London Borough of Hounslow (202233314)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202233314

London Borough of Hounslow

22 August 2024

Our approach

The Housing Ombudsman’s approach to investigating and determining complaints is to decide what is fair in all the circumstances of the case. This is set out in the Housing Act 1996 and the Housing Ombudsman Scheme (the Scheme). The Ombudsman considers the evidence and looks to see if there has been any ‘maladministration,’ for example, whether the landlord has failed to keep to the law, followed proper procedure, followed good practice, or behaved in a reasonable and competent manner.

Both the resident and the landlord have submitted information to the Ombudsman, and this has been carefully considered. Their accounts of what has happened are summarised below. This report is not an exhaustive description of all the events that have occurred in relation to this case, but an outline of the key issues as a background to the investigation’s findings.

The complaint

1. The complaint is about the landlord’s response to the resident’s:
   1. Reports of noise from a communal gate.
   2. Reports of disturbance caused by a balcony blind in a neighbouring property.
   3. Reports of antisocial behaviour (ASB).
   4. Concerns about staffing and support.
2. This report also looks at the landlord’s:
   1. Complaint handling.
   2. Knowledge and information management.

Background

3. The resident lives in a one bedroom property on the fourth floor of a block that is owned and managed by a local authority landlord. The property was let under a flexible secure tenancy agreement in March 2017. The landlord records that the resident is disabled due to a visual impairment.
4. The resident submitted a stage 1 complaint to the landlord via this Service on 17 April 2023. The landlord acknowledged the complaint on 19 April 2023, and it sent its response to the resident on 10 May 2023 in which it:
   1. Said it had investigated the resident’s concerns about his neighbour banging on his wall, slandering him, invading his privacy, and leaving litter in the communal areas. It also said that it had received counter allegations of nuisance, it had arranged mediation in May 2022 to assist both neighbours, and it had asked them both to live peacefully as neighbours.
   2. Said it had investigated the resident’s concerns about a communal gate but that it could not be removed as it was part of the building structure. It said that it had installed a rubber material to reduce the noise and would consider installing rubber hinges, but that there would always be some noise when it was opened and closed.
   3. Said it had investigated the neighbour’s use of a blind on his balcony which the resident said blocked the light, caused noise when it was windy, and affected his sleep. It said it had provided the neighbour with authorisation for the blind, but it could not disclose further information due to data protection.
   4. Said it had investigated modifications the resident’s neighbour had completed in the property (laminate flooring, installing wire mesh on the communal gate) and it was satisfied that these did not breach the tenancy agreement.
   5. Explained that it intended to respond to residents as soon as possible but that staff were not always available to take phone calls as they were often visiting residents and may not have immediate access to a phone. It also said staff needed time to look into issues that had been raised and required a reasonable time to action these adequately. It asked the resident to leave a message requesting a call back when he was unable to get through.
   6. Said it did not uphold the complaint but that the resident could escalate it to stage 2 within 28 days.
5. The resident sent a stage 2 escalation request to the landlord on 23 May 2023 in which he said:
   1. He was dissatisfied with the complaint process as he had waited 25 days for a response.
   2. His neighbours caused noise nuisance, intimidated and harassed him, held barbecues, completed DIY in communal areas, and slammed the front door which he considered to be deliberate harassment. He had recorded CCTV evidence, his visitors had witnessed the nuisance, and the neighbours should be evicted as the nuisance warranted more than just warnings.
   3. The communal gate continued to cause noise and vibrations. The padding had not resolved the noise, and nothing had been done to install soft close hinges and levers.
   4. The neighbour’s balcony blind continued to cause a disturbance and should be removed as it was drilled into the wall and permission for it had been provided after installation.
   5. He was unaware who his housing officer was because they kept changing and when he called he could never make contact due to their availability. He also said that staff seemed to have too many meetings and did not always provide a response to emails.
   6. He had visual disabilities and the help and support he received from the landlord was unacceptable. He also requested air conditioning, frosted windows, that the gates and the neighbour’s balcony blind  be revaluated and for a final warning to be given to the neighbour due to ASB and breaches of fire regulations.
6. The landlord acknowledged the resident’s stage 2 complaint on 9 June 2023, and it sent a stage 2 response to the resident on 7 July 2023. The landlord restated the advice it had previously provided in its stage 1 response. Additionally it:
   1. Confirmed its previous complaint response was provided in keeping with its complaint policy timescales. It also explained that the resident had raised new concerns that had not been included in his stage 1 complaint which would need to be re-raised as a separate complaint.
   2. Said it had responded to the resident’s concerns about his neighbour during conversations it had held with both parties and also during mediation. It said it would investigate his concerns about barbecues and items being left in communal areas, but that his allegations of his neighbour’s fire safety breaches had been investigated and had been actioned accordingly.
   3. Said it had not received any other complaints about the communal gate and that a regulatory officer had suggested installing soft close hinges and levers. However, its usual practise would be for an estate improvement officer (EIO) to make these assessments which it would arrange.
   4. Said there was no further action it could take following its investigations into the neighbour’s balcony blind and satellite dish and that it was limited in what information it could share under data protection regulations.
   5. Provided the contact details of a housing officer and apologised if a change of officer had affected the resident. It also explained that it did not have control over staffing, but that it would always ensure that the resident had a point of contact to assist him. It said that it could make a referral to its tenancy sustainment team if he needed further support.
   6. Said the resident would have to install his own air conditioning if he wished to, but he would need to request permission first. It also said that he could install blinds in his property for further privacy and that it would visit and inspect the neighbour’s use of their balcony.
   7. Said that it did not uphold the complaint as his case had been handled fairly and efficiently and that this was its final response and he could contact this Service if he remained dissatisfied.
7. This Service wrote to the resident on 29 August 2023 to acknowledge his request for us to investigate the complaint.

Assessment and findings

Response to the resident’s reports of noise from a communal gate.

8. The landlord completed works to limit the transference of noise from the communal gate on 29 January 2021 and on 30 June 2021. While the landlord confirmed this in its email of 31 July 2023 this Service has not received further evidence of the extent of these works. This is addressed later in this report.
9. The landlord reviewed the resident’s CCTV recordings of the communal gate being slammed on undisclosed dates. This was reasonable and in keeping with recommendations in the Ombudsman’s 2022 Spotlight Report on noise complaints (the Spotlight Report). The Spotlight Report says noise recordings should always be listened to by the case handler to ensure robust investigations are informed by a true understanding of the noise being reported.
10. The landlord visited the resident on 19 January 2023 and explained in an email dated 27 January 2023 that the gate was fitted by the local authority and could not be removed as it was part of the building structure. The landlord was suitably qualified to assess the condition and purpose of the gate and reach conclusions about whether the gate could be removed in response to the resident’s concerns. The landlord further explained that the communal gate would always create some noise as it opened and closed. It was reasonable for the landlord to have explained its conclusions to the resident following its investigation and in response to his reports so as to manage his expectations.
11. The landlord installed a rubber material on the communal gate prior to 8 March 2023 to reduce the noise it created in response to the resident’s reports. This was reasonable and evidenced that it had taken a resolution focussed approach to the matter.
12. The resident reported further concerns about noise and fire safety risks the communal gate caused on 21 February 2023, and in his complaint of 17 April 2023. In its stage 1 complaint response dated 10 May 2023 the landlord said that it would investigate whether further gate modifications, such as rubber hinges could be installed. This was in keeping with a conversation it had held with him about the gate on 8 March 2023. It was reasonable for the landlord to have agreed to explore further methods to address the resident’s concerns. However the landlord failed to progress this any further despite its commitments to the resident. Further it failed to address the resident’s concerns that the gate presented a fire safety risk. This was unreasonable and caused time and trouble to the resident in pursuing a response to the matter in his stage 2 complaint.
13. The landlord reviewed its response to the resident’s concerns about the noise caused by the communal gate in its stage 2 response. The landlord did not uphold the complaint and restated that it would assess the gate to consider if further alterations could be made. It was reasonable for the landlord to summarise the actions it had taken to modify the gate and for it to suggest that it would consider further alterations in keeping with its previous commitment. However, it was unreasonable for it not to have completed this assessment prior to providing its final complaint response given that it had initially committed to do so in March 2023, 4 months previously. This was unreasonable and caused time and trouble to the resident in pursuing a response to the matter via this Service. Consequently this Service finds service failure in the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of noise from a communal gate.
14. An award of £75 compensation in keeping with this Service’s remedies guidance is therefore ordered below in recognition that the landlord has not appropriately acknowledged its failings and/or has not fully put them right. Furthermore, this award proportionately addresses the time and trouble the resident incurred in pursuing a resolution to the complaint via this Service.

Response to the resident’s reports of disturbance caused by a balcony blind in a neighbouring property.

15. The landlord said that it had investigated the resident’s concerns about the neighbour’s use of a balcony blind in its email of 27 January 2023. It also said that it had provided the required authorisation for the blind but that it could not provide further information to the resident due to data protection. Paragraph 5.8(c) of the landlord’s standard tenancy agreement sets out that the landlord was entitled to decide whether to provide permission for any fixtures and fittings which included the use of balcony blinds. In addition, it had an obligation to protect the privacy of the resident’s neighbours due to the requirement of the Data Protection Act 2018 which controls how personal information is used by organisations. The landlord explained this to the resident in its complaint responses. The advice it provided to the resident was reasonable under the circumstances.
16. The resident told the landlord that he was experiencing nuisance caused by the neighbour’s balcony blind. It is evident that the noise and light obstruction the blind caused was created by wind and not the neighbours themselves. However, there is no evidence that the landlord investigated the extent of the reported nuisance, for example by considering noise recoding equipment. Alternatively for it to seek a compromise between the neighbours. The landlord’s failure to do so caused ongoing distress and inconvenience to the resident.
17. The landlord  explained that it had investigated the matter and held discussions with the neighbour about the installation of the blind and explained that it had provided permission for the balcony blind following its investigation which it was entitled to do. However this did not appropriately address the resident’s concerns about the nuisance the blind caused. Consequently and taking all matters into account this Service finds service failure in the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of disturbance caused by a balcony blind in a neighbour’s property.
18. An award of £75 compensation is ordered below. This level of compensation is within the range set out in our remedies guidance for instances when, as here, there has been a failure by the landlord in the service it provided, and it did not appropriately acknowledge this and/or fully put it right.

Response to the resident’s reports of ASB.

19. It is evident that this situation has been distressing to the resident. It may help to firstly explain that the Ombudsman’s role is not to decide if the actions of the neighbour amounted to ASB, but rather, whether the landlord dealt with the resident’s reports about this appropriately and reasonably.
20. In an email the resident sent to the landlord on 24 January 2024 he said that his living and health had been affected by his housing circumstances. The Ombudsman does not doubt the resident’s experience, but it is beyond the remit of this Service to determine whether there was a direct link between the landlord’s actions and his ill-health. He may wish to seek independent advice on making a personal injury claim if he considers that his health has been affected by any action or failure by the landlord. While the Ombudsman cannot look into and make a decision about the cause of, or liability for, any impact on health and wellbeing, consideration has been given to the general distress and inconvenience which the situation may have caused the resident.
21. The landlord failed to provide evidence to this Service related to its handling of the resident’s reports of neighbour nuisance prior to his complaint of 17 April 2023. It is evident that the landlord had referred the resident to mediation services in 2022. Therefore this Service would have expected to see further evidence of its actions to investigate matters it considered would benefit from mediation. This is addressed in an assessment of the landlord’s handling of knowledge and information below.
22. In responding to the resident’s reports of ASB the landlord:
    1. Offered the resident access to mediation services and the resident entered into mediation in May 2022. This was in keeping with paragraph 13.1.3 of its ASB procedure which says it will encourage residents to agree to mediation.
    2. Reviewed the resident’s CCTV recordings of the communal gate being slammed and the neighbour throwing rubbish on undisclosed dates. This was in keeping with recommendations in the Ombudsman’s 2022 Spotlight Report on noise complaints (the Spotlight Report). The Spotlight Report says noise recordings should always be listened to by the case handler to ensure robust investigations are informed by a true understanding of the noise being reported.
    3. Visited the resident at his home on 19 January 2023 to discuss his concerns about ASB and it asked both parties to live peacefully on an undisclosed date.
    4. Provided the resident with diary sheets and explained that these could be used to evidence ASB activity. This was in keeping with its ASB guidance leaflet which says it will issue diary sheets to gather evidence of incidents. The resident confirmed in a conversation held with this Service on 19 August 2024 that he did not use the diary sheets due to his visual impairment but that he had sent emails of noise incidents to the landlord.
    5. Confirmed in its complaint responses that it had investigated the resident’s reports about his neighbour banging on his wall, slandering him, invading his privacy, and leaving litter in communal areas.
    6. Provided the resident with contact information of a designated point of contact such as in its complaint response of 7 July 2023.
23. However there was maladministration in the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of ASB as the landlord:
    1. Did not reoffer the resident access to further mediation services to address the ongoing neighbour dispute he reported in keeping with paragraph 13.1 of its ASB procedures.
    2. Did not log an ASB case to progress the resident’s reports of intimidation and harassment so as to ensure it was effectively managed in keeping with paragraph 5.4.1 of its ASB procedures. The landlord’s ASB procedures explain that mediation would not deal with cases where there was harassment, therefore it would have been appropriate for the landlord to investigate the resident’s reports of harassment separately.
    3. Did not complete an ASB assessment form in keeping with paragraph 12.2.1 of its ASB procedure which says an ASB form should be completed over the phone or face to face with the reporter of ASB. It also says that less formal notes are acceptable when a case is minor in nature but that notes should be transferred to its housing database, and all follow up actions and contacts recorded against the case. There is no evidence  of any such notes.
    4. Did not write to the resident to explain why it had not logged an ASB case in response to his concerns. It would have been reasonable for the landlord to have explained if and why the matters he had reported did not meet its ASB investigation threshold. Explaining this to the resident would have managed his expectations and evidenced that it had complied with paragraph 5.3.1 of its ASB procedures which says it will keep all parties informed of case progression.
    5. Did not evidence that it had taken a resident focussed approach to ASB management with a focus on delivering proactive and effective resolution in keeping with paragraph 5.3.1 of its ASB procedures. It would have been appropriate for the landlord to have agreed an action plan with the resident when he reported his concerns. Further for it to have followed this up in writing so as to build his confidence in the landlord’s ASB services.
    6. Did not set out how it would gather evidence and investigate the resident’s ASB reports in keeping with paragraph 12.16 of its ASB procedure. The landlord could have achieved this by taking statements from the resident and by interviewing neighbours about the ASB he reported in May 2023.
    7. Did not explain if or how it had resolved the resident’s reports about his neighbour banging on his wall, slandering him, invading his privacy, and leaving litter in communal area. This was a missed opportunity for the landlord to build the resident’s confidence in its ASB services.
24. The landlord reviewed its handling of the resident’s concerns about ASB in its final complaint response. However while it said that it had investigated the matters, it did not explain the conclusions it had reached. Further the landlord failed to investigate the residents reports of harassment and intimidation separately to its dispute resolution procedures. The resident expressed to this Service on 19 August 2024 that he considers that he is still experiencing ASB from his neighbours and that his concerns have not been addressed.
25. This Service considers that an award of compensation is due in keeping with Service’s remedies guidance. The guidance sets out a range of awards for situations like this where there was a failure which adversely affected the resident, and the landlord has failed to acknowledge its failings. An award of £200 is therefore ordered below as compensation for the detriment that has been caused to the resident by the impact of the landlord’s accumulated ASB handling failings.

Response to the resident’s concerns about staffing and support.

26. The resident’s councillor reported communication concerns on behalf of the resident to the landlord on an undisclosed date. The landlord responded to the resident directly on 27 January 2023 in which it said that it did its best to be available to residents but that housing officers were not always available due to the nature of their jobs. The landlord also explained that staff needed time to look into matters and adequately action them. It was appropriate for the landlord to reassure the resident and refer to the responsibilities of its housing staff as further explanation. It also asked the resident to leave a message requesting a call back and it provided the contact details of a named officer and its contact centre staff. This was reasonable under the circumstances.
27. It is evident that the landlord told the resident that a new member of staff had taken over his case on 21 February 2023. Furthermore in its stage 1 complaint response of 10 May 2023 the landlord restated the advice it had provided to the resident on 27 January 2023 about its approach to customer care. It was appropriate for the landlord to have provided this information again so as to manage the resident’s expectations and to ensure he knew who to contact.
28. The resident reported concerns about the landlord’s levels of staffing again in his email of 23 May 2023. He also said that there were occasions when he had not been updated about staff changes. The landlord apologised for this in its final complaint response on 7 July 2023. It also shared the contact details of a new housing officer and said that it would always ensure that the resident had a point of contact to assist him. There is no evidence that the landlord had shared the details of the new housing officer with the resident prior to its final complaint response. However it is unclear when the new staff member had beenappointed.
29. In the landlord’s final complaint response it acknowledged the resident’s perception that it had shown a lack of support which he had expressed in his stage 2 complaint. It clarified that it had done its utmost to maintain contact with him and investigate the matters he had raised. It subsequently offered to make a referral to its tenancy sustainment team or to a support worker to provide extra support. There is no evidence that the resident had requested support from the landlord prior to his stage 2 complaint. Therefore, acknowledging the resident’s perception and suggesting that it could provide support to him in reply was a reasonable response for the landlord to have taken.
30. This Service understands that staff changes can cause challenges and can delay the progress of matters while new staff members familiarise themselves with investigations. However the landlord sought to minimise this by providing advice about staff changes and by giving advice about the steps the resident could take to contact staff directly or via voicemail messages. The landlord acted reasonably in outlining that it had limited control over its staffing, but that it did have control over how it responded when new staff were employed.
31. It is evident that there was an occasion when a new staff member had been appointed that had not been explained to the resident prior to the stage 2 response. However as previously indicated it is unclear when the new staff member had been appointed and so we are unable to determine if the time taken to advise the resident was unreasonable. Consequently and taking all matters into account this Service finds no maladministration in the landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns about staffing and support.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint.

32. The landlord operates a 2-stage complaints policy which says stage 1 complaints should be responded to within 15 working days and stage 2 complaints should be responded to within 20 working days.
33. There was service failure in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaints as the landlord:
    1. Did not issue its response to the resident’s stage 2 complaint of 23 May 2023 until 7 July 2023 which was 12 working days later that its 20-day  policy timescale.
    2. Said that it had received the resident’s stage 1 complaint on 19 April 2023 instead of 17 April 2023. It also said that it had received the resident’s stage 2 escalation request on 9 June 2023, instead of on 23 May 2023.
    3. Did not fully address the resident’s stage 2 complaint such by explaining how it had investigated and actioned the resident’s allegations of fire safety breaches. This was not in keeping with paragraph 5.6 of the Housing Ombudsman Complaint Handling Code (the ‘Code’) which says landlords must address all points raised in the complaint.
    4. The complaint was investigated at stage 1 and stage 2 by the same member of the landlord’s staff. This was not in keeping with paragraph 5.12 of the Code which says the person considering the complaint at stage 2 must not be the same person that considered the complaint at stage 1.
34. The Ombudsman encourages landlords to use complaints as a source of intelligence to identify issues, recognise the impact of its services on residents and introduce positive changes in service delivery. The landlord’s final response largely copied and pasted the advice its housing manager had emailed the resident on 27 January 2023, which had already been restated in its stage 1 response. This was unreasonable and suggested that it had not appropriately reviewed the resident’s complaint and/or taken an impartial view of it. It would have been appropriate for a different member of staff to have reviewed the complaint. It would also have been appropriate for it to have clearly explained that its position had not changed since its previous advice, rather than repeating the statements the housing manager had provided 5 months previously. This would have more appropriately managed the resident’s expectations and reduced the time and trouble caused to him in seeking a resolution to the complaint via this Service.
35. When a landlord is at fault it needs to put things right by acknowledging its mistakes and apologising for them, explaining why things went wrong and what it will do to prevent the same mistake happening again. The landlord considered its handling of the resident’s stage 1 complaint in its final response and said that it did not uphold the complaint. However this Service has identified complaint handling failings in the preceding paragraphs which would have caused some inconvenience to the resident.
36. An award of £50 as compensation is therefore ordered below in keeping with this Service’s remedies guidance in recognition that the landlord has not appropriately acknowledged its failings and/or had not fully put them right. This award also addresses the time and trouble the resident incurred in pursuing a resolution to the complaint via this Service.

The landlord’s handling of knowledge and information.

37. While sufficient information was provided by the landlord to complete an assessment of the resident’s complaint the information provided as evidence of the landlord’s actions was limited. There were very few records submitted of actions it had taken to address the resident’s concerns. As previously outlined the landlord failed to provide evidence of repairs it had completed to limit the transference of noise from the communal gate on 29 January 2021 and on 30 June 2021. It failed to provide evidence of its handling of the resident’s reports of neighbour nuisance prior to him submitting a complaint in April 2023. It also failed to provide more than one of the noise incident emails the resident confirmed he had sent to the landlord when he spoke to this Service on 19 August 2023. It was inappropriate for the landlord not to have retained, and/or provided to this Service, this information, including emails to and from the resident so that it could account for the housing services it had provided. We have therefore found service failure in the landlord’s knowledge and information management and made a recommendation concerning staff training.

Determination (decision)

38. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme there was:
    1. Maladministration in respect of the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of ASB.
    2. Service failure in respect of the landlord’s:
       1. Response to the resident’s reports of noise from a communal gate.
       2. Response to the resident’s reports of disturbance caused by a balcony blind in a neighbouring property.
       3. Complaint handling.
       4. Knowledge and information management.
    3. No maladministration in respect of the landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns about staffing and support.

Orders and recommendations

39. Within 4 weeks of the date of this report, the landlord is ordered to:
    1. Apologise in writing to the resident for its handling of the resident’s reports of ASB.
    2. Pay the resident £400 in compensation made up as follows:
       1. £200 for distress and inconvenience related to the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of ASB.
       2. £75 for time and trouble caused to the resident related to the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of noise from a communal gate.
       3. £75 for distress and inconvenience related to the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of disturbance caused by a balcony blind in a neighbouring property.
       4. £50 for time and trouble caused to the resident related to the landlord’s complaint handling failures.
    3. If it has not already so, reinspect the communal gate and provide the resident with a written update on whether further modifications, such as rubber hinges can be installed and whether the gate presents a fire risk.
    4. Contact the resident to confirm whether he is currently experiencing any ASB or nuisance and if so, to discuss whether any further intervention is needed to resolve this.
40. The compensation is to be paid direct to the resident and not offset against any money that the resident may owe the landlord.
41. It is recommended that the landlord remind its staff about what evidence it should provide to this Service during a complaint investigation.