Notting Hill Genesis (NHG) (202122217)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202122217

Notting Hill Genesis

11 September 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. Response to the resident’s reports of waste in the communal area.
3. Handling of the complaint.
4. Record keeping.

Background and summary of events

Background

The resident was an assured tenant of the landlord and lived at the property with her partner who was a household member. The property is a 1 bedroom first floor flat with a garden. There is a shared communal entrance to the building. The resident has lived at the property since January 2011. The resident moved from the property in February 2023, and is no longer a tenant of the landlord.
Between April 2020 and May 2022, both residents have told the landlord that they have been experiencing mental health issues resulting from the impact of the ASB. The landlord said that neither residents reported vulnerabilities prior to this. The landlord recorded on 20 April 2020 that the resident had a disability but provided no details. .
The tenancy agreement says that the landlord agrees to take reasonable care to keep the common entrance, halls, stairways, passageways in reasonable repairs and fit for use by the residents and visitors to the premises.

Policies and procedures

The landlord provided this Service with 2 ASB policies. One policy was in effect until 7 January 2021, the new policy took effect on 8 January 2021.
1. Both policies said that the landlord will:
  1. Contact the resident within one working day to discuss the report and offer a visit within five working days. The landlord will determine the seriousness of the ASB by considering the frequency of incidents and the impact.
  2. Develop a realistic action plan with the resident with clear timescale for actions.
  3. Adopt the same approach to each case: early intervention, tenancy support and enforcement action when suitable.
  4. Work in partnership with external agencies such as the police, local authority and social services.
  5. Co-operate and promote the community trigger process.
2. The policy in effect prior to 8 January 2021, had some added points. It said that:
  1. Each ASB case actions and outcomes are to be recorded on the housing management system.
  1. Following an ASB report, the landlord will contact the resident within one working day to understand what happened, the risks, the resident’s vulnerability and whether a crime has been committed.
  2. The landlord will complete the ASB risk assessment when the resident is vulnerable, the incidents are happening daily, the resident is targeted or the incidents have a negative impact on the resident. The landlord will categorise the ASB following the initial risk assessment
  3. If the incident is not considered as ASB, the landlord will provide assistance to the resident under its resolving neighbour dispute guidance.
  4. The landlord will agree a frequency of contact within the action plan.
  5. The landlord will support residents reporting ASB incidents.
The landlord has a domestic noise and neighbour disputes policy. On receipt of such complaints, the landlord will encourage and assistant the parties to discuss the issue at the earliest stage to find a resolution. In the event of an escalation, the landlord will manage the case under the ASB policy.
The landlord has a transfer policy which provide guidelines to assess and process transfers, management transfers, like for like transfers and direct offers.
1. Once a transfer is requested, the landlord will provide relevant information for the resident to complete an application form. The landlord will assess the application and the resident will be placed in a band. Once an application has been approved, the resident can bid for property advertised.
2. The landlord will consider a management transfer when the household is considered at risk.
3. like for like transfers is where a direct offer of a same size property is made to a resident. The landlord will consider a like for like transfer with exceptional cases of ASB or neighbour disputes. It will identify a property and make a reasonable offer to the resident. The landlord will generally only make one direct offer to the resident but has the flexibility to make a second reasonable offer if authorised.
4. A direct offer will be considered for residents allocated on a band A or for a like for like transfer. A resident who receives a direct offer may not have their rent type protected.
The Landlord has an estate management procedure which says that:
1. It will aim to provide a consistent service across all its estates/schemes by ensuring that individual contract specifications include cleaning and removal of rubbish.
2. Inappropriate disposal of waste is considered as ASB and it will be managed under the ASB policy.
3. It is responsible for ensuring there are no health and safety risks to residents and visitors to its estates or schemes. Health and safety risks may include spills, lack of cleanliness, blocking of access routes and bulk refuse.
The landlord’s complaint policy has two stages. At stage one, the landlord will acknowledge the complaint within two working days and respond within 10 days. If the resident remains unsatisfied, the resident can request a review and escalate the complaint to stage two. The landlord will respond to the stage two complaint within 20 working days.
The landlord has a compensation and goodwill gesture policy. It says that:
1. A discretionary goodwill gesture of up to £50 will be made to acknowledge a service failure, to put things right and restore good relations.
2. A discretionary payment of up to £250 will be made where the resident experienced distress and inconvenience following a service failure. It will consider a higher level of compensation where there have been multiple failures, or the resident has experienced exceptional hardship.
3. The level of compensation is determined by the nature of the failure and the level of impact on the resident. The compensation award guide says it will pay up to £50 for low impact, up to £125 for medium impact and up to £250 for high impact.

Summary of events

The landlord said that the first report of a noise nuisance recorded on its system was on 7 May 2021. The landlord then said that it also saved emails regarding noise nuisance on its systems from May 2020.The resident said she reported noise nuisance to her landlord regularly since 2020. Records show that the resident first made contact with the landlord on 17 March 2020. Over a period of 26 months, until 18 May 2022, she regularly reported to the landlord what she had witnessed. The evidence showed that she sent approximately 50 emails to the landlord in which she raised issues with ASB on 34 occasions and reported:
1. Cannabis use and smell of cannabis coming into her bedroom.
2. Drug dealing.
3. Noise nuisance, in particular loud music, shouting, screaming, arguing, door slamming, banging.
4. Loud visitors back and fore, including during COVID19 restrictions.
5. Parties at her neighbour’s property.
6. Threats against herself and her partner.
7. That the issues happened during the day and during the night.
8. Rubbish left in the communal area and entrance of the block.
In March 2020 the resident emailed the landlord to update them on the ASB. She advised she had shared incident logs with them, contacted the police and the environmental health team (EH) several times. The landlord said she should continue to record and report the incidents but the evidence was not enough to prompt “tenancy actions”. The Landlord agreed to write to the neighbour about the ASB.
In an email to the landlord on 16 April 2020, the resident described how the ASB was impacting her. She said that:
1. The ASB has disrupted her sleep, rest and peace. She was unable to sleep due to the noise nuisance and she was tired. On some nights she had tried to sleep in the living room to get away from the noise and try and get some sleep.
2. Both, herself and her partner suffered from asthma and the smoke from the cannabis coming into her flat was disruptive and concerning for their health.
3. She was feeling anxious about ‘what will happen next’.
4. She reported the ASB to the police and EH. She contacted the police about the cannabis and the EH about the noise.
5. She said that she tried to use noise cancelling earphones, a fan and a white noise machine to reduce the impact of the ASB. She said it did not help.
The landlord carried out an interview with the resident and devised an action plan with the resident on 20 April 2020. It noted that the resident was disabled and was affected by loud music and noise nuisance at all hours. It offered the resident mediation which she declined. As part of the action plan:
1. The landlord agreed to:
  1. To monitor the situation.
  2. To request diary sheets from the resident.
  3. To liaise with the police and the local noise team.
  4. To follow up on escalations and contacts the resident made.
2. The resident agreed to:
  1. To keep diaries of incidents.
The landlord emailed the resident on 18 May 2020, for an update. The resident said that the same issues remained and that she had recorded the incidents on the logs.
On 22 May 2020, the landlord confirmed in an email to the resident that it had visited and discussed the issue of ASB with her neighbour. The neighbour told the landlord they felt that the door banging was normal general household noise.
The resident contacted the landlord via email on 24 June 2020, and asked for a copy of the landlord’s ASB policy and procedures. The resident also attached photos and videos of the alleged ASB. Two months later the landlord responded to the resident.
Between September 2020 and April 2022, the resident emailed the landlord 11 times to report that rubbish was left in the communal areas. She also sent photos of the disposed waste as evidence.
On 29 September 2020, the resident emailed 2 letters from her general practitioner (GP) in support of her application for a transfer. The letters referred to the impact the ASB had both on the resident and her partner, it said that:
1. The resident had a complex hormone condition affecting her muscles and skin, which was exacerbated by the ASB. She had required emergency hospital treatment for her condition.
2. The GP described her partner presenting as anxious, frustrated, tearful. He was prescribed medication to help managing his symptoms.
The resident described in a transfer application on 30 September 2020, the impact ASB had on her and her partner. The ASB was on going and causing significant distress, she said:
1. ‘We are constantly disturbed by her, her actions and her company’.
2. ‘We battle with her daily dumping of rubbish in the doorway and stairwell’.
3. ‘The stench of cannabis seeping through our floorboards’.
4. ‘Loud enough to wake us up throughout the night’.
5. ‘An environment has been created here that has induced so much stress’.
6. ‘To have a home that doesn’t feel like a home is utterly devastating’.
7. ‘Try to stay away from home when we can, sleep with headphones in, walk around the house with noise cancelling headphones’.
The resident chased the landlord twice for an update in January 2021. She said the issue was ongoing and she and her partner were “tired, stressed and depressed to continuously have to deal with the bother, disrespect and terror of the situation, we cannot take it anymore”. She told the landlord: ‘every single day the crying, the nervousness, the constant noise, trying to comfort each other and tell each other that we will get through this. That we are strong enough. It’s hell.’
The landlord carried out a risk assessment on 31 March 2021 and concluded that the risk to the resident was high. The assessment form used provided guidance on actions the landlord could take based on the level of risk.
On 1 June 2021, the resident shared 4 ASB logs with the landlord. The logs recorded incidents ranging from cannabis smells, door slamming, screaming, loud voices, visitors in and out, loud noise, singing and loud music. The records showed that the incidents were often a combination of all types of ASB and occurred both during daytime and nighttime. It also showed that on some days there were more than one incident. The incidents varied in length of time, from anything between a few minutes to several hours. The resident recorded that she reported the incidents to the police and EH, on several occasions. The logs showed that:
1. Between 25 February 2020 and 16 March 2020, the resident recorded nuisance on 11 days out of 20 days.
2. Between 17 March 2020 and 19 April 2020, the resident recorded nuisance on 30 days out of 34 days. The resident said that her neighbour was away for 2 days, and that during her absence, the smell of cannabis stopped.
3. Between 15 January 2021 and 31 May 2021, the resident recorded incidents on 43 days out of 137 Days. The resident clarified that these records were made over 112 days, indicating that there was no record kept for 25 days during that period. She said that the reason for a 14-day gap was because she “lost hope and motivation” following a telephone conversation with the landlord on 6 May 2021. Additionally, the resident pointed out that either she or her neighbour were away for 11 more days during this period, further contributing to the gaps in the recorded incidents.
On 5 July 2021, the resident emailed the landlord and asked for an update on her request for a transfer. The landlord responded that her application was being assessed. It emailed the resident on 19 July 2021 and apologised for the delays in assessing her transfer request. The landlord explained that because of an emergency in another part of the business, it experienced delays in processing her application.
The resident contacted the landlord on 5 August 2021. She reported further incidents of ASB and of rubbish in the communal areas. The landlord told the resident on 13 August 2021 that:
1. It arranged for a contractor to visit the following week to provide a quote for the cleaning up of the communal area.
2. It also provided the resident with an update on her transfer application, it said that following assessment of her health, it could not apply medical priority to her case for a transfer. It then said that was exploring other avenues to help the resident to move.
The resident reported rubbish by the communal entrance on 20 August 2021, she sent photo evidence to the landlord 3 days later. She then shared with the landlord that since it had written to their neighbour, the door slamming had intensified. The resident said that it felt deliberate and in retaliation for reporting her neighbour. The resident reported being exhausted as the result of the disturbance. In response the landlord advised the resident that:
1. It was in the process of organising a clean-up of the communal area. It ordered new bins and once the new bins were in place, it would be able to take action against residents for leaving rubbish in the communal area.
2. It would be difficult to take action against slamming of doors as those were considered normal living noises. The resident disputed that in her case, the door slamming was not an everyday noise as ‘it shook the ground’. She also said that she could not say with certainty that it was intentional.
3. She was to continue reporting any noise nuisance. It said that it referred the case to its ASB team.
4. It would not consider changing the resident’s banding to move unless she was in immediate danger or had a ‘dire’ medical need.
On 4 September 2021, the landlord made the following comments on the resident approval form for a transfer, it said that:
1. The resident experienced ASB with a previous tenant who had since been evicted.
2. The resident’s neighbour had a tendency to have friends over and played music at a level that would not be a noise nuisance but could be annoying.
3. The neighbour had never received a formal action from environmental health or the police.
4. The resident and her partner were complaining about noise disturbance which were either household noise or relatively low-level music. The resident was ‘extremely nervous, stressed and exhausted’.
The resident emailed the landlord on 9 September 2021, and reported an issue with rubbish in the communal area. She also sent some photos as evidence. The landlord told the resident that it would remind all residents of their responsibilities with regards to rubbish.
On 27 September 2021, the resident emailed the landlord and reported door slamming throughout the day and night, she said it had been going on for several days. On the same day, the landlord carried out a risk assessment to assess the level of risks presented to the resident because of the ASB. The risks were assessed as low and medium risks. The form used provided guidance on actions the landlord could take based on the level of risks
The landlord showed a property to the resident on 13 October 2021, it was alike for like transfer. The resident informed the landlord that after viewing the property, she decided to refuse it as it didn’t match her current property. The landlord explained that the transfer application was approved for alike for like transfer only. It then said that because the resident had refused this property, it could be some time before another suitable property was identified.
The landlord said to the resident on 19 October 2021, that it had requested authorisation from the management team to organise an independent witness to observe the nuisance reported.
The resident reported rubbish in the communal area and provided photo evidence to the landlord on 12 November 2021. The landlord said that it would be sending letters to all residents to remind them of their obligations. The resident responded the following day pointing out that over the two previous years the landlord had sent several letters to the residents stating their responsibilities and it had no impact.
The resident was unhappy with the service received and raised a complaint with the landlord on 29 November 2021. She described living with ASB for the previous 2 years, gathering evidence using a range of media and sharing the evidence with the landlord. The resident said that she was unhappy with the landlord’s response to the ASB reports and its inability to resolve the issue. She also explained the impact the ASB had on her and her partner’s health. The complaint described:
1. Constant noise all day and unsociable hours.
2. Inappropriate rubbish dumping and unclean communal areas.
3. Cannabis smoking.
4. Loud music, vulgar language and shouting.
The landlord met with the resident on 15 December 2021 and agreed the following action plan:
1. Resident to provide latest notes/videos of disturbances.
2. Landlord to ask wider team for any suitable properties for an immediate move.
3. Landlord to refer the case to legal team for guidance and independent witness.
4. Landlord to provide weekly check in with the resident on situation and moving options.
The landlord apologised to the resident for providing its stage one response 7 days outside its policy’s published time frame. It said that:
1. Based on the evidence provided it could not determine whether the noise and ASB acts were deliberately targeting the resident. It said that in relation to noise nuisance it would need to work with EH to determine whether the noise was a nuisance which it could act on.
2. The use of drugs was a police matter. The landlord confirmed that it had discussed the issue with the neighbour.
3. The landlord offered the services of an independent witness to the resident and explained the purpose of the service.
4. It had written to all the residents several times to remind each resident of their responsibilities when disposing of rubbish. It also said that it was exploring other options to resolve the issue. It was considering the introduction of a cleaning service, which the residents would pay through their service charge.
5. It considered the impact the situation had on the resident’s wellbeing and offered the resident a like for like transfer. A property was offered to the resident, which she had refused. The landlord explained that a like for like transfer was a one-time offer only.
6. The landlord offered £100 compensation for the way it handled the stage one complaint, made up of £50 for delay in responding to the complaint and £50 for inconvenience and stress.
The resident emailed the landlord on 20 December 2021, and said that she was not satisfied with the response it provided to her complaint. She said that:
1. The property she was offered was not a like for like property. She refused the property because it was smaller than her current property, it did not have a garden and the rent was higher. She did not feel it was fair for her to compromise or move from her home to escape the situation she was in.
2. She felt that the rubbish was a health and safety issue and required immediate action.
3. Regarding the ASB, she would contact all relevant parties and provide the landlord with all the details.
4. The amount of compensation offered was inadequate.
5. She would like the focus to be on rehousing her.
The landlord wrote to all residents in the block on 22 December 2021:
1. It reminded them of their tenancy responsibilities and the correct procedure to dispose of waste.
2. It mentioned that waste in the communal had been identified as a fire risk.
3. It organised to have the communal area cleaned and the rubbish removed.
4. If the issue persisted, it would consider contracting a cleaning company to attend and clean regularly. It explained that this service would be paid by the residents through their service charges.
Between the 12 January 2022 and 9 March 2022, the resident requested 3 times for her complaint to be escalated to stage 2. The landlord apologised for the delay citing sickness as the reason for not responding. On 20 December 2021, she listed why she was dissatisfied with the landlord‘s stage 1 response. On the 12 January 2022, she added that:
1. The independent witness offered by the landlord did not happen.
2. She felt that she was not being protected. The ASB had impacted on her and her partner’s wellbeing.
3. She wanted to escalate her complaint to stage 2.
On 12 and 18 January 2022 the landlord informed the resident that it was liaising with the police and their legal team about the ASB case and would continue to provide updates.
The resident submitted incident logs to the landlord. Over a period of 29 days, the resident recorded 21 days of recurring day and night nuisance. She reported the neighbour’s behaviour was causing her an ongoing disturbance and the police had been called.
On 23 February 2022, the landlord told the resident that it did not have capacity to provide weekly updates. The resident replied on the same day, reminding the landlord of its promise, made in December 2021, to update her weekly on the situation and of potential properties for rehousing. She told the landlord that she felt ignored and the promised move had not happened.
The resident contacted the landlord via email on 21 March 2022, and said that it failed to acknowledge her email of 9 March 2022, in which she had asked for the complaint to be escalated to stage 2.
The resident told the landlord in an email on 21 March 2022, that she had been the victim of an ASB incident that morning. She described ‘vicious door slamming’, ‘screaming’ and ‘shouting obscenities’. She said that she sent videos of the incident to the landlord earlier in the day. She also explained that she had not contacted the police or EH. She said: ‘our emotional and mental capabilities cannot stretch that far currently. Any visits from the EH or the police trigger a verbal attack on us and relentless increasing of noise. We can’t take it’.
The resident emailed the landlord on 22 March 2022, and reported issues with rubbish left on the doorstep of the building. She sent photos of the rubbish, including the photo of a receipt, which she said identified the person who left the rubbish as her neighbour.
The resident emailed the landlord and requested an update on the meeting with the legal team regarding moving the neighbour. The landlord replied that following the meeting with the legal team, it was looking for suitable properties for her neighbour to move to.
The resident continued to contact the landlord throughout May. On 16 May 2022, the landlord said, it would review the resident’s case with the new management team. It also said that it would be reviewing the stage two complaint, which had been outstanding due to staff absence earlier in the year.
In its stage 2 response, the landlord acknowledged that some points of the ASB complaint could have been handled better. It specifically identified the offers of properties in excess of its policy and the failure to complete the required paperwork for the like for like transfer. It said that:
1. The resident was provided with incorrect information by the landlord. in accordance with its policy only one offer can be made for a like for like transfer.
2. The forms needed to authorise the offer for like for like transfer were not completed. The landlord said the omission had not impacted on the offer made to the resident, but it had the potential to cause delays.
3. It would offer a discretionary and final offer of a like for like property and provided information on options to move.
4. It was making a referral to victim support.
5. It was offering £300 compensation: £100 for stress and inconvenience, £100 for providing a late response at stage 1 and a further £100 for delays in escalating the complaint to stage 2.
The resident replied to the landlord’s stage 2 response on 25 May 2022, she said that:
1. The process and concept of a like for like transfer was not explain to her until after she viewed the property. The property offered, was not a like for like property and was very different to her current property. She said it had a higher rent, it did not have the same level of storage and did not have a garden.
2. The landlord failed to consider the history of the building and its impact on her. She said that a previous neighbour had subjected her to ASB for over 5 years.
3. She did not want to move but felt that she had no other option. The ASB impacted on her health and her work. She also mentioned hers and her partner’s health conditions. She did not know what victim support was and asked the landlord to clarify.
4. The compensation of £300 was too low and did not reflect the impact of the ASB over 2.5 years.

Post final response

The landlord replied to the resident’s queries in May 2022. It provided her with a link to victim support services. It explained that an exact like for like property could be difficult to achieve but confirmed that any property offered would be a sensitive let. It also said that it could not give the resident a time frame of when a suitable property would be offered.
An internal email on 22 June 2022, between a contractor and the landlord, showed that the cleaning of the communal area was completed.

Assessment and findings

Scope of the investigation

The resident had expressed concerns regarding the impact the situation had caused to her and her partner’s health. Claims of personal injury must be decided by courts of law who can consider medical evidence and make legally binding findings. The role of the Ombudsman is to consider whether the landlord dealt with the resident’s reports of ASB appropriately and reasonably. Our duty is to determine the complaint by what is, in this service’s opinion, fair in all the circumstances of the case. Nonetheless, consideration has been given to the general distress and inconvenience which the situation may have caused the resident and her partner.

Response to the resident’s reports of ASB.

The landlord had 2 ASB policies which were in effect during the period the ASB was reported. The evidence provided showed several failings to work in accordance with the policy in effect at the time of each reports. For example:
1. The landlord provided no evidence that the ASB category was assessed. This would have enabled the landlord to establish whether the reports should be investigated under its ASB policy or its domestic and neighbour disputes policy. It would have managed the resident’s expectations about the likely outcome of her complaint. This was also a missed opportunity to promote good neighbourly relations.
2. The policy says that the landlord will categorise the ASB’s severity following the completion of a risk assessment. The landlord completed 2 risk assessments, they were 12 months and 18 months after the first ASB report. The landlord provided no explanation for the delay. It would have been appropriate for the landlord to assess the risks presented to the resident when the ASB started. This would have enabled the landlord to understand the impact the ASB was having on the resident and put measures in place to manage the risks.
3. The 2 risk assessments were completed within 6 months of each other, and the assessment decreased the risk rating from high risk to low-medium risk. The evidence did not show that any meaningful intervention had taken place or that anything had changed during those 6 months to explain the decrease in the level of risks. In fact, the ASB logs provided by the resident, showed that the ASB was on going.
4. Based on the evidence seen, it is unclear what information the landlord considered to complete the risk assessments, whether the resident was involved and why the landlord assessed the risks at different levels. It would have been appropriate for the landlord to involve the resident and share the reasons for the decrease in risk. This would have showed that the landlord completed the assessments openly, fully understanding and managing the risks with the resident. Those failings were missed opportunities to understand what the resident experience.
5. There was no evidence to show the landlord implemented the recommended actions outlined on the risk assessment form. It would have been appropriate for the landlord to consider the actions recommended.
6. Over 26 months, the resident told the landlord, that she had reported the issues to EH and the police. The landlord told the resident on 3 separate occasions that it was liaising with EH or the police. There was no evidence provided showing that it worked in partnership with those agencies to resolve the issues. It would have been reasonable for the landlord to work in partnership with both agencies, as per its ASB policy.
7. The landlord commented on a transfer form that the ASB reported by the resident was household noise, but it is unclear how it came to this conclusion. The evidence did not show that it reviewed the ASB logs provided by the resident or shared its conclusion with the resident. When it concluded that the nuisance reported was not ASB, it would have been appropriate for the landlord to work in accordance with its domestic noise and neighbour disputes policy. However, it did not show that it considered supporting both residents to come to a resolution together, as per its policy. This was a missed opportunity to find a solution.
8. The resident consistently reported ASB for 26 months and told the landlord she was not satisfied with it. It would have been appropriate for the landlord to promote the community trigger in line with its ASB policies and the Anti-Social Behaviour Act 2014. The landlord provided no evidence that it considered this course of action. This was a missed opportunity to review the case and explore different avenues to resolve the issue. This would have also reassured the resident that the landlord understood what she was experiencing and was committed to finding a suitable resolution.
9. The landlord agreed it would update the resident weekly. Following prompting from the resident, it later said it did not have the capacity to provide weekly updates. It would have been reasonable for the landlord to have been pro-active in discussing a more manageable time frame.
10. The landlord offered no explanation for failing to act on its offer of an independent witness. This impacted on the tenant and landlord relationship. The resident lost confidence in the landlord’s ability to keep its promises. It was also a missed opportunity to observe the ASB occurring, understand the situation, take appropriate actions to resolve the issue and manage the resident expectations.
11. The ASB policy says that it will support the victim of ASB. The resident asked for the landlord’s help several times in her communications. She said that the ASB was impacting on her wellbeing and provided medical support of this in a GP letter. The evidence does not show that the landlord explored how it could support her, or what support was available. The landlord provided the contact details of victim support to the resident in May 2022, but it did not explain why this was not offered earlier or how it could help her. There is no evidence that the landlord supported her.
The landlord completed an interview with the resident on 20 April 2020. In this interview it recorded the nature of the ASB experienced by the resident, which was appropriate. However, it also recorded that:
1. The resident had a disability. It provided no detail on the disability or how it impacted the resident. It would have been reasonable for the landlord to discuss this with the resident and record the information provided. It would have helped the landlord to fully understand how her disability affected the resident and whether the ASB had any bearing on her condition. It would also have been appropriate for the landlord to explore whether the resident would benefit from support, there was no evidence that it did this.
2. An action plan was put in place, which was reasonable and in line with its ASB policy. However, the action plan did not fully comply with the policy. It did not include time frames for reviewing progress. The landlord provided no evidence that it liaised with the police or the local noise team to discuss the case. No evidence was provided to show that the action plan was fully implemented or reviewed.
Over 26 months, the resident initiated most of the contacts with the landlord, the evidence also shows that she had to chase responses to some of her queries and at times, her queries went unanswered. The resident requested a copy of the landlord’s ASB policy. The landlord provided no evidence that it sent a copy of its policy to the resident. It would have been reasonable for the landlord to do so and would have helped managed the resident’s expectations. This example of poor communication contributed to the breakdown of trust between the resident and the landlord, causing her frustration.
The resident provided the landlord with medical evidence of her health conditions stating that the ASB impacted on her wellbeing and aggravated her existing condition. The evidence shows that the landlord considered this as part of a transfer application, which was appropriate. However, it did not show that the landlord considered the information in relation to the ASB, or the risk assessments which would have been reasonable to do. It missed an opportunity to consider her wellbeing in the management of the ASB case.
The resident shared ASB logs with the landlord, these records indicated that the incidents occurred at various times of the day and encompassed different types of ASB. The landlord failed to consider the ongoing nature of the issues when assessing the overall impact on the resident’s quality of life. It would have been reasonable to have considered the cumulative effect of ASB, the impact it has on the resident’s living conditions and sense of safety. The landlord provided no evidence that it considered or reviewed the information provided by the resident. It would have been appropriate for the landlord to request the logs and review the information pro-actively to determine the most suitable actions to take.
The landlord’s transfer policy says that it will consider a management transfer when the household is considered at risk or a like for like transfer for ASB cases. However, after assessing the risks to the resident as high in March 2021, the evidence does not show that the landlord considered a management transfer or a like for like transfer at that time. It would have been appropriate for the landlord to do this and would have been in accordance with its transfer policy.
The resident contacted the landlord on 5 July 2021 for an update on her transfer. The evidence indicates that on 29 September 2020, the resident provided supporting evidence to the landlord for a transfer application. It was appropriate for the landlord to consider a transfer. When the landlord responded 39 days later it apologised for the delays and said that it was because of an emergency. This was not a reasonable justification for a delay of over 10 months in considering the transfer request. This caused the resident inconvenience and frustration, as she had to ask several times for an outcome. The landlord’s offer of a like for like property on 13 October 2021, was appropriate and in line with its transfer policy.
The resident provided details on how the ASB affected her throughout her communications with the landlord. She also provided two detailed accounts of how the ASB impacted her and her partner. Those statements clearly show the severity and the impact the ASB had over a significant period. The evidence seen shows that the landlord did not appropriately or explicitly acknowledge the overall impact and inconvenience caused to the resident by the landlord’s failings. It did not acknowledge the frustration, time loss and distress experienced by the resident over more than 26 months.
There was maladministration on the part of the landlord in its handling of the ASB. There were significant issues with the landlord‘s response to the resident’s ASB reports. It failed to investigate the report in accordance with its ASB policies. The failings caused considerable distress and inconvenience to the resident. These also undermined the tenant and landlord relationship. The resident felt that she was not listened to, her welfare was not considered, she could not enjoy her home and felt she had to move.
In relation to the failures identified, the Ombudsman’s role is to consider whether the redress offered by the landlord put things right and resolved the resident’s complaint satisfactorily in the circumstances. In line with the Ombudsman remedies guidelines, which are published on the website, the Ombudsman determined that in this case it is appropriate to consider compensation. It is recognised that the landlord’s failings contributed to the distress and inconvenience caused to the resident. The resident invested the time and effort in seeking updates, resolutions, and reporting the issues. Had the landlord been more proactive in its approach, identified the risks and engaged with appropriate agencies, the impact on the resident could have been reduced. Therefore, to remedy the cumulative failures highlighted in this report, compensation has been ordered as follows:
1. £50 for every month for a period of 26 months, which covers the history of the resident’s ASB reports and the landlord’s involvement in this case from September 2020 to May 2022.
2. The amount totalling £1300 to be paid directly to the resident.

Response to the resident’s reports of waste in the communal area.

The landlord’s estate management policy says that inappropriate disposal of waste is managed under the ASB policy. The landlord said that it was organising for the communal area to be cleaned, but it did not explain the delay in responding. There is no evidence that the landlord investigated the issue in accordance with its ASB policy. It would have been appropriate for the landlord to do this; it was unreasonable of the landlord not to act on the communal area report for over a year.
Following another 4 reports from the resident the landlord reiterated that it was organising for the communal area to be cleaned. The evidence showed that the cleaning of the communal area happened in June 2022. The landlord provided no explanation for the 10 months delay in cleaning the communal area. This was an unreasonable delay for the action to be taken and this was not in accordance with its estate management policy. Its actions did not convey that it took the issue seriously and this impacted on the tenant and landlord relationship.
The estate management policy says that the landlord is responsible for ensuring there are no health and safety risks to residents. There is no evidence that the landlord investigated the issue of rubbish prior to December 2021. Therefore, it had no way of knowing whether the inappropriate disposal of rubbish presented a health and safety risk or that it was meeting its obligations. On 22 December 2021, it wrote to the residents of the building, and said that the inappropriate disposal of rubbish in the communal area had been identified as a fire risk. It was inappropriate for the landlord to wait nearly 16 months to identify the risk and to wait another 6 months to clean the area.
The landlord wrote to the residents of the building several times to remind them of their responsibilities in disposing of their waste appropriately. This had little impact and failed to resolve the issue. The resident provided photo evidence of a receipt left with the rubbish, which identified a resident in the building. It would have been appropriate for the landlord to investigate the source of the problem by discussing the issue with the person identified. There is no evidence that the landlord followed this up, which was a missed opportunity to resolve the issue. Due to the ongoing problem of improper waste disposal, it would have been appropriate for the landlord to address the matter through its ASB policy. As a result, the issue continued for a prolonged period.
The landlord told the resident on 9 September 2021, and again in its letter on 22 December 2022, that it was considering organising a regular clean of the communal area and applying a service charge to the residents to cover the cost. However, it is unreasonable for the landlord to adopt this as a solution to poor waste disposal habits, transferring the responsibility and financial burden of resolving the matter to all residents. It would be reasonable for the landlord to , investigated the matter fully before deciding what action was proportionate.
Overall, there was maladministration from the landlord in its response to the resident’s reports of waste in the communal area. The landlord failed to investigate the issue and did not work in accordance with its ASB policy and estate management policy. The suggested approach to distribute the communal cleaning expenses among all residents was unreasonable. The resident took time to report the issues over a significant period. She also felt that her health and safety was compromised, which the landlord failed to address with her. In relation to the failures identified, an order has been made for the landlord to pay compensation of £150 to the resident in reflection of the inconvenience and frustration caused.

Handling of the resident’s complaint.

The resident made a stage one complaint on 29 November 2021, and the landlord provided its stage one response on 16 December 2021. It acknowledged and apologised for responding 7 days outside the complaint policy’s time frame. It was appropriate for the landlord to do this.
The Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code) sets out requirements for member landlords that will allow them to respond to complaints effectively and fairly. It says that any remedy proposed must be followed through to completion. In its stage one response, it promised to the resident but did not:
1. Provide an independent witness.
2. Work with EH on noise nuisance thresholds.
3. The failure to act eroded the resident’s confidence in the landlord’s ability to keep its promises and impacted the landlord and resident relationship.
The landlord failed to recognise and acknowledge its failing in the handling of the ASB at both stages of its complaint response. It failed to consider its response to the ASB reports against its ASB policy. This was a missed opportunity to identify the mistakes made, put things right and learn from the failings. It failed to consider the distress and inconvenience caused to the resident and did not consider compensation, which would have been reasonable for the landlord to do. An offer of compensation would have showed that the landlord recognised the distress and inconvenience caused to the resident over 26 months. It would have also reflected the time and trouble the resident took to keep logs of the incidents, report the ASB incidents, and ask the landlord for updates.
The landlord acknowledged in its stage 2 response that it did not provide the resident with the correct information on the process for a like for like transfer. It recognised that if it had, she might not have refused the property it offered. It also recognised that the correct paperwork was not completed within time scale and could have caused delays. As a form of redress, it agreed to make a discretionary final offer for a like for like property. This was a reasonable offer and in accordance with its transfer policy. In addition, the landlord offered £100 compensation to the resident to reflect the stress and inconvenience caused because of the incorrect information given. This was a reasonable offer in line with its compensation policy.
In its stage 2 response, the landlord failed to acknowledge the delays in processing the resident’s request for a transfer. It would have been appropriate for the landlord to identify the failing, reflect and take the opportunity to learn from this. It would have been reasonable for the landlord to offer compensation to the resident. An offer of compensation would have recognised the time and trouble the resident spent asking for an outcome to her request for a transfer.
The landlord’s stage 2 response was significantly delayed. It acknowledged its delay in the response but failed to provide a reasonable explanation for responding 101 days outside the landlord’s complaint policy and the Code’s published time frame. The resident chased the landlord on 3 occasions causing her inconvenience, time and trouble. The delay in responding to the stage 2 complaint was unreasonable and caused the resident’s complaint to remain unanswered for 4 months.
There was maladministration of the landlord’s handling of resident’s complaint. In its stage 2 response, the landlord offered £200 compensation to the resident. In line with the Ombudsman’s remedies guidelines a more appropriate compensation will be for the landlord to pay £300 to the resident in compensation. It reflects its failing in the handling of the complaint and the distress and inconvenience caused to the resident.

Record keeping.

The Ombudsman’s Knowledge and Information Management (KIM) report says that good records assist housing providers to offer efficient and effective services by ensuring that decisions and actions are taken based on good quality information. This promotes transparency, accountability and improves communications with residents, which in turns nurture a good tenant and landlord relationship based on openness, respect and trust.
When this service asked the landlord the date the ASB reports started, it provided 3 different dates between March 2020 and May 2021. It is unclear why the landlord was unable to find the exact date the ASB reports started. It is reasonable to expect the landlord to keep accurate records and be able to give an exact date when the issue was first reported by the resident. The discrepancies in the dates provided by the landlord does not bring confidence in its record keeping.
The resident recorded the impact of a conversation she had with the landlord on 6 May 2021. She mentioned it within one of the ASB logs she kept. The landlord provided no evidence that it made a record of the conversation. It is clear from the resident’s comments that something happened during that conversation and it would have been appropriate for the landlord to make a record of it.
The landlord’s ASB policy, in effect prior to January 2021, says that each ASB case actions and outcomes are to be recorded on the housing management system. However, the evidence seen shows that most records and actions were recorded on emails. In addition, most of the evidence and information provided by the landlord for this investigation, have been in the form of copies of emails. It did not provide any copies of records it kept on its housing management system. It is reasonable to expect the landlord to have systems in place to maintain accurate records, to be able to extract and analysed data from those records to understand patterns, inform practice and investigations.
Overall, the landlord’s record keeping was inadequate, and this contributed to the failings identified in the landlord’s response to the resident’s ASB reports and waste disposal. Therefore, there was maladministration on the part of the landlord in respect of its record keeping.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was maladministration in respect of the landlord’s:
1. Response to the resident’s reports of ASB.
2. Response to the resident’s reports of waste in the communal area.
3. Handling of the resident’s complaint.
4. Record keeping.

Reasons

There were significant issues with the landlord‘s response to the resident’s ASB reports. It failed to investigate the report in accordance with its ASB policies. The failings and missed opportunities contributed to extend the period the resident was exposed to ASB from her neighbour and undermined the tenant and landlord relationship. The resident felt that she was not listened to, her welfare was not considered, she could not enjoy her home and had to move.
Despite several reports from the resident, the landlord failed to suitably address the issue of rubbish in the communal area. It did not investigate the issue in accordance with its ASB policy and estate management policy. In consideration of all the fact of the case, its suggestion to split cleaning costs among all residents was unreasonable. The resident felt that her health and safety was compromised. The failings undermined the tenant and landlord relationship.
The landlord’s complaint handling did not comply with its policy or the code. It did not fully identify its failings and missed opportunities to learn and put things right throughout the complaint process.
The landlord failed to evidence that its record keeping was appropriate. It failed to show that interactions and actions were recorded consistently and in a suitable way to ensure that decisions and actions taken were based on all the information available. .

Orders and recommendations

The landlord is ordered to take the following action within four weeks of the date of this report. The landlord must provide the Ombudsman with evidence that it has complied with these orders:
1. Write to the resident to apologise for the failings identified in this report.
2. Pay the resident compensation totalling £1750 in recognition of distress and inconvenience caused by the failures highlighted in this report. The compensation comprises:
  1. £1300 for the landlord’s response to the resident’s ASB reports
  2. £150 for the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of rubbish in the communal area
  3. £300 for the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint, this is inclusive of the £200 compensation offered by the landlord at its stage 2 response.
Within 8 weeks of this report , the landlord is ordered to provide the Ombudsman, with an action plan showing how it will improve its service. The action plan is to specifically include:
1. Evidence on how the landlord will share the learning from this case with the leadership team and the housing team.
2. Evidence that its housing staff have received the relevant training or to confirm the date by which the training will be delivered. The training is to cover:
  1. Delivering the service in accordance with the landlord’s ASB policy.
  2. Delivering the service in accordance with the landlord’s domestic noise and neighbour disputes policy.
  3. Delivering the service in accordance with the landlord’s transfer policy.
  4. Delivering the service in accordance with the landlord’s estate management policy.
  5. Handling complaints in accordance with the landlord’s complaint policy, including compliance with the Housing Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code.
  6. Good recording keeping- keeping accurate, eligible and timely records. The Ombudsman recommends that the landlord consider the KIM report when delivering record keeping training. The report can be accessed at https://www.housing-ombudsman.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2023/05/KIM-report-v2-100523.pdf
3. Review its procedures in relation to resident’s vulnerabilities. In doing so, demonstrate how it will record residents vulnerabilities and the purpose for doing this.
4. Evidence the landlord shared the findings and recommendations of the Ombudsman’s Spotlight on Noise with the housing team and the leadership team. This can be shared through teams discussions or training. The report can be accessed at https://www.housing-ombudsman.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2022/10/Spotlight-Noise-complaints-final-report-October-2022.pdf.