London & Quadrant Housing Trust (202002239)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202002239

London & Quadrant Housing Trust

29 December 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 Scheme). The Ombudsman considers the evidence and looks to see if there has been any ‘maladministration’, for example whether the landlord has failed to keep to the law, followed proper procedure, followed good practice or behaved in a reasonable and competent manner.

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

The complaint

The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of antisocial behaviour (ASB).

Background and summary of events

The resident is a tenant of the landlord’s and lives in a ground-floor flat. She has a support worker who also corresponded with the landlord on her behalf. For ease of reference, the support worker is also referred to as ‘the resident’.
The landlord wrote to the resident in April 2020 that it had raised an ASB case and asked if the resident had contacted the police regarding the issues she raised. This Service has not been provided a copy of the correspondence from the resident which prompted this response for investigation; however, the landlord’s later correspondence says that the resident reported noise nuisance and suspected subletting from her neighbour on 8 April 2020.
On 15 May 2020 the resident wrote to the landlord regarding issues that she experienced with noise coming from a neighbour for several months. She confirmed she called the police on several occasions, between December 2019 and May 2020, and that her main concerns were regarding:
1. Her suspicion that her neighbour was subletting the property to a family member and with numerous visitors to the property who caused a disturbance. The disturbances caused by the visitors included high levels of noise for hours between 7pm and 5am. There was also disturbance caused by the neighbour using the washing machine and running water in the middle of the night.
2. What sounded like major work being done within the neighbour’s property. Builders frequented the property to complete works and building noises occurred between 7 or 8pm each evening until 2 or 3am the following morning.
The resident confirmed she had contacted the local authority, who directed her to contact the landlord. She said she utilised the landlord’s friendly ‘neighbour comment’ cards and her own notes to her neighbour asking them to keep the noise down. She said she had evidence in the form of audio and footage recordings and written accounts of all the disturbances; however, she was told the landlord would now only take noise-related complaints via an app. The resident explained that she was not comfortable with technology to use this app, and her case handler had closed the case without doing anything to support her in resolving the issue. The resident said the landlord told her that employees could not visit at the time due to the coronavirus pandemic, but she disputed this, noting that gas safety visits were being completed.
The landlord replied that a manager would investigate the case and contact the resident. It said that, due to the coronavirus restrictions present at the time, none of its staff were permitted to attend resident’s homes; however, it would work to see how it could best support the resident.
On 12 June 2020 the resident pursued an update from the landlord and said that the noise from the neighbour’s property was distressing her. She expressed her concern that the landlord had not adequately addressed her concerns regarding subletting and potential unauthorised major works being carried out at the neighbouring property. In the landlord’s reply, it apologised for the delay in its response and arranged to call the resident prior to sending a written response.
Between 17 and 25 June 2020 the resident contacted the landlord and:
1. Forwarded short clips, which she described to be of several people coming to and from the neighbour’s flat during the night.
2. Reported a loud bang coming from her neighbour’s property in the middle of the night.
3. Reported an incident in which people were coming and going from the neighbour’s property, making noise, which resulted in a confrontation between the resident and the neighbour’s visitor and the police being called.
On 26 June 2020 the landlord confirmed receipt of the resident’s emails and said it would respond on 30 June 2020. The landlord’s undated letter (which appears to be from around this time) states:
1. Throughout its ASB investigation it had been in regular communication with the resident and sought to find a resolution to the nuisance the resident experienced. The noise the resident reported was classed as household noise because it did not have sufficient evidence to prove otherwise. Police visited the neighbour’s property after noise was reported and found only two people inside and deemed the issue to be household living noise. It confirmed that neighbours were permitted to have visitors. It offered mediation to both the resident and her neighbour. It agreed to visit both properties when it resumed normal household visits. No reports of noise nuisance were reported by other neighbours. It could not take further action without further supporting evidence.
2. The landlord and resident discussed the importance of reporting any excessive noise directly to the local authority and, although it encouraged the use of a noise app, this was not the exclusive way in which the resident could provide evidence of noise nuisance. The case would continue to be assessed based on the evidence the resident supplied, regardless of the form it was received. Video recordings provided by the resident on 17 June 2020 did not show a breach of tenancy or ASB that it could act upon.
3. It was unable to visit the neighbour’s property to inspect for any unauthorised works due to coronavirus restrictions but agreed to visit on 9 July 2020. For data protection reasons it would not be able to provide the resident with the outcome of the visit but, should it find any unauthorised alterations to the property, further action would be taken.
4. Although it had no powers to advise residents on how many visitors they could have or at what time they could have visitors, it would expect tenants to ensure their visitors also abided by the terms and conditions of their tenancies. It would discuss the reports with the neighbour. It started its initial investigation and to conclude its investigation a tenancy audit would take place once staff resumed visits inside resident’s properties. Again, for data protection reasons, it would be unable to share its finding on the investigation.
On 30 July 2020 the resident wrote to the landlord that she remained dissatisfied with the landlord’s handling of her reports of ASB and noise nuisance since February 2020. She said her neighbour had varying visitors to the property during unsociable hours, including labourers who were completing works. She also reiterated her concern that the property was being sublet.
Following contact from the resident, on 13 August 2020, this Service wrote to the landlord. We asked the landlord to engage with the resident, escalate the complaint about its handling of ASB and noise nuisance if necessary, and issue a response within 15 working days.
On 18 August 2020 the resident called the landlord for an update and the landlord noted that it advised that it was investigating the case but, due to the coronavirus, could not visit at the time.
The landlord internally confirmed on 20 August 2020 that: it planned to contact the support worker and share additional guidance/actions it would be providing; the resident would keep ASB logs and be provided with a noise recorder for two weeks and advised to contact environmental health; it would complete its subletting investigation; it had interviewed the neighbours but there was no evidence to support allegations; and it would continue to monitor and adhere to the contact agreement in place for two months.
On 25 August 2020 the landlord noted that it had contacted the resident’s support worker but had not received a reply and would close the case until it had a response.
On 8 September 2020 the resident reported that she had contacted the local authority on 28 and 29 August 2020 due to the sound of DIY works at unsocial hours and on 30 August 2020 she had called the police due to a lot of banging from the neighbour’s property.
On 19 October 2020, following further contact from the resident, this Service asked the landlord to update the resident on her complaint regarding noise nuisance within ten working days.
This Service wrote to the landlord on 29 March 2021 as the resident said she had not received a response to her complaint. We asked the landlord to provide a complaint response within five working days. The landlord replied on 30 March 2021 that it had not previously registered the matter as a formal complaint and any response under its ASB policy did not equate to a formal complaint response. It confirmed it had now registered a formal complaint.
The landlord wrote to the resident to acknowledge the complaint on 30 March 2021 and confirmed it aimed to respond within ten working days.
On 30 March 2021 the landlord spoke with the resident and noted that she spoke at length about the reports that she had made to it for the last year about her neighbours. The reports included loud DIY, visitors always during the night and early hours of the morning, subletting, and sending her threatening letters. The landlord noted that the resident said she moved out in November 2020 due to the noise and moved back home on 24 March 2021 and was reporting the noise nuisance again.
The landlord conducted a meeting regarding the case on 6 April 2021. It noted that the local authority had received some noise reports from the resident, but nothing since November 2020, and it had not visited or witnessed any of the noise. The landlord noted that the local authority confirmed that if it was called out after 12 April 2021 and witnessed the noise it would install a noise monitoring machine in the resident’s home. It said it had provided the resident with the noise app and details on how she could move and explained the importance of gathering evidence and completing diary sheets. The landlord also noted that it agreed the prior year to attend and inspect the flat and plumbing and found nothing wrong and no alterations carried out in the neighbour’s home. The landlord also noted that it asked the resident to forward the threatening letters that the resident received and that it could investigate the alleged subletting but would not be able to discuss this case with her. Finally, the landlord noted that the resident had contacted the police regarding alleged criminal activity by the neighbour, but the police took no action and there was no outstanding investigation.
On 12 April 2021 the landlord wrote to the resident. It confirmed that there were no ongoing investigations by the police and the local authority asked for the full reference numbers of all the resident’s reports to provide the landlord a full history, which the resident agreed to provide. The landlord confirmed that it had explained the importance of the resident utilising noise app recordings and diary sheets as evidence. It explained that it could not investigate any noise during the day such as DIY and would not investigate day-to-day living noise. The landlord confirmed that the resident should report any noise that disturbed her after 11pm and before 7am. It reminded the resident that she lived in an old building which had no sound insulation, and some noise would travel between flats. Finally, the landlord confirmed it would investigate the resident’s allegations that the neighbour’s flat was being sublet but will not be able to share its findings with her. The landlord confirmed it would contact the resident every two weeks to discuss the complaint.
On 12 April 2021 the landlord responded to the complaint. It said that:
1. On 8 April 2020, the resident reported noise nuisance (including the sounds of running, stamping, loud music, washing machine, taps running for prolonged periods, vacuuming and visitors with children) from the flat above daily between 10pm and 4.30am. It subsequently discussed the reports of noise with the resident, agreed an action plan and obtained consent to contact the neighbour. It explained the importance of gathering evidence to support the claims of noise nuisance. The resident confirmed at the time that she had been keeping a diary however, had not shared this with the landlord. It offered the resident its noise app to help capture the noise, but the resident was not comfortable using technology to this degree.
2. The landlord spoke with the neighbour who confirmed that they had appropriate flooring to minimise the transference of noise from everyday living. Counter–allegations of harassment were made by the neighbour and the police issued the resident a verbal warning in relation to this. It liaised with the resident and offered mediation on 5 May 2020, but it was unclear if she wished to pursue it.
3. It requested information from police on 10 September 2020, who said the neighbour above was moving furniture in the day and nothing more. The police did not witness any unusual or excessive noise at the time of their visit. The landlord contacted the local authority’s Noise Pollution Team, and an officer was able to advise that the last report of noise received on the street was in November 2020. The local authority was unable to search by the reference numbers provided by the resident as she had only provided part of the reference which limited their search.
4. On 3 November 2020 the resident informed the landlord that she did not believe that the neighbour was living in the property and alleged that criminal activity was occurring there. She also stated that she received two threatening letters that she passed to her Support Worker and due to fear, she stayed with friends. Evidence of the threatening letters was not provided.
5. Between 10 November 2020 and 24 February 2021 there was no activity recorded on the case. It would have expected contact to have been maintained with the resident throughout this time to better understand her current circumstances.
6. On 6 April 2021, it met with the resident to discuss her case and to provide any additional support if required. During the meeting the resident advised that since she moved back into her home on 24 March 2021, following staying with a friend, the noise nuisance had been apparent during the night and the early hours of the morning. It explained the importance of gathering evidence to support the allegations made as to date there had been no diary sheet or noise recordings submitted.
7. Moving forward, the landlord agreed to send the resident some diary sheets and the details of its noise app, should she wish to revisit this method again. It agreed to arrange for an engineer to attend both properties to inspect the pipework to establish whether the internal pipework could be a contributing factor. It would keep the resident informed and engage with her on a fortnightly basis in line with the contact agreement.
The landlords’ records show that on 15 April 2021 it discussed the resident’s case with her, but no further details have been provided for this investigation.
The landlord wrote to the resident on 7 June 2021, following visiting her home on 25 May 2021. It confirmed it had contacted the local authority about installing a noise recording machine in the resident’s home, as agreed, and had pursued a response. The landlord confirmed that the resident had provided a recent threatening letter in another language but said there was no evidence the neighbour had sent them. The landlord noted that the resident reported that there were “no voices, no tv sound, no loud music coming from [the neighbour’s property] and that it is mechanical”. It confirmed it visited the neighbour’s property but there was nothing untoward or visible that the neighbour could be doing in their home. The landlord said it had contacted the police again to check their records of calls from the resident and asked the resident to contact the local authority’s noise team if she was disturbed by noise between 11pm and 7am and continue to keep and provide diary sheets. Finally, the landlord said it wished to re-offer the resident and her neighbour mediation if the resident was open to this option.
Following further contact from the resident, on 16 July 2021, this Service asked the landlord to provide the resident with a stage two complaint response by 13 August 2021.
On 20 July 2021 the landlord updated the resident. It said that, following visiting her in June 2021, it spoke with the local authority’s noise team. It apologised for the delay in doing this which it explained was due to the noise team being very busy. It said that the local authority said that in order for them to take any action they would need to witness the noise. They no longer used noise recording machines for reports such as the resident’s and asked that the resident report the noise immediately when she heard it, and they would decide whether it was necessary to visit. The landlord explained that, without evidence of noise nuisance, it could not progress the case further. It confirmed it also contacted the police for an update but was awaiting a response.
The landlord wrote to the resident on 26 July 2021 to acknowledge her stage two complaint and confirm it would respond by 13 August 2021.
In its stage two response, dated 12 August 2021, the landlord apologised for the delay in the complaint being allocated for review, which was due to an increased volume of work. It confirmed there had been service failures in terms of its communications throughout the complaint, including responding to this Service and a long delay for the complaint to be allocated for review. The landlord apologised for the frustration caused. It said that since April 2021, regular contact had been maintained via text, the resident’s preferred form of communication, and it visited the resident on 25 May 2021 to discuss the allegations of the noise. The landlord confirmed it sent a letter to the resident dated 7 June 2021, confirming what was discussed and mediation was offered again to the resident.
The landlord said there was no evidence of where the letters the resident received had come from, despite the resident believing they were from a neighbour. It noted that the resident explained that there was a mechanical noise from the property above, and it visited the flat above and concluded that there was nothing unusual within the property, nor did it witness any noise or machinery that would suggest the noise reported. The landlord confirmed the local authority’s stated position on not using noise recording equipment as the resident’s reports related to domestic noise and it now asked residents to use the noise app. The local authority received a couple of further reports from the resident but noise could not be heard during her calls to them or on visits. The landlord reiterated that the resident should report any noise that disturbed her between 11pm and 7am but reminded her that, due to her living in an old building, it had no sound insulation, and some noise would travel between flats. It noted that the resident declined to use the noise app. The landlord said it sent letters to neighbouring properties asking if they can hear the noise and had no response, although residents within the same building had not heard the noise reported by the resident.
The landlord said that the accusations the resident made that the neighbour was involved in criminal activity were investigated by the police but unfounded. It encouraged that the resident reconsider mediation and explained that many cases of reported ASB could be time consuming with having to collate proof of evidence and work collaboratively with all parties. The landlord said that it could not progress the matter further without evidence and, if it did not receive confirmation from the local authority of any statutory noise nuisance within four weeks, the case would be closed.
The landlord found a delay in it responding to this Service within requested timeframes and in it acknowledging the stage two complaint. It acknowledged the time, effort, and inconvenience this matter may have caused the resident and offered her £130 compensation, consisting of: £20 for the delay in responding to this Service, £60 for the late stage two acknowledgement, and £50 for the time and effort this matter may have caused.

Assessment and findings

Landlord’s policies and procedures

The landlord’s ASB policy explains that, in line with their occupancy agreements, residents are expected not to commit ASB, or to allow household members, visitors or pets to commit ASB. The following are given as examples of ASB types which will typically be recorded:
1. Noise where it is persistent, deliberate or targeted.
2. Harassment or intimidation, including threats, stalking, bullying, malicious communications.
3. Criminal behaviour. In cases of serious crime, the landlord will usually require that the reporting party report the incident to the police before it can carry out further action.
In line with the landlord’s ASB policy, residents must acknowledge that day-to-day activities, such as noise or minor disturbance cannot be avoided, and accept that sometimes, while the behaviour of another family is frustrating it is not reasonable to place restrictions on their usual enjoyment of their home. The landlord gives the following as examples of behaviours it does not usually consider to be ASB: noise caused by people going about their daily lives, e.g. using staircases; one-off events like a birthday or a religious celebration; minor personal differences or fall outs between neighbours; and disputes between neighbours (e.g. boundary issues or shared driveways). The landlord will log and record none ASB and take no further action. It will advise the reporting party why it will not be investigated further as ASB, and potential solutions may still be offered where appropriate. The landlord will encourage and advise residents to resolve minor issues themselves.
If, after considering the complaint, the landlord is unable to take action on behalf of the reporting party, it will explain why and point residents towards agencies or to information which may be able to offer advice and support.
In line with its ASB policy, in the investigation and management of ASB it will: keep in regular contact with the reporting party or as agreed; where necessary, arrange an interview with the reporting party; arrange support from and work with other parties who can help, including the police and local authority if necessary; provide advice and support; and agree an action plan with the reporting party.
The ASB policy explains that the landlord will use whatever powers and remedies are available and appropriate. It will also work with partners, the police and local authorities to take preventative and enforcement action. Actions the landlord may take can include: communicating that it takes ASB seriously, and the potential consequences for any resident identified as perpetrating ASB; the use of warning letters, mediation and acceptable behaviour contracts; and use of the full range of tools and legal powers available. Where the landlord considers taking eviction actions, it will ensure the case satisfies the required legal conditions and if possible, that it has carried out checks to identify if the tenant is vulnerable and has capacity. Enforcement action will be based on the nature of the ASB and the responsibilities of the other party, e.g. in the tenancy or lease agreement.
The landlord’s complaints policy does not cover complaints of ASB as these are covered by its ASB policy, but a complaint will be accepted if the resident is dissatisfied with how their case was handled.
In line with its complaints policy, the landlord will write within ten working days after it receives a complaint to explain the outcome of its investigation at stage one, and within 20 working days at stage two.
The landlord’s compensation policy confirms that it will consider an offer of compensation when an apology alone is not sufficient, and it recognises the impact the service loss or failure has had on the resident. It says that it will pay resident’s £10 where it fails to respond to a query within ten working days or fails to respond to a formal complaint within the timescales published in its complaints policy. The compensation policy does not provide any other specific compensation amount for discretionary compensation and advises that its staff may decide on compensation amounts, taking into account specific circumstances of the resident.

Assessment

It is evident that this situation has been distressing for the resident. The role of the Ombudsman is not to establish whether the ASB reported was occurring or not. Our role is to establish whether the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of ASB was in line with its legal and policy obligations and whether its response was fair in all the circumstances of the case.
For a landlord to take formal action in respect of ASB, a landlord requires corroborative evidence of the alleged behaviour to support formal action. In this case, it was evident that the landlord took reasonable steps to investigate and seek corroborative evidence in line with its ASB policy. For example, the landlord encouraged the resident to provide evidence of the ASB via recordings, utilising its noise app, and diary entries; considered the recordings and letter allegedly sent by a neighbour provided by the resident; checked if it received any other reports of noise in the building or area; encouraged the resident to contact the police in relation to crime and the local authority, who could visit to witness any noise; liaised with the police and local authority; and arranged to visit the neighbouring property to investigate the resident’s allegations of subletting and the neighbour completing unauthorised works to their property.
The landlord cannot take any formal action against alleged perpetrators of ASB such as an injunction or eviction without strong supporting evidence to show the behaviour is serious and prolonged. Therefore, it would be appropriate to request diary entries to be used as evidence if necessary. The landlord would also be expected to show the court that it had attempted to resolve the matter informally such as through mediation or tenancy warnings before taking legal action and work with other agencies such as the police. The evidence demonstrates that it has offered mediation to the resident and liaised with other agencies in this case, in an attempt to resolve matters.
Landlords cannot reasonably be expected to take formal action against tenants for noise that is considered everyday household noise; however, if a noise is confirmed as constituting statutory noise nuisance, then both a landlord and Environmental Health service may be able to warn and take formal action against the perpetrator. Ultimately, however, there was no clear evidence of noise nuisance, despite the landlord’s investigations into the matter, and it was therefore reasonable that the landlord did not take further action against the neighbour. The correspondence also demonstrates that the landlord has managed the resident’s expectations in this regard, in line with good practice.
The Ombudsman’s complaint handling code explains that a complaint shall be defined as an expression of dissatisfaction, however made, about the standard of service, actions or lack of action by the landlord, affecting an individual resident. It says landlord shall accept a complaint unless there is a valid reason not to do so and, if a landlord decides not to accept a complaint, a detailed explanation should be provided to the resident setting out the reasons why the matter is not suitable for the complaints process.
In line with the landlord’s complaints policy, it should have logged the resident’s communication of 30 July 2020 in which she expressed dissatisfaction with its handling of her ASB case as a formal complaint and responded within ten working days. However, the landlord did not log a formal complaint until March 2021, following requests from this Service that it to do so. The landlord’s delay in logging a formal complaint was a service failure, in line with the Ombudsman’s complaints handling code and the landlord’s own complaints policy.
There were also gaps in the landlord’s communication with the resident, in particular between 10 November 2020 and 24 February 2021. While (based on the correspondence) it appears that during this time the resident was not living with the property and therefore not making reports, in line with the ASB policy the landlord should keep in regular contact with reporters, and in line with the contact agreement in place. In this case, the landlord had agreed to update the resident on the case every two weeks, but had acknowledged that it did not during this period.
The landlord has acknowledged the aforementioned failures in its communication and complaint handling, apologised and offered compensation. Therefore, it is up to this Service to consider whether the redress offered by the landlord in respect of its acknowledged failings in handling the resident’s complaint put things right and resolved the resident’s complaint satisfactorily in the circumstances. In considering this the Ombudsman takes into account whether the landlord’s offer of redress was in line with the Ombudsman’s Dispute Resolution Principles; be fair, put things right and learn from outcomes.
It is the Ombudsman’s opinion that the amount of £130 compensation would provide adequate redress for the service failures identified and is in line with our Service’s remedies guidance (published on our website) as well as the landlord’s own compensation policy. The Ombudsman’s remedies guidance suggests awards of between £50-£250 where there has been service failure which had an impact on the complainant but was of short duration and may not have significantly affected the overall outcome for the complainant. In this case, the delays and poor communication did not affect the outcome of the complaint as the landlord ultimately took appropriate steps to investigate the resident’s reports, but these errors did have an impact on the resident and compensation is due in view of this.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 55(b) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the landlord has made an offer of redress prior to investigation which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, resolves the complaint satisfactorily.

Reasons

Overall, the landlord has appropriately investigated and responded to the resident’s reports of ASB, in line with its ASB policy; however, there was no evidence of ASB to warrant further action at the time. While there was service failure in the landlord’s complaints handling and communication, namely in the delay in it raising a formal complaint, the landlord has provided reasonable redress in line with this Service’s remedies guidance.