Onward Homes Limited (202004708)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202004708

Onward Homes Limited

07 December 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 handling of the resident’s reports of antisocial behaviour (ASB) by a neighbour.

Background

The resident is a former assured tenant of the landlord. The landlord is a housing association. The resident lived in a 2 bed first floor flat and the tenancy commenced on 25 November 2013. The landlord has resident vulnerabilities noted on file, including asthma and mental health.
The records provided by the landlord date back to 14 April 2020, when the resident spoke to and emailed the landlord to report antisocial behaviour (ASB) regarding the smell of cannabis coming from her neighbour. There are no records available to the Ombudsman prior to this date on file.
The records show that the resident also reported the allegation to the police around the same date. The police emailed the landlord to advise of the report and asked it to send a generic warning letter to all residents. The landlord also wrote to the neighbour on 17 April 2020, to advise her that it had received reports of the smell of cannabis from her property. It told the neighbour that it had advised those affected to contact the police and reminded the neighbour that it was a beach of tenancy to use illegal substances in her property. The neighbour denied the allegations.
The resident made a further allegation of ASB regarding the same neighbour, to the landlord on 21 April 2020. This was regarding noise nuisance. She advised that her neighbour had been banging doors and keeping her awake. The landlord contacted the resident and completed a risk assessment on the same day.
The records show that the resident made several subsequent reports of ASB and sent various noise recordings to the landlord between 5 and 15 June 2020. She also chased the landlord for a response on 6 June 2020, regarding her allegation of her neighbour smoking cannabis. She stated that this was affecting her asthma and the issues had started in January 2020 when her neighbour moved in. She stated that her neighbour regularly had her television and stereo system on loudly late at night and in the early hours of the morning. Further, that the neighbour was also revving a motorbike for 20 minutes continuously. She said that she felt fatigued and stressed.
The landlord called the neighbour on 16 June 2020 in relation to the motorcycle noise. The neighbour accepted the allegation and confirmed that this was a quad bike which was no longer at the property.
The records show that the landlord had previously involved mediation services to attempt to resolve the neighbour disputes but that this had been unsuccessful.
There were further reports from the resident to the landlord up to January 2021. During this time, the landlord issued the resident with the noise app and advised the resident to continue to submit recordings to it. In respect of the cannabis use, it explained that there were limitations on proving cannabis use and that the resident should also report this to the police.
The resident made a stage 1 complaint to the landlord regarding ASB on 26 January 2021. This was in respect of her allegation of continuing illegal drug use and noise nuisance by the neighbour.
Although the evidence shows that the resident submitted 88 noise app recordings, the landlord advised it could find no evidence of any noise recordings. In its stage 1 complaint response letter of 8 February 2021, it closed the residents complaint due to the fact that it maintained it had no evidence of noise nuisance. It asked the resident, going forward to submit recordings on the noise app and that the landlord would monitor these, as well as diary sheets.
The resident made several other reports of ASB against her neighbour from 12 February until 15 June 2021. This included noise nuisance, domestic disputes, and the continuing smell of cannabis emanating from the neighbour’s property.
The resident submitted a stage 2 complaint to the landlord on 15 June 2021. She advised the situation had been ongoing since January 2020, when the neighbours moved into the property. She complained that nothing had been done about the cannabis smell, which meant she could not open her windows. She also complained about various instances of noise and one occasion of abuse and she questioned why the landlord had previously not acknowledged the noise recordings she had submitted.
The landlord visited the resident on 22 June 2021. It advised her that much of the noise she had reported was normal household noise. The resident showed the landlord footage from her ring doorbell from 8 July 2020 to 27 May 2021.
Some of this footage included another neighbour shouting and swearing at her and banging on her door. She advised the landlord that she had reported this to the police, who offered to speak to the neighbour and other alleged perpetrators. She had declined this so as not to aggravate the situation.
The resident told the landlord that she wanted to move properties and the landlord advised on options available to her. The landlord advised the resident that it had spoken to the neighbour regarding the loud TV noise and she had agreed to turn the volume down. It also told the resident that the neighbour had denied allegations of cannabis use. It asked the resident what actions she would like to see and she refused the landlord’s offer to visit the alleged perpetrator who had been banging on her door. The landlord advised the resident to contact it and also the police if there was any further illegal activity or if she was in fear for her safety.
The landlord issued the resident with a stage 2 complaint response on 29 June 2021. It provided her with a summary of its records of her allegations of ASB:
1. The resident first reported ASB in January 2020 regarding cannabis use by the neighbour. The landlord spoke to the neighbour at the time, who denied the allegations and the landlord advised the resident to also report this this to the police.
2. In the resident’s subsequent reports of ASB (noise nuisance) made in March 2020, the landlord had investigated and asked the resident to use the noise app to submit evidence so the landlord could take any necessary enforcement action. Of the 48 recordings the resident sent the landlord, only 7 contained excessive noise. A warning was given to the neighbour and advice given in relation to noise.
3. The landlord did not know why the further 106 recordings submitted to the noise app (between August 2020 to February 2021) failed to successfully upload. It only had five clear recordings of noise nuisance after 11 pm.
4. The CCTV the resident showed the landlord did not demonstrate ASB, but it noted that the neighbour had been taking a motorcycle into the flat and would address this with the neighbour.
5. The landlord had visited the resident on 22 June 2021and confirmed the neighbour had reduced the TV noise and the resident had stated she did not want the landlord to contact the neighbour again.
6. The resident and landlord had agreed that the resident would contact the landlord if there were any further incidents. The landlord had also advised the resident to contact the police if there were any illegal incidents or if the resident feared for her safety.
7. The landlord apologised for not investigating the missed noise app recordings more thoroughly and passed this on to its learning team. It did feel it had taken the appropriate action at the time.
The resident contacted the Ombudsman as she felt that the situation had not been addressed by the landlord.
Further to the landlord’s stage 2 complaint response, the resident made over 10 allegations of ASB by the neighbour in the form of noise nuisance and cannabis smoking.
The resident moved out of the property in December 2022.
As an outcome to her complaint, the resident would like compensation for the distress and anxiety caused and an acknowledgement of the landlord’s failings.

Post Internal Complaints Procedure

The resident continued to report incidents of ASB to the landlord from 1 July 2021 to 16 August 2022. The resident made reports of noise nuisance and cannabis use from the neighbours.
The landlord responded to the noise nuisance complaints by listening to the noise app recordings, offering to install noise monitoring equipment in the resident’s home and liaising with environmental health to supply further noise equipment and monitoring. This was an appropriate response and in line with its policy.
In respect of the allegations of cannabis use, it appropriately carried out spot checks of the area, issued generic warning letters to the block and appropriately liaised with the local police and advised the resident to report the incidents to the police as the police had more enforcement powers. It also appropriately advised the resident that any breaches of tenancy by her neighbour, would not automatically result in eviction.

Assessment and findings

Landlord’s obligations and policies

The landlord’s ASB policy and procedure defines ASB as ‘conduct capable of causing housing related nuisance or annoyance to a person in relation to that person’s occupation of residential premises’. It states that ASB covers a range of behaviours from low-level nuisance to serious harassment, which can damage the quality of life and interfere with the ability of residents to enjoy their home and community.
It continues to state that the landlord has a duty of care to victims of crime and ASB and is required to meet regulatory and legislative guidance incorporating the ASB Crime and Policing Act 2014 and the Equality Act 2010.
The policy states that it will include the following categorises as examples of ASB:
1. violence and aggression
2. harassment/Intimidation
3. antisocial behaviour
4. drugs
5. criminal behaviour
The landlord’s policy states that it does not class low level daily lifestyle noise or one- off isolated incidents of noise such as a family party as ASB.
The policy states that the landlord will ensure that ASB can be easily reported, including via its out of hours service. It continues to say that it will investigate all cases of ASB. It states that it will ask at the outset what the complainant is expecting and what would be a satisfactory outcome for them, giving the landlord the opportunity to be honest with the complainant about what can and cannot be achieved.
It states that once it receives a complaint of ASB it will take a variety of actions, including the following:
1. Complete a risk assessment with complainants and maintain regular contact via a tailored action plan. It clarifies that each case will be considered individually taking into considerations the vulnerability of the victim.
2. Encourage tolerance by trying to balance the needs of individuals with those of neighbours.
3. Seek to resolve a report of ASB at the lowest possible level, including offering mediation.
4. Work closely with partner agencies such as police, adult social care, and local authorities.
5. Not usually transfer complainants or perpetrators as a means of resolving nuisance or ASB. It will, instead, deal with the nuisance.
6. When a case is going to court, in addition to witness statements, it may use evidence from noise recording equipment, Noise App, CCTV and/or professional witnesses where a situation warrants it.
7. Ensure perpetrators of ASB are fully aware of the consequences of their actions.
The policy states that the landlord will close cases where the situation has been resolved and the complainant is happy for the landlord to do so. It continues to say that in some cases it may close a case without the client’s consent and it will only do this if it has done everything it can and it is reasonable and proportionate to resolve the complaint. It states that it will record the reasons for closing cases and advise people what they can do next.
The landlord’s occupancy agreement states that residents must:

Not use or permit their home to be used for any illegal purpose, including the cultivating, selling, supplying, storing or using illegal drugs.
Not cause nuisance or annoyance to neighbours or any other person, and this includes, loud music, radios and television, shouting, arguing and slamming doors, dogs barking, the use of noisy machinery, using or selling drugs and dismantling or repairing motor vehicles.
Ensure that any noise from their home does not annoy or disturb neighbours or so that it can be heard outside the home. This includes televisions, radios and music systems.

The occupancy agreement states that the landlord may take possession action against anyone breaching any terms of the tenancy.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of antisocial behaviour (ASB) by a neighbour

Strong record keeping is a prerequisite for good services. Although in its Stage 2 complaint response the landlord refers to the resident first making a complaint of ASB in January 2020, there is no information on file dating back to January 2020, and the first records available to the Ombudsman date back to April 2020. It is, therefore, not possible to determine what action the landlord took in response to the first allegation of ASB. Although the landlord stated it had spoken to the neighbour at the time, there is no evidence on file to substantiate this. It is a failing on the part of the landlord that it did not maintain clear and accurate records as this may have resulted in the matter being protracted and caused the resident stress and frustration and time and trouble in pursuing the issue.
Furthermore, the records show that the resident’s ASB case was closed due to lack of contact, when in fact, the resident had been regularly submitting noise app recordings and contacting the landlord. This is not in line with the landlord’s policy and also demonstrates poor record keeping. It was inappropriate for the landlord to close the case when there were ongoing reports of ASB. This caused the resident further distress, time and trouble and a loss of confidence in the landlord relationship.
The records show that when the resident reported her neighbour for noise nuisance and smoking cannabis on 14 April 2020, the landlord acted appropriately. It completed a risk assessment, in line with its policy, it liaised with the police and issued a warning letter to the neighbour for breach of tenancy.
When the resident contacted the landlord to complain about the noise of revving motorbikes from her neighbour, the landlord again acted appropriately in speaking to the neighbour to address this the following day.
The landlord further acted appropriately and in line with its policy when it contacted the neighbour upon receiving further noise complaints from the resident up to 17 August 2020.
The landlord offered a home visit to the resident on 14 September 2020 to discuss her ASB reports, which she declined. It was appropriate that the landlord offered this and tried to resolve the issue in a timely manner.
Additionally, the landlord acted within its policy when it sent a letter to all residents in the block on 29 September 2020, regarding the reports of cannabis in the area. It reminded residents of their tenancy obligations and of the law and advised residents it would work together with the police to investigate reports and share information if needed to identify crime and antisocial behaviour.
Furthermore, the landlord referred the resident to its complex case panel, which is to support residents with multiple needs or who are at increased risk. This was appropriate and a reasonable response, as the resident was hesitant on several occasions, to allow the landlord to speak with the neighbour.
There is no dispute that there were failings in the way the landlord initially dealt with the resident’s reports of ASB, in respect of noise nuisance. Although the landlord followed its policy by contacting the neighbour to address the noise issue and provided the resident with the noise app, the resident sent 106 recordings between August 2020 and February 2021 and the landlord did not listen to the majority of these.
It is unclear why these recordings failed to successfully upload or why the landlord did not listen to them all. The landlord stated that this could have been due to a problem with the Wi-Fi. The Ombudsman would have expected the landlord to take further steps to identify the issues raised and we would have expected the landlord to seek further clarity on what level of evidence the resident stated the recordings contained. This lack of inquisitorial approach is a failing on the part of the landlord and left the resident distressed, frustrated and feeling unheard.
The landlord also said it had been unable to visit the resident at the time, due to Covid restrictions. Whilst the Ombudsman acknowledges that there were some government restrictions in place at the time, government guidance for landlords and tenants stated that landlords could take steps to carry out repairs and safety inspections, including essential inspections. It would have been appropriate, therefore, for the landlord to have offered to visit the resident at the time. This delay in any action caused the resident distress and anxiety and time and trouble in pursuing the issue.
Although the landlord did apologise to the resident for failing to listen to all the noise app recordings and advised it would pass this onto the learning team, it did not offer any redress in the form of financial compensation for the distress and time and trouble and this was a failing on the part of the landlord.
From the recordings that the landlord listened to, it could find no evidence of statutory noise nuisance and did not uphold the resident’s complaint. Although it is reasonable that the landlord would need considerable evidence in order to pursue any enforcement action, it is unclear how much more significant evidence would have been available, had it listened to all the noise recordings available. Furthermore, the landlord refused to consider the historical recordings due to the length of time which had passed. Additionally, it did not consider any other alternative options in terms of limiting the impact of the household noise. This is inappropriate and would have caused the resident additional distress, frustration and time and trouble in pursuing the issue.
Although it is clear from the landlord’s ASB policy that it does not consider normal household noise to be ASB, and it is reasonable that the weight of evidence must be substantial to commence any enforcement action, it would have been appropriate for the landlord to take into consideration the missing evidence and its conclusions based on this. It was inappropriate to advise the resident that it could not listen to the historical recording and this caused the resident additional frustration and distress. It would have been appropriate for the landlord to listen to all the recordings and then come to conclusions based on all the evidence presented.
Furthermore, there is conflicting information on file as to whether or not the landlord offered sufficient mediation services to the resident. In some entries it advised that this was offered and declined by the resident. However, it also stated when writing to her to advise that she had been engaging in mediation but this had been unsuccessful. This again, points to poor record keeping on the part of the landlord. It is unclear from the evidence provided what interventions were offered to the resident and what outcomes were achieved.
Additionally, there is no evidence of the landlord providing the resident with any clear action plan in relation to her reports of ASB and this is inappropriate as well as being contrary to the landlord’s policy. This would have caused the resident additional distress and frustration.
Furthermore, although it is reasonable that the landlord submitted that most of the noise was not ASB, the resident was still being impacted by the noise in her day to day life. The landlord did not pursue any other options, such as consideration of noise transference between the properties or any other practical solutions, which may have assisted the resident. Although there is one mention in the evidence that noise transference was raised as a possible issue, this was not investigated in any depth and no support or advice was offered to the resident in this regard.
In respect of the resident’s allegations of the neighbour’s illegal drug taking, although the landlord did act on these allegations by speaking to the neighbour, and advising the resident to call the police, there was no action plan in place at the time of the landlord’s Stage 2 response of 29 June 2021. It failed to provide any further information or support in response to the resident’s repeated allegations and did not take into account the distress suffered by the resident and this was a failing on the part of the landlord.
Although the landlord went some way to meet its ASB policy and procedure and to provide redress to the resident in its Stage 2 complaint response, by acknowledging its failings regarding the missing noise app recordings, it did not go far enough. It refused to listen to historic recordings and did not offer the resident any compensation. It did not acknowledge the resident’s distress and impact on her daily living, nor time and trouble in pursuing the complaint. This is a failing on the part of the landlord. This caused the resident distress, anxiety and time and trouble and had an impact on the quiet enjoyment of her home. As such, a finding of maladministration is made, along with orders for redress.

Determination

In accordance with Paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of ASB by a neighbour.

Orders

Within four weeks of this report, the landlord is ordered to:
Apologise to the resident for the failings identified in this report.
Pay the resident £500 compensation for distress, inconvenience and time and trouble.
Review its record keeping practises to determine what action will be taken to prevent a recurrence of these.
The landlord should provide the Service with evidence of compliance with the above orders.

Recommendations

The landlord to self- assess against the Ombudsman’s Spotlight on noise report if it has not already done so.