Optivo (now Southern Housing) (202212704)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202212704

Optivo (now Southern Housing)

27 February 2024

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:
1. Landlord’s handling of the reports of anti-social behaviour and noise disturbance.
2. Landlord’s response to the resident’s request for the neighbour’s CCTV to be taken down.
3. Landlord’s response to the resident’s request for the neighbour to move.
The Ombudsman has also considered the landlord’s complaint handling.

Background and summary of events

Background

The resident has an assured tenancy that started on 21 March 2014. The resident is a tenant of the housing association.
The property is described as a 1 bedroom first floor flat in a block.
The resident has told this Service that she has a medical condition which affects her mobility.
The reports of anti-social behaviour and noise disturbance relate to the resident’s neighbour (and her partner) who will be referred to as “Tenant A” within this report. The tenancy agreement for Tenant A has not been provided for this investigation. However, it has been assumed that the tenancy terms will be the same, or similar, as those that apply to the resident. It is understood that the partner of Tenant A is a council tenant of another property.

Policies

The resident’s tenancy agreement obliges the resident not to cause nuisance to other residents by undertaking behaviours capable of making a noise. In addition, the resident should not commit acts which could offend another resident or visitor.
The tenancy agreement states that written permission is required before improvements or alterations are made to the property.
The landlord’s anti-social behaviour policy defines anti-social behaviour as: “Conduct that has caused, or is likely to cause, harassment, alarm or distress to any person. Conduct capable of causing nuisance or annoyance to a person in relation to that person’s occupation of residential premises. Or conduct capable of causing housing-related nuisance or annoyance to any person”. It also defines harassment as “any unwanted behaviour affecting a person’s well-being or dignity”. This could create an intimidating, hostile, degrading, humiliating or offensive environment.
The landlord’s anti-social behaviour procedure states that an action plan should be created and, where appropriate, a safeguarding referral made. Also, in certain circumstances, a referral to the police should be made within 3 working days and an interview should be carried out with the alleged perpetrator. Interventions range from acceptable behaviour agreements, noise monitoring equipment, professional witness schemes, mediation and housing options for moving. Parking is not considered anti-social behaviour.
The landlord’s CCTV policy states that permission must be requested before CCTV or a ring door bell is installed and any such installation must comply with the surveillance camera commissioners website. Also, the CCTV must not record any neighbouring property or communal area.
The landlord’s complaints resolution procedure states that at its first stage, it will respond within 10 working days and if more time is required, it will agree a new complaint response date. A request for the complaint to be reviewed should be made within 20 working days. It will respond within 20 working days at its final stage and this can include a panel of involved residents or its senior staff.
The landlord’s compensation procedure sets out the circumstances in which it will award compensation. It advises that each case is considered on its merits.

Scope of investigation

It is noted that there has been a history of allegations and counter allegations about noise disturbance between the resident and Tenant A going back many years. The Ombudsman encourages residents to raise complaints with their landlords at the time the event happened. This is because with the passage of time, evidence may be unavailable which makes it difficult for a thorough investigation to be carried out and for informed decisions to be made. Taking this into account, this assessment has focused on the period from May 2022 to February 2023 when the landlord issued its final complaint response.

Summary of events

The landlord received a report from the resident on 10 May 2022 that Tenant A was playing music between 12am to 3am. The landlord contacted the resident and agreed contact fortnightly regarding the report of noise disturbance. It recorded that the resident would be away from 30 May 2022 to 27 June 2022 and the landlord staff would be absent until 9 June 2022.
The landlord agreed an action plan with the resident:
1. To contact the police to obtain information regarding the partner of Tenant A.
2. To carry out a joint visit with the council’s noise team.
3. Housing officer to investigate the resident’s reports of the CCTV on Tenant A’s balcony.
4. Discuss with the resident the possibility of a move.
5. Write to Tenant A to advise that she was responsible for the actions of her visitor.
6. Consider mediation.
On 16 May 2022, the resident reported that the previous night, the partner of Tenant A had stared at her and she believed that she was being stalked. Also, Tenant A had verbally abused her. The incident had been reported to the police. The resident also advised that she did not believe that mediation would provide a resolution to the reports that she had raised.
The landlord rang the resident on 24 May 2022 to provide an update. It advised:
1. CCTV – It had visited Tenant A property and the CCTV cameras were in a fixed position and not directed towards the resident’s property.
2. Noise disturbance – Another resident had reported that music was being played from Tenant A’s property between 11.30pm to 3am. However, it was unable to get the council to attend to measure the noise levels as they no longer had funding.
3. Harassment – The police had advised that another resident had reported the partner of Tenant A to the council’s social services and the police had attended.
In response, the resident advised that she wanted the landlord to take action to stop the partner of Tenant A intimidating her and she believed that Tenant A was encouraging him.
The landlord’s records show that its Neighbourhood Manager requested that a risk matrix be completed.
The landlord had a case review on 21 June 2022. It noted that the resident was away from the property and it considered whether the resident’s reports had been discussed with the partner of Tenant A. Also, it noted that the resident and Tenant A were disagreeing about car parking in that each was parking too close to the other. The landlord noted that a counter allegation had been received from Tenant A that the resident’s pain relief machine was causing noise disturbance. Tenant A had also alleged the resident was throwing filtered coffee onto the balcony.
On 24 June 2022, the landlord agreed to resolve the resident’s reports of anti-social behaviour by making a referral for mediation for her and Tenant A.
The landlord was contacted on 1 July 2022 another resident who shall be known as “Tenant B”. She informed the landlord that she had witnessed the incidents reported by the resident. Also, that the resident had been stalked by the partner of Tenant A and that he had been videoing and watching the resident’s car. Tenant B expressed her concerns regarding the safety of her children and that she did not feel safe that he was living at the property.
The landlord contacted the police on 7 July 2022 regarding the information provided by Tenant B.
The landlord received a counter allegation from Tenant A on 19 July 2022 that things were being thrown onto her balcony and that the resident was parking too close to her car.
On 22 July 2022, the landlord discussed the reports of anti-social behaviour. The landlord advised that the mediation was being progressed. The resident disputed that she had thrown the coffee beans onto Tenant A’s balcony as, due to her medical condition, she did not drink coffee. Also, she said that Tenant A had accused her of making the referral to the council’s social services when she had not done so.
The landlord made the referral to its mediation company (crime concern) on 28 July 2022. The following day, a good neighbour contract was signed by both parties.
Crime concern contacted the landlord on 1 August 2022 to provide its assessment after meeting both the resident and Tenant A. It stated that:
1. The resident had raised the music coming from Tenant A’s property, verbal abuse and general harassment that she had experienced.
2. Tenant A had stated that the music was being played to eliminate the sound from the resident’s bed. Tenant A had agreed to stop doing this.
3. Tenant A had stated that the resident parked her car so that she could not get her wheelchair into the car. The resident agreed that she did so and stated that she would continue to do this.
Crime concern advised that it would offer noise monitoring to both parties.
The landlord was contacted by the council’s senior pollution enforcement officer on 9 August 2022 who advised that it was receiving complaints about noise disturbance and anti-social behaviour from residents. It advised that it had assessed these to be general living noise which could result from the block being inadequately insulated. It noted reports that it had received from 2015; those relevant to this complaint were the resident complaining about Tenant A. It suggested that the landlord look at the insulation of the block.
The anti-social behaviour case was closed on 17 August 2022. The landlord’s records gave the reason as following mediation.
This Service wrote to the landlord asking that it respond to the resident’s complaint on 15 September 2022. We provided an undated complaint in which the resident provided the following information:
1. Crime concern had failed to respond to her phone calls and had not attended to witness the noise disturbance, which went on from 10pm to 8.45am – four days a week.
2. Tenant A had made allegations regarding noise from the resident’s flat. Crime concern did not discuss the allegations with her and Tenant A had not supplied any evidence to support the allegations.
3. She believed that as Tenant A was a wheelchair user, Tenant A believed that she did not have to abide by the tenancy terms.
4. As crime concern had failed to address her concerns, the only option available was to cause Tenant A discomfort.
5. She was not prepared to listen to the noise from Tenant A’s property during the night and day.
The landlord emailed the resident to acknowledge the complaint on 20 September 2022 and advised that it would response by 30 September 2022. It attached its complaint policy.
On 21 September 2022, the landlord contacted the noise pollution team to request their availability as the relationship between the resident and Tenant A had not improved.
The landlord advised the resident on 23 September 2022 to keep making reports regarding the stalking to the police. It advised that it had agreed to using a professional witness and gave their availability. Also, it requested the description of the partner of Tenant A and times when he is around. In response, the resident provided the times that she had seen Tenant A’s partner and the times she had been disturbed by the loud music.
The resident made a report of noise disturbance on 25 September 2022, stating that she was woken at 4am by music penetrating the floor.
The landlord provided its complaint response on 28 September 2022. The key findings were:
1. Noise disturbance.
  1. It opened an anti-social behaviour case and contacted the resident and Tenant A. Mediation was agreed and a good neighbour contract was signed by both parties.
  2. It acknowledged that the resident had reported that crime concern had failed to respond to her calls. Crime concern had until 7 October 2022 to inform it of the contact arrangements they had in place with the resident.
  3. It would continue fortnightly contact with the resident and it supplied diary sheets.
  4. A noise monitoring service would be provided by the professional witnesses.
  5. By 7 October 2022, the noise monitoring equipment was to be installed.
2. Harassment.
  1. It had contacted the police regarding the allegations of intimidation whilst she had been parking her car.
  2. It requested that the resident continue reporting.
  3. It had requested that the professional witnesses assist the investigation of this allegation.
  4. It intended that crime concern contact the resident by 3 October 2022 to finalise the arrangements.
  5. It confirmed that the professional witnesses would be available for 2 days per week over a 3-week period.
3. It would contact the resident by 28 October 2022 with its decision on the anti-social behaviour and provided a review form for the resident to complete if she remained dissatisfied with its response.
The professional witnesses attended on 6 separate occasions on: 30 September 2022, 1 October 2022, 7 October 2022, 8 October 2022, 14 October 2022 and 15 October 2022. On 1 October 2022, the professional witness noted loud music; on the other occasions, they reported that loud music or stalking was not witnessed.
On 18 October 2022, the professional witness completed a witness statement confirming that he witnessed loud music from Tenant A’s property on 1 October 2022.
The following occurred on 24 October 2022:
1. The resident requested that the cameras on Tenant A’s property be removed as they were pointing directly to her balcony.
2. The police informed the landlord that it had received another report regarding the partner of Tenant A.
3. The landlord informed the police that it did not believe that Tenant A’s partner lived with her but was at the property regularly.
The resident contacted the landlord to advise she remained dissatisfied with its response to her concerns. She advised that crime concern failed to contact her and that from 19.49pm, loud music had been played by Tenant A. Also, Tenant A had made false allegations about her and the cameras remained in place. Finally, the partner of Tenant A continued to hang about under her balcony every day.
The landlord’s internal records on 9 November 2022 show it discussed whether to issue Tenant A with a warning letter regarding the noise nuisance. It noted that the cameras were not compliant and it would speak to its development team regarding noise transference in the block.
Later that same day, the landlord contacted the resident to advise that it had visited Tenant A and it had informed Tenant A that the camera facing the resident’s balcony must be repositioned by 1 December 2022. It wanted to meet with her to discuss her reports of noise disturbance and those made by Tenant A about the noise coming from her property.
The police contacted the landlord on 23 November 2022 to request that it carry out a letter drop to all residents in the block as it was receiving multiple reports regarding noise nuisance.
On 27 November 2022, the resident informed the landlord that she remained dissatisfied and wanted to escalate her complaint. She remained disillusioned as:
1. There was continuous harassment and bullying from Tenant A and her partner.
2. The partner of Tenant A had been around all week and every day; he could be found underneath her balcony and she found this intimidating.
3. The CCTV cameras had not been repositioned and remained pointed towards her balcony.
4. She was disturbed by noise from 8pm on weekdays and from Friday nights from 11pm.The resident disputed that she had made any noise that could affect Tenant A. The landlord had failed to address the noise disturbance.
5. For the past 15 months, Tenant A had installed a camera which would have recorded anyone throwing items onto her patio.
6. Crime concern failed to respond to her calls.
The resident contacted the landlord on 5 December 2022 to advise that the CCTV cameras remained in place. She alleged that the partner of Tenant A was still around and playing music 24 hours a day and when she contacted crime concern for the past 2 weeks, the mediator had failed to response.
The same day, the landlord informed the resident that the date of the complaints panel had not been agreed. Also, it asked whether the resident wanted an involved resident to be included as part of the panel. The resident declined having an involved resident in the process.
The landlord contact the resident on 12 December 2022, 26 January 2023 and 31 January 2023. It apologised for the delay in providing its complaint response on each occasion and provided dates such as 5 January 2023, 2 February 2023 and 10 February 2023 when it would provide its complaint response.
The resident informed the landlord on 13 December 2022 and 5 January 2023 that the CCTV cameras remained in place and she could still hear loud music between 3am to 4am in her property.
The landlord sent a block letter on 6 February 2023 advising residents that they should stop throwing household rubbish over the balcony.
On 13 February 2023, the landlord provided its final stage complaint response. It apologised that the anti-social behaviour between the resident and Tenant A remained unresolved. The key findings were:
1. Anti-social behaviour and noise disturbance.
  1. It had followed its ASB procedures and had dealt with 4 cases involving the resident and Tenant A. It stated that the resident had been a perpetrator and complainer of noise disturbance.
  2. A good neighbour agreement was signed on 9 August 2022.
  3. The professional witness confirmed loud music could be heard from Tenant A’s property.
  4. Tenant A had informed them that the loud music was played to minimise the sound of the resident’s bed. The landlord had advised that it would serve a written warning to Tenant A.
  5. It hoped that the noise disturbance had ended.
  6. Crime concern had reviewed the videos that she had supplied and there was no evidence that she was being stalked.
  7. It had spoken to Tenant A who advised that their partner was looking around as cars including theirs had been damaged.
  8. Stalking was a criminal offence and should be reported to the police.
  9. It requested the crime reference number if she already done so and set out the information of the steps she should take.
  10. It advised that the resident had admitted to crime concern that she had parked close to Tenant A’s car to stop her accessing her wheelchair and had said she would continue doing this.
  11. It stated that the resident should stop parking close to Tenant A’s car as this was preventing her having access to the car boot.
  12. The playing of loud music could be reported to the noise pollution team. If this was witnessed, an abatement notice could be issued. The landlord said it would work with them.
2. CCTV
  1. It had visited Tenant A who had advised that the CCTV cameras were installed as the flat above them was throwing nappies and coffee out of the window.
  2. At the visit, the cameras were pointed downwards and away from the resident’s property.
  3. It could not withhold permission to allow a tenant to install CCTV. However, it must be satisfied that the CCTV was used for domestic purposes and written permission was required.
  4. It believed that the position of the cameras was compliant and it would review this.
3. Moving Tenant A.
  1. It did not move perpetrators of anti-social behaviour. There were a number of options open to residents who wished to move home.
  2. It could not provide any more information regarding Tenant A’s wish to move (due to data protection).
4. It determined that the complaint had been partially upheld as it had followed its anti-social behaviour policy and offered mediation. It acknowledged that there were challenges in the relationship between the resident and Tenant A. However, it did not have enough to substantiate the allegations, therefore, it was signposting the resident to agencies that could assist her.
5. It made a compensation award of £100 for the delays experienced in communicating with crime concern.
6. It advised that it would work closer with the mediation company if there were issues or a breakdown in its agreement. Any such delays were to be communicated quickly.
7. It enclosed a housing options booklet and an essential information for victims of stalking leaflet.

Post complaint events

Between 24 February 2023 to 22 March 2023, the resident made a new report of noise disturbance with loud music being played from 22.30pm.
The police informed the landlord on 26 February 2023 that the situation regarding the noise was ongoing. It requested that the landlord consider meditation.
The resident complained to the council parking team on 9 March 2023 that Tenant A had parked close to her car.
On 21 March 2023, the noise pollution team informed the resident that it was the landlord’s responsibility to investigate her report of noise disturbance.
The landlord had a muti-agency meeting on 24 March 2023 which decided that an acceptable behaviour agreement should be drawn up before further action was taken. It is noted that neither the resident or Tenant A attended for the signing of the acceptable behaviour agreement.

Assessment and findings

The Ombudsman’s role is to establish whether the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports were in line with its legal and policy obligations. Also, to assess whether the landlord’s actions were fair in all the circumstances of the case.
It is appreciated that the resident has been upset and distressed by the ongoing dispute with Tenant A and her partner. Also, the resident has been frustrated by the landlord’s response to her request to remove Tenant A’s CCTV cameras. The resident’s feelings are understood and it is not disputed that dealing with such situations is stressful.
The resident and Tenant A have a responsibility to behave reasonably under the terms of their respective tenancy agreements. The landlord has a responsibility to its residents to enable them to maintain and sustain their tenancies. It should also take appropriate action in response to any reports of alleged anti-social behaviour or noise disturbance. The landlord’s anti-social behaviour policy provides the framework under which it manages its ASB cases.

Landlord’s handling of the reports of anti-social behaviour and noise disturbance.

The resident reported her concerns about the behaviour of the partner of Tenant A in May 2022. Another resident also contacted the landlord to raise concerns about Tenant A’s partner around the same time. The evidence shows that the landlord did not take any action regarding this report until July 2022, when it contacted the police. This was not reasonable as it was not in line with its anti-social behaviour policy which outlines its response times to reports of anti-social behaviour.
It was reasonable for the landlord to request that the resident report her allegations of stalking to the police as stalking is a criminal offence. In determining if formal tenancy action were appropriate, the landlord would be able to use information received from the police on the outcomes of their investigations.
Nevertheless, the landlord also had responsibilities to investigate the resident’s concerns about being harassed by the partner of Tenant A. The landlord arranged for a professional witness in September 2022 to gather evidence of the alleged stalking and bullying by Tenant A’s partner that she had complained about. This was reasonable for it to gather evidence to support any action it could take. Also, its request for the resident to provide the description of Tenant A’s partner and the day and times of day that he was routinely seen was reasonable so that its professional witness could identify the correct person. This would also ensure that the times that the professional witness was available matched the times that the resident stated that she was being stalked. It is noted that during the times the professional witness was available, they did not record seeing Tenant A’s partner. The landlord’s actions in this regard were reasonable.
The landlord sent crime concern videos that the resident had provided of the stalking. The landlord was advised that these did not meet the threshold to be considered stalking. Nevertheless, the landlord spoke to Tenant A, who provided an explanation for her partner being near the resident’s car. Based on evidence seen by this Service, the police did not provide evidence to the landlord that the resident was being stalked. Therefore, it was reasonable for the landlord to determine that it did not have any evidence that the resident was being stalked that would allow it to take formal tenancy action against Tenant A. However, the landlord could have considered whether there was any informal action it could have taken against Tenant A as she was responsible for the actions of her visitors.
The landlord’s anti-social behaviour policy states that residents’ concerns about parking are not considered anti-social behaviour. It is noted that the resident’s tenancy does not come with a parking space and the landlord does not supply parking for its residents. The council is responsible for parking enforcement. The landlord in its final complaint response informed the resident that she should stop parking close to the boot of resident A as this prevented her accessing her wheelchair. While the landlord could not take formal enforcement action regarding the parking provision, it was reasonable for it to ensure that both residents behaved reasonably.
The landlord carried out a case review in June 2022 and agreed to progress mediation to improve the relationship between the resident and Tenant A. There was a delay of around a month in making the referral to crime concern. Once the referral was made, a good neighbour agreement was signed. This was an appropriate action for the landlord to use the informal remedies that it had available. Also, this was an opportunity for both parties to discuss the issues of disagreement and agree a resolution.
The landlord closed the anti-social behaviour case in August 2022 on the basis that the good neighbour agreement had been signed. This was reasonable as it provided an appropriate period of time to assess the effectiveness of the good neighbour agreement.
The resident made reports of noise disturbance in May 2022 that music was being played between 12am to 3am. It is noted that the resident was away from her property from the end of May 2022 to the end of June 2022. It was reasonable for the landlord to request that crime concern investigate the resident’s reports as it appeared that, at this time, the council’s noise team was not attending to witness noise reports due to financial circumstances. The landlord acted appropriately by arranging for professional witnesses to attend on 6 separate occasions to witness the noise between September 2022 to October 2022 (and there was just the one occasion when noise was witnessed)
The landlord was informed in August 2022 and in November 2022 (by the council’s noise team) that the noise disturbance reported by the resident may be exacerbated by the noise transference within the property. The landlord was also contacted by the police in November 2022 about the reports of noise disturbance it was receiving from residents of the block. There is no evidence that the landlord assessed this to see whether the building construction contributed to noise transference. This was not reasonable as it was aware that noise reports were being made by other occupants of the building. Furthermore, this was a missed opportunity to assess the actions that could be taken to find a resolution to benefit its residents.
The landlord’s final complaint response of February 2023 stated that its position was that the noise disturbance had ended. This was not a reasonable conclusion to reach as the resident has made a report of noise disturbance the previous month.
The landlord’s final complaint response acknowledged that the resident had experienced poor communication from crime concern. The mediation company should have responded to the resident within a reasonable timescale and the resident reported that, on occasion, it took 2 weeks to respond. The landlord made an award of £100 compensation for this which was a reasonable approach to take. It also agreed to follow up with crime concern so that its communication with residents improved.
After the final complaint response, the landlord held a multi- agency meeting and agreed that the resident and Tenant A should sign an acceptable behaviour agreement. In light of the reports that the resident had made regarding anti-social behaviour and noise disturbance, it was reasonable for it to obtain a mediated agreement to reach a long-standing resolution to the issues between the resident and Tenant A. It is noted that the resident did not attend this meeting and that the resident has not been occupying the property since June 2023, following a fire.

Landlord’s response to the resident’s request for the neighbour’s CCTV to be taken down.

The landlord’s CCTV policy states that before CCTV is installed on its properties, permission must be obtained by the resident and the coverage should not extend to the neighbouring property.
The landlord acted in accordance with this policy by visiting Tenant A’s property in May 2022 to inspect the CCTV camera installed at the property. This was appropriate to confirm that the resident’s privacy had not been breached. The landlord determined that the location of Tenant A’s cameras did not invade the resident’s privacy.
There was a gap of around 5 months before the resident made a further report in October 2022 regarding the recording from Tenant A’s cameras. There were 12 days before the landlord carried out a further visit in November 2022. It assessed that the cameras were not compliant with its CCTV policy and requested that Tenant A reposition them by 1 December 2022. This approach was reasonable.
However, based on evidence seen by this Service, the cameras were not repositioned by that date. The resident chased the landlord on 2 separate occasions in December 2022 and in January 2023. The landlord has informed this Service that it inspected Tenant A’s property in March 2023. It was inappropriate that, despite the CCTV issue being a primary aspect of the ongoing dispute, the landlord failed to post-inspect the camera position until 3 months after the deadline it had given to Tenant A.
The landlord has informed this Service that after the final complaint response, it granted permission to Tenant A regarding the CCTV until it installed its own cameras.

Landlord’s response to the resident’s request for the neighbour to move.

The landlord has a variety of ways that its residents can find alternative accommodation, such as a mutual exchange or registering with the local authority.
Each application for a move is assessed based on the circumstances of the individual applicant and residents who wish to move to another property can discuss their concerns with a housing officer. Alternatively, residents can look for properties online.
The landlord cannot disclose information to the resident about any confidential aspect of Tenant A’s tenancy, including any possible discussions about a transfer. The landlord must respect the confidentiality of its residents. Therefore, it was correct that it did not provide any further information about whether it had, or had not, received a request for a move for Tenant A. It was also reasonable for it to highlight that it would not be likely to move a perpetrator of anti-social behaviour. There was no obligation on it to organise a move for Tenant A.
The landlord reasonably provided the resident with advice about how she could find alternative accommodation, setting out the options available. These ranged from the different mutual exchange schemes, choice-based lettings schemes and mobility schemes.

The Ombudsman has also considered the landlord’s complaint handling.

The landlord’s complaint handling targets are that it will respond within 10 working days at the first stage of its complaints procedure and 20 working days at its final stage.
From what can be seen, the complaint made to the landlord was undated. There is no evidence that the landlord had received a complaint before this Service informed it of this on 15 September 2022 and requested that it respond.
The landlord acknowledged the complaint within 2 working days and sent the resident its complaints policy. The landlord provided its stage one complaint response within 6 working days on 28 September 2022. It acknowledged that the resident had experienced poor communication with crime concern and said it was looking further into this. It also set out the next steps it proposed to take regarding installing noise monitoring equipment and using professional witnesses to confirm the degree of noise disturbance. The landlord’s handling of the initial complaint was appropriate.
The landlord escalated the complaint on 27 November 2022. It subsequently communicated the delays in progressing the complaint, advising the resident firstly that it was experiencing difficulty constituting the complaint panel. It made apologies for its delays on 3 separate occasions, one in December 2022 and two in January 2022. While the Complaint Handling Code states that landlords should get residents to agree to extensions of its complaints handling, the final complaint response exceeded the stage 2 complaint timescale and this was inappropriate.
The landlord failed to recognise and provide redress for its failure to respond to the resident’s escalated complaint within its published complaint handling timescales. This was not reasonable as this was its final review of the resident’s complaint and it missed an opportunity to review its own actions and to consider whether an award of compensation was appropriate for this.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure by the landlord in its handling of the reports of anti-social behaviour and noise disturbance.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord in its handling of the resident’s request for the neighbour’s CCTV to be taken down.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration by the landlord in its response to the resident’s request for the neighbour to move.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure in the landlord’s complaint handling.

Reasons

There was a delay in the landlord taking action regarding the resident’s initial reports of anti-social behaviour. Also, the landlord was informed by the noise pollution team that the building could have a problem with noise transference and there is no evidence that the landlord acted on this. The landlord has acted appropriately in attempting to get the resident and Tenant A to sign a good neighbour agreement and later an acceptable behaviour agreement.
The landlord instructed Tenant A to comply with its CCTV policy and that this should happen by December 2022. From what can be seen, compliance was not achieved until May 2023. This represented an unreasonable delay in the landlord completing the actions set out in its complaint response and the resident likely experienced a breach of her privacy.
The landlord acted appropriately in offering reasons why it could not give any information regarding Tenant A and whether she had made a request to move. The landlord has a duty to protect the data of all of its residents. There is no evidence that the circumstances meant it was obliged to move the neighbour.
The landlord delayed in offering a response at the final stage of the complaints process.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

With 4 weeks of the date of this determination, the landlord is to:
1. Write to the resident apologising for the service failures identified in this report.
2. Pay the resident overall compensation of £500, including the £100 that was awarded within the complaints process, comprised of:
  1. £200 for its failings in the handling of the reports of anti-social behaviour and noise disturbance;
  2. £200 for its delay in ensuring that Tenant A’s CCTV complied with its CCTV policy (as set out in its final complaint response);
  3. £100 for the delay in providing its final complaint response.
Carry out an assessment of the noise transference within the building. A copy of the report and recommendations should be provided to this Service.

Recommendations

If it has not already done so, the landlord should carry out a self-assessment against this Service’s spotlight report on noise complaints – time to be heard (October 2022).