London & Quadrant Housing Trust (L&Q) (202119571)

A picture containing logo Description automatically generated

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202119571

London & Quadrant Housing Trust

12 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

The complaint is about the landlord’s:
1. Response to the resident’s reports of anti-social behaviour (ASB).
2. Handling of a transfer request.
3. Complaint handling.
4. The report also examines the landlord’s consideration of the resident’s vulnerabilities.

Background and summary of events

The property is a two bedroom, second floor flat. The sole tenancy agreement is an affordable rent, assured tenancy which began in 2019. Two people reside at the property. Both occupants have diagnosed mental health conditions.
The resident has given permission for the household member to act on their behalf. For the purpose of this report, either party has been referred to as ‘the resident.’

Policies and procedures

Tenancy agreement

The tenancy sets out a number of conditions for the tenants to comply with:
1. Anti-social behaviour (ASB) – you must not cause anti-social behaviour, nuisance or annoyance to neighbours.
2. Harassment – you must not harass, threaten to harass, or cause anti-social behaviour or abuse to anyone.
3. The tenancy also states that if you live above another property, you must not install any flooring with the exception of carpet or heavy duty vinyl in any living space without prior written permission. The landlord may refuse permission if any change in flooring effects the noise insulation between properties.

Allocation Policy

The landlord’s allocation policy says that vulnerable applicants will be given additional support and where appropriate, be referred to the tenancy sustainment team.

Rehousing Policy

The rehousing policy says that if an application for permanent rehousing is granted, the resident will be contacted within one day to confirm that their move has been approved. The rehousing manager will contact the resident by phone within five days of the case being opened to confirm requirements and manage expectations. They will also encourage the resident to look at other rehousing options such as mutual exchange, or the local authority register.

Anti-Social Behaviour Policy

The landlord’s ASB policy says that it will review all reported incidents. If after considering the complaint they are unable to take action on behalf of the complainant they will explain why and point resident’s towards agencies for support.
When considering if a case is ASB or not, the landlord will take into account vulnerabilities or any other issues facing a resident and how this may impact their ability to resolve issues without support.
Noise caused by people going about their daily lives will not be logged as ASB and no further action will be taken. The reporting party will be advised why it will not be investigated further. Potential solutions may still be offered where appropriate.
The ASB sub category includes noise where it is persistent, deliberate or targeted, verbal abuse, harassment, intimidation and threatening behaviour.

Complaints Policy

The complaints policy advises that it will deal with stage one complaints within ten working days, and stage two complaints within twenty working days.

Vulnerable Resident’s Policy

The landlord’s vulnerable residents policy determines ways to identify vulnerable residents and ways in which they can support vulnerable residents to retain their home and wellbeing and live as independently as possible. These include:
1. Residents should be asked if they have any particular needs or vulnerabilities that should be taken into account.
2. Referring residents to the tenancy sustainment team as well as other commissioned services.
3. Signposting to statutory agencies and other external support agencies
4. Recording vulnerabilities to enable the landlord to respond to a vulnerable persons needs by making reasonable adjustments.

Summary of events

The information seen indicates the resident raised similar ASB concerns about noise nuisance from laminate flooring in the flat above in December 2020. No action was taken by the landlord and the case was closed.
The case was re-opened the on 22 February 2021 when the resident contacted the landlord again. On 6 April 2021, thirty working days after the case was re-opened, the landlord allocated the complaint to a case manager.
In internal correspondence on 11 May 2021 the landlord said, “the general consensus is that we do not allow laminate flooring in flats and prefer carpets due to noise transference. However we would turn a blind eye if a resident lays laminate flooring with adequate underlay to absorb sound. However the resident needs to know that if they lay it, it is without permission and if complaints are received they would be asked to remove it.”
The resident emailed the landlord on 17 May 2021 advising that it could close the case as the noise nuisance had stopped. The resident thought that carpet had been laid over the laminate flooring to soften the noise.
On 17 October 2021 the resident contacted the landlord to report the noise nuisance relating to the laminate flooring in the flat above, which was disturbing them again. The resident advised that carpet had not been laid over the laminate as first thought. It had been quiet in the flat above as the neighbour had not been at the property. They had approached the neighbour to talk about the noise nuisance but were sworn at and reduced to tears.
On the 1 November 2021, a complaint was raised to the landlord by the resident, as the noise nuisance and verbal abuse was on going and the landlord had not made contact with them. The residents chased the landlord on 16 November 2021. They said the noise had been ongoing for over a year.
On 23 November 2021, the resident told the Ombudsman that the landlord had not responded to their complaint. In addition the neighbour was now verbally abusive. The Ombudsman wrote to the landlord on the same day asking for it to respond to the resident by 7 December 2021.
The Ombudsman sent a second chaser letter to the landlord on 26 January 2022, asking them to respond to the complaint by 5 February 2022.
The landlord’s records show that the resident contacted it again on 9 February 2022 as the noise nuisance was still ongoing and the neighbour was continuing to shout and swear at them. As a resolution the resident wanted to request a management transfer from their property due to the impact the ASB was having on their mental health.
A stage one response dated 4 March 2022 was sent to the resident on 13 March 2022. This was 4 months after the resident’s complaint was raised. The landlord apologised for not managing the noise nuisance complaints and acknowledged the impact that this was having on the resident’s mental health. It confirmed that a risk assessment should have been completed and regular contact made. The stage one decision did not address the transfer request. The complaint was upheld and compensation of £420 was awarded. This was calculated at:
1. £160 for distress caused
2. £160 for inconvenience caused
3. £100 for the delay in the stage one complaint response
The landlord’s records show that the following events occurred between 21 – 31 March 2022:
1. The Ombudsman issued a Complaint Handling Failure Order (CHFO). This was due to the complaints process being stalled and the response unnecessarily delayed. The complaint was made on 1 November 2021, therefore the stage one decision should have been issued by 12 November 2021. It was not issued until 4 March 2022 which was 86 working days late. The landlord was ordered to provide a full complaint response (stage two) by 28 March 2022.
2. The landlord visited the neighbour above the resident. It was noted that the wooden flooring had been ‘gifted’ by the landlord when they moved into the property on 15 March 2021 after signing their starter tenancy.
3. The resident submitted her rehousing application form along with supporting medical letters and the medical assessment form.
The landlord’s ASB records contain the resident’s completed diary sheets dated 7 April 2022. No information was evidenced to show that the landlord acknowledged them. The landlord later disputed any diary sheets were submitted.
An internal email dated 8 April 2022 confirms that due to the noise nuisance, the terms and conditions of the tenancy agreement and vulnerabilities of the resident, the landlord agreed to replace the laminate flooring in the living room of the neighbour’s flat above. The landlord agreed to pay for carpet, underlay and fitting because the landlord acknowledged that it should have been removed when the previous tenant left, before it was relet to the current tenant.
On 11 April 2022 the landlord’s ASB team wrote to the resident, advising that the case had been passed to the tenancy management team for them to action. It confirmed that this could result in a further warning being issued against the neighbour, asking them to refrain from making any further excessive noise. The landlord confirmed that it would also address the lack of carpet and discuss the current plan for recarpeting the neighbour’s living room space as soon as possible.
The resident contacted the landlord on 26 April 2022 as they had not been contacted. They stated that they feared that they “could not take it much longer”. They advised that due to their frustrations, they were concerned that they would go upstairs and deal with it themselves and that this would be a disaster but that this was the only way they could see forward. They were constantly being intimidated by their neighbour upstairs each time they left their flat.
On 27 April 2022 the neighbour contacted the landlord to advise that she had found extra flooring that the old tenant had left behind. As it was plastic vinyl this did not breach her tenancy agreement.
The landlord spoke to the resident on 27 April 2022 and discussed mediation as an option. The resident declined the offer as it was felt that this would possibly lead them to being hospitalised due to their mental health.
On 25 May 2022 the Ombudsman sent a letter to the landlord following on from the stage one complaint as:
1. The ASB was continuing.
2. The promised contact from the landlord had not occurred.
3. There had been no update on the requested transfer.
4. the compensation payment had not been received.
5. The Ombudsman requested a stage two complaint response by 24 June 2022.
Internal emails confirm that although the rehousing list had been suspended at the time of application, the ASB team had provided the resident with additional support, so that the panel considered their application. This was in line with the allocations policy and they were referred to the tenancy sustainment team.
The landlord wrote to the resident on 9 June 2022, 4 months after their request for a move and confirmed that their rehousing application had been approved. They advised that an offer would be made via a ‘direct let’ and that this would take in the region of 48 months but most likely longer
Following a conversation with the resident on 4 June 2022, the ASB team agreed to call the resident once a week until the case was allocated to the resident support lead or the neighbourhood team. This was due to concerns raised by the resident as they were not contacted as often as promised in an earlier contact agreement. This agreement was confirmed in an email dated 2 July 2022
The ASB team wrote to the neighbourhood team on 27 July 2022 for an update on the carpet fitting and suggested seeking legal advice as the neighbour had implied that they did not want carpet fitted.
On 29 July 2022 the neighbourhood team wrote an internal email stating that the complaint was closed as soundproof underlay was to be installed in the next few weeks and that this would hopefully reduce the noise nuisance. The ASB team requested that the case be kept open until the resolution had been confirmed.
The resident contacted the landlord to chase the carpet replacement on 15 August 2022 as the noise nuisance was still ongoing. It was confirmed that soundproof underlay and new flooring would be fitted on 30 August 2022.
On 18 August 2022, the resident wrote to the landlord stating that the mental bullying and gossiping among the family upstairs and other tenants was becoming too much to cope with and that they were frightened for their safety in staying there. On the same day the neighbourhood team closed the ASB case. The ASB team advised the neighbourhood team that due to the vulnerabilities of the residents, the case should be kept open and requested that the neighbourhood team communicate with the resident.
The stage two complaint was issued on 25 August 2022. It stated that:
1. There had been regular contact regarding the ASB complaint but not fortnightly as promised.
2. The noise nuisance was day to day living noise and therefore no further action would be taken.
3. New suitable flooring was to be fitted on 30 August 2022 at the neighbour’s property in the hope that the levels of noise transference would be reduced.
4. The resident had confirmed that none of the neighbours had ever been aggressive or approached them, there was no evidence to take this issue further.
5. The transfer request was approved due to the impact the current accommodation was having on the resident’s mental health.
6. The stage two complaint was upheld and a further £150 compensation was awarded. This was in recognition of the delays in processing the stage one compensation award, contact not being maintained and for the delay in the stage two response.
The rehousing application for the resident was sent to the landlord’s High Harm Panel on 25 August 2022. The aim of the panel is to encourage problem solving and decision making of re-housing priority. The application was declined. The following recommendations were made:
1. A referral to the landlord’s Mental Health Lead.
2. To liaise with the NHS service to obtain signed and dated consent forms.
3. A referral to Resident Support Lead to support the residents in looking for alternative accommodation options including mutual exchange.
During September 2022:
1. The resident submitted numerous diary sheets from the previous two months detailing noise nuisance, but had no response from the landlord.
2. The neighbourhood team confirmed that new flooring and sound proof underlay was installed in the neighbour’s flat above on 6 September 2022.
3. The neighbourhood team asked the ASB team if the case could be closed as the flooring had been installed. The ASB team advised that due to the vulnerability of the residents the case was to remain open.
4. The resident wrote to the Ombudsman on 26 September 2022 asking for advice and support. As far as they were aware the wooden flooring had still not been changed and the noise nuisance was still affecting their physical and mental health. They advised that they had also spent all their savings on paying for hotels to avoid staying in their home.
5. The resident emailed the landlord attaching diary sheets of noise nuisance. According to the resident these were not acknowledged by the landlord. No evidence has been provided to suggest otherwise.
On 12 October 2022, the neighbourhood officer confirmed in an email that the case had been closed as the floor had been laid and therefore deemed that the issue was resolved. She stated that any further noise would be general noise, that there was no evidence via diary sheets about the noise and that that she had met the children of the family in the flat above “who appeared to be well behaved”.
The ASB team wrote back on the same day requesting that the case be kept open and suggested that the neighbourhood team contact the resident as they had not contacted them to date.
The resident emailed the landlord on 14 October 2022, as they stated that they had been verbally abused again by the neighbour and their friends. They claimed that they had asked for a call back and emailed twice but had not received any communication. The resident also advised that the landlord’s Liaison Officer had not called on 10 October 2022 as promised and that on 17 October 2022 the resident was promised a call back that week but this was not received either.
In an email dated 25 October 2022 the neighbourhood team said that they had tried to call the resident twice, but there had been no answer. They stated that as they had not heard back from the resident and taking into account the soundproof underlay had been installed, the neighbourhood team considered the case to be resolved.
The landlord emailed the resident on 29 October 2022 confirming that it would visit the neighbour to see if carpet had been installed as the noise reports were still ongoing. On 31 October 2022 the landlord confirmed that it was still trying to gain access to the neighbour’s property to see if the carpet had been laid, but that the contractor involved was certain that it had been.
The resident emailed the landlord on 29 January 2023, advising that the noise was still ongoing. They asked if the landlord could visit their flat to listen to the noise nuisance coming from their neighbours above.
An appointment was arranged for the resident to see the landlord on the 7 February 2023, but the resident had to cancel this. There is no evidence to suggest that a new appointment has been made.
On 29 March 2023 the landlord responded to the Ombudsman’s request for information. It confirmed that:
1. The resident was placed on to the rehousing list due to the ASB.
2. The neighbourhood team had had very little correspondence with the neighbour as the flooring issue was resolved
3. That the neighbour’s children were very small and so could not cause much disturbance.
The resident told the Ombudsman that they had a home visit on 30 March 2023 from the landlord. The resident re-iterated that the noise nuisance was still on going and that the laminate flooring had not been changed. The landlord advised that they would go and visit the neighbour to confirm and actually see what flooring had been laid. Unfortunately no one was home at the time. The landlord then sent an email to the resident confirming that the neighbourhood team had established that soundproofed flooring had been laid.
During a phone call with the Ombudsman on 6 April 2023, the resident advised
1. That the noise nuisance was still ongoing.
2. They were still feeling intimidated by their neighbours.
3. They had been subjected to abuse and intimidation.
4. They had been sworn at, stared at and shouted at about their mental health and been called ‘cuckoo’.
5. The resident confirmed that any notes on file with regards to the abuse and intimidation did happen. They were unsure of why the landlord had said that they hadn’t as this was not correct.
6. The resident’s medication had been increased four times in the last year because of the negative impact this was having on their mental health.

Assessment and findings

The landlord’s response to reports of anti-social behaviour

The timeline points to significant failures in relation to the landlord’s ASB handling. For example, contrary to its ASB policy, the landlord failed to complete an initial risk assessment with the resident (as was recognised in the stage one decision). This in turn would have helped the landlord prepare a necessary action plan and timeframe. Clear guidelines and expectations of how the ASB case was to be investigated would have benefited the resident and managed their expectations
There is no information on file to evidence that a full investigation was carried out by the landlord to support its decision that the noise nuisance was daily living noise. Whilst a home visit was carried out with the neighbour on 21 February 2022 this was a year after the complaint was made. The landlord confirmed its intention to investigate the alleged abuse and intimidation at this meeting but there are no file notes to clarify the discussion, proposed action plan, nor a desired outcome.
According to the resident, the landlord did not visit them at a time when the noise could be heard (outside of school hours /holidays) to witness the potential disturbance. The Ombudsman’s Spotlight report on noise complaints found that a majority of landlords use a noise app. There was no evidence on file that the landlord signposted the resident to a nose app despite it promoting its use on its website.
Mediation was suggested by the landlord in line with its policy, however the resident declined this due to their mental health concerns. There are no file notes indicating that any enquiries were made with the neighbour about their noise nuisance behaviour. There appear to be no statements taken from the resident with regards to their ASB allegations. No information was received to show warning letters were issued to the alleged perpetrators as previously suggested by the landlord. This was not appropriate as the landlord failed to work within its own guidelines as set out in its ASB, complaints and vulnerable resident policy.
The resident sent in diary sheets on a number of occasions with details of the noise nuisance. The notes included dates and times and details of the events. There is no evidence to suggest that the landlord considered or responded to these. According to the resident there was no acknowledgement or review of these reports. Accordingly, the landlord therefore breached its ASB policy, as it did not investigate the evidence provided.
The neighbourhood team stated that there were no diary sheets submitted but copies were evidenced on the files provided (as noted above). Had the landlord used the diary sheets to lead its investigation. The findings may then have been used to justify its findings in the stage two decision. This was a failure by the landlord, as again it did not work within the remit of its own policies.
According to its ASB policy the landlord will review all reported incidents, and if after considering the complaint they are unable to take action on behalf of the complainant, they will explain why and point residents’ towards agencies for support. The stage two decision was issued nine months after the complaint was raised. The landlord advised in the decision letter that it was not considering the noise as ASB but daily living noise and therefore it would not investigate the reports. This was the first time that the resident was made aware of this decision. The complaints process is not the correct forum for ASB case related information and it should have been confirmed to the resident at an earlier stage. No referrals to support agencies support were made. This was not appropriate.
In the landlord’s ASB policy, its ASB sub category recognises noise where it is persistent, verbal abuse, harassment and intimidation as ASB. The noise nuisance in this case was persistent as according to the reports from the resident it happened on most days from early morning until late evening. Noise nuisance was reported even with the new flooring and soundproof underlay installed. Furthermore, emails and diary sheets completed by the resident reporting that verbal abuse occurred as they were sworn at and shouted at. The resident has explained that they felt harassed and intimidated by their neighbours. This should have been investigated. This was a failure by the landlord.
The supporting medical evidence explained the impact that the neighbour’s behaviour was having on the residents. This should have been considered and investigated fully under the ASB policy, prior to the landlord making its decision that it was daily living noise. It should have arranged multi agency meetings to obtain appropriate professional opinions. Guidance on what preventative measures could have been taken to minimise the impact on the resident both long term and short term, should have been obtained.
The landlord should have spoken to the resident and alleged perpetrators to obtain a clear picture of what was happening and completed new risk assessments when necessary to ensure that it was providing sufficient support and advice to the resident. By not considering their vulnerability with the reports, seeking further advice and investigating the allegations the landlord failed to follow its own ASB and Vulnerable Resident policies. This was a failure.
The stage two decision claimed that the noise nuisance was not ASB but daily living noise. In contrast, the resident was granted priority rehousing due to ASB (confirmed in an email from the landlord dated 29 March 2023) in relation to the same reported incidents. Despite the rehousing list being closed at the time, the ASB team thought the reports were serious enough to request special consideration so that the case could still be heard by the panel. The rehousing panel approved a priority move due to the ASB reports. The landlord’s differing opinion in the assessment of the noise complaints evidence a lack of joint working and understanding of the ASB, the allocations, and the vulnerable residents policy – this is a failing.
The landlords High Harm Panel made numerous recommendations for referrals to support the vulnerable resident, such as the landlord’s Mental Health Lead and the NHS service. The vulnerable persons policy also recommends suitable referrals to internal and external support agencies, however there is only evidence on file to suggest that the resident was referred the tenancy support team. This was not in keeping with the landlord’s policies.
The stage two complaint also dismissed the allegations of harassment and intimidation, as it recorded that the resident had confirmed that none of the neighbours were ever aggressive, approached them or spoke to them on previous occasions. The resident recently told the Ombudsman that whilst no threats were made, they were shouted at, sworn at, abused verbally and given intimidating looks whilst walking past their neighbour and their friends. It was inappropriate that the differing accounts were not investigated further.
There are no specific file notes of the conversation between the landlord and the resident regarding the allegations of harassment as mentioned above. Clear concise file notes are essential, especially when such important evidence based decisions are to be made. This decision was not appropriate considering the lack of evidence to support its findings.
The noise nuisance reports due to the laminate flooring in the flat above were initially reported in 2020, albeit with a different tenant. Although the landlord sent letters to this tenant to stop their excessive noise, the issue was not resolved during this tenancy according to the resident.
Knowing the history of the ASB allegations in relation to the upstairs flat the landlord could have reasonably:
1. Advised the outgoing tenant to remove the flooring before they left the property.
2. Pre warned the voids team to remove the laminate flooring as part of its voids process.
3. Removed the laminate flooring during the void period.
4. Requested the laminate flooring to be removed when identified at the viewing, prior to the new resident moving in.
5. None of the above steps were taken by the landlord.
The Ombudsman’s Spotlight report on noise complaints recommends updating void standards to ensure that carpets are not removed unless in poor condition and hard flooring is removed when there have been reports of noise linked to the property.
The landlord did accept responsibility for the failure to remove the flooring and apologised. It agreed to pay for the installation of underlay and carpet to the flat above in an attempt to rectify this oversight. This was authorised in April 2022, some six months after the current ASB reports were received. The new flooring and underlay was fitted in September 2022, five months after the works were authorised. Overall a delay of 11 months in replacing the flooring was not appropriate given the vulnerabilities of the resident and the number of noise nuisance reports being submitted.
To date it is unclear what type of flooring was installed in the flat above the resident. The landlord initially agreed to lay carpet, some notes suggest that just soundproof underlay was installed, other file notes suggest that new flooring and underlay was installed. Clear concise file notes following a thorough investigation would have resolved this query.
It is recognised and commended that the ASB manager was supportive to the residents throughout and recognised the impact the noise nuisance was having on them. He became involved in the case as he was responsible for responding to the stage one complaint and continued to work with the resident.
The neighbourhood team closed the complaint on at least four occasions without the situation being resolved. In the first instance it was closed in error. On three other occasions the neighbourhood team closed the case without a resolution. This was despite the ASB team requesting that the case remain open due to the sensitive nature of the complaint, the previous delays in resolving the issues, and the impact that it was having on the residents. This was not appropriate and identifies a lack of joint working between the housing teams and highlights a training need to ensure that all staff are working within the guidelines of the appropriate policies and procedures, and promoting good working practices.
A safeguarding referral to the mental health team should have been made as soon as the residents informed, or the landlord became aware that the ASB was having a negative impact on the residents’ wellbeing. This could have been identified as early as the risk assessment. There is no evidence of multi-agency working which forms part of the landlord’s ASB and vulnerable residents procedures.
This was recognised in the landlord’s stage one response, where it apologised for the delay in decision making, failing to complete a risk assessment and the lack of contact. It also recognised the impact of the ASB and its failings had on the resident and offered a total of £420 compensation, which comprised of £320 for the distress and inconvenience caused, and £100 for the delay with the stage one decision.
Whilst this would have been considered reasonable redress, the landlord failed to learn from its shortcomings. It was delayed in providing a response to the stage two decision, failed to complete a risk assessment throughout the complaint and continued to not keep the resident updated. This created further unnecessary distress and inconvenience to the resident and the landlord continued to fail to adhere to its complaints policy Therefore additional compensation has been awarded, as detailed below.
Overall, there was maladministration with regard to the landlord’s handling of the ASB.

The landlord’s handling of a transfer request

The resident requested a transfer on 9 February 2022 due to the impact that the ASB was having on their mental wellbeing. Medical letters were provided to support this. The application was confirmed on 29 March 2022, agreed on 9 June 2022, and qualified for a move on 3 August 2022.
Despite the application process for rehousing being temporarily suspended, the ASB manager took the application forward to the panel, which was approved due to the ASB complaint. The resident qualified for a move (direct let) on 3 August 2022.This was 6 months after the request for rehousing. Had the appropriate investigations been made at the start of the ASB reports, an application for rehousing could have been prepared and submitted earlier which would have bought forward the date for qualifying. This is important as the resident will be rehoused in relation to the date of qualifying and the landlord has said it takes approximately 48 months to be rehoused. This delay was a failure.
The ASB team also applied to the landlord’s internal High Harm Panel so that the resident could be considered for an ‘out of turn’ move. The application did not meet the threshold and was declined. The Panel made recommendations to support the vulnerable resident’s, in line with the vulnerable persons policy.
The landlord worked consistently with the resident to ensure that it had used every opportunity and resources it had available to assist the resident in seeking alternative housing options. However, overall there was service failure with regards the landlords handling of the request for a transfer due to the time delay in approving the priority move.

Complaint Handling

The timeline points to significant complaint handling delays. The stage one complaint was 86 days overdue. The stage two response was 104 working days overdue. The complaint was made on 1 November 2021 as the resident had not received a response to their reports and the ASB was ongoing.
The Ombudsman became involved with the complaint on 23 November 2021, following the lack of response from the landlord. The Ombudsman requested the landlord issue a decision within 10 working days. The stage one complaint was issued on 4 March 2022, 86 working days overdue. The landlord recognised its complaint handling failure and offered £100 compensation for this delay.
A CHFO was issued to the landlord on 18 March 2022. The Ombudsman had initially contacted the landlord on 3 November 2021, requesting a stage one response within 10 days. This was followed up on 26 January 2022 and again on 25 February 2022 requesting a response by 4 March 2022. Whilst the stage one response was dated 4 March 2022, it was not sent to the resident until 13 March 2022.
The CHFO was served as the landlord had failed to comply with the Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code and had not responded to the resident’s complaint within a reasonable timescale, resulting in unnecessary delay and inconvenience.
The Ombudsman ordered a stage two response by 28 March 2022 as part of the CHFO. The landlord made its decision on 25 August 2022, which was a delay of 104 working days. This was not compliant with the Ombudsman’s complaint handling code or the landlords complaint policy and amounts to maladministration.

Regard for the resident’s vulnerabilities

With the exception of the ASB team manager, there is particular concern with the lack of consideration given to the resident’s reports of their mental health vulnerabilities and the impact that the reported noise nuisance, harassment, intimidation and abuse was having on this. When the landlord is aware of the household vulnerabilities, it should consider its principles of “think, respond, record”. It did not show empathy to the resident’s or recognise that they were more vulnerable to noise nuisance.
Whilst the ASB team manager provided additional support and continuity, there was no cohesive approach across the other teams involved. Despite the neighbourhood team and the rehousing team playing an important role in this complaint, they both had to be reminded and encouraged by the ASB team to make contact with the resident by the ASB team manager.
The landlord in its capacity as a social landlord, has an important safeguarding duty towards vulnerable adults. Given that it had been made aware of the substantial impact the ASB was having on the resident, it is a significant failure of the landlord for not being responsive to the resident’s individual personal circumstances.
Neither the rehousing team nor the neighbourhood team acknowledged the concerns for the resident’s mental health. This approach was unsympathetic and unreasonable.
The landlord failed to consider the impact that living with the ASB would have on the resident and the additional risks associated with the resident’s vulnerabilities. It did not review the medical reports, or ask for professionals advice or updated opinion. When new supporting medical information was received it could have referred the residents back to the High Harm Panel to see if the residents qualified for an ‘out of turn’ offer of alternative accommodation. It did not review their support needs, which could have changed due to the long term impact of the ASB, nor has it reviewed what action could be taken as the complaints are still being reported. This is not appropriate.
Without the ASB officer’s actions, the finding on the handling of vulnerability would have been severe maladministration. Bearing this in mind the landlord’s consideration for the resident’s vulnerability and associated risks now constitutes maladministration.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was maladministration by the landlord in its response to the residents reports of ASB.
In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was a service failure by the landlord in its handling of the transfer request.
In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was maladministration by the landlord in its complaint handling.
In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was maladministration by the landlord in its consideration of the residents vulnerabilities.

Reasons

No risk assessment, action plan, or safeguarding referrals were completed, nor professionals meetings arranged. Despite medical letters being received the landlord failed to respond to these or make further enquires with the professionals involved. There was no evidence of multi-agency working.
The landlord failed to investigate the neighbour’s reported abusive behaviour, nor interview the residents about the allegations or respond to the diary sheets submitted.
Whilst the waiting time for rehousing is invariably longer than the desired timespan, this is not within the control of the landlord alone. The landlord agreed to accept the resident onto its rehousing list despite it being suspended at the time. The ASB team supported the resident by applying to the High Harm Panel in an attempt to obtain permission for rehousing out of turn. However there was a delay in processing the application.
The landlord failed to respond to the resident on many occasions or within its policy guidelines, issuing the stage one and stage two response late. It was served a complaint handling failure order due to the complaints process being stalled and the response unnecessarily delayed.

Orders

The landlord to provide a personal apology to the resident from a senior manager and to discuss her needs and how the landlord might response to those needs in the way they provide service and communicate with her.
Pay the resident a total of £1,650 compensation in recognition of the distress and inconvenience caused by its handling of the residents reports and complaints. The compensation comprises:
1. £600 (which includes the £320 previously offered) to address any distress and inconvenience the resident was caused by its failures with regards to the anti-social behaviour.
2. £250 (which includes the £100 previously offered).to address any distress and inconvenience the resident was caused by the above identified delays and failures in respect of the landlord’s complaint handling
3. £800 to address any distress and inconvenience the resident was caused by the landlord’s failure to consider the resident’s vulnerabilities throughout the complaint handling process.
The landlord should conduct a review of this case, giving consideration to reviewing its complaints policy and associated staff guidance to demonstrate learning from the outcome of this complaint. The review should be completed with reference to the Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code and must include:
1. Ensuring the complaints are escalated and dealt with in accordance with its policy and the Code.
2. Ensuring that when engaging with residents, staff understand the individual circumstances of each complaint and are empathetic, even when a service failure is not found.
3. Demonstrate how it will promote and retrain staff on its vulnerable residents and ASB policy to ensure joint working within internal and external teams, and that the ownership of the case is made clear.
4. Give consideration to identifying its failures and how they could have been prevented if the current procedures had been followed. If any gaps in the current policy and procedures are found, then to update them within two months to incorporate the learning.
5. Consider a triage methodology for identifying where a noise report should be handled under the ASB policy or good neighbourhood management policy. This should include a recognition that the time the noise occurred has a bearing on whether the noise is anti-social in nature. Landlords should provide training on this triage methodology, including regular refresher training and whenever there is a staff change, as recommended by the Ombudsman’s Spotlight report on Noise Complaints.
The landlord is to inspect the flooring and soundproofing in the neighbour’s flat above to establish if it meets the terms and conditions of the tenancy agreement. If it does not meet the criteria, action must be taken to replace the flooring with carpet, in order to eliminate the noise nuisance as much as possible.
The landlord should provide evidence of the above to this service within four weeks of this report.