Kingston upon Thames Council (202002004)

A picture containing logo

Description automatically generated

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202002004

Kingston upon Thames Council

2 November 2021

Our approach

The Housing Ombudsman’s approach to investigating and determining complaints is to decide what is fair in all the circumstances of the case. This is set out in the Housing Act 1996 and the Housing Ombudsman Scheme. The 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:
1. response to the resident’s reports of antisocial behaviour and noise nuisance, and
2. complaint handling.

Background and summary of events

Background

The resident has a secure tenancy with the landlord and the property is a one-bedroom flat on the first floor.
The resident has made multiple reports of antisocial behaviour to the landlord and the police. The police have conducted their own investigation, the outcome of which was “no further action”.

Relevant policies and procedures

The landlord has an antisocial behaviour policy which defines antisocial behaviour as conduct which:
1. “Has caused or is capable of causing nuisance or annoyance to any person and directly or indirectly relates to or affects the housing management function of a relevant landlord, or
2. “Consists of, or involves using housing accommodation of a relevant landlord for an unlawful purpose, or
3. “Cause or is likely to cause harassment, alarm or distress to any person.”
There are some types of behaviour that may not be considered antisocial behaviour, including “lifestyle disputes where breaches of tenancy cannot be proved”. Each report will be assessed when deciding whether the report is antisocial behaviour and assessment will consider the “frequency of the reports and the circumstances of the complaint”.
Reports of antisocial behaviour are categorised according to the seriousness of the allegation. Category one reports require a response within one working day and include behaviour such as physical violence, criminal behaviour involving violence or threats of violence, hate related incidents and arson.
Category two reports require a response within three working days and include behaviour such as allegations of aggressive or abusive behaviour, regular disturbances such as noise and verbal abuse.
The response time for category three reports is five working days and includes such behaviour as low-level noise nuisance, pet and animal nuisance and other forms of non-urgent antisocial behaviour.
The landlord expects the resident to report details of antisocial behaviour to them and where appropriate, to support the landlord in gathering evidence which may involve “completing diary sheets, witness statements and acting as a witness in court.”
The landlord is committed to supporting vulnerable residents and where appropriate will support them using a variety of methods including making referrals to the relevant support agencies and working with partner agencies.
The landlord can use a variety of non-legal remedies to resolve antisocial behaviour including mediation, warning letters, acceptable behaviour contracts and working in partnership with other agencies like the police.
Where appropriate the landlord will take enforcement action and, in most instances, will issue a “formal warning of possible legal action should the behaviour continue”. Where the problem persists, the landlord may consider the use of legal action, but this will depend on the evidence available.
The landlord has a corporate complaints policy which defines a complaint as “an expression of dissatisfaction about the standard of service, action or lack of action or decision taken by the [landlord], or the way in which the [landlord’s] staff carry out their duties.”
The policy explains that complaints can be made by calling a member of staff, emailing, or writing to it, completing the online complaints form or visiting any [landlord] office in person. All staff are empowered to take responsibility and ownership to try and resolve complaints at “the earliest opportunity and as close to the point of service delivery as possible” A response should be provided within five working days.
Where the resident is dissatisfied with this response and requests an investigation into their complaint, or the issues is not suitable for “initial contact resolution” the landlord will progress the complaint to stage one at which point it will be passed to the customer care team to be logged on the complaints system and allocated to the relevant Head of Service for investigation. The investigation should be completed within 15 working days and any extension needed should be agreed with the resident. On completion of the investigation, the Head of Service should send the response to the resident and the customer care team, who will update the system.
If the resident remains dissatisfied, the complaint will be escalated to stage two. If the customer care manager agrees the complaint should be progressed to stage two, the complaint will be allocated to an investigating officer. As with stage one, the investigation should be completed within 15 working days, and any extension needed should be agreed with the resident. The Director or Assistant Director should sign off the investigation and send the response to the resident and the customer care team. At this point the complaint process is exhausted, and if the resident remains dissatisfied, they are advised of their right to approach the Ombudsman.

Summary of Events

On 27 July 2019, the resident made her first report of noise nuisance and antisocial behaviour to the landlord by telephone. The landlord arranged to meet the resident on 30 July 2019 at its offices to discuss the issue further. The Ombudsman considers this to be within the timeframe outlined in the antisocial behaviour policy.
At the meeting on 30 July 2019, the resident alleged her neighbour was “deliberately causing a severe noise nuisance” including a “deeply vibrational noise” and “playing loud music”. She also explained she had received harassing text messages from her neighbour that the police were investigating and that the noise nuisance was impacting on her mental health. The landlord asked the resident to complete detailed log sheets each time the incident happened and arranged to meet again on 14 August 2018.
The police emailed the landlord on 10 August 2018 advising the resident’s neighbour had sent abusive text messages to the resident and that the resident had reported her neighbour had been punching the walls. They explained they had visited the alleged perpetrator who admitted sending the text messages and “strong words of advice” were given. The alleged perpetrator agreed not to have any further contact with the resident and requested that the police pass on his apologies. He also denied punching the wall and the police confirmed there was no damage to the walls or the alleged perpetrator’s knuckles, which they would expect to see if he had been punching the walls as claimed.
On 14 August 2019, the resident contacted the landlord and cancelled the meeting of the same day.
On 27 August 2019, the police emailed the landlord regarding ongoing issues between the resident and the alleged perpetrator. The resident had reported she had “overheard two neighbours talking about harming her with a knife.” The police advised the resident did not wish to provide a statement and did not want the alleged perpetrator arrested. The police requested a joint meeting with the landlord and the resident to discuss further intervention.
The landlord, the police and the resident attended a meeting on 3 September 2019. The police confirmed that since the alleged perpetrator had received “words of advice” they had received another harassment complaint which was under investigation. It was alleged he had made derogatory comments about the resident whilst speaking with a friend outside the resident’s window. The resident also reported the neighbour had rung the intercom at 7am on 14 August 2019 wishing to speak with her. It was agreed that the resident would complete the diary log she had previously been provided with, the landlord would explore the installation of noise monitoring equipment on receipt of the diary logs and conduct another visit to the alleged perpetrator, and the police would conduct a “caution plus 3” interview with the alleged perpetrator.
On 17 September 2019, the resident advised she was unable to provide the diary logs as she had been unable to source help from adult social care, therefore she gave the landlord permission to share all the text messages she had sent since 30 July 2019 with the police and environmental health in lieu of the diary logs.
On 20 September 2019, the landlord wrote to the alleged perpetrator regarding the allegations and requested he attended a meeting on 25 September 2019.
On 25 September 2019, the police emailed the landlord to provide an update prior to the landlord’s meeting with the alleged perpetrator. They advised the alleged perpetrator had contacted the police on 19 September 2019 accusing the resident of “banging on the wall with a broom around 10pm”. The resident contacted the police on 21 September 2019 stating the alleged perpetrator was making “low frequency sound wave” noises again which “was making her sick, causing her to sleep in the bath”.
On the same day, the landlord held a meeting with the alleged perpetrator. He explained he understood it was wrong to send the messages to the resident, but he was angered by her complaints about him. He advised that since the words of advice from the police he had not had any further contact with the resident. He was advised the police were still investigating recent allegations and further action may be taken against him depending on the outcome of those inquiries. He denied using any equipment that would cause a “low vibrational noise” but admitted he occasionally played music. He was warned to not contact or behave in a way that would upset the resident.
Later that day the landlord visited the resident at her home address. The resident explained she could hear the “humming noise”, but the landlord’s staff could not hear it. The resident confirmed she was sleeping in her bath as she believed the metal of the bath stopped the noise. When she did not sleep in the bath, she left the taps running to drown out the noise. The landlord was concerned for the resident’s wellbeing and asked the resident for permission to write to her GP, which the resident verbally gave. Prior to leaving the area, the landlord asked adjoining neighbours whether they had heard the noise, but they had not.
On 26 September 2019, the landlord spoke with a friend of the resident whom the resident advised was a witness to the noise. The conversation did not provide any evidence to support the allegations made.
On 1 October 2019, the resident informed the landlord that she had heard her neighbour threaten to kill her which she had reported to the police. The resident also reported that the alleged perpetrator was making a loud noise “like the roar of a beast” which had scared her causing her to drop a cup. She claimed the alleged perpetrator “furiously slammed” his front door and had turned the volume up on the “beating echoing noise”. She also claimed the sound was on “24/7” and she had heard someone telling the alleged perpetrator that what he was doing was “illegal and carries a prison sentence”. The resident explained that she ate her dinner outside because the noise makes her sick and she was scared to come home in case the alleged perpetrator attacked her at her front door. She claimed her female neighbour downstairs could also hear the noise and could not sleep as a result.
On 2 October 2019, the landlord met with the police. It was agreed that the police would check recent call logs and establish if there were any outstanding criminal allegations and whether a “MERLIN” report had been completed for the resident and the alleged perpetrator. The landlord agreed to conduct further home visits, write to the resident’s GP, and speak with environmental health regarding the noise monitoring equipment.
On 7 October 2019, the resident’s friend emailed the customer care manager on the resident’s behalf referring to there being serious shortcomings by the landlord in relation to its handling of the reports of ASB and requesting a meeting.
On 15 October 2019, the resident rang the landlord regarding the ongoing situation. She was advised the landlord continued to work with the police regarding the allegations and on completion of the police investigation the landlord would review whether there was enough evidence to warrant formal action against the alleged perpetrator. The landlord explained its staff had never heard the noise the resident complained of and neither could the other neighbours. The landlord stated it had previously asked the resident to collate the diary logs into a timeline, but the resident stated she was now unable to do that. She was advised there was a 6-8 week wait for the installation of noise monitoring equipment.
The landlord spoke with the resident on 28 October 2019. During the call, the resident explained she had called the police about the alleged perpetrator on 19, 20 and 21 October 2019 and the postman had witnessed the noise on 25 October 2019. The landlord requested the contact details of the postman and confirmed it would contact the police to establish the nature of the incidents the resident had reported. The landlord explained that once the police had made the disposal decision it would review the evidence and consider whether a civil injunction was appropriate. It also explained action regarding the “high/low level frequency noise” would be difficult as it had not been witnessed by other neighbours or the landlord.
The landlord visited the resident on 29 October 2019 and explained the actions it was taking. It reiterated it was liaising with the police regarding the disposal decision and would review the evidence to establish whether a civil injunction was appropriate. It also confirmed it was liaising with environmental health regarding the noise monitoring equipment, but there was an eight week wait and it would not record “low level frequency noise”. It also confirmed it would speak with the other neighbour the resident claimed could hear the noise. It was agreed that the resident would get permission from the postman to pass on his contact details to the landlord. The resident stated the noise was coming from the alleged perpetrator’s computer and that he was “hammering” the walls with a metal or wooden pole.
On the same day, the landlord visited the alleged perpetrator. The landlord asked him to turn on his computer, which he did, and the landlord confirmed there was no noise coming from the computer. The landlord also asked him to turn the volume up on the tv from 16 to 27, which he did. A member of the landlord’s staff returned to the resident’s home and confirmed she could not hear the “humming” noise or the tv, however the resident claimed to be able to hear the “humming” noise. Whilst at the alleged perpetrator’s flat, the landlord confirmed there was no amplifiers or subwoofers in the property and found no damage to the party wall commensurate with the walls being “hammered” by a metal or wooden pole. The alleged perpetrator again agreed he would have no contact with the resident and claimed the allegations against him were ‘malicious’.
On 30 October 2019, the resident emailed the landlord. There is no record of this email on the file, however, the landlord responded acknowledging that the incident the previous night had been reported to the police for investigation. The landlord confirmed it would contact the police and would attempt to speak to the resident’s neighbour. It reiterated what had been discussed the day before and confirmed it could not hear the reported noise from the alleged perpetrator’s computer and its staff could not hear the noise or the tv from the resident’s property. It also confirmed there was no damage to the alleged perpetrator’s walls. It confirmed it would continue to work with her and the police to resolve the situation.
On the same day, the landlord requested a referral was made to adult safeguarding as the GP had not responded to the landlord. The evidence shows the referral was due to concerns about her wellbeing based on the resident’s behaviour, namely sleeping in the bath, sleeping with the taps running and the noise not being witnessed by anyone else. The neighbour referred to in the previous point responded to an email from the police stating there had been no noise from the alleged perpetrator’s flat the night before, however there had been noise from the resident’s flat the previous two nights.
On 5 November 2019, the landlord exchanged emails with the neighbour the resident claimed could also hear the noise. The neighbour stated she did not wish to meet to discuss the allegations as she did not wish to get involved, however again she reported the “noise pollution” was coming from the resident’s flat.
On 27 November 2019, the landlord spoke with the resident’s postman who the resident had stated was a witness to the noise. The conversation did not provide any evidence to support the allegations made.
On 6 December 2019, the police made their disposal decision on the criminal investigation. The case was closed as “no further action” and the landlord noted it would now need to review the evidence to establish whether the matter was suitable for an antisocial behaviour contract or a civil injunction.
On 9 December 2019, the resident’s friend emailed the same member of staff she had contacted previously requesting a meeting with this staff member or the Customer Experience Manager stating there was no change in the neighbour’s behaviour. The email refers to a previous meeting having to be cancelled due to the resident’s health. On 11 December 2019, the friend emailed a member of staff (Customer Experience Manager) for the landlord referring to this member of staff agreeing to request details of the noise and ASB reports.
On 13 January 2020, the resident sent a letter to the landlord’s Chief Executive. In the letter she alleged the landlord had taken no action regarding the reports of antisocial behaviour. She confirmed she had given the landlord and the police permission to have “full access” to her medical records and alleged the landlord had disregarded three independent witnesses. In the Ombudsman’s opinion this letter amounts to an “expression of dissatisfaction” outside of the standard antisocial behaviour investigation and should have been dealt with under the corporate complaints policy.
On 17 January 2020, the environmental health team expressed concern that the diary log provided by the resident “did not give any meaningful information on times, dates, duration, what rooms it is affecting etc.” It requested the landlord ask the resident to complete the diary sheets “correctly with relevant information” over the weekend. The landlord discussed this further with environmental health, and it was agreed the equipment would be installed on 23 January 2020.
On 20 January 2020, the resident again emailed the landlord’s Chief Executive. The resident was reporting an incident that had occurred at a local supermarket involving a different neighbour on 16 January 2020. She also stated she had not had any response from the landlord since her email of 13 January 2020 and environmental health had not installed the noise monitoring equipment on 10 January 2020. As with the email of 13 January 2020, there is no evidence the landlord treated this as an official complaint, and it was not recorded as such under the corporate complaints policy.
On 22 January 2020, the landlord emailed the resident in response to her emails to the CEO. The landlord confirmed that since the resident’s initial report of antisocial behaviour it had completed extensive investigations including speaking with witnesses and liaising with the police. However, it advised that to date its investigations had “not yet established clear evidence to show the [alleged perpetrator] is guilty of the allegations made”. The landlord also explained the police had conducted their own investigations regarding alleged harassment but had concluded there was “insufficient evidence to take formal action” against the alleged perpetrator. The landlord clarified that the police decision was “not related or reliant upon the [landlord] using noise recording equipment”. The landlord confirmed the noise equipment was due to be installed on 23 January, which the resident had agreed to and reminded the resident that the equipment would not record the “low-level humming noise” she was complaining of. Though it is not clear whether the landlord intended this response to amount to an initial stage complaint response, the Ombudsman considers this email to be a reasonable response to the initial stage complaint, and although the response was slightly delayed, the Ombudsman notes the member of staff responsible for responding works a split week covering two different roles.
Noise monitoring equipment was installed at the resident’s property by the environmental health team on 23 January 2020 for a period of two weeks. The equipment was collected on 11 February 2020.
On 12 February 2020, the landlord spoke with the resident to advise it was awaiting the analysis of the noise monitoring from environmental health. It also discussed the recent incident that had occurred at the local supermarket. The resident claimed she had informed the landlord that this neighbour had made previous threats, but the landlord checked their records and has stated this was not the case. The resident stated she would make a complaint to the Chief Executive. The Ombudsman considers this to be a further missed opportunity for the landlord to deal with the resident’s complaint under the corporate complaints policy.
On 2 March 2020, environmental health emailed the landlord advising the resident had made almost four hours of recording but there was nothing audible. Environmental health reiterated that their equipment would not be able to capture the “low frequency” noise the resident was complaining of, therefore the lack of sound on the recordings did not mean that it did not exist. Environmental health confirmed they would not be able to take any action under statutory noise nuisance.
On 18 March 2020, the landlord reviewed the entire matter and concluded there was insufficient evidence to take formal action against the alleged perpetrator.
On 27 March 2020, the resident contacted the landlord and referred to the same alleged perpetrator shouting abuse and death threats at her on 22 March 2020 and arranging for people to call her doorbell at 1:30am and that the threats continued the following day, which she had reported to the police.
On 31 March 2020, a local councillor emailed the landlord on behalf of the resident, attaching several documents including a report from a noise engineer the resident had appointed privately to investigate the low-level humming noise. The report provided to the landlord consists of two screenshots of what appears to be an email from the noise engineer to the resident. The engineer had visited the resident’s property on 7 February 2020 and stated they had identified infrasound most likely caused by a large speaker/sub-woofer. The landlord replied to the councillor on the same day and explained that investigations to date had not identified any real evidence that the alleged perpetrator was deliberately causing a noise nuisance. It also did not consider that there was strong evidence that a noise nuisance had occurred. The landlord also emailed the noise engineer to ask that he contact its staff member who was dealing with the matter.
On 1 April 2020, the landlord exchanged emails with the noise engineer the resident had appointed, as well as speaking with him on the phone. The noise engineer confirmed he had become involved in the situation as his aunt is friends with the resident. He explained infrasound is not usually audible to the human ear, however there are exceptions and humans can be affected by infrasound even if they cannot hear it. He again stated there was an artificial infrasound tone present in the immediate area around the resident’s building. He advised he is a civil engineer with 12 years’ experience in civil, transport and highways engineering.
The landlord shared the report with the environmental health team and asked them to review the information. The environmental health officer advised the landlord they were unable to investigate low frequency noise and that it did not fall under statutory noise nuisance. He questioned whether anyone could “legitimately claim to have sufficient scientific expertise or have the appropriate technical equipment to detect low frequency ‘infrasound’ noise in the way suggested.” He also noted it was unlikely that low frequency sound could be detected coming from the alleged perpetrator’s property in the way suggested, and even if it could the council may not be able to take any action against an individual for low frequency noise.
On the same day, the landlord’s lead officer for housing landlord services contacted the resettlement team regarding support that could be offered to the resident.
On the same day, the resident’s MP wrote to the lead officer regarding the situation. This email is not in the evidence provided by the landlord and the copy provided by the resident has been copied and pasted from the original email, therefore there is no date and time stamp. However, a later email from the lead officer to the MP confirms it was sent on 1 April. The MP included medical evidence of the resident’s condition and the report by the noise engineer and suggested that work was completed to try and resolve the situation with the neighbours and to try and identify and eliminate the noise. The Ombudsman considers this to be a further missed opportunity to progress the resident’s complaint through the formal procedure.
On 10 April 2020, the lead officer allegedly emailed the resident requesting permission to access her medical records. Again, the landlord has provided no evidence of this email, nor has the resident, however the resident has referred to this request in an email dated 20 April 2020.
On 20 April 2020, the resident sent the lead officer two emails. One was a response to the email of 10 April 2020 mentioned above. In it the resident advised that if the landlord sent her the questions it wished to ask her medical practitioners, she would discuss them and then decide what to do. She asked who had reviewed her case and what their medical, scientific, and professional qualifications were. She also requested a copy of any reports on which it had based its judgements and written confirmation that her medical information would only be reviewed by qualified medical practitioners.
In the second email of 20 April 2020, the resident alleged she was the victim of ‘constant criminal behaviour’. She asked the landlord to advise her what action it had taken following the issuing of the written warning to her neighbour and asked for an explanation as to why she had received no help to date to guarantee her safety and enjoyment of her home. Although the resident did not request that her complaint was progressed to stage one as per the policy, she repeated her belief that the landlord had not provided her with adequate support. The Ombudsman considers it would have been reasonable for the landlord to progress a formal complaint at this point.
On 23 April 2020, the lead officer replied to the resident acknowledging her emails of 20 April 2020 and advising he was considering her emails and would respond by 29 April. Although the landlord acknowledged the email within 5 working days, there is no evidence the customer care team were informed of the complaint at this stage or that this email was treated as a formal complaint.
On 30 April 2020, the lead officer emailed the resident. He apologised for responding a day later than agreed. In response to the resident’s allegations that the landlord had not done anything about the alleged criminal behaviour perpetrated against her, he explained it is for the police and the courts, not the landlord, to determine whether a criminal offence has been committed and what, if any, sanction should follow. He explained that the landlord was informed in December 2019 that the police had completed their enquiries into her allegations of criminality against her neighbour and had concluded there was insufficient evidence to warrant any formal action against him. He explained that this decision impacted on what civil action was open to the landlord to take. However, he confirmed despite this the landlord worked with environmental health to conduct extensive enquiries into the allegations made, but as the resident had previously been advised, the evidential threshold to justify formal civil action being taken through the courts was not met, and that remained the case. The lead officer acknowledged the distress caused and reiterated the landlord was happy to assist with further support as appropriate. In relation to the medical information he had requested access to, he explained this was to assist the landlord in fully understanding what other support it could give her and assured her it would only be reviewed by appropriate health professionals.
The resident responded to the lead officer’s email of the 30 April 2020, however she has copied and pasted the body of the email into an email to the Housing Ombudsman Service meaning there is no date or time stamp. Therefore, the Ombudsman is unable to establish when this email was sent. The resident repeated her questions from her email of 20 April 2020 as she did not feel the email of 30 April 2020 answered her questions. She disputed that the landlord does not have evidence of the noise she complained of, citing the report she provided by the noise engineer.
On 18 May 2020, the resident’s disability hate crime advocate contacted the lead officer by email. In the email the advocate repeats the questions that the resident had asked in her previous emails. The lead officer responded on the same day. He explained the landlord had “endeavoured” to thoroughly investigate the allegations, including liaising with the police and it was open to further discussion. Prior to issuing an official response, the lead officer offered to hold a conference call with the resident and the advocate and provided his availability.
On 19 May 2020, the lead officer emailed the resident’s advocate to advise that he felt it would be helpful for the senior ASB professional who had been extensively involved in the case to attend the conference call. The senior ASB professional concerned was not available on the dates previously suggested, so he confirmed he would provide further dates in due course, which he provided by email on 20 May 2020.
The resident’s advocate responded to the lead officer on 20 May 2020 confirming they were able to attend the conference call on 26 May 2020. The advocate stated the resident had ongoing complaints against the senior ASB professional, therefore they did not feel it was appropriate for him to attend the call. The advocate explained they were happy for his manager to attend or for him to provide a report of the full actions he had taken on the case.
The lead officer responded on the same day advising he was unaware of any complaints against his colleague and requested a contact number for the advocate to discuss this in more detail. The advocate responded advising the resident had informed her that a complaint handler was dealing with the complaint and the complaint handler had confirmed to the advocate on 19 May 2020 that she was in regular contact with the lead officer and expressed surprise he did not know about the complaint. The advocate suggested the lead officer spoke with the complaint handler for further clarification.
On 26 May 2020, the landlord hosted a conference call with the resident and her advocate. Issues discussed included the alleged noise nuisance and antisocial behaviour, complaints about two of the landlord’s staff, the noise report completed by the noise engineer and the medical information requested. The resident requested a further “noise measurement report”, which the landlord refused due to cost. The resident confirmed she did not wish to move and that she wanted a response to the complaints she had raised. The landlord had no record of any complaints made and asked the resident to submit the complaint to its complaint inbox for action.
On 27 May 2020, the resident sent her latest correspondence with the complaint handler to the complaint inbox. The email appears to have been copied and pasted from the original email so there is no time or date stamp, however the resident has stated in her correspondence that the email was sent on 22 April 2020 and followed up on 11 May 2020. The landlord has not supplied a copy of this email and the resident has not supplied a copy with the time and date stamp.
On 28 May 2020, the landlord opened a stage one complaint and assigned it to the complaint handler the resident stated she had been speaking with. The complaint was acknowledged, and the resident was informed of the 15 working day response time.
On 9 June 2020, the landlord issued its stage one response. The landlord advised no formal complaint, made in line with the published complaints procedure had been registered by the resident in 2019. It advised records showed the resident had spoken with customer care regarding the ASB and having noise monitoring equipment installed, but there was no specific complaint about the conduct of any staff members. Having reviewed the information provided by the resident on 27 May 2020, the customer care team had determined there was “no basis to consider formal complaints” about the staff members concerned. The landlord acknowledged the delay in noise monitoring equipment being installed in the property but explained this was due to the high demand on the environmental health team for the equipment. It also explained that the referral to adult social care was made due to staff being concerned for the resident’s welfare, that no offence was intended and apologised for any offence caused.
With regards to the resident’s allegation that the landlord had failed to take any action against her neighbour for ASB and noise nuisance, the landlord referred the resident back to the “many previous communications” with the resident. It reiterated its position that despite “exhaustive and open-minded investigations… there is insufficient evidence to take formal legal action… for breach of tenancy.” It also explained it had liaised with the noise engineer about his report, however the response had not fully addressed all its outstanding questions, nor demonstrated that infrasound had been detected. Despite this, it stated it was willing to have further discussions with the noise engineer.
In relation to the medical information, the landlord confirmed it did not intend to seek further information from the resident’s medical professionals. It explained having received medical letters written by her medical professionals from the councillor in April 2020, it had thought it would be helpful to explore that further. However, on reflection it had decided it was unlikely to provide new information specific to the noise nuisance and therefore decided not to pursue this. The landlord apologised for any concern or confusion the initial request had caused.
In response to the resident and her advocate’s request for the provision of temporary accommodation as ‘respite’, the landlord confirmed it was unlikely it would be able to offer this. It explained it was willing to support the resident with applying for a new property or arranging a mutual exchange. Finally, the landlord explained if the resident remained dissatisfied about any of these matters and wished to make a formal complaint, she should progress this as an official complaint in line with the complaint procedure.
The resident contacted the Housing Ombudsman Service on 23 June 2020, in one of the emails the resident stated the last contact she had received from the landlord was acknowledging her complaint on 28 May 2020. Between 28 June and 10 August 2020, the Housing Ombudsman Service liaised with the landlord several times. The landlord advised it had sent the first stage response several times but had received no further contact from the resident other than via the Housing Ombudsman Service. On being advised by the Housing Ombudsman Service that the resident remained dissatisfied with the outcome, the landlord progressed the complaint to stage two and issued its stage two response on 10 August 2020. The landlord summarised the complaint it had received from the Housing Ombudsman Service as:
1. “To know why the warning given to a neighbour was not pursued, as he had breached the terms of the warning’,
2. ‘For the low frequency noise she has reported to be thoroughly investigated’,
3. ‘To know why it has taken the Council an extended period of time to deal with her complaint about staff’,
4. ‘To know why a member of staff that she complained about is the same person who is investigating her complaint’,
5. ‘She wants the council to take disciplinary action against staff, including those who she believes has breached data protection by accessing her personal information and referring her for psychiatric evaluation’,
6. ‘To know why the council discounted medical evidence from her GP’,
7. ‘She wants compensation for the time she says the matter has been ongoing.”
The landlord explained there was insufficient evidence to take any further action against the neighbour. In relation to the investigation of the low frequency noise, the landlord reiterated it had arranged for noise monitoring equipment to be installed which did not detect noise that would constitute a “statutory noise nuisance”. It explained its staff had visited the neighbours property and had found no equipment emitting noise and that the report provided by the noise engineer was inconclusive.
The landlord reiterated there was no record of a complaint being made about the conduct of its staff via the corporate complaint procedure. It explained its staff can make a referral to appropriate services for support where there is a welfare concern. The staff member who made the referral had been concerned due to the resident stating she was sleeping in the bath. The landlord confirmed the referral was to adult social care and was not for psychiatric evaluation. Finally, the landlord explained the information from the resident’s GP did not provide any further evidence regarding the noise issues reported, and extensive investigations had not detected any noise nuisance. The landlord did not offer any compensation.
On 5 October 2020, the resident asked the Housing Ombudsman Service to review her complaint.

Assessment and findings

Antisocial Behaviour

Following the resident’s initial report of antisocial behaviour on 27 July 2019, the landlord arranged to meet with the resident on 30 July and at the meeting asked the resident to complete diary logs each time an incident occurred. It also arranged a follow up meeting two weeks later. This was in line with the landlord’s policy.
The landlord’s policy allows the landlord to use a variety of non-legal remedies to resolve antisocial behaviour, including warning letters and working with other agencies such as the police.
The evidence shows the landlord worked closely with the police over several months regarding the allegations made by the resident. A joint meeting with the resident, the police and the landlord took place on 3 September during which actions were agreed for all parties, including that the resident would complete the diary logs and the landlord would explore the installation of noise monitoring equipment on receipt of the diary logs.
The evidence also shows the landlord engaged with the alleged perpetrator throughout. It wrote to him inviting him to attend a face-to-face meeting and visited him several times. Whilst he was verbally warned not to have contact with or behave in a way that would upset the resident, the Ombudsman has not seen evidence that the landlord issued him with a formal written warning. Given the evidence gathered by the landlord, the Ombudsman considers to be reasonable in the circumstances.
Alongside the landlord’s investigation, the police investigated various allegations the resident made against her neighbour. The police investigation concluded there was insufficient evidence to take formal action. The landlord requested disclosure from the police to assist them in assessing whether there were ground to progress an antisocial behaviour contract or a civil injunction
On 1 October 2019, the resident informed the landlord that she had heard her neighbour threaten to kill her which she had reported to the police. The landlord met with the police on 2 October 2019 and advised the resident on 15 October 2019 that it would review the evidence available once the police investigation was complete. This was appropriate; however it is of concern that there is no evidence of the landlord meeting with the alleged perpetrator until 29 October 2019 given the seriousness of the allegation. Given that the resident alleged the neighbour had not followed the earlier warning, it would have been reasonable for the landlord to follow this up with the neighbour. On 29 October 2019, the landlord advised the neighbour not to contact the resident, but did not give any further warnings in relation to the threats the resident had alleged.
The resident reported a further incident to the landlord of 29 October 2019 and the landlord agreed to contact the police about this. This was appropriate, however, there is no further evidence to show the details of this incident or evidence of further communications between the landlord and the police or the resident.
When the landlord wrote to the resident on 22 January 2020, it referred to the police having concluded there was insufficient evidence to take formal action against the alleged perpetrator. The landlord acted appropriately in liaising with the police in relation to the criminal investigations, and the outcome of these investigations was relevant to its decisions as to how to respond. However, there were also some shortcomings in relation to how the landlord responded to the resident’s reports as set out above. The landlord delayed in raising the allegation of death threats with the neighbour and did not give any further warnings in relation to this, and there is no evidence of it following up the further incident the resident reported on 29 October 2019.
On 27 March 2020, the resident contacted the landlord and others and referred to the same alleged perpetrator shouting abuse and death threats at her on 22 March 2020 and arranging for people to call her doorbell at 1:30am and that the threats continued the following day.
In its complaint response, the landlord referred to the police decision in December 2019 not to take further action against this neighbour and stated further that it was not aware of any criminal proceedings being brought at that time (9 June 2020). However, it is of concern that there is no evidence of the landlord investigating the report of 27 March 2020, liaising with the police, or communicating with the alleged perpetrator. While it is for the police to consider whether a criminal prosecution is appropriate and the findings of a police investigation are relevant to the action a landlord can take, a landlord is expected to treat reports of threats and abuse in accordance with its ASB policy and investigate them alongside any police action. Given the resident’s vulnerabilities of which the landlord was aware, this was particularly important.
The evidence demonstrates that no one else could hear the noise the resident has complained about and both the police and the landlord have visited the alleged perpetrator’s property and confirmed he does not have noise making equipment in the property, his television is not audible from the resident’s property and there is no damage to his walls commensurate with him “hammering” on the wall.
To appropriately support its residents, the landlord’s antisocial behaviour policy permits it to make referrals to relevant support agencies. Due to the resident’s admission to the landlord that she was sleeping in her bath, the landlord felt it appropriate to refer the resident to adult safeguarding for additional support. It also obtained her verbal consent prior to doing so. The Ombudsman notes the landlord only decided to refer the resident to adult safeguarding after the resident’s GP failed to respond to it, and the Ombudsman considers this to be reasonable in the circumstances.
The landlord arranged for environmental health to install noise monitoring equipment in the resident’s property, despite environmental health raising concerns that the diary logs completed by the resident “did not give any meaningful information on times, dates, duration what rooms it is affecting etc”. The noise monitoring equipment did not record anything audible and certainly nothing that would allow environmental health to take any action under statutory noise nuisance. The landlord also considered the report supplied by the resident’s own sound engineer and asked the environmental health team to review the report. The environmental health team advised the landlord that even if the noise engineer had been able to detect the sound in the way he claimed, it would not amount to statutory noise nuisance.
Following the report from environmental health, the landlord reviewed the case and concluded there was insufficient evidence to take formal action against the alleged perpetrator. Having considered the evidence provided, including the extent to which the landlord attempted to gather evidence of any potential noise nuisance, the Ombudsman considers this decision to be reasonable.
The Ombudsman acknowledges this is a complex case and has caused the resident a significant amount of distress. However, the landlord needs evidence to be able to take formal action against an alleged perpetrator of antisocial behaviour. In the Ombudsman’s opinion, generally the landlord conducted a thorough investigation into the allegations made by the resident, including liaison with the police, seeking accounts from witnesses, installing noise monitoring equipment and maintaining regular contact with the alleged perpetrator. The landlord verbally warned the alleged perpetrator, which was reasonable in the circumstances and the Ombudsman is satisfied the landlord took appropriate action based on the evidence available to it.
In the Ombudsman’s opinion the landlord took steps to support the resident throughout and beyond the investigation. It verbally warned the alleged perpetrator not to have any contact with the resident, sought to liaise with the resident’s GP, completed referrals to adult safeguarding and the resettlement team, had regular contact with the resident and has offered to support her with a move if she wishes. The resident believes the landlord referred her for a psychiatric review, and that this is a data protection breach. Any concerns the resident has about whether such referrals amount to a breach of her data protection rights should be referred to the Information Commissioners Office (ICO).
However, there were some occasions where the landlord has not evidenced that it appropriately responded to the resident’s ASB reports. The landlord delayed in raising her allegation of death threats of 1 October 2019 with the neighbour and did not give any further warnings in relation to this, and there is no evidence of it following up the further incident the resident reported on 29 October 2019. In addition, there is no evidence of the landlord investigating the resident’s report of 27 March 2020, liaising with the police, or communicating with the alleged perpetrator.

Complaint Handling

There is evidence of the resident attempting to raise a complaint with the landlord on 7 October 2019 since her friend’s email of that date refers to a dissatisfaction with how the landlord was handling the issues. Some delay in the landlord responding to the complaint may have been caused by a meeting being cancelled due to the resident’s ill health, but it is noted a further meeting was requested on 9 December 2019. Therefore, the landlord should have addressed the complaint at this stage in accordance with its policy.
The Ombudsman also considers the resident’s emails to the Chief Executive on 13 and 20 January were initial stage complaints. The emails were passed to the lead officer for a response, which the Ombudsman considers reasonable. The lead officer responded to the resident slightly outside of the five working day timeframe, however given the delay amounted to two days and the lead officer works a split role, the Ombudsman does not consider this to be unreasonable.
The Ombudsman considers that the resident’s complaint should have been escalated to stage one following her contact with the landlord on 12 February 2020. The Ombudsman acknowledges that the resident did not specifically state she wished her complaint to be investigated, however it is clear she is raising the same concerns. In the Ombudsman’s opinion it would not be in the spirit of the complaints procedure to require a specific request for investigation before the complaint was progressed.
The Ombudsman also acknowledges that on 18 May 2020, the landlord offered to hold a conference call with the resident and the advocate to discuss the resident’s concerns “prior to issuing an official response”. This suggests the landlord considered the resident’s previous contact did require a formal response, even though it had not taken steps to register a stage one complaint with the customer care team.
Following the conference call with the resident and her advocate on 26 May 2020, the landlord opened a stage one complaint on 28 May 2020. The landlord issued its stage one response on 9 June 2020, which was within 15 working days of the complaint being opened. The Ombudsman notes the letter advised the resident that if she remained dissatisfied and wished to make a formal complaint it should be progressed in line with the council’s complaint procedure. In the Ombudsman’s opinion this is confusing, and the letter should have informed the resident of her right to escalate her complaint to stage two of the complaints procedure.
The resident did remain dissatisfied with the response, though the Ombudsman has seen no evidence to suggest the resident raised this with the landlord prior to approaching the Housing Ombudsman Service. The Ombudsman notes the landlord issued a stage two response quickly when it was made clear to it that the resident wanted her complaint to be escalated to stage two, however the stage two response was not issued by a Director or Assistant Director as per the policy.
The landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint about the perceived lack of support from the landlord and its staff did not meet the service standards the Ombudsman would expect. There were delays in the landlord responding to the resident’s initial complaint, between 7 October 2019 and 13 January 2020, and between 12 February 2020 and 28 May 2020. The Ombudsman considers the resident’s emails of 12 February 2020 amount to a request to progress the complaint to stage one. Although it is clear the landlord also considered the resident required a formal response, it did not inform customer care of the complaint and therefore did not initiate the formal complaints process. Therefore, a formal complaint was not raised until 28 May 2020. The landlord’s failure to progress the complaint through its internal complaints procedure at an earlier stage resulted in missed opportunities to resolve the resident’s concerns, potential escalation of the issues and further distress and inconvenience to the resident.
Once the formal complaint was raised, the landlord responded quickly and issued its first stage response within the required timeframe, though the letter did not explain how the resident could progress the complaint to stage two. As noted above, following intervention from the Housing Ombudsman Service, the complaint was escalated to stage two in August 2020 and the final response was issued in a timely manner, though not from a Director/Assistant Director as required by the policy.
The landlord did not offer any compensation to the resident. Given the issues identified with the landlord’s complaints handling, the Ombudsman considers an offer of compensation would have been reasonable in the circumstances.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure by the landlord in relation to how it handled the resident’s reports of antisocial behaviour and noise nuisance.
In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure in respect of the landlord’s handling of the complaint.

Reasons

The landlord has conducted extensive investigations into the resident’s allegations of antisocial behaviour and noise nuisance. The landlord appropriately investigated the reports of noise and provided a reasonable explanation as to why it could not take formal action against the neighbour in relation to this. The landlord has also confirmed it is willing to continue to work with the resident and is open to any further evidence she may have. However, there is evidence of shortcomings in relation to how the landlord responded to some of the resident’s reports of ASB by her neighbour in October 2019 and March 2020. Specifically, the landlord delayed in raising the resident’s allegation of death threats with the neighbour and did not give any further warnings in relation to this, and there is no evidence of it following up the further incident she reported on 29 October 2019. In addition, there is no evidence of the landlord investigating the resident’s report of 27 March 2020.
There were delays in the landlord responding to the resident’s initial complaint, between 7 October 2019 and 13 January 2020, and between 12 February 2020 and 28 May 2020. The landlord did not raise a stage one complaint at the point the resident indicated she was dissatisfied with the initial stage response, despite recognising the complaint required a formal response. The first stage response did not make it clear that the resident could escalate her complaint to stage two and how to do this, resulting in the Housing Ombudsman Service having to liaise between the resident and the landlord to establish where in the internal complaints process the complaint was. Finally, the stage two response was not completed or issued by a Director/Assistant Director as per the policy.

Orders

The landlord to apologise to the resident and pay £400 compensation (within four weeks of the date of this Order), comprising:
1. £300 for the distress and inconvenience caused by its failures in handling the reports of ASB; and
2. £100 in compensation for the distress and inconvenience caused by its failures in handling the formal complaint. (This is inclusive of the original Order of £50.00 compensation which the Ombudsman understands has not yet been paid).
The landlord to review the failings identified in this review in relation to how it responded to the resident’s reports of ASB and take steps to prevent this happening again. The landlord should consider steps such as communicating with staff about these findings and the importance of responding to ASB reports in accordance with its policy. The landlord should report back to the Ombudsman setting out the steps it will take to prevent such failures occurring again within eight weeks of the date of this Order.