Moat Homes Limited (202118354)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202118354

Moat Homes Limited

13 November 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 handling of:
1. The resident’s reports of abandoned cars in the communal car park.
2. The resident’s reports of antisocial behaviour (ASB) from his upstairs neighbour.
This Service has decided to consider the landlord’s complaint handling.

Background

The resident holds an assured tenancy with the landlord. He lives in a 1 bedroom ground floor flat.
The resident began reporting ASB shortly after his neighbour moved into the flat above. Records show that reports were made to the landlord about noise nuisance and drug use from 2017.
On 2 September 2021, the resident contacted the landlord to report 4 abandoned vehicles in the car park where the number plates had been removed to prevent getting tickets.
On 11 September 2021, the resident raised a formal complaint with the landlord outlining he was dissatisfied with the landlord’s handling of ASB. The ASB extended to drug use and noise nuisance including loud music, heavy objects making a banging noise on his ceiling late at night, a dog running around, and a vibrating noise coming through the ceiling.
The landlord issued a stage 1 complaint response on 23 November 2021. It said:
1. It acknowledged that nuisance from the neighbour had been ongoing for some time and that the neighbourhood service manager had not kept the resident informed of what actions it was taking.
2. The ASB had been actively managed for several months. The landlord communicated with the police about the reported drug use, and they were intending to visit the block that week.
3. The landlord would carry out further investigations and keep the complaint open until these were completed.
The landlord issued the resident’s neighbour with a warning letter on 17 January 2022 relating to alleged noise nuisance and drug use.
On 14 March 2022, the resident requested escalation of his complaint. He said he was disappointed with the landlord’s handling of the ASB, and its communication with him. He advised the last update he received was on 18 January 2022.
The landlord issued a further complaint response on 22 March 2022. It said:
1. The landlord expects neighbours to be considerate, but the level of sound created by household appliances was considered everyday living noise rather than ASB.
2. The resident suspected noise due to animals within the neighbour’s property. The landlord confirmed the neighbour had 2 cats.
3. The landlord referred the untaxed vehicles to the council for them to be removed.
4. The reported cannabis use had been reported to the police. On 2 occasions the police had visited, there was no evidence of drug use.
5. It was not possible for the landlord to take enforcement action based on what was considered everyday living noise. It offered mediation.
The landlord issued a stage 2 final complaint response on 22 April 2022. It said:
1. The resident was not sent a formal stage 1 complaint response confirming what stage of the complaints process his complaint had been responded at, or details of how he could escalate. It offered £50 for this failing.
2. It noted there had been little improvement in the landlord’s communication with the resident since its previous response.
3. There were delays for the landlord to respond to the resident’s request for the abandoned vehicles to be removed.
4. During review of the case, it decided when a new head of service was in post, the landlord would complete an independent review to assess if any available action had not been taken. This would be completed as soon as possible.
The resident referred the complaint to this Service on 3 May 2022. He advised he remains dissatisfied as the noise nuisance and drug use is still ongoing. As a resolution, he would like the neighbour to be evicted.

Jurisdiction

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of abandoned cars in the communal car park

Paragraph 42(n) of The Housing Ombudsman Scheme states that, “the Ombudsman will not investigate complaints which in the Ombudsman’s opinion concern matters which do not cause significant adverse effect to the complainant”.
Paragraph 42(g) of The Housing Ombudsman Scheme states that, “the Ombudsman will not investigate complaints which in the Ombudsman’s opinion concern the terms and operation of commercial or contractual relationships not connected with the complainant’s application for, or occupation of, a property for residential purposes”.
The landlord informed this Service that there is a communal car park for the resident’s block of flats where parking operates on a first come first serve basis. Permits are issued to residents and parking is not included as part of the resident’s tenancy agreement.
The resident reported 4 abandoned cars belonging to his neighbour in the car park, and said each tenant is supposed to use 1 space. Although the abandoned vehicles are likely to cause the resident frustration, the complaint does not relate to an issue which adversely affected the resident’s occupation or use of their home. This is because the abandoned cars are not located on the resident’s property or blocking entry to his property.
Therefore, the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of abandoned cars in the communal car park falls outside of this Service’s jurisdiction in accordance with paragraph 42(n) and (g) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme.

Assessment and findings

Scope of the investigation

This Service has been provided with correspondence relating to reports of historical incidents of ASB from the resident’s neighbours dating from 2017 to June 2022. However, under the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, we may not consider complaints that were not brought to the landlord’s attention as a formal complaint within a reasonable period of normally within 6 months of the matters arising. As the resident made a formal complaint on 11 September 2021, the investigation will not consider the events that occurred from 2017 to March 2021 because these did not occur within 6 months of the complaint. However, this assessment will focus on the landlord’s actions in response to the resident’s reports from April 2021 up to the landlord’s final response in April 2022.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of ASB from his upstairs neighbour.

It is important to note that it is not the purpose of this report to investigate any of the alleged ASB itself, to apportion blame, or to assess the credibility of the reports made by the resident. The Ombudsman’s role is to consider whether the landlord responded appropriately to the resident’s reports by adhering to its policies, procedures, and any agreements with the resident, and that the landlord behaved reasonably, taking account of what is fair in all the circumstances of the case. In this case, the relevant landlord policies are its ASB policy, compensation policy and complaints policy.
The landlord’s ASB policy says that upon receiving an ASB report, customer service advisers will log and categorise the ASB. Neighbourhood service managers carry out investigation and case management of ASB cases. The reporting resident will be assigned a point of contact and regular contact will be maintained to provide updates on the progress of their case.
The policy outlines that in some situations, it will not always be the organisation with the responsibilities or powers to deal with the allegation(s) made. In these circumstances, the landlord adopts a partnership approach and works proactively, sharing information with other organisations such as the police and local authority.
The ASB policy lists informal actions which the landlord can use to tackle ASB including interviews, verbal and written warnings, mediation, use of acceptable behaviour agreements, and use of good neighbour agreements.
The resident contacted the landlord on 2 September 2021 reporting noise nuisance and the neighbour smoking cannabis in the building. He felt the neighbour had breached his tenancy and said the matters had been ongoing for 4-5 years. As per the landlord’s ASB policy, the reports of loud music and persistent banging noises late at night satisfied the criteria of ASB. It was therefore appropriate for the customer service adviser who took the call to log the matter and pass the ASB details to the neighbourhood service manager who was handling the ASB case.
In response to the reported ASB, the landlord sent the resident 2 standard ASB letters containing advice on 20 October 2021 and 29 October 2021. The first letter related to drug use, and the second contained information on noise nuisance. This Service would expect the landlord to contact the resident shortly after the initial report to outline what actions it would take and set the resident’s expectations. However, no contact was made to the resident relating to his reports in September 2021. Although generic letters were sent by the ASB team, these were not specific to the resident’s case. Further, the letters were sent 8 weeks after the resident’s initial reports. The landlord fell short in its delay and lack of action in response to the reports at an early stage.
The landlord explained within its general noise letter that environmental health (EH) was the appropriate organisation to investigate statutory noise nuisance. It therefore advised the resident to contact EH and provide them with diary sheets. However, the landlord failed to adhere to its ASB policy by not adopting a partnership approach with EH. The resident provided the landlord with contact details for a point of contact at EH who he had corresponded with about the noise nuisance, and records show that the landlord did not liaise with or contact EH in relation to the resident’s noise reports at any point. It did not fulfil its obligation to investigate the noise reports by failing to communicate with EH.
Records show that the landlord took no further actions to investigate the reported noise nuisance. The landlord advised this Service it completed some unscheduled visits to the block to investigate the noise nuisance but was unable to substantiate claims of the noise. However, it did not retain records to confirm these visits. This Service’s Spotlight report on noise (available at: Spotlight on: Noise Complaints -October 2022 (housing-ombudsman.org.uk)) says, “if information is absent, this disenfranchises future case handlers from knowing the full history and creates the potential for contradictory handling and mismanaged expectations”. It was insufficient that the landlord did not retain clear records. Without this information, the Ombudsman is unable to confirm any details about the reported visits.
The landlord said in its stage 1 response that it would investigate installing noise monitoring equipment at the resident’s property if this was an option the resident was happy with. However, no action was taken by the landlord to pursue this. This would have caused the resident to lose confidence in the landlord.
The landlord’s overall lack of action was worsened by the absence of a clear action plan and the landlord’s failure to provide updates. This Service can see that the resident chased up answers from the landlord regarding how it proposed to resolve the matter, particularly from December 2021.
It was inappropriate for the landlord to say to the resident on 13 April 2022 that, “as previously explained the majority of your complaints are not actionable under the terms and conditions of tenancy and are deemed normal everyday living noise”. The landlord reached a conclusion about the resident’s noise reports without investigating them. Consequently, the conclusion and inaction cannot be seen as evidence-based or fair.
It is noted that the resident’s noise reports included some household noises. The reports included a vibrating noise coming from the above neighbour’s washing machine being used in the early hours of the morning and reports of a dog running across the above neighbour’s floor. The Ombudsman’s Spotlight report on noise states that landlords can take simple steps such as putting down anti vibration mats in the space for the washing machine before new tenancies start.
In response to the reports, the landlord asked the neighbour not to use his washing machine after 9pm and issued a warning letter. It also spoke to the resident’s neighbour on occasions to ask if they had a dog, which was denied. However, frequent noise reports at antisocial hours continued after this, and the resident continued reporting a dog living in the flat above. The landlord concluded in it stage 2 response that the level of sound created by household appliances were considered everyday living noises. The landlord added that the neighbour had 2 cats which it had no objection to. As the resident persists that a dog lives in the above flat which continues to cause noise nuisance to him, the landlord should complete further investigations into this.
This Service would expect the landlord to have investigated whether the ongoing use of a washing machine and the other noises reported at unsociable hours could constitute ASB. This was not considered in this case. This Service’s Spotlight report on noise outlines that this Service considers there needs to be 2 distinct policies – one for good neighbourhood management and one for issues that meet the ASB threshold. It continues that, “this provides clarity to the resident early in the process about what possible outcomes of their report are and allows for issues to be dealt with within the existing strategies for promoting good neighbourhood relations”. This has formed a recommendation for this report.
When responding to the resident’s reports of drug use from the neighbour, the landlord adhered to its ASB policy by completing enquiries to the police. It requested for the police to include the block of flats as part of its regular patrols, and evidenced partnership working by arranging to complete a joint visit to the neighbour’s property on 1 December 2021. The action taken to investigate the reports was appropriate.
The landlord issued the resident’s neighbour with a warning letter mentioning the reported drug use and held a meeting with the neighbour on 14 December 2021 where all the ASB allegations were denied. Given the landlord did not have any evidence of the reported drug use from the neighbour, and the police were unable to confirm this, the response was proportionate.
There was a history of long-standing ASB reports of noise nuisance and drug use from the resident dating from 2017. In cases like this, this Service would expect a landlord to use their full complement of ASB tools in an attempt to resolve the reported ASB. Although it is noted the landlord offered mediation which was refused by the resident, the landlord did not use all options available to it. The landlord’s ASB policy outlines it can use good neighbour agreements and acceptable behaviour agreements which may have been appropriate in this case. The landlord is therefore advised to review its options in an attempt to tackle the ASB cycle.
The landlord’s communication with the resident was poor throughout its handling of the ASB case. For each report of ASB from the resident, customer service advisors forwarded the details onto the neighbourhood service manager who was handling the case. However, updates were not provided to the resident as per its commitment under the ASB policy. For example, when the landlord spoke to the neighbour and issued a warning letter, the resident was not informed. Subsequently, he incurred time and trouble chasing for updates, and was left unclear on what actions the landlord was taking to resolve his complaints. The resident said he felt his complaint was being deflected or ignored due to the lack of engagement from the landlord.
The landlord acknowledged in its stage 1 complaint response that it failed to update the resident on what steps it had taken in response to the ASB reports. However, following this, the communication did not improve. At stage 2, the landlord identified that there had been limited improvement in its communication. It referenced a lack of responses to reports which the resident made. As the landlord identified failings in its communication over a prolonged period, it should have used the opportunity in its complaints process to put things right for the resident. The landlord’s compensation policy outlines instances where compensation may be considered including where a resident is affected by the landlord’s actions, or lack of actions. By failing to offer the resident any form of redress, it did not adhere to its compensation policy, or make any attempt to put things right.
Overall, when dealing with the ASB reports, the landlord failed to adhere to its ASB policy or follow an action plan. It did not complete sufficient investigations into the resident’s reports of noise or take sufficient action to resolve the matter. Additionally, the landlord did not effectively communicate with the resident. This was exacerbated by the landlord not offering any redress to put things right despite identifying failings in its communication. Although the landlord responded appropriately at times when responding to reports of the neighbour’s drug use, the failures identified in response to the landlord’s handling of the ASB amount to maladministration.

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

The landlord’s complaints policy outlines it utilises a 2 stage process. A stage 1 complaint will be responded to within 10 working days, and stage 2 within 20 working days.
The landlord issued a stage 1 complaint response on 23 November 2021, and appeared to issue a further stage 1 response on 22 March 2022. Neither complaint responses provided the resident with escalation rights to the next stage of the process which would have caused confusion to the resident. Further, it was not in line with the landlord’s complaints process to issue 2 stage 1 responses.
Within the landlord’s complaint responses, it said that its communication with the resident had been poor. Having identified its failings, nothing changed, and no action was taken to put things right. The landlord failed to evidence learning from the identified failing within its complaint response.
A stage 2 final complaint response was issued to the resident on 22 April 2022. Within this final response, the landlord said that when the new head of neighbourhood was in post, it would ask someone to independently review the case to assess if there was any available action which the landlord had not taken in response to the ASB. This suggested that there may be an additional stage to the landlord’s complaints process which is not in line with the landlord’s complaints policy. The landlord undermined its complaint response by suggesting it might need to be reviewed again which could be seen to affect the fairness and consistency of the landlord’s decision making.
In light of the above, there was maladministration in relation to the landlord’s handling of the resident’s formal complaint. Although the landlord offered the resident £50 for its failing to include escalation rights in its stage 1 response, this compensation does not go far enough to account for the full extent of the failures identified above.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in relation to the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of ASB from his upstairs neighbour.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in relation to the landlord’s handling of the resident’s formal complaint.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

The landlord is ordered to apologise to the resident for the failings identified in this report.
The landlord is ordered to pay the resident a total of £850 compensation comprised of:
1. £400 for the detriment caused to the resident by the landlord’s failure to apply its ASB policy, sufficiently investigate, and take action in response to the resident’s reports of noise nuisance.
2. £250 for the landlord’s poor communication with the resident and to account for the time and trouble incurred by the resident chasing the landlord for updates.
3. £200 for the landlord’s failure to adhere to its complaints policy when handling the resident’s complaint. This amount is inclusive of the £50 already offered by the landlord.
The landlord is ordered to complete a review of its handling of the resident’s noise reports. Following this, the landlord must endeavour to meet with the resident to agree an action plan for responding to the ongoing reports of noise nuisance. The landlord should act accordingly thereafter.
The landlord is ordered to review its communication failings identified in this report to determine what action will be taken to prevent a recurrence of these. The landlord should confirm to the Ombudsman the outcome of this.
Evidence of compliance with the above orders should be shared with the Housing Ombudsman within 4 weeks from the date of this report.

Recommendations

The landlord is recommended to review this Service’s Spotlight report on noise complaints with the view of implementing a proactive good neighbourhood management policy, distinct to the ASB policy, with a clear suite of options for maintaining good neighbourhood relationships and a matrix for assessing which option is the most appropriate.
The landlord is recommended to consider the service level agreements in place with different bodies and their effectiveness, and whether the roles and responsibilities are clear.