One Housing Group Limited (202012077)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202012077

One Housing Group Limited

23 May 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. The complaint is about the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of noise and anti-social behaviour (ASB) at the property including cigarette smoke from the property below.

Background and summary of events

Background

2. The resident is an assured shorthold tenant of the landlord at the property, a two bedroom flat. The resident is subject to the terms and conditions contained in the agreement. The landlord is a local authority.
3. The landlord operates a two-stage complaints policy, the policy requires that complainants are kept updated throughout the complaints process. If the resident makes a complaint at the first stage, the landlord is to acknowledge within two working days and formally respond within 15 working days. If the resident is dissatisfied with the response, the resident can request a formal review of the decision and this would be acknowledged within two working days and a response provided within 20 working days.
4. The landlord’s ASB policy has formal and informal remedies for dealing with noise and other nuisance. The policy highlights that measures such as mediation, conversations and letters can be used to address ASB issues and to stop or prevent an escalation in complaints. The landlord can also use acceptable behaviour agreements as a more formal remedy.
5. Under the landlord’s tenancy agreement there is no restriction against a resident smoking on their balcony.

Summary of events

6. From mid-January 2020, the resident reported problems with noise at antisocial hours from her downstairs neighbour. It was agreed by both parties that she would write to her downstairs neighbour and outline the noise issues being experienced at the time.
7. On 18 March 2020, the resident informed the landlord about smoke coming into her property from the balcony below. The landlord performed an internal inquiry and on 15 April 2020 it advised the resident that smoking on a balcony was not a breach of the tenancy agreement. 
8. On 3 April 2020, the resident complained to the landlord that the ASB issues from the downstairs neighbour had worsened and it had caused her ‘distress and anxiety’. The landlord supplied the resident with an ASB incident diary and according to the logs provided by the resident there were 19 alleged ASB incidents from 8 April 2020 to 14 June 2020. A common theme amongst the complaints included loud bangs, running and jumping.
9. On 12 May 2020, the resident reported further instances of noise at antisocial hours. The landlord registered the matter with its community safety department.
10. On 1 June 2020, an action plan was put in place by the landlord to monitor ASB at the property. The landlord sent a letter to the alleged ASB perpetrator, it spoke with other residents in the building and had the resident complete ASB diary sheets.
11. On 15 June 2020, the landlord updated the resident regarding its contact with the downstairs neighbour in relation to allegations of ASB at the property. The landlord said that the neighbour had apologised and advised that they had not intentionally made noise and it could be due to the wooden flooring at the property. The neighbour said that they could also hear noise from other neighbours. The landlord stated that it would normally perform a noise test however it was not possible due to COVID-19 pandemic. The landlord advised that it had enquired with the resident’s neighbours to see if they were experiencing similar issues but had not heard back. The landlord advised the resident to continue to complete ASB diary sheets.
12. On 30 June 2020, the landlord contacted the resident’s partner and requested an update on the ASB issues at the property. The resident responded on 3 July 2020 and stated that the noise had ‘reduced considerably and appeared to be under control’. The landlord informed the resident that the case would be closed but it would monitor the situation and the resident should report any new issues and it would investigate.
13. On 25 August 2020, the landlord contacted the resident regarding the expiry of her fixed term agreement. It outlined that if the resident was not planning to renew the tenancy then it needed two months notice.
14. On 25 August 2020, the resident contacted the landlord about the continued disturbance experienced from her downstairs neighbour. She advised the landlord that the issues had been ongoing since January 2020 and she had been in contact with the community safety team. She advised that she may be forced to leave the property if something could not be worked out with the downstairs neighbours.
15. On 28 August 2020, the landlord contacted the resident and suggested mediation between the two parties as a way to deal with the ASB issues at the property. The landlord advised that if mediation did not work then it would take more formal steps with the resident’s permission including a formal written warning and the issuing of an acceptable behaviour agreement. 
16. On 1 September 2020, the resident contacted the landlord and stated that her and her partner ‘decided to put the noise issues on hold’ and did not wish to get involved further. She advised that she wanted the complaints noted on her file but not mentioned to the neighbour. No action was taken by the landlord against the downstairs neighbour and the case was closed on 3 September 2020.
17. On 17 September 2020, further incidences of ASB were reported by the resident. The landlord wrote to the downstairs neighbour regarding the alleged instances and advised that ASB was a breach of the tenancy agreement and action may be taken against the resident.
18. In September 2020, there was a report of an event at the property that did not involve the resident however the complexity and focus of the of the case changed. Several agencies became involved regarding the support and welfare of the alleged ASB perpetrator. The landlord advised however that it would continue to investigate the incidences of ASB at the property.
19. On 10 October 2020, the resident advised the landlord that it would like it to proceed with any action it deemed fit against the alleged perpetrators of the ASB.
20. On 13 October 2020, an interagency meeting was conducted with various partner agencies as a result of the complaints previously made by the resident. It was decided that the resident’s complaint would be suspended due to concerns at the alleged ASB perpetrators property. A subsequent meeting took place on 6 November 2020 and the alleged perpetrator was issued with a formal written warning on 16 November 2020.
21. On 24 October 2020, the resident contacted the landlord and asked for an update regarding the downstairs neighbour. She highlighted that they were ‘perfect for about a week’ but the last three nights the noise had started again.
22. On 29 October 2020, the landlord provided the resident with an update from the outside agencies involved in the case. It assured the resident that there was a lot of work going on within the other organisations since the last time it spoke and would be attending a meeting next week to be updated further on action the agencies planned to take.
23. On 18 November 2020, the resident advised that there had been an incident at the property with the downstairs neighbour ‘shouting down the phone and swearing’ about the resident. The resident stated that she felt threatened by the downstairs neighbour’s behaviour. The landlord responded the same day and advised that the resident should call the police if they felt threatened in any way. It said that it had been informed that the resident was already receiving counselling and support from her GP about the issue and this would be the same support it could offer her. It asked if it could also contact the resident’s partner to offer victim support.
24. On 18 November 2020, the landlord performed an unannounced home visit and spoke with the downstairs neighbour about the alleged incident. On 20 November 2020, the landlord issued the neighbour with a warning letter stating that it had received multiple complaints about the alleged incidences of ASB. It urged the neighbour to abide by the terms of the tenancy agreement or face enforcement action.
25. On 20 November 2020, the landlord contacted the resident and apologised for her experience. It outlined its obligation as a social landlord and highlighted the neighbour had complex vulnerabilities and care and support needs. It said that in relation to the Community Trigger, if approached it would provide the local authority with the sensitive data in relation to the resident’s case for it to review under the ASB Crime and Policing Act.
26. On 24 November 2020, the resident contacted the landlord and said that they had moved out of the property due to mental health reasons, caused by further incidences of noise and nuisance from the downstairs neighbour. She advised that she wanted to know if the downstairs neighbour would be evicted. She stressed that her partner was unable to work from home and that they were paying rent for a property that was unliveable in. The resident asked which agencies were involved in the case.
27. On 26 November 2020, the resident made a formal stage one complaint to the landlord about incidences of ASB at the property and raised the following issues:
    1. ASB – She had raised multiple complaints about a downstairs neighbour having guests over and making noise. She highlighted that the noise stopped her from sleeping and working from home. She had informed the landlord about the problem but it had failed to fix it. She said that she had to move out of the property due to a doctor’s recommendation as it had ‘affected her mental health so badly’.
    2. Smoke entering the property – That there was smoke, potentially cannabis, entering the flat from the downstairs balcony and the resident could not leave her windows.
28. On 26 November 2020, the landlord issued the resident with its stage one response in relation to the ASB and addressed the following issues:
    1. Smoke entering the property – It investigated the matter and found that another resident was also experiencing cigarette smoke coming from the downstairs resident’s balcony. It informed the resident that this was not a breach of tenancy as residents were able to smoke on their balconies. It informed the resident that it had asked the safer neighbourhood police team to attend the block to confirm if they could smell cannabis and establish where this was coming from.
    2. ASB issues – It informed the resident that due to the sensitive nature of the case regarding the downstairs neighbour it was unable to disclose any information (which includes what agencies were involved). It assured the resident that any information that she provided would be disclosed to the relevant agencies where required. It said that the children’s noise that the resident was hearing during the day would be classified as domestic living noise and would not be considered ASB. It acknowledged that no subjective noise test had been carried out due to the Covid 19 pandemic however it was likely that the wooden floor contributed to the level of noise and it had asked the resident management team to review the installation of wooden floors. In regard to the noise of children playing experienced after 11pm, it was working with the involved agencies to address the issue. It advised that it had sent letters and spoken with the resident.
    3. Shouting and swearing form neighbouring property – It intended to issue the neighbour with an acceptable behaviour contract. This would outline terms that the tenant would need to adhere to in relation to their behaviour and conduct, both inside the home and the locality. The terms of the contract would be specific to the behaviours that the resident had reported therefore it was likely to be evident to the neighbour as to who had reported concerns. It informed the resident that at this point it was not considering evicting the resident but that it would remain under review.
    4. It highlighted that it did not want the resident to feel that she had to hand in her notice and move out of the property and it wanted to assure her that it had taken her reports seriously and would continue to work with the resident and other services to address the issues raised.
29. On 27 November 2020, the resident contacted the landlord and expressed her disappointment with the landlord’s stage one response. She expressed that she never told the landlord to temporarily suspend or close the case and that she only informed the landlord not to proceed on ‘one or two occasions’ due to fear for their own safety. She raised that the landlord failed to come up with methods to address the ASB and that it had just asked her to ‘hold tight and keep logging complaints’ which did not improve her day-to-day life or mental health. She acknowledged that the landlord was working with other agencies to address the problem but was left ‘feeling threatened, sleep deprived and unsafe’. She informed the landlord that she had raised a community trigger.
30. On 27 November 2020, the landlord contacted the resident regarding her formal stage one complaint. It stated that it would try and explain the complex situation and the reason it had to adopt this approach to enforcement. The resident raised that she would be leaving the property on 25 January 2021, however she would still like the points addressed. The resident asked if the landlord could give a discount or waive the rent for the last two months as the property was ‘uninhabitable’ and they would not be living there.
31. On 7 December 2020, the landlord contacted the resident and stated that it was not able to waive the rent at the property but could release the resident early if she wished. The resident responded and said that they would keep the date of departure as 25 January 2021.
32. On 16 December 2020, the landlord presented the alleged perpetrator of the ASB incidents with an acceptable behaviour contract.
33. On 18 December 2020, the landlord issued the resident with its final stage two response and addressed the following issues:
    1. ASB –It outlined that the matter had become complex with multiagency cooperation. It highlighted that it was responsible for tenants from various backgrounds many of whom had vulnerabilities and care and support needs, and its enforcement approach had to be proportionate in the individual circumstances. It acknowledged that there had been instances where the resident did not want it to proceed due to fear of repercussions which made it difficult for it to take enforcement action. When the resident requested not to proceed any further it had to temporarily suspend the matter until contact was made again by the resident.
    2. Noise – The noise reported in relation to children was classified as domestic living noise that one would expect to hear within the home, and it would not be considered anti-social behaviour. It reassured the resident that it would continue to investigate and take the matter seriously. It acknowledged that the resident reported instances of the children making noise after 11pm and would continue to work with the other agencies involved to address the issue. It said that it had sent letters and spoken with the resident about the noise after 11pm but it was unlikely that any legal remedy would be successful in court due to the complex circumstances of the case.
    3. Shouting and swearing from neighbouring property – It restated the information in paragraph 31(c) above. It spoke with the resident who confirmed that she wanted to progress with this course of action even if the resident found out it was her who made the complaint. It advised the resident that it was using a number of methods of enforcement and had provided support to the downstairs neighbour due to the issues raised. It advised that it cannot disclose the organisations it had been working with due to privacy reasons but that it had been using early intervention methods such as warning letters to resolve issues experienced by the resident.
    4. It apologised that the resident had to leave the property due to the behaviour of the resident. It provided the resident with a number of support services she could contact. It said that if the resident needed help including support to move to another of the landlord’s properties.
34. On 15 February 2021, the resident wrote to this Service and asked for her ASB issues to be investigated. The resident also said that she was seeking compensation from the landlord for the following:
    1. The rent paid from the 22 November 2020 to 17 January 2021 as the property was uninhabitable.
    2. Bills she had to pay during this time including internet, electricity, water, council tax.
    3. £123.26 moving van rental and storage fees.
35. On 17 February 2021, the landlord supplied evidence that there had been no new reports of alleged ASB in regard to the downstairs neighbours.

Assessment and findings

Noise and anti-social behaviour (ASB) at the property including cigarette smoke from the property below.

36. The role of the Ombudsman is not to establish whether the incidents reported by the resident to the landlord amounted to ASB; the Ombudsman’s role is to establish whether the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports were in line with its ASB procedure and good practice and that it behaved reasonably taking into account all of the circumstances of the case.
37.  The evidence provided by both parties demonstrated that there had been ongoing issues of alleged ASB in relation to noise at the property since January 2020. On 3 April 2020, the resident complained that the noise from the downstairs neighbour had gotten worse and caused her ‘distress and anxiety’. The landlord appropriately provided the resident with an ASB diary to log incidences of ASB. The resident logged 19 incidences of ASB between April and June 2020. The landlord appropriately conducted an investigation and sent a letter to the alleged ASB perpetrator and spoke with other residents in the building.
38. Due to the ASB being experienced which was mostly children ‘running and thumping’ this response was reasonable by the landlord. The landlord acknowledged that it would normally perform a noise test however it advised that it was not possible at the time due to COVID-19 pandemic. The landlord suitably followed up the resident’s reports and was informed that the noise had ‘reduced considerably and appeared to be under control’. The landlord appropriately closed the case in line with its ASB policy and suitably advised that it would investigate any new issues. 
39. The resident raised further issues on 25 August 2020, the landlord suitably suggested mediation between the two parties in line with its ASB policy. The resident however informed the landlord that they did not wish to progress with the complaint and the case was closed again. There were further issues of ASB reported in September 2020 and the landlord informed the resident that it had been working with several other agencies to address the concerns at the neighbour’s property. The landlord appropriately informed the resident that it would keep her updated about the interagency progress.
40. There were further reports of ASB in October and November 2020, the landlord took reasonable steps to investigate the complaint, met with the alleged perpetrator, and issued a formal written warning. The landlord additionally offered victim support to the resident’s partner in line with its ASB policy. At this point of the complaint the landlord had taken reasonable steps to address the issues of ASB at the property considering the complex circumstances of the case.
41. The resident raised a formal stage one complaint to the landlord on 26 November 2020 regarding the issues of ASB and stated that she had to move out of the property as the problem had ‘affected her mental health’. The landlord appropriately apologised for the resident’s experience and offered to help relocate the resident to another one of its properties, this offer was declined. The landlord effectively communicated that there were a number of factors and vulnerabilities in this case that it could not disclose due to privacy reasons. It appropriately assured the resident that it was working with a number of agencies to address the ASB and other issues and that it would keep her updated on the progress. It advised that it had issued the neighbour with an acceptable behaviour contract in order to manage the neighbour’s behaviour. The landlord conveyed that it was not going to evict the neighbour as there were other circumstances that needed to be considered.
42. Overall, the landlord appropriately dealt with the resident’s complaints about noise and ASB at the property and used various informal and formal remedies to attempt to address the alleged conduct. It is clear from the evidence provided by the landlord that there were several extenuating circumstances in this case that limited the enforcement action that it was able to take in relation to the alleged perpetrator of the ASB. From the evidence provided the landlord behaved reasonably, taking into account of all the circumstances of the case and effectively communicated with the resident about the issues that were occurring and steps that were being taken. As no failure has been found this there is no basis for compensation to be paid.
43. In relation to the issue of the downstairs resident smoking on their balcony, the resident informed the landlord of the issue on 18 March 2020. The landlord appropriately performed an internal inquiry and advised the resident on 15 April 2020 that the neighbour smoking on their balcony was not a breach of the tenancy agreement. In the landlord’s stage one response it advised the resident if they suspected that it was more than cigarette smoke it could get the safer neighbourhood police team to attend the block to confirm if they could smell cannabis and establish where this is coming from. Accordingly, the landlord took reasonable steps to investigate the complaint and respond in line with its policies and procedures.

Determination (decision)

44. In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was no maladministration in respect to the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of noise and anti-social behaviour (ASB) at the property including cigarette smoke from the property below.

Reasons

45. The landlord acted in accordance with its antisocial behaviour policy whilst dealing with the resident reports of ASB at the property. It took a number of measures to address the issues between the parties including having the resident complete diary sheets, meeting with the alleged perpetrator, issuing formal complaint letters, issuing ABC contacts and offering support to both parties. It is clear from the evidence provided that there were several extenuating circumstances in this case that limited the enforcement action that the landlord was able to take in relation to the alleged perpetrator of the ASB. It communicated to the resident and behaved reasonably taking into account the circumstances.