. Tenants must not cause excessive noise in a manner that is likely to cause a nuisance or annoyance to neighbours or other tenants so as to be audible outside of the premises.
The landlord’s ASB policy states that noise nuisance, including repeated and prolonged noise that is above lifestyle level and that unreasonably interferes with others’ quiet enjoyment of their homes and neighbourhood, is considered ASB. Types of behaviour that would not be considered ASB include noise from everyday life such as opening and closing of doors or using stairs and disagreements over the use of communal spaces.
The landlord would investigate all concerns of ASB and keep complainants up to date with its investigations. Where it has investigated and determined that the behaviour is not considered ASB in line with its policy, the reports would be investigated as a tenancy matter. The landlord relies on evidence to make any decision on the actions it can take. Gathering evidence may include the tenant keeping incident logs, recording noise on the Noise App, or engaging with other services such as the Police or the Local Authority.
It should support and encourage tenants to take personal responsibility and promote cooperation and communication between tenants to try and solve ASB concerns directly with their neighbours wherever possible. This may also involve recommending mediation between residents.
The landlord would provide clear action plans and realistic timeframes to its residents for its investigations. It would review open cases on a regular basis and ensure that action taken is proportionate. It would also carry out home visits, tenant profile visits and engagement activities to help it understand the needs of its tenants and tailor its service to suit their needs.
The landlord’s pet’s policy states that the control of pets, and any pets visiting the property, are the responsibility of the tenant. In cases where a breach of tenancy occurs as a result of keeping a pet and the tenant is not making any effort to address the problem, the landlord may treat the case as ASB and resort to enforcement action. Examples of a breach of tenancy could include pets fouling in communal or individual gardens (where this is not being cleared up immediately) or excessive noise.
The pet policy was updated in October 2021 and states that where the landlord becomes aware that a tenant has a pet but does not have the required consent, the tenant will be advised to submit a retrospective request for permission. It further states that permission will likely be granted for a maximum of 2 pets, with consideration of the size of accommodation, the type and size of the animals, availability of garden or proximity of other exercise and toileting area, history of any previous or current pet ownership and ability of the tenant to ensure the welfare of the animals.
The landlord’s complaints policy states that it has a 2 stage formal complaints process. It notes that a complaint may be handled informally in the first instance with a resolution within 3 working days. At stage 1 of its formal complaints process, the landlord should respond within 10 working days. If the resident remains dissatisfied, the complaint could be escalated to stage 2. The policy and the landlord’s website does not specify the target timescale for a response at stage 2.
In line with the Ombudsman’s complaint handling code (the Code), the Ombudsman would expect landlords to respond to complaints at stage 1 within 10 working days and complaints at stage 2 within 20 working days. Where there is likely to be a delay, the landlord would be expected to communicate the reason for the delay and provide an expected response date.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of nuisance and antisocial behaviour (ASB) following its decision to allow neighbours to keep dogs in their property.

It should be noted that it is not within the Ombudsman’s remit to order the landlord to withdraw its permission for the resident’s neighbours to keep dogs in their property as this was at its discretion in line with the tenancy agreement. The role of the Ombudsman is not to establish whether the noise reported was occurring or not, or to establish blame. Our role is to establish whether the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of noise nuisance was in line with its legal and policy obligations and whether its response was fair in all the circumstances of the case.
The resident has said that she accepted the tenancy on the basis that she was told that no pets were allowed within the scheme. While this Service appreciates the resident’s concern, the Ombudsman relies on documentary evidence to make a determination. The Ombudsman has not seen evidence to confirm whether or not the resident was told this at the time of accepting the tenancy. The resident has, however, provided an undated “living in your home” leaflet from the landlord which states that it did not allow pets in flats other than small animals such as fish or hamsters.
While the resident’s concerns are understandable, the tenancy agreement is a legal document which would take precedent over an informational leaflet. Ultimately, it was reasonable for the landlord to confirm the terms of the tenancy agreement and explain that pets were allowed on the scheme provided that it had given its written consent.
The resident first raised concerns that the neighbour above had a dog and associated noise transference, including running, on 9 March 2021. At the time, the landlord acted appropriately by discussing the reports with the neighbour. It is noted that the resident said that she was told by the landlord that it would be taking steps to have the dogs removed, however, the Ombudsman has not seen evidence to confirm this. The evidence shows that the landlord had advised the resident that it had written to the neighbours about the dogs and that it was taking steps in line with its pets policy, before confirming on 31 March 2021 that it had given retrospective permission for the neighbours to keep 2 dogs in the property.
The landlord ultimately used its discretion to permit the neighbours to keep 2 dogs in line with the tenancy agreement. There is no evidence to suggest that a “no pet” policy was in place preventing it from using its discretion to allow pets. However, it is noted that the resident had expressed concern about the noise from the dogs running around in the flat above on several occasions prior to the landlord confirming that it had granted permission for them to stay. This would not be the only deciding factor on whether the landlord granted permission for the dogs to remain. However, given the resident’s concerns about noise, the Ombudsman would have expected the landlord to consider the impact of the noise reported on the resident in its decision making process.
Nevertheless, the landlord’s records show that it had considered the implications of the neighbours owning pets and had considered the actions the neighbours had taken, and would be taking, to minimise noise transference through the property. The landlord acted fairly by confirming its decision making process to the resident and explaining the matters which had been considered, including an agreement that the neighbours would fit baby-gates throughout the property to limit the dogs’ movement, laying of carpets and padding on the floors to dampen the sound of the dogs movement, installing monitoring devices for when the dogs were left alone and exercising the dogs away from the building other than in extreme circumstances. The landlord received evidence that these steps were being taken by the neighbours which was appropriate in the circumstances.
Landlords cannot reasonably be expected to take formal action against tenants for noise that is considered everyday household noise; however, if a noise is confirmed as excessive or constituting a statutory noise nuisance, then both the landlord and the local authority’s Environmental Health service (or nuisance control team) may be able to warn and take formal action against the perpetrator.
Given the resident’s reports of noise transference as a result of the dogs running and moving in the property above, the landlord was responsible for investigating her concerns. The landlord acted fairly by creating an action plan with the resident on 9 April 2021. It asked the resident to begin creating a log of the noise experienced and took reasonable steps to compile this on her behalf following individual reports.
The landlord also acted reasonably by signposting the resident to the nuisance control team and the use of the team’s Noise app as a means to record noise experienced. While it is noted that the resident said that she was unable to use the app as she did not have space for it on her phone in June 2021, the Noise app is used widely across landlords and local authorities as a means to gather evidence. It provides time stamped data and can also provide other insights into the noise, such as the level of decibels recorded, which can be used to make an informed decision as to whether the noise was excessive and whether this constituted a statutory noise nuisance.
The resident had requested that the landlord provide her with monitoring equipment on multiple occasions in order to gather evidence. Ultimately, the landlord would not be obliged to hold or provide monitoring equipment itself, but should take steps to signpost a resident where they are unable to access the preferred Noise app. In this case, the landlord acted appropriately by advising the resident to liaise with the nuisance control team to determine whether they could provide an alternative means of gathering evidence, or whether they could accept normal audio recordings through her phone as evidence. It also acted reasonably by contacting the nuisance control team on the resident’s behalf in August 2021 on this basis.
The landlord took reasonable steps to investigate and confirm its position in relation to other incidents the resident had reported. These included her reports of the dogs barking and the provision of audio recordings, as well as an incident where she was splashed with water from the neighbours’ balcony. The landlord took reasonable steps to discuss the resident’s reports with her neighbour. It is noted that these incidents resulted in no further action being taken and the landlord acted fairly by regularly communicating with the resident regarding her concerns.
It is noted that the resident did not want to communicate with her neighbour or engage in mediation. While either party was entitled to refuse to participate in mediation, it was reasonable for the landlord to offer this as mediation can be a useful tool in resolving problems involving noise, and may have been useful as a means to help the resident and her neighbours understand each others circumstances and discuss the impact of the noise.
The landlord’s records show that the resident had asked it to attend her property on a number of occasions to witness the noise. The landlord had initially said that this would not be appropriate on 21 April 2021 as it could not establish whether the noise experienced was a statutory noise nuisance. It later explained in June 2021 that it was unable to carry out home visits due to the impact of COVID-19.
The latter explanation is considered reasonable under the circumstances given that the impact of COVID-19 was outside of the landlord’s control. However, given the resident’s reports of how the noise was impacting her sleep, health and general wellbeing, the Ombudsman would have expected to see evidence that the landlord had later attended the property to witness any noise for itself (when it was able) in order to make an informed decision about whether the steps taken by the neighbours were sufficient or whether anything further could be done. It should be noted that the landlord would not be not obliged to offer soundproofing in properties, or to improve the sound insulation to standards above what was required under regulations at the time the property was built. However, it should consider what other measures can be taken to reduce noise transference between properties when there are reported noise issues.
It is of concern that the landlord did not visit the property while the dogs were in situ to witness the noise despite the resident’s requests, especially given that the nuisance control team had advised on 4 March 2022 that it did not consider the matter to constitute a statutory noise nuisance but required a tenancy management solution. While a visit to the resident’s property may not have led to any further action, it is the Ombudsman’s view that visiting the property would have also gone some way to demonstrate that it was taking the resident’s reports and concerns about the impact on her health seriously. While it is noted that the landlord later visited the neighbours’ property and viewed the carpet and rugs in place, it remains unclear as to how the landlord satisfied itself that sufficient steps were being taken to reduce the reported noise without attending the resident’s property to witness the extent of the noise described while the dogs were in the property above.
In summary, the landlord acted appropriately by clearly explaining the factors behind its decision to allow the neighbours retrospective permission to keep dogs in the property, informing the resident of the need to gain evidence to support her reports of noise, signposting her to the local authority’s nuisance control team, offering mediation and communicating with her regularly regarding her reports. Given the lack of evidence to support that the noise was a statutory noise nuisance, it was reasonable that no formal action was taken against the neighbours in response to the resident’s reports at the time of the complaint.
However, the Ombudsman would have expected to see evidence that the landlord had visited the resident’s property (when it was able to do so) to witness the noise reported first hand and make an informed decision about whether any further informal steps could be taken. While it may have been unable to take any further action following a visit, this would have gone some way to demonstrate that it was taking the resident’s reports and her concerns about the impact on her family seriously. The landlord’s failure to accommodate this following multiple requests from the resident was likely to have caused frustration and inconvenience to her as well as time and trouble spent pursuing her request. This amounts to a service failure and contradicts the landlord’s policy which states that home visits form part of its service standards to help it understand the needs of tenants and tailor its service to suit their needs.

The landlord’s handling of allegations of ASB made against the resident

In her complaint, the resident expressed dissatisfaction that the landlord had quickly accused her family of ASB after banging on the ceiling due to the noise from the dogs and was dissatisfied that accusations had been made against her but there had been a lack of action in terms of the dogs.
In line with the landlord’s ASB policy, the landlord is required to consider all reports of ASB. The landlord would be expected to treat each report of ASB it receives fairly. In cases where there are allegations and counter allegations made by different parties, the landlord would be expected to review each side of events along with available evidence in order to decide on what action to take.
In this case, following reports of someone in the resident’s household banging on the ceiling in April 2021, the landlord acted reasonably by making the resident aware of the allegations and asking her not to retaliate to noise heard from the property above. There is no evidence to suggest that the landlord’s communication on 21 April 2021 was threatening and the communication also encouraged the resident to speak to her neighbour about the issues rather than retaliate to sound in a manner that could be deemed antisocial. This was reasonable in the circumstances.
On 13 May 2021, the landlord informed the resident that it had received further reports of her banging on the ceiling and explained that deliberately banging on the ceiling placed her in breach of her tenancy agreement. Ultimately, as the resident had admitted to banging on the ceiling, and the landlord had previously asked her not to do so, it was reasonable for the landlord to informally warn the resident against this behaviour and confirm that it may issue a formal notice if the behaviour continued. There is no evidence to suggest that the landlord acted inappropriately or outside of its policy when informally warning the resident against banging on the ceiling.

The landlord’s decision to ban BBQs in the communal area and the resident’s request for a safe area to be identified

While the resident’s tenancy agreement gives the resident a right to use the communal courtyard, the landlord would have ultimate discretion about how the communal areas are used. The landlord would be responsible for ensuring that it complies with relevant fire safety legislation and takes steps to prevent fire risks within its schemes. In line with the Fire Safety Act 2021, the landlord has a duty to evaluate fire risks and remove or reduce risks to its residents.
The landlord initially advised that BBQs were not permitted on the scheme on 23 April 2021 following a fire risk assessment. The decision directly related to the landlord’s legal obligation to prevent and minimise fire risks. It was reasonable, given that the decision was made for safety reasons, rather than in relation to its housing management or maintenance as detailed in the tenancy agreement, that residents were not consulted on this matter.
Within her complaint, the resident raised specific concerns that she had asked the landlord to provide the fire risk assessor’s report, which had been refused, and that she had been given differing advice about why BBQs had been banned. The Ombudsman would have expected the landlord to provide clear information to the resident as to why the change was required and its reasoning for not sharing the relevant reports.
While the landlord advised that a recent fire risk report required a ‘no BBQ’ rule to be introduced for fire safety reasons (in response to the Fire Safety Act 2021), it failed to provide clarity or transparency as to the reasons for its decision within its complaint responses. Ultimately, the landlord’s decision to ban BBQs is not unreasonable given the fire risks associated with using a BBQ. However, it could have done more to explain its decision to the resident in a clear and transparent manner from the outset. Its failure to provide this information amounts to a service failure.
It is noted that the resident expressed concern that no consideration was given as to whether there was a safe area for BBQs to be held within the courtyards of the scheme. The landlord acted fairly within its complaint response on 6 September 2021 by confirming that it had asked its fire risk assessor to provide specific advice on this. It confirmed that it had arranged for its fire risk assessor to attend in December 2021.
However, within its response on 14 March 2022, it said that it had not yet received a response from its fire risk assessor. In its follow-up response on 16 June 2022, it continued to advise that it had not yet received a response and advised that it would be arranging another fire risk assessment to ensure it had the most up to date fire safety advice.
The landlord provided inaccurate information to the resident within its complaint response on 14 March 2022 and follow-up response of 16 June 2022. The landlord’s internal records show that it had received a response from its fire risk assessor in relation to its query about a safe area for BBQs on 18 January 2022, but failed to accurately confirm this, or explain why it was unable to make a finalised decision on the basis of the response at the time. This was a missed opportunity for the landlord to provide clarity and transparency to the resident at the time and prevent time and trouble being spent by her in pursuing a response into 2023.
It is noted that the landlord completed a further fire risk assessment in June 2023. The delay in carrying out an additional fire risk assessment was explained to the resident as part of a separate complaint in June 2023, which has not yet exhausted the landlord’s complaints process. This matter will not be investigated as part of this report as detailed above.
The landlord’s decision to ban BBQs in communal areas was not unreasonable in order to limit fire risks on the scheme in line with its legal obligations. However, the landlord did not provide a clear explanation to the resident as to why the decision had been made despite her requests. It also failed to provide accurate or transparent information to the resident within its complaint responses regarding its investigations into finding a safe space to hold BBQs on the scheme, despite having the opportunity to provide accurate information. This resulted in additional time and trouble being spent by the resident in pursuing a response following her complaint.

The resident’s request for a key to the main entrance door of an attached block within the scheme

The resident had requested a key for a communal door within the scheme that was accessible through another attached block. It remains unclear as to when the resident first requested a key for the door. She expressed concern in her complaint on 4 August 2021 that the landlord had refused this request despite allegations that other neighbours within her block had access to this door. She believed that this showed bias.
When considering the resident’s request, the landlord would need to consider whether the key was required from a fire safety perspective as well as considering the preferences of residents living in the block as to whether they wished for other residents to have access. The landlord acted reasonably by confirming its position that it had not provided keys to other tenants for blocks other than those containing their individual properties.
The landlord acted fairly by communicating with its fire risk assessor in relation to the door in question to determine whether access was required from a fire safety perspective. It satisfactorily confirmed to the resident that as access was not required for fire safety reasons, it would not be issuing a key to her. It confirmed to the resident on 16 June 2022 that the door to the other block would not be a designated fire exit for her property and it would not be issuing keys for the door but it would carry out a survey with residents regarding access to other blocks.
It was reasonable for the landlord to consult tenants on their preferences regarding access to other blocks as residents in the separate block may not have wanted other residents to use the entrance door and have access through their block. The landlord completed this survey in a timely manner following its response to the resident on 16 June 2022. It confirmed to her on 29 July 2022 that it established that the current arrangements were satisfactory following the survey. As such, it would not be changing the way residents used entrances to enter their blocks and would only issue keys for residents to enter the block they lived in.
The landlord demonstrated that it took reasonable steps to determine whether the resident’s request for a key to another block was appropriate and consulted with tenants on the matter. It ultimately found that tenants agreed with the current arrangements and it was therefore reasonable for the landlord not to issue the resident with a key at the time.

The landlord’s handling of the associated complaint

The resident initially raised a formal complaint on 4 August 2021. The landlord confirmed that it intended to respond to the resident’s complaint at stage 1 on 18 August 2021. However, it did not issue a response until 6 September 2021, which was outside of its policy timescales at stage 1. There is no evidence to suggest that the landlord acknowledged the delay at this stage. In addition, the response noted that once the resident had the opportunity to consider the letter and respond, it would finalise its response at stage 1 of its complaints procedure, confirming that this was not its finalised stage 1 complaint response.
Following the resident’s communication on 4 November 2021, the landlord asked the resident whether she wished to escalate her complaint to stage 2 on 9 November 2021. The resident asked the landlord to provide its finalised response at stage 1 as this had not been provided. The landlord provided its finalised stage 1 complaint response on 2 December 2021, 20 working days from her request.
Overall, the process at stage 1 of the landlord’s complaints process took approximately 4 months which is an unreasonable length of time. The landlord should have provided its stage 1 complaint response within 10 working days of the resident’s initial complaint and provided details on how she could escalate her complaint if she remained dissatisfied. The provision of an informal stage 1 complaint response led to the process being unreasonably delayed.
The resident asked for her complaint to be escalated to stage 2 on 11 January 2022. It is noted that she sought an update on 22 February 2022 as she had not received a response which was likely to have caused inconvenience. The landlord issued its stage 2 complaint response on 14 March 2022, approximately 44 working days following her request. This was outside of the 20 working day timescale set out in the Ombudsman’s Code and considered unreasonable.
The Ombudsman has not seen evidence to confirm that the landlord had acknowledged any delay in its handling of the resident’s complaint until its communication on 23 February 2022 and complaint response on 14 March 2022, where it apologised. Given the overall extended timescale of the complaint process in this case, it would have been appropriate for the landlord to have offered suitable redress to the resident in view of the time and trouble, and inconvenience caused to her. An order has been made below.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure by the landlord in respect of its handling of the resident’s reports of nuisance and ASB following its decision to allow neighbours to keep dogs in their property.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration by the landlord in respect of its handling of allegations of ASB made against the resident.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure by the landlord in respect of its response to the resident’s concerns about its decision to ban BBQs in the communal area and her request for a safe area to be identified.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration by the landlord in respect of its response to the resident’s request for a key to the main entrance door of an attached block within the scheme.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure by the landlord in respect of its handling of the associated complaint.

Reasons

Given the lack of evidence to support that the noise was a statutory nuisance, it was reasonable that no formal action was taken against the neighbours in response to the resident’s reports at the time of the complaint. However, the Ombudsman would have expected to see evidence that the landlord had visited the property in an attempt to witness the noise to ensure that there were no further informal steps that could have been taken given the resident’s reports of the impact on her health and wellbeing.
The landlord is required to investigate all reports of ASB and act where there is sufficient evidence. Its decision to informally warn the resident against banging on her ceiling and inform her of allegations made was not unreasonable in the circumstances as she had admitted to this action and had previously been asked not to do so.
The landlord’s decision to ban BBQs in the communal areas of the scheme was in line with its legal obligations to ensure fire safety. However, it failed to provide clear, accurate or transparent information to the resident which resulted in additional time and trouble being spent by her.
In response to the resident’s request for a key to an adjacent block, the landlord acted fairly by investigating whether this was required for fire safety reasons. It also took reasonable steps to consult tenants on their preferences regarding access to other blocks. It ultimately found that the resident would not require a key for fire evacuation reasons and confirmed that it would only issue keys to residents for the block they lived in which was reasonable in the circumstances.
The landlord unreasonably extended the timeframe of the resident’s complaint by issuing an informal stage 1 complaint response. There were delays at both stages and the landlord failed to offer suitable redress to the resident in view of the inconvenience caused.

Orders

Within 4 weeks, the landlord is to write to the resident to apologise for the failings identified within this report.
Within 4 weeks, the landlord is to pay the resident £300, comprised of:
1. £100 in recognition of the time and trouble spent by the resident in pursuing her request for the landlord to visit the property to witness noise.
2. £100 in recognition of the time and trouble spent by the resident in pursuing answers regarding the landlord’s decision to ban BBQs and whether a safe space to hold BBQs could be found on the scheme.
3. £100 in recognition of the inconvenience caused by the delays in the landlord’s complaint handling.
If it has not already done so, the landlord should arrange a visit to the resident’s property within 4 weeks, and while the dogs are in situ, to make an informed decision as to whether there are any further informal steps that could be taken to prevent the noise transference into her property.
Following the visit, it should write to the resident within 2 weeks to confirm its findings and explain whether there are any further actions it could take in an attempt to support the resident.
The landlord should write to the resident within 4 weeks to provide the outcome of the latest fire risk assessor’s report, including whether the assessment confirmed that no BBQs should be permitted if it has not already done so.
The landlord should provide evidence of compliance with the orders made to the Ombudsman within the specific timescales.

Recommendations

The landlord should review the content of the Ombudsman’s proposed Complaint Handling Code, which is currently being consulted on, and take steps to ensure that its complaints policy is aligned with the Code by 1 April 2024. It should also include target timescales for response at stage 2 of its complaints procedure in line with the Code.
The landlord should reply to this Service within 4 weeks to confirm its intentions in regard to this recommendation.