Norwich City Council (201914385)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 201914385

Norwich City Council

26 November 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

1. This complaint is about:

   a. the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of noise nuisance;

   b. the landlord’s complaint handling.

Background and summary of events

Background

2. The resident is an assured tenant, and the tenancy began around August 2017. The property is a 2-bedroom flat in a tower block.
3. The landlord’s antisocial behaviour (ASB) policy confirms that noise nuisance may be considered ASB in some circumstances. It shows the landlord will contact a complainant within five days to acknowledge their complaint, and that regular updates will be provided on the steps being taken to resolve the issue. Further, it will explain what support it can offer and signpost to other agencies where appropriate.
4. It shows the landlord approaches ASB by assessing each report and responding appropriately. Logging information can be considered an appropriate response and collating case details is described as an essential part of the landlord’s approach. Cases are tracked using a case management system and victims are given a single point of contact.
5. The policy details the range of measures, both legal and non-legal, the landlord has available to respond to ASB. Non legal measures include “dear neighbour” cards, a noise monitoring app, mediation, and warning letters. Legal measures include injunctions or possession action. ASB cases can be closed in various circumstances including where: the problem has been resolved; a complaint cannot be substantiated, although cases can be reopened if new evidence is received; the nuisance is a clash of lifestyle and mediation has been refused.
6. The landlord’s relevant complaints procedure can be found online. It confirms, at stage one of its process, full responses should have been issued within 15 working days of a complaint being received. Further, if a full response was not provided within five working days, the complainant should receive an acknowledgement letter from the designated complaint handler. This process was mirrored at stage two of the procedure, which consisted of a full review by a member of the landlord’s senior leadership. Completing the complaints process allows a complainant to approach a relevant ombudsman service.

Summary of events

7. The resident first alerted the landlord to noise nuisance from the above flat on
   4 June 2018. He said the issue had been ongoing for around two weeks and he had attempted to resolve the problem by sending several “dear neighbour” cards in accordance with the landlord’s online advice. He described music playing at excessive volume during the day and at night, which was disturbing his sleep and preventing his children from enjoying family time during weekends.
8. The landlords ASB case notes show it discussed the situation with the resident on 25 June 2018 and agreed to visit his neighbour. They show it made two unsuccessful attempts to visit and eventually left a card confirming the call.
9. The landlord also wrote to the neighbour the same day. It said a complaint had been reported concerning loud music from their address. It asked them to control the noise and advised further investigation may take place if additional reports were received. Further, it offered a noise monitoring app that allowed users to record sound levels for evidence purposes. It was now monitoring reported incidents linked to the address and additional action would be taken if the allegation of noise based ASB was substantiated.
10. On 19 July 2018 the resident gave the landlord a record of multiple instances of noise nuisance that occurred between 5 June and 19 July 2018. It showed he had been regularly disturbed during the night by noise from a television, along with the sound of loud voices and banging. The records confirmed nuisance had occurred on both weekdays and at weekends.
11. Notes from 20 July 2018 show the landlord had spoken to the resident and, since the problem was ongoing, agreed to revisit the neighbour. They said he was unable to use the noise monitoring app, but no further information was recorded. 
12. The landlord wrote to the resident on 27 July 2018 to explain its approach. It said instances of nuisance should be recorded and log sheets were supplied. If, from the information provided, it was established a statutory nuisance had occurred then legal action would be taken against the perpetrator.
13. The landlord made several attempts to visit the neighbour on 31 July 2018 but there was no answer. Its notes show a further noise complaint notification letter was also sent but this service has not seen a copy.
14. On 27 August 2018 the resident told the landlord there was only one recent incident, so it agreed to contact him again later for an update. Its records show it spoke to the neighbour shortly afterwards and they denied the allegation.
15. The landlord contacted the resident on 19 September 2018. He confirmed there had been no further issues and it was agreed the case would be closed.
16. The landlord visited the neighbour on 20 September 2018 and a discussion around acceptable noise levels was held.
17. On 26 September 2018 the landlord issued the resident written confirmation that his ASB case had been closed.
18. On 31 December 2018 the resident notified the landlord he had again experienced noise nuisance from his neighbour. He enclosed a log of multiple incidents that occurred between 28 October and 30 December 2018. He asked the landlord to reopen his ASB case based on the information.
19. On 14 January 2019 the landlord wrote to the neighbour again. It said a complaint had been made against them in relation to loud music and television noise. The wording of the letter matched its previous correspondence from
    25 June 2018.
20. On 18 January 2019 the landlord issued the resident another letter explaining its ASB approach with log sheets enclosed. The completed sheets were returned on 7 February 2019. The case notes show the landlord made several unsuccessful attempts to contact the neighbour upon receiving the sheets.
21. The landlord’s internal correspondence shows the local Environmental Protection Team approved the installation of noise monitoring equipment on 6 March 2019 and the resident was added to a waiting list. A corresponding case note shows he was offered the equipment around this time but declined because the noise levels had decreased.
22. A note from 17 April 2019 shows the landlord contacted the resident because it hadn’t received any further log sheets. Since the monitoring equipment had also been declined it was looking to close his case. It said the resident confirmed the issue was ongoing at weekends but, when there was a problem, it lasted for hours at a time. However, since he was unsure what number to call, he had not attempted to request the monitoring equipment again. It said he agreed to send additional logs that evening, and the landlord advised it was uncertain if the monitoring equipment was still an option.
23. A new case was opened on 18 April 2019. The opening entry said the resident had declined noise monitoring equipment on his previous case because he was having work done at his property when the offer was made. Further, his previous case had been closed on 17 April 2019 since additional log sheets had not been received as expected.
24. A note from 23 April 2019 shows the resident gave the landlord additional log sheets containing his previous case reference. It said the landlord had spoken to Environmental Protection about the logs, but it could not authorise the use of noise monitoring equipment or enforcement action based on the information provided. Further notes show efforts to call the resident on 29 April, 2 May and 3 May 2019 were unsuccessful.
25. On 10 May 2019 the resident submitted a Subject Access Request to the landlord to enable him to view his case information.
26. On 28 May 2019 the landlord again notified the neighbour that a complaint had been raised. The content of the letter matched its previous correspondence.
27. On 3 June 2019 the landlord notified the resident, in writing, that Environmental Protection had reviewed his second ASB case and, since the period and frequency of incidents covered by the log sheets were insufficient, it was unable to approve the installation of noise monitoring equipment. However, it had informed the neighbour of his complaint in writing and supplied him with more log sheets.
28. On 25 June 2019 the landlord issued written notification the resident’s second ASB case had been closed, as no further incident logs had been provided. Its letter gave details of the landlord’s mediation service and how it could be accessed.
29. On 14 July 2019 the resident wrote a detailed letter which expressed his unhappiness with the landlord’s handling of his reports. The main points were:

a.     The ASB notes had failed to record key information which the landlord had acknowledged in its discussions with him.

b.     Some of its records were inaccurate as he was not unwilling to participate in mediation and he did have a smart phone, but the noise app would not download to his device.

c.      His requests for the landlord to attend the property whilst nuisance was occurring had been ignored.

d.     The ASB case should be reopened and resolved based on the evidence previously provided, but the landlord’s investigating member of staff should not be involved in the process.

e.     He was given the impression the landlord alone would review the request for noise monitoring equipment, and he had not been told he needed to call to arrange it.   

30. On 15 July 2019 the landlord told the resident his concerns would be treated as a formal complaint. The resident followed up the landlord’s progress on 23 July 2019 because he hadn’t received an update. He was contacted on 26 July 2019 by its complaint handler and given an estimated timescale of around one week to issue a full response.
31. On 14 August 2019 the resident told the landlord no response had been received and he wished to escalate his complaint. Its complaint handler replied they had been absent from work on personal grounds and other staff were unable to progress the case in their absence.
32. Because it had not responded, the resident contacted his local MP for assistance on 21 September 2019. This prompted the MP to write to the landlord at a senior level on 8 November 2020.
33. On 8 February 2020 the resident contacted this Service. He said no response had been received from the landlord, or his MP, and the issue of noise nuisance was ongoing. This service notified the landlord accordingly and was told the complaint had not yet completed its internal complaints process. However, a response would be issued in due course.
34. The landlord called the resident on 14 May 2020 to apologise and discuss his complaint. Afterwards, it sent him a written summary of the conversation. They said he would need to explain gaps in his log sheets, but an ASB case could be started once the sheets were complete. Enforcement actions were detailed along with the requirement for such actions to be based on sufficient evidence. The resident was signposted to the noise app and advised his complaint had been closed.
35. On 17 May 2020 the resident raised another formal complaint about the landlord’s handling of his reports. The main points were:

a.     It was unacceptable that little progress had been made since 2018 and clarification was needed as to how the matter would be resolved.

b.     Additional log sheets should not be required given multiple sheets had already been provided.

c.      The resident had first complained on 14 July 2019 and, contrary to its complaints policy, the landlord had closed the complaint.

d.     His complaint had been reassigned to the member of staff who had failed to resolve the matter.

36. On 20 May 2020 the landlord issued its stage one complaint response. The main points were:

a.     Two ASB cases had been raised and closed since the resident first reported noise nuisance, so the landlord had engaged with the resident and his complaint.

b.     Current evidence would be needed for the landlord to take action, but previous logs would also be used.

c.      Further log sheets had been posted to the resident, but evidence could also be submitted through the noise monitoring app.

d.     The resident had agreed to close the complaint during a previous phone call.

e.     A delay in responding to the resident was acknowledged.

f.        The investigating member of staff had responded to his formal complaint because other staff were unavailable, and a response was required.

37. On 24 May 2020 the resident notified the landlord that he wanted his complaint to be considered by a party independent of his ASB case. This prompted it to escalate his complaint to the second stage of its process.
38. Seven months later, on 10 December 2020 the landlord issued its stage two response. The main points were:

a.     It was sorry a stage one response had been issued by a member of staff associated with the resident’s complaint.

b.     There was a “significant delay” in its previous response.

c.      Certain criteria needed to be met before it could take action against the alleged perpetrator and more evidence was needed.

d.     It was prepared to re-offer noise monitoring equipment given the resident’s problems accessing an equivalent mobile app and further log sheets could be provided.

e.     It could offer support in building the required evidence.

f.        The resident could contact the Local Government Ombudsman if he was dissatisfied with the outcome of his complaint.

39. In further correspondence with the landlord on 28 December 2020, the resident confirmed, due to the pandemic, he had not occupied the property on a full-time basis since March 2020. His complaint therefore only included the landlord’s response to his reports of noise nuisance until this point.

Assessment and findings

40. It is recognised that the situation has been distressing for the resident and has impacted his family life. It is also acknowledged the situation has been ongoing for a considerable length of time.

The landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of noise nuisance

41. The Ombudsman is unable to determine whether the noise the resident is experiencing is excessive. Further, we cannot establish whether a party is responsible for ASB or tell a landlord to take action against neighbours. However, we can assess whether the landlord has followed proper procedure, followed good practice, and behaved reasonably, taking account of all the circumstances of the case.
42. Case law has shown that a landlord cannot be held accountable for noise nuisance that is non-deliberate, for example noise caused by poor sound insulation, because no nuisance arises due to the normal and ordinary use of premises and the landlord is not able to authorise it expressly.
43. It is the responsibility of the relevant council’s Environmental Health department to investigate noise which could constitute a statutory nuisance. It can also determine whether the level of noise meets this definition. The landlord is the resident’s local council and its ASB notes show his case was referred to Environmental Health on two occasions. The information seen shows it followed the advice given by Environmental Health and it notified him accordingly that more evidence would be needed to pursue the matter. It is unlikely the landlord, or Environmental Health, will be able to adopt any firm measures against the neighbour without the existence of a statutory nuisance being established.
44. Overall, the evidence shows the landlord engaged appropriately with the resident’s reports by corresponding with both parties in the dispute and detailing the relevant next steps. For example, the resident was signposted to the noise app at an early stage, and he was offered mediation. The landlord notified the neighbour of complaints against them on several occasions, and its letters set out the possible consequences should the allegations ultimately be substantiated. It also attempted to visit the neighbour a number of times to discuss the situation and, ultimately, a conversation was successfully held. Since the landlord is obliged to consider proportionality in its responses, the above represents appropriate action taken in line with its ASB policy.
45. The evidence also confirms the resident’s ASB cases were eventually closed when the reports of noise nuisance could not be sufficiently substantiated. Again, this represents appropriate action taken in line with the landlord’s ASB policy. However, this assessment found service failure on the basis there was, contrary to the timescale set out in the policy, a delay of around ten working days before it responded to the resident’s initial report of noise nuisance. This was unreasonable given the circumstances of the case.

The landlord’s complaint handling

46. In respect of the landlord’s complaint handling, its relevant policy shows either a full response or an acknowledgement letter should be issued within five working days of a complaint being received. However, it took eight working days, between 14 and 26 July 2019, for the landlord’s designated handler to acknowledge the resident’s complaint. This was contrary to its policy and, since the resident was aware of this timescale, caused him to query whether his case was being progressed appropriately. This represents service failure on the part of the landlord, and it should not have been necessary for the resident to follow up his complaint at this point.
47. It also took the intervention of both this Service and his MP before the resident eventually received a response to his initial complaint. Although the landlord’s correspondence of 14 May 2020, around ten months later, recognised that it had failed to respond, it only offered an apology to redress its error. This was insufficient given both the circumstances of the complaint and the length of the delay. Further, the resident was not given the option to escalate the complaint in line with the landlord’s policy and the complaint was closed inappropriately. The above represents service failure on the part of the landlord.
48. The above timeline confirms there was a further delay, between 24 May and 10 December 2020, of around six months following the resident’s request to escalate his complaint. However, this was not acknowledged by the landlord’s stage two response, which again failed to offer proportionate redress, in the form of compensation, for the delay mentioned above. This was inappropriate and represents service failure on the part of the landlord.
49. It is recognised that the resident received a stage one response from an individual involved in his complaint, and this caused him to question the fairness of the landlord’s process. It is also acknowledged the landlord could have demonstrated best practice by ensuring another member of staff reviewed his complaint at this stage. However, it is noted the landlord has consistently indicated issues with staff resources and its complaints policy does not address this matter. Since his concerns were ultimately reviewed, independent of the parties involved, by the landlord’s senior leadership at stage two, this assessment finds the landlord’s overall complaints process was fair to the resident.
50. It is noted the landlord’s stage two response referred the resident to the Local Government Ombudsman in the event he was dissatisfied. This Service is responsible for investigating complaints about social housing providers acting in their capacity as landlords. We are therefore responsible for investigating complaints about their handling of reported ASB, so the information provided is unlikely to have helped the resident given the content of his complaint. However, he was already in contact with our Service at the point of referral and no evidence has been seen to show the resident was prompted to contact the wrong ombudsman

Determination (decision)

51. In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was service failure in respect of the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of noise nuisance.
52. In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was service failure in respect of the landlord’s complaint handling.

Reasons

53. The landlord failed to contact the resident within the timescale set out in its ASB policy.
54. The landlord failed to progress the resident’s complaint, in line with its complaints policy, on several occasions. There was an unreasonable delay of ten months in responding to the initial complaint and it was closed inappropriately.
55. There was a delay of around six months when the resident’s second complaint was escalated. Although he was offered an apology for the delays, this was disproportionate redress given what happened and compensation should have been awarded to acknowledge the landlord’s failures.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

56. The Ombudsman orders the landlord to pay the resident a total of £250 compensation within four weeks comprising:

a.     £50 for the delayed response to the resident’s initial report of ASB

b.     £50 for the delay in responding to the resident’s initial complaint

c.      £50 for inappropriately closing the resident’s initial complaint

d.     £50 for the delay in issuing a stage two response

e.     £50 for failing to offer appropriate redress on concluding the complaints process

Recommendations

57. The landlord to ensure its final response letters include standard paragraphs containing referral details for the Housing Ombudsman Service and the Local Government Ombudsman along with a brief explanation of both services.
58. The landlord should provide evidence of compliance with the above order and its intentions regarding the recommendations to this service within four weeks of the date of this report.