London Borough of Hillingdon (202102073)

A picture containing logo

Description automatically generated

REPORT

London Borough of Hillingdon

202102073

28 April 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

This is about the landlords handling of:
1. The residents’ concerns about a neighbours use of the communal garden.
2. Antisocial behaviour (ASB) reports about the resident.
3. Antisocial behaviour reports about the residents neighbour.
4. Noise complaints.
5. The associated complaint.

Background

The resident is the leaseholder of the property. The property is in a block of flats. There is a shared communal entrance to the building. There is a communal garden to the rear which is shared by all of the flats in the building. There is unallocated street parking at the front.

Policies and Procedures

Antisocial Behaviour

The landlord has a web page for its ‘tenant services’. This page says:
1. Residents have the right to live peacefully in their homes, without the fear of antisocial behaviour. The landlord is committed to taking action against those who engage in antisocial behaviour.
2. Most problems between neighbours can be sorted out privately. It has a ‘good neighbour guide’ which contains advice on dealing with behaviours informally. It invites residents to report if it is not possible to use the advice or if it doesn’t work.
3. It will not necessarily become involved in all disputes between neighbours. It says it will not investigate everyday household noise and lifestyle differences.
The landlords website says that it has a dedicated team that investigates antisocial behaviour. It takes all reports seriously. It says when it receives a report it will contact the resident to make an action plan. It will try to do this as quickly as possible. It says it will do this within:
1. One working day for high risk incidents.
2. Five working days for medium or low risk incidents.
The landlords website offers mediations when relationships between neighbours break down. Mediation will be encouraged, as appropriate in cases where there is a potential breach of tenancy or where enforcement action cannot be taken.

Complaints Policy

The landlord has a complaint’s policy. This policy was last revised in 2021. The policy has four stages. These are:
1. Informal complaints.
2. Formal stage one.
3. Formal stage two (review).
4. Formal stage three (appeal).
If the landlord is unable to resolve a service request to the resident’s satisfaction a complaint will be registered under stage one of its ‘formal’ process. At each stage it says if it cannot complete its investigation on time it will let the resident know and tell them why. There is no timeframe or limit given for extensions.

Summary of events

In August 2019, the residents neighbour had been using the communal lobby of the building in which the resident lives for the storage of play equipment. The landlord considered a special request for a shed for the neighbour and one was provided communal in the rear communal garden to provide additional storage space for the neighbour.
From 11 August 2020 theanother leaseholder in the building made the landlord aware of the communal garden being full of children’s play items. These items included a trampoline, play house, swimming pool and gazebo.It was also reported that the neighbour had a shed in the communal garden for storing these items. The landlord contacted the neighbour and gave her a months’ notice to have all of the items removed, including the shed.
On 5 September 2020 the residents neighbour reported the resident to the landlord. This complaint alleged the resident had said she was not allowed to have a shed in the garden. Also, that she needed the other resident’s permission to put anything in the garden. After this initial incident on the same day, the neighbour reported that the resident had then come to her flat, knocked on her door and shouted at her ‘aggressively’. The landlord received information confirming this incident from an independent witness.
On 9 September 2020, the resident contacted the landlord and reported the neighbour had broken the communal door handle which the resident said now slammed shut because of this. The resident reported that the neighbour’s partner could be quite intimidating as he ‘shouts a lot’.
On 9 September 2020, the landlord spoke with another agency about the shed. After this, the landlord considered its position and decided that it would withdraw its notice for the shed’s removal. The notice for the removal of the other items, such as the play house and pool remained. These items were removed on or around 25 September 2020.
On 16 September 2020 the landlord spoke with the neighbour about the communal door banging closed. The neighbour denied the allegations.
On 17 September 2020, the landlord confirmed to the resident by email:
1. The removal of the trampoline and play house in the communal garden would take place by 25 September 2020.
2. As the garden was communal the landlord is the owner. As the shed was for a disabled child’s equipment and was in a non-intrusive part of the garden the shed would remain.
3. It issued a warning to the resident. This was due to the incident on 5 September 2020. It used a clause from a lease to issue a warning. ‘3.a not to do or permit to be done by anyone living or staying in the flat, or visiting the flat by invitation anything which amounts to harassment of another person’.
4. The landlord recommended the resident had no further contact with the neighbour.
Following receipt of this email on 17 September 2020, the resident contacted the landlord by phone.
1. The resident accused the case officer of ‘siding with the neighbour’ over the incident that took place on 5 September 2020.
2. The landlord said that it not have the resources to deal with issues caused by a few items in the communal garden which would be resolved when they were removed.
3. The resident reported issues that had occurred previously relating to the neighbour causing damage to the communal door and damage to a bench in the garden area which belonged to the resident.
4. The landlord’s recorded that the conversation had become heated and asked that the resident to put his concerns in writing so that ‘nothing can be misconstrued’.
The resident sent two emails to the landlord on 18 and 21 September 2020. In the emails the resident raised the following concerns:
1. When and which items would be removed from the communal area.
2. Another agency‘had admitted’ that it had not followed correct procedure when installation the shed. This is because theyhad not asked or received permission from the leaseholders.
3. The leaseholders should have full use of the communal garden. The resident reported not feeling comfortable when sitting in the garden because it felt like the neighbour’s private garden.
4. The resident reported being removed from the communities online WhatsApp group. He felt the neighbour was speaking to other community members about their differences. The resident reported some change in attitude towards him from other community members.
5. The communal doors were still frequently allowed to slam closed. This could be repeatedly throughout the day. The neighbour’s partner had pulled the door handle off. They also often left the back door propped open, which was a security risk.
6. The resident had a bench in the communal area. It was his father’s. The neighbour damaged the bench when they had a barbeque. It was not known when but had been after the neighbour had moved in.
7. The neighbour was running business events in the communal garden. They had held garden parties to promote this business. The resident had received a note to say that a ‘nutrition garden party’ would be held and that he was ‘welcome to attend’.
On 2 October 2020, the resident phoned the landlord. He reported that the neighbour had used her influence to have him removed from the neighbourhood watch WhatsApp group. This had led the resident to feel unsafe. He felt that other residents ‘may gang up on him’.
On 5 October 2020 the resident emailed the landlord. He said that he had not received any response to his previous emails about the neighbour’s behaviour. In his email the resident asked:
1. What was being about the communal doors being slammed daily.
2. What was done about the vandalism of personal property.
3. What was being done about business events held in the communal area.
4. For a withdrawal of the harassment complaint against him.
5. For a response to the points that had been made in his email dated 17 and 18 of September 2021. The resident said that the delays were becoming unacceptable.
On 15 October 2020, the landlord noted that an attempt to install an approved disabled bay outside the property, did not proceed due to the intervention of ‘a leaseholder.’
On 16 October 2020, the resident called the landlord. He complained that the officer managing his case had not called him back. He asked for a manager to deal with the case. This was also included in an email sent the same date.
On 22 October 2020, the resident reported that the neighbour had written a letter to the whole neighbourhood asking them to ‘rise against’ the resident. The petition listed complaints that the resident had made about his neighbour. It asked people to extend ‘their support’ to the neighbour. It was reported that this letter was inflammatory and ‘will cause others to retaliate with physical or verbal abuse’. The email also says that this had been reported to the Police.
On 23 October 2020, the landlord emailed the resident. It apologised for not responding to previous emails and explained that they had not been received. It said it was not aware of the petition and that a third party had been involved in its distribution who had identified himself as an advocate for his neighbour. It said if the resident felt the petition was unlawful he should seek independent legal advice. It said it was not sure why the resident felt fear of physical attack and abuse and said that as the matter was with the police, they would respond appropriately
On 23 October 2020, the landlord sent an email to the resident in response to the resident’s reports on 16 October 2020 that he was not getting call backs from the case officer. It sought to reassure the resident that the officer would provide updates. The landlord clarified that correspondence with the antisocial behaviour team about the neighbour was appropriate to be in writing. He said that verbal communication could be subject to misunderstanding.
On 26 October 2020, the resident emailed the landlord. He attached screenshots of comments on social media. This included comments from ‘individuals on social media next to our addresses’. The resident also attached a voice recording of the neighbour and others shouting ‘name them and shame them’ outside the property window. The case officer replied and asked the resident if they wanted them to write to every flat in the block or just tackle individuals who had made offensive or inappropriate comments. The case officer said he did not want to do something that made the resident uncomfortable.
On 27 October 2020, the landlord emailed the resident. It acknowledged that the social media posts would cause distress to the resident. The landlord offered to look at the social media clips and contact any it identified as its residents. It said it could write to everyone in the neighbourhood or just those who made inappropriate comments. It asked the resident to decide. It chased the resident on 3 November 2020 trying to find out what approach it should take.
On 4 November 2020, the resident replied to say that they were not communicating with the neighbour. Although she had been abusive when the local authority had come to put the disabled bay in. The resident asked the landlord to send a rough draft of a proposed letter for all residents and one for those who had commented online, so that he could consider the best approach.
On 10 November 2020, the landlord received an email from the local authority’s highways team that the disabled bay had not been installed. This was because the resident ‘did not cooperate’ to move his car to enable the bay installation.
On 10 November 2020 the resident reported that the third party was now ‘calling out’ the resident on social media. Posts had been made which included his car registration and address. He said that the situation had been created by his neighbour and he asked for the landlord to take some action. The landlord sought legal advice on what steps it could take.
On 11 November 2020 the landlord contacted the resident. It said it was considering the options on how to move things forward and would keep him posted.
On 12 November 2020 the resident emailed the landlord to report the neighbour and the third party were planning to circulate a leaflet around the neighbourhood. This had been published on social media. He was extremely alarmed because:
1. His address and car registration had been shared on social media.
2. The social media post had threatening online responses.
The landlord replied to the resident to advise it had requested legal advice and was awaiting a response from the police. The police visited the parties involved that same day.
On 13 November 2020, the landlord received an email from the resident about further incidents involving the neighbour.
1. The neighbour had shouted at and taken pictures of his friend’s car when he parked outside the building. She had shouted that they were parking in a space that had been reserved for her. Other residents had come outside and this was frightening for the residents visitor.
2. His neighbour was using her friends to reserve spaces, by them moving cars around the street.
On 19 November 2020, the landlord emailed the resident. It said:
1. Whilst there is no reserved parking, it understood that the resident had been requested to keep an area clear for an approved disabled space. The landlord said some residents were blocking the area despite this request. The landlord asked if the vehicle blocking the bays installation was the residents.
2. It said it had spoken to the neighbour about the incident involving his friend parking. This had taken place as the neighbour sought to stop a car blocking the installation of the disabled bay. She had said she photographed the car to report it to the police if necessary.
3. The neighbour had asked for a line to be drawn and reported that she felt she was being harassed as she was being videoed leaving and entering the building. The landlord advised that this could be seen as harassment.
4. The neighbour had said that she did not want the third party to post on social media. She said to the landlord that she wanted to draw a line under the whole situation.
5. The landlord had contacted the police and asked they contact the third party to request all posts relating to the resident and property are removed.
On 20 November 2020, the landlord received a message from the local authority’s highways team. They said their contractor had been unable to install the disabled bay again as two residents had parked their cars in the proposed location and were refusing to move them. It asked the landlord to resolve the issues between their residents.
On 21 November 2020, the Police confirmed to the landlord that they had already spoken to the third party about social media posts. They confirmed they would visit a second time. They also confirmed they had spoken to the resident and updated him on their actions.
On 23 November 2020, the resident emailed the landlord’s antisocial behaviour team to complain that:
1. The harassment case had not been handled fairly. The resident said that the landlord repeatedly sided with the neighbour. He said that the police had taken action after his complaint of harassment. He said that he had not been spoken with about his own evidence, emails or complaints.
2. He disputed the landlord’s accusation that he had refused to move his car. The resident stated that the landlord had no right to tell him he could not park in a particular spot on the public road.
3. He asked why the landlord had not done what it offered when it offered to send letters out to everyone who had harassed them.
4. He disputed the advice about the use of videos and pictures for evidence. He said that the police had advised and encouraged him to do so. He asked for the landlord to retract this comment.
On 24 November 2020, the resident emailed the landlord to add:
1. Whilst the neighbour had not made the online posts, she was featured in an online video about it, giving the thumbs up. The police had ensured the removal of this video. He asked what the landlord had done.
2. Along with the third party the neighbour had put the petition letters through other residents of the neighbourhoods door party on 22 October 2022.
3. The resident asked for the retraction of the landlords comments about his parking and the statements made about his videoing potentially constituting harassment.
4. A report was made that on 21 October 2022 the resident had sworn at him and said that she would make his life miserable
5. A later email on the same date, provided a video and picture of the neighbours partner deliberately slammed the communal door 14 times on 22 November 2020 after tampering it.
On 24 November 2020, the landlord contacted the neighbour. It discussed the reports of the communal door slamming and being tampered with causing damage. The neighbour denied these allegations.
On 25 November 2020, the landlord spoke with the Police. They confirmed that there would be no prosecutions for the social media posts. They also confirmed they had spoken to the resident and asked him not to obstruct the disabled bay.
On 26 November 2020 the landlord after receiving legal advice the landlord wrote a warning letter to the neighbour.
On 27 November 2020, the landlord confirmed that matters raised in the residents email dated 23 November 2020 would be passed to the complaint’s team. The cases main officer would also take no further action until this complaint had been considered.
On 31 January 2021 the resident contacted the landlord about his complaint as he had not had a response.
On 2 February 2021 the landlord acknowledged the resident’s complaint.
On 10 February 2021 in an email to the ASB team, the resident reported daily loud TV and music coming from the neighbour’s property. The resident said that he worked from home and found that he was being interrupted during calls by the loud noise.
On 2 March 2021, the resident contacted the landlord’s ASB and complaints team to report loud TV and music from the neighbour’s flat. He asked the landlord to contact the neighbour ‘today’ to ask for the noise to be lowered so ‘he didn’t have to listen to it day and night’.
On 2 March 2021 the landlord wrote to the resident to extend its target for providing the stage one response. It said it would provide the response by 16 March 2021.
On 5 March 2021 the resident emailed the landlord’s complaints team and copied in the ASB team. He had received no response to his noise reports which were ongoing. The landlord confirmed it would add this to his complaint.
On 5 March 2021 the landlord recorded the resident’s email dated 10 February 2021 as a noise case.
On 17 March 2021 the landlord wrote to the resident to extend its target for providing the stage one response. It said it would provide the response by 31 March 2021.
On 23 March 2021 the resident emailed the landlord’s complaints team. He said that his noise complaint needed to be resolved immediately. He asked that it was ‘not just added to the noise complaint’. The resident said that the stage one response had already had three extensions, prolonging the response and the noise complaint resolution further. He asked:
1. When did the complaints team first receive the complaint from the antisocial behaviour department.
2. What was to be included in the stage one response as he had reported ‘many other issues’.
3. What were the reasons for the three separate extensions.
On 26 March 2021 the landlord issued its stage one response. It said:
1. The antisocial behaviour team did not deal with harassment.
2. It apologised for difficulties the resident had getting responses.
3. It could not disclose actions relating to the neighbour due to General Data Protection Regulations (GDPR). It said that it had visited the neighbour. The reported noise maybe considered to be ‘domestic noise’. The landlord offered noise equipment to the resident.
4. It apologised for the length of time responding to the complaint. It said that this was due to Covid-19 impacting its resources and it taking longer to ‘conclude work’. It said extensions can be granted under its complaints policy.
On 8 April 2021 ‘as no further reports had been made in over a four week period’, the noise case was closed.
At some time during April 2021, the landlord responded to an MP enquiry on behalf of the resident. At this stage a new noise case was opened.
On 28 April 2021 the landlord’s antisocial behaviour team spoke to the resident The resident was reporting ‘loud amplified music’ from the neighbour, which had been ongoing. The landlord advised that this could lead to a ‘noise abatement notice’ and made the suggestion of noise monitoring equipment. Following this call the landlord asked the neighbour to attend a meeting on 30 April 2021.
On 7 May 2021 the landlord spoke to the resident. The resident said that there had been some improvement but there were occasional instances of loud TV and music.
The resident used the landlord’s noise nuisance form to make a record of incidents involving the neighbour. These diaries run from 17 January 2021 until 2 June 2021. The incidents include doors slamming and loud music and TV. The resident makes an entry on the majority of days.
On 12 August 2021 the resident wrote that he disagreed with the stage one response. In this escalation, he asked:
1. For a review of the stage one complaint and its comments about not dealing with harassment.
2. Why the noise nuisance complaint was still not being dealt with.
3. Why the landlord had failed to respond to his original complaint dated 23 November 2020.
4. For an answer to the points raised in his email dated 23 November 2021 about the antisocial behaviour team’s case management.
5. About the decision making in relation to the neighbour’s shed installation.
On 23 August 2021 the landlord acknowledged the resident’s stage two request. It apologised for the delay in its registration. On 9 September 2021 the landlord wrote to the resident to say that the stage two response would be delayed until 22 September 21.
On 15 September 2021 the landlord issued its stage two response.
1. Regarding the complaint and delays at each stage. It apologised and said it can grant extensions as per its policy.
2. The response corrected the stage one position that the landlord would not deal with harassment. It advised that it can act on harassment. It said it was limited in what it could do and that it needed ‘hard evidence’. This was why the resident had been asked to contact the police to see if they could provide supporting evidence.
3. The landlord had carefully considered the reports from both parties. It also had received information that the resident had blocked the installation of a disabled bay. The landlord said that the resident’s actions had precipitated the events that followed. The landlord was satisfied with its case handling saying its officers had taken a fair and balanced approach.
4. The housing management team had received a special request for the installation of the shed in the communal garden. The landlord said approving this request seemed reasonable.
The resident continued to make noise complaints to the landlord following the final stage of the complaints process.

Assessment and findings

The resident’s concerns about a neighbours use of the communal garden.

The garden area around the block is communal and is the responsibility of the landlord to maintain. It is not demised to the resident as part of their property under the terms of their Lease. The landlord is able to authorise special requests in the communal areas if it decided the request was reasonable. Evidence has been provided to show that it was reasonable for the landlord to approve the neighbour’s shed on the communal area.
Around 12 months after the shed was installed, in August 2020, the landlord responded to complaints about large items in the communal garden and began a process which saw their removal on or around 25 September 2020. In taking this action it demonstrated that it responded in an appropriate and timely way to the residents’ concerns about the use of the communal garden.
Overall, the landlord was able to authorise a shed on the communal garden at its discretion. It then took action when issues were reported about large items being left in the communal garden.

Antisocial behaviour reports about the resident.

On 5 September 2020 there was an incident between the resident and his neighbour. This was reported to the landlord by the resident’s neighbour who reported that the incident had caused distress. The landlord then issued a written warning to the resident on 17 September 2020. The neighbour had reported feeling intimidated by the resident and considering this it was then fair and reasonable for it to issue this warning.
Later on 15 October 2020 and 10 November 2020, there are reports made to the landlord from the highways department that show that the resident was involved in a dispute over the installation of a disabled parking bay. The landlord raised this with the neighbour on 19 November 2020 by questioning whether the resident was deliberately blocking the bays installation. This then featured in the residents email of complaint dated 23 November 2020, where he stated the landlord had accused him of causing obstruction and had no right to tell him where to park. Considering the email exchange, the landlord had acted reasonably by querying whether the resident was obstructing parking. Whilst it did not have authority over the public highway the landlord did have a duty to investigate reports of its residents causing issues in the vicinity of the property. The landlords position of asking the resident if he had been causing the obstruction is a reasonable, investigatory approach.
In the same email dated 19 November 2020, the landlord provided the resident words of advice about using his camera to photograph or record evidence of the neighbours behaviour. The landlord said that these actions could be ‘perceived as harassment’. The resident, in his complaint email dated 23 November 2020 asked for the landlord to retract this statement. The landlords statement is not a formal warning and had been provided to the resident as words of advice following complaints made about him. The landlord had a responsibility to advise the resident about potential consequences of his actions and in doing so it has acted reasonably.

Antisocial behaviour reports about the residents neighbour.

In August 2020 the landlord was told of the repeated slamming of the communal door, which was causing damage. More than one resident of the block attributed this noise and damage to the resident’s neighbour and her household. Whilst the records show the landlord worked with the neighbour on the removal of large items from the communal garden, but there is no evidence that it addressed the communal door slamming at this stage.
After 17 September 2020 the landlord asked the resident to put his concerns about the neighbour in writing. The resident provided emails on 18 and 21 September 2020 which gave more context to the event of 5 September 2020. The resident provided a list of incidents involving the communal door, the neighbour running business events in the communal garden and causing damage to a bench which had personal value to him. The resident chased a response to this email on 2, 5 and 16 October 2020 and received no response from the landlord on these subjects.
After these emails on 22 October 2020, the landlord received a report from the resident of a petition being circulated around the local community by a third party and the neighbour. This petition was asking people to stand with the residents neighbour. Despite the report being that the neighbour had delivered this petition with a third party, and that the petition related to her circumstances. The landlord failed to act urgently to discuss this report with the neighbour. In its response to the resident it says that the resident could take his own legal advice and said that there was ‘no reason’ that the resident should be fearful. It did not act on this report as per its guidance on how it deals with antisocial behaviour, published online by not acting on it in a timely manner.
Later, from 26 October 2020 and 10 November 2020 there is a further escalation of events into online harassment. The residents personal information was shared online which attracted intimidating comments. This would have caused the resident considerable distress. It is at this point on or around 19 November 2020 the landlord makes conducts a further investigation into the report by speaking to the neighbour. Whilst no record of this call has been seen, the landlord confirms to the resident that the neighbour denied encouraging the posts.
During this period of escalation, where social media posts were made by the third party the landlord liaised with the police who ensued the comments removal. The landlord also sought legal advice on how to respond to social media harassment and considered how it could respond to the reports of the neighbours involvement. It was reasonable for the landlord to seek legal advice on how to approach this matter. This is because the neighbour had denied involvement and also that there was police involvement over the criminal complaint of harassment. When it received information from the police that there would be no prosecutions and advice from its legal team, it issued the residents neighbour with an appropriate formal warning.
Taking into account the impact of the online abuse to the resident and the risk of it escalating into attacks to person or property there was a duty on the landlord to ensure the neighbour was adhering to the terms of her tenancy by investigating the residents report dated 22 October 2020. Considering the inflammatory nature of the petition, it would be reasonable to expect the landlord to do this urgently which it did not do. When further issues are reported it acted appropriately by liaising with the police on the removal of social media posts considering its position and then taking action by formally warning the neighbour.

Noise Complaints

The resident began making reports about noise from the neighbour’s property from 10 February 2021. These reports included persistent loud music and TV. There is a record of the email being registered on the landlord’s computer systems on 3 March 2021. There are no further updates on this recorded case until April 2021 following an MP’s query. However, during this period the resident had emailed the landlord on 2 and 3 March 2021, emails to the ASB team and the complaints department reported further noise and asked the landlord to take action. The complaints team acknowledged these emails on 8 March 2021, stating that they would be added for response as part of the stage one complaint. On 23 March 2021, the resident asked for it to deal with his ongoing noise complaint and not just respond within the complaints process. There is no evidence that the ASB team responded to the resident’s noise reports either through investigation or through response to the resident.
On 8 April 2021, the landlord closed its noise case. It stated there had been no further reports. In fact, the resident had made a report to both the complaints team and the antisocial behaviour team on the 2 and 5 March 2021. There is no evidence that the complaints team shared any additional noise reports that it had received with the antisocial behaviour team. This resulted in further delays and distress for the resident.
The landlord did take action following an MP enquiry in April. It opened a new noise case and contacted the resident on 28 April 2021. It discussed a noise abatement notice and offered noise equipment both of which are useful tools to use when dealing with noise nuisance.It then interviewed the neighbour on 30 April 2021. However, it has provided no evidence to this service in relation to the interview with the neighbour nor what action it then took. The landlord has a responsibility for maintaining up to date and accurate records. It has failed to do so in this case.
Whilst not all noise is antisocial the landlord had a duty to investigate. Overall, the landlord has failed to respond to the residents noise complaints.
1. The residents requests for service went unanswered. It has not evidenced taking any action between 10 February 2021 and 28 April 2021.
2. The resident had to repeatedly chase the landlord for response.
3. In April and May, when the resident was making noise complaints the landlord closed its noise case. It did not evidence taking any action.
4. Using its complaints process, the landlord did not identify any failings or offer any redress.

Complaint Handling

The resident first made a formal complaint to the ASB team on 23 November 2020. This was acknowledged by the ASB team but there is no record that this email was received by the complaint’s department. The complaint was not acknowledged until after resident chased the landlord on 31 January 2021. In the complaints process the landlord offered no explanation for this 49 working day delay in acknowledging this complaint.
The landlord’s complaints policy says that on receipt of a complaint it will issue a response in 10 days. It also says it will write to the resident to explain any delays. The landlord wrote to the resident to extended its stage one investigation timeframe twice before its response was sent on 26 March 2021. This was 28 days over the published 10 day investigation period. At stage one and two the responses give the reason for the delays as being due to Covid-19. Whilst this is a reasonable reason for delays, this was not explained to the resident at the earliest point in the extension letters.
In total, from receipt of the complaint on 23 November 2020 and the stage one response on 26 March 2021 there were 86 working days. The landlord does not acknowledge and offer redress for the initial delays in it registering the resident’s complaint through its complaints process.
All of these delays became more frustrating for the resident following his noise reports going unanswered after 10 February 2021. By extending the complaint response timeframe the landlord delayed its response about the continued lack of service being provided to the resident regarding his noise complaint. The resident asked for the landlord to act about the noise outside the formal complaints process on 23 March 2021 but this did not happen. It was not appropriate for the landlord to wait for the outcome of its complaints process to address the residents service requests. This resulted in unacceptable delays and distress to him as the noise reports continued without intervention.
The landlord’s stage one response on 26 March 2021 considered the resident’s complaint about noise. The landlord said that it ‘could not discuss with the resident what it had done due to GDPR’. Whilst the landlord would not be expected to share personal information relating to the neighbour it would be reasonable to update the resident on a plan of action. This service has seen no evidence of any intervention with the neighbour, via phone call, letter or interview. In its response the landlord failed to offer the resident any reassurance that the noise complaint was being addressed and has failed to provide any evidence that it had acted and discussed the matter with the neighbour.
The stage one reply also referred to the noise as domestic. In this the implication is that it cannot act on ‘domestic noise’. The resident was reporting incidents including loud music. The landlord is responsible for investigating noise that could be a statutory nuisance, statutory nuisance can include loud music. In its complaints handling it did not acknowledge or identify where things had gone wrong or offer an explanation or apology.
In its handling of the harassment complaint, at stage two it apologised for its error at stage one where it had advised it did not deal with harassment reports.. It said the resident’s behaviours precipitated events, when blocking the disabled bay install. The details of this the resident disputed. In saying this, the landlord indicated that the resident was to blame for the harassment he faced and the response had not provided a neutral and balanced view on what happened. The landlord has not demonstrated whether it considered the actions it took when dealing with the reports between the resident or his neighbour were reasonable and as such it failed to deal with the substance of the residents complaint about its service.
In regards to the neighbours shed, the landlord advised that it was reasonable to have given permission. Further explanation of its involvement in having the neighbours items removed from communal areas and being able to approve special requests would have assisted in giving the resident a full response to his complaint.
The landlord has failed to offer reasonable redress through its complaints process on all elements of the residents complaint. It has not demonstrated that it has learnt from the complaints or offered sufficient apology. Due to this, compensation will be calculated using the Housing Ombudsman’s remedies guidance, which is available on the Ombudsman’s website.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman scheme there was no maladministration in how it handled the residents’ concerns about a neighbours shed on a communal garden.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman scheme there was no maladministration in how it handled reports of antisocial behaviour complaints about the resident.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman scheme there was maladministration in how the landlord handled the residents antisocial behaviour complaints about the neighbour.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord in respect of its handling of noise complaints.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman scheme there was maladministration of the associated complaint.

Reasons

The landlord was able to authorise a shed on its communal garden and acted on residents reports to remove items from the communal garden.
The landlord acted reasonably by providing words of advice and a warning to the resident.
The landlord delayed responding to the residents reports of antisocial behaviour from neighbour.
The landlord delayed handling noise complaints. The resident went through periods of not having his noise complaints acknowledged. When it acted, it did not record what it did.
The landlord did not handle the residents’ complaints within its own published guidance and provided poor quality and delayed responses.

Orders

It is ordered that the landlord pays the resident a total of £600. This is broken down into:
1. £150 for its delays in responding to the residents harassment report.
2. £200 for distress caused by delays investigating the noise reports.
3. £250 for distress caused by its poor complaints handling.

Payment should not be used to offset debts with the landlord. It should be paid directly to the resident. Evidence of compliance should be sent within four weeks.

It is ordered that a senior member of staff writes an apology to the resident for the failures in its service. This service requires evidence of compliance within four weeks of the receipt of this order.

Recommendations

It is recommended that it reviews the handling of housing complaints to ensure they are in line with the Housing Ombudsman’s complaint handling code dated March 2022.
The landlord is recommended to adopt an antisocial behaviour policy and procedure. This would let its residents know what service they should expect and assist its staff in knowing how to deliver it.
The landlord should take steps to improve its record keeping to ensure accurate case files are kept.