Paradigm Housing Group Limited (202116807)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202116807

Paradigm Housing Group Limited

22 August 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

1. The complaint is about:

a.     The level of compensation the landlord offered the resident for its failure in the handling of antisocial behaviour (ASB) reports.

b.     The landlord’s handling of cables erected by the resident’s neighbour that affect her home.

c.      The landlord’s handling of sound proofing.

d.     The landlord’s complaint and communication handling.

Background and summary of events

Background

2. The property is a 2-bedroom 1st floor maisonette owned by the landlord on an assured tenancy agreement that began in 2010.
3. The landlord reports vulnerabilities of the resident’s son having asthma and the resident refers to anxiety in correspondence with the landlord.
4. The landlord has a 2 stage complaints process, aiming to respond to stage 1 complaints within 10 working days and stage 2 complaints within 20 working days.
5. The landlord’s ASB policy outlines objectives to ensure it investigates all complaints of ASB effectively and resolves them in an impartial and proactive manner. It commits to communicate effectively with residents and provide appropriate information, advice and support. It also refers to it taking decisive and swift action, engaging the complainant and victims at each stage of its process.

Summary of Events

6. The landlord and resident have provided substantial historical information about noise reports, property surveys and sound proofing proposals dating back to 2012. Whilst this is useful information and gives context, due to the time elapsed since the first reports, it is considered appropriate in this investigation to concentrate on the more recent events from April 2020 onwards (18 months prior to the resident’s complaint).
7. In April 2020, various resident and landlord communications occurred as below:

a.     4 April 2020 – the landlord received a call from the resident about the neighbour’s behaviour in relation to music all day, every day stating he had connected speakers in the garden. The landlord followed this up the same day and contacted the resident. Other residents were also contacted, and information about the noise app was sent.

b.     12 April 2020 – the resident sent the landlord an email in relation to disturbing music from the neighbour from 11am until the evening that day, stating there had been disturbance for the last 3 days. She commented that the alleged perpetrator had been asked by other neighbours to turn down the music and a PCSO had been to his home, but it was still ongoing.

c.      16 April 2020 – the landlord responded to the resident and confirmed it had spoken to the neighbour and pointed out he may be in breach of his tenancy agreement. It attached a link to the noise app and said that it would send guidance notes by a separate email.

d.     27 April 2020 – the resident reported loud music from her neighbour from 7.30pm for 7 hours. She recorded it on the noise app and said that she did not want to ask him to turn it down as the last time he shouted at her and threw something. The landlord said it would send a letter to the neighbour and liaise with the council’s environmental health department.

e.     29 April 2020 – the landlord sent a warning letter to the neighbour.

8. During May 2020, there were further communications as outlined below:

a.     A number of emails were exchanged between the resident and landlord about her request to move due to the neighbour (and other reasons disclosed to the landlord).

b.     The resident confirmed during the emails that she was keeping diary sheets about the loud music and she reported an intermittent strong smell of cannabis from the neighbour’s flat and that social distancing was not being adhered to. She described how the situation was affecting her mental health.

c.      The landlord confirmed the ASB case had been closed for 4 years. It also said it had written, and spoken, to the neighbour following the last report of loud music. It confirmed that it needed evidence and attached diary log sheets and guidance on using the noise app and advised her to contact the police when the neighbour was breaching the social distancing rule and when she could smell cannabis (to enable joint working).

d.     The resident told the landlord that she was getting conflicting messages between the police and landlord, and she was concerned that if she rang the police every time she smelt cannabis, she would be calling them a lot.

e.     The resident sent an email to the landlord on 11 May 2020. She said that the noise app had been set up and she had submitted a recording and music was playing that prevented her from being able to concentrate on her work (and she was home schooling). She also said that she would complete the log and send it to the landlord. In a further email of the same day, the resident asked for an action plan from the landlord.

f.        The landlord responded to say it had not received the noise app yet but would action it when it was received. It also asked for a picture of the log, or a description of the incidents.

g.     The resident responded with details of incidents from 27 March 2020 to 11 May 2020. She said she was having trouble printing the diary sheets and described the situation as affecting the whole family and that they did not want to live at the property anymore.

h.     The resident emailed the landlord to say that she had reported nuisance twice over the last 6 weeks and from now on she would report it every time something happened. She said that the landlord now had a report of 6 weeks of noise nuisance, and she required an action plan, referring to the service standards of 5 working days. She also asked for the date the neighbour was spoken to and asked for information about the noise app recordings.

i.        The landlord advised the resident that diary sheets would be posted out. It was noted that the resident had stated she had suffered persistent noise over the last 6 weeks. The landlord said that in recent communication about noise that weekend, she had informed the landlord of 1 occasion over the bank holiday weekend, and it had spoken to the neighbour and he had apologised, stating it was not intentional. It said it would let her know the next steps regarding the noise app recordings as these would have gone to a different team.

j.        On the same day, a further email was sent to the resident, stating it did not appear to have received the noise app recordings and confirming that the neighbour was spoken to on 14 April 2020.

k.      On 13 May 2020, the landlord completed its risk assessment on the resident. The score was assessed as ‘20’ against its scoring system of ‘0-30’ with 30 being the highest score (albeit the landlord’s ASB policy refers to a scoring system up to 44).

l.        The same day, landlord records show there were internal emails regarding the resident feeling vulnerable and that she did not want it to contact the neighbour, stating she wanted to move. It asked if the resident’s home and the neighbouring property could be put on the sound insulation list.

m.   The landlord confirmed to the resident on 27 May 2020 that it had received the noise app recordings (and they were clear). The resident gave details of a number of incidents of noise from the neighbour from 21–25 May 2020 and sent in a photograph showing a speaker situated in the garden. She explained that she had made contact with her GP as she had become so anxious, and a letter was sent to the landlord. She subsequently provided a photograph (taken in March 2020) to show cables had been fitted on her side of the fence, running to the back of the garden.

n.     The landlord confirmed it was trying to get the property on the sound insulation waiting list and that it had spoken to the neighbour and sent him a letter (which occurred on 28 May 2020).

o.     The landlord’s notes at the end of the month refer to it monitoring the noise situation over a weekend and that if this remained ongoing, it would refer the matter to environmental health.

9. On 1 June 2020, the landlord received noise recordings from another resident.
10. On 17 June 2020, the landlord sent the resident an email, asking for an update and the resident responded explaining that the last couple of weeks had been better. She said that the last time she had noted being disturbed was 1 June 2020, when the neighbour was on the phone for 3 hours until midnight and she could hear the conversation.
11. On 22 July 2020, the landlord’s records show the ASB case was closed, noting there had been no further reports. A letter was sent to the resident to confirm this.
12. On 14 September 2020, the landlord received an email from the resident about disturbance from loud music since 10am that morning. She said that she had tried to use the noise app, but it would not record and therefore she used her phone. She said that she was going to work from a family member’s house for the day. The landlord responded the following day, advising her that it would note this on its ASB records and to let it know if it happened again.
13. In November 2020, further communications occurred between the resident and landlord:

a.     7 November 2020 – the landlord received 2 text message screen shots from the resident, asking the neighbour to turn the bass off as it was shaking her floor and she was trying to work. The response from the neighbour was that it was his birthday, and that music was his life.

b.     17 November 2020 – the landlord confirmed it had spoken to the neighbour that morning regarding allegations of noise and he said he rarely played his music when he knew the resident was at home, particularly if he believed she was working. He admitted to playing music on a Saturday at 5pm and responding to the resident’s text message. Counter allegations of loud noise from the resident’s property were made that included hoovering at 10.30pm and stamping so hard that 3 of his light bulbs blew.

c.      24 November 2020 – the landlord’s internal emails suggest a new ASB case was opened with a meeting to look at the case to see if anything else could be done to support the resident. Another email confirmed diary forms and noise app instructions were sent to both parties.

d.     26 November 2020 – the resident emailed the landlord and a couple of incidents were reported of 13 November 2020 at 11.30pm (from drilling) and 18 November 2020 (smell of cannabis all night in her flat).

14. On 2 December 2020, the landlord called the resident, discussed the history of the case and referred to the periodic noise. It said that if incidents continued, it would have a clear path of action that could include warning, acceptable behaviour agreement, referral to environmental health or formal enforcement action. The resident confirmed there had been no incidents since early November 2020. It said that the noise app was now up and running and monitoring was ongoing so it could approach the neighbour with clear instances of excessive noise shown via the app. The option of mediation was discussed and it noted that this was tried before some years ago, but the resident said that she would consider this. It agreed further contact on 7 December 2020.
15. On 7 December 2020, the landlord confirmed in an email to the resident that upon her request, it would monitor the situation and she would use the noise app if required. It said that should further incidents happen, it would agree its approach based on details of the reports. For now, it confirmed that the case was closed but the noise app remained open. It said that it would reopen the case if there were further incidents. It also said that, with her permission, it would contact the neighbour and would discuss specific actions with reports not being viewed in isolation.
16. On 11 December 2020, the landlord responded to the resident’s MP. It explained that the case was being reviewed in relation to the historic reports and it was to agree next steps. It explained that the reports had been intermittent over an extended period of time, and it had acted upon them. It added that there had been a temporary reduction in the problem and therefore the case had never reached a level of seriousness which would provide grounds on which a court would normally agree to a possession order.
17. In the same email to the MP, it confirmed that there had been another reporter on one occasion and that the noise app was being used. It had a small number of flats and maisonettes that were transferred from council homes with poor sound insulation and the resident’s home was one of them. It said it was checking the quality of sound insulation between the two properties to see if improvements could be made, and it had an asset management strategy to improve the insulation where it was possible to do so. The resident confirmed she wanted to move, and it had provided advice on mutual exchanges but she was not eligible to join the council waiting list as she was adequately housed.
18. On 15 December 2020, the resident recapped actions from the landlord and said that she believed the action plan was:

a.     The case remained open for monitoring.

b.     To continue to use the noise app to report incidents.

c.      A sound proofing survey was to be carried out at both her home and the neighbour’s and she was awaiting to hear when this would be done.

d.     She was extremely disappointed with the response sent to the MP.

e.     She questioned the reference to a single report from another neighbour.

f.        She was concerned that information had not been recorded sufficiently.

19. On 3 January 2021, the resident emailed the landlord, stating she had sent in noise recordings the previous day via the app. She said the noise started at 1pm and by 2.30pm she could not bear it anymore and had to go out. She said that when she got home at 5pm it had stopped. She asked the landlord to contact her to discuss the next steps.
20. The landlord made a record on 13 January 2021 that it spoke to the resident regarding the noise app recording of 2 January 2021. It confirmed that it did show the music was excessive but noted no other instances had occurred. The resident requested contact with the neighbour, and it confirmed it would advise him that the noise must be kept to reasonable levels and remind him it had been raised before. The landlord has evidenced that it did send a written warning to the neighbour the same day and advised him that its next steps would be to involve environmental health.
21. On 20 January 2021, the landlord spoke to the neighbour about excessive and unreasonable noise evidenced through the noise app. It also advised him that it would be assessing the property for sound insulation.
22. On 3 February 2021, the landlord emailed the resident asking for an update.
23. On 3 March 2021, the landlord called the resident but there was no reply. It noted it had asked her to call back as it required an update as it had received no reports of incidents and it wanted to assess the next steps. The resident responded the next day and confirmed there had been no further incidents of noise.
24. On 4 March 2021, the landlord told the resident that it was considering closing the ASB case. It also said that if there was any further confirmed nuisance, it could be reopened and picked up from where it was left off. It said that it was its understanding that soundproofing works were still scheduled for that year.
25. On 10 March 2021, the resident emailed the landlord confirming the suggestion of closing the file was ok as long as if it were reopened, it was allocated back to the officer and all previous issues were taken into account. She requested that it did not write to the neighbour to confirm it had closed the case as she said previous experience told her this would give them permission to restart the noise.
26. On 8 September 2021, the landlord’s records show it received recordings of extremely loud music that went through other flats, causing a disturbance. It also noted nuisance with cables in the garden nailed on top of the resident’s door. On the same day, the landlord emailed the resident to confirm the recordings were very excessive and not acceptable. It said it would be investigating the case further and was working with the housing officer about the cables.
27. The landlord’s records confirm it spoke to the alleged perpetrator the same day and he denied the noise. The landlord advised him that he would receive a warning letter.
28. On 13 September 2021, the landlord spoke to the resident. She confirmed there had been no further disturbances, but she did want the housing officer to address the cable issue and she sent photographs to the landlord showing these. She also commented that she had heard nothing about sound proofing and asked the landlord if it had contacted other neighbours who she said in the past had been disturbed.
29. On 13 September 2021, the landlord notes show that the neighbour stated he had planning permission for the cables, and they were not causing the resident a problem and he played music every so often.
30. On 24 September 2021, the resident confirmed to the landlord that she had  submitted another noise recording on the app, noting that this was 3 recordings in 3 weeks. She gave specific instructions not to contact her neighbour before speaking to her or her partner as she was scared of repercussions. She said that she was suffering badly with her mental health due to the ongoing issues.
31. On 27 September 2021, the resident emailed the landlord confirming the dates when her flat smelt of cannabis, which she said had given her a headache and sore throat. The police and housing officer had previously been informed but nothing was done. In another email of the same date, third party neighbour contact details were provided to the landlord and it confirmed it would contact them before looking at next steps.
32. On 29 September 2021, the landlord received a phone call from the resident’s partner stating he felt they have been let down by the landlord as no effective action had been taken. It confirmed that it would listen to the noise app and forward the queries regarding sound proofing to the appropriate team. The landlord’s records show it left a voicemail for the alleged perpetrator on the same day.
33. On 1 October 2021, the resident confirmed to the landlord that she had recorded another noise incident, noting this had been regular for about 4-5 weeks. She said she had heard nothing from anyone about the noise, cables or sound proofing. She requested formal written action to be presented to her by 5 October 2021, otherwise she would have to raise a formal complaint.
34. On 4 October 2021, the landlord emailed the resident, stating it had left another message for the housing officer to make contact. It said that it was wanting to issue the neighbour with a tenancy warning, but it could not do this without speaking to him first. In relation to an action plan, it said that she needed to continue to submit recordings via the app and if the behaviour continued, it would issue a second warning before a notice of seeking possession was considered.
35. On 5 October 2021, the resident emailed the landlord to raise a formal complaint, giving a full chronology of the history of the issues raised. She explained that it had affected her health and she was suffering with lack of sleep, anxiety and depression, stating that she was sometimes scared to go home. She explained that she had corresponded with more than 10 members of the landlord’s staff, police, environmental health, her MP and mediation services over the last 7 years and that some of the officers had been obstructive and unprofessional. She said that the same warning interventions were not working, and her neighbour now knew the pattern the landlord followed.
36. On 6 October 2021, the landlord phoned the resident to clarify the complaint process and take additional details. It also sent its stage 1 complaint acknowledgement letter to her, stating that it aimed to respond by 20 October 2021.
37. On 19 October 2021, the landlord’s records show that it phoned the resident to discuss the complaint outcome and a message was left on her voicemail. On the same day, a response letter was sent confirming the following:

a.     It could see that the first report of issues was in 2013 and the nuisance was sporadic in nature.

b.     There was a pattern of nuisance being reported followed by intervention, ultimately leading to improvement in the noise levels.

c.      It said that this type of nuisance was difficult to resolve by formal enforcement.

d.     In the most recent case opened on 8 September 2021, there had been delays contacting her and the neighbour about ongoing issues.

e.     It had reviewed the noise app recordings and agreed that they showed a level of noise that constituted a breach of tenancy. It agreed that it should have shown an increased level of diligence in carrying out the investigation.

f.        It confirmed that the report had not been handled in keeping with the ASB policy and processes. It apologised for the service failure and upheld that part of the complaint.

g.     It said that the case was now being actively investigated in an attempt to resolve any breaches of tenancy and it had asked an officer to contact her as a priority to obtain an update and monitor the case to ensure proportionate action was taken.

h.     It confirmed it would feedback the outcome of the complaint to the relevant case manager, clarify its position in relation to sound insulation and review the ASB case fortnightly to ensure it was managed in line with its ASB process.

38. On 20 October 2021, the landlord notes show that it asked the resident for  permission to contact the neighbour and the next day, the resident emailed the landlord outlining a couple of points as follows:

a.     The formal complaint outcome did not address the cable issue in her garden.

b.     She asked when she should expect to have an update and what action was going to be taken regarding sound proofing.

c.      She commented that she was not happy or clear on the suggested immediate plan of action of how the landlord proposed to stop the noise.

39. On 27 October 2021, the resident telephoned the landlord after receiving its voice mail and text. The landlord confirmed that sound proofing work would be carried out in the new financial year. In a later email that day, the resident asked for further clarification on when she joined the sound proofing list. The landlord could not provide a date for this. It confirmed that it had arranged a visit on 10 November 2021 for the cable issue.
40. On the same day, the resident emailed the landlord, requesting to escalate her complaint to stage 2 of the process.
41. On 3 November 2021, the landlord’s notes show it discussed the case management process with the resident and she was now happy for it to approach the neighbour to discuss the allegations and determine a proportionate course of action. It agreed to contact the resident on 12 November 2021.
42. On 4 November 2021, the landlord emailed the resident regarding the handling of the ASB case and timeline of sound proofing. It clarified the complaint process, that an officer was looking into the sound proofing, it would call her the following week and if she wanted to escalate the complaint, it would be actioned.
43. On 12 November 2021, the landlord sent an email to the resident to confirm the following:

a.     It was agreed that a notice warning letter would be a reasonable and proportionate course of action which was a precursor to a Notice of Seeking Possession (NOSP). The resident had advised the landlord that she was in agreement to this action.

b.     She had not heard about the cables, and it had asked the officer to make contact.

c.      The sound insulation work would require the downstairs neighbour to move out. It said that another property on the waiting list had become empty that required these works to be undertaken.

d.     It had discussed that the resident would consider her options over the weekend before deciding whether to escalate the complaint.

e.     It agreed to make contact on 26 November 2021 to discuss the ongoing ASB concerns.

44. On 16 November 2021, the landlord’s records show an email from the resident was received, requesting escalation of part of the complaint. It confirmed that since the stage 1 complaint, she was satisfied with its actions in relation to the ASB/noise nuisance but wanted it to progress the sound proofing element.
45. On the same day, the landlord sent a warning letter to the neighbour, notifying him of formal tenancy action. It said that if there were any further proven breaches, it would look at serving a NOSP.
46. On 18 November 2021, the landlord emailed the resident and confirmed it had  escalated the complaint. It noted the cable issue had been dealt with as an enquiry but it would incorporate this into the stage 2 complaint response. The landlord acknowledged the stage 2 complaint further on 23 November 2021 and said it aimed to respond by 15 December 2021.
47. On 26 November 2021, the landlord telephoned the resident. It advised her that it had not been able to speak with the neighbour, apologised for the delay and said it would action this the following week and call her back.
48. On 29 November 2021, the resident emailed the landlord, requesting that it did not make contact with the neighbour as the ASB/noise had started again and she wanted to discuss this with a specific officer before instructing further.
49. On 1 December 2021, the landlord’s records show that it was awaiting further instructions from the resident and it made further attempts to contact her on 3 and 6 December 2021 when it left a voice message suggesting it spoke to the neighbour.
50. On 10 December 2021, during the landlord’s update call with the resident, she confirmed there had been 1 further incident and that she wanted the situation to be monitored. It agreed to call again on 7 January 2022.
51. On 15 December 2021, the landlord emailed the resident and extended the stage 2 response timescale to 5 January 2022 so that it was able to speak to the neighbour to discuss sound proof works (and if he agreed to move out for 12 weeks). Its records show that that it spoke to him the same day but he was not in agreement with moving or having sound insulation works done.
52. On 20 December 2021, the landlord emailed the resident to check if there had been any further issues since the noise recordings of 27 November 2021. It emailed her on 24 December 2021, explaining that it had tried to ring a couple of times and left a voice mail. It said it would call on 5 January 2022.
53. On 5 January 2022, the landlord’s records show it confirmed submissions sent via the noise app on 27 December 2021. It confirmed that it showed clear breaches of tenancy in terms of noise nuisance.
54. On 11 January 2022, the landlord phoned the resident. The resident confirmed  she would be happy for the landlord to approach the neighbour about recent reports. It gave details of the new case officer and that the neighbour had received a NOSP warning letter.
55. On 12 January 2022, the landlord sent its stage 2 complaint response letter to the resident. It said it had been in contact with the resident since mid-November 2021 and summarised the following:

a.     Soundproofing – it confirmed that the resident had first asked about soundproofing in 2015 when she was advised that her home had been soundproofed. However, in 2020, she was advised that soundproofing works to her home would be done as there was none in the property, contrary to previous advice. It told her she would be added to a list of works and confirmed in March 2021 that this was to be done by March 2022 but more recently, it had advised that the funding was allocated to an empty property.

b.     It concluded that it had previously recorded that work was done in 2013 but in May 2017, it had identified that there was no sound insulation and it could not give an explanation for this. It found that it had failed to discuss sound proofing with the neighbour in 2020 and it apologised. It had secured the budget for the works if the neighbour agreed but he had confirmed he would not be prepared to have the work carried out as he felt it would be too disruptive. It explained that it could not enforce this as these were not health and safety works.

c.      Cables in the garden – this was raised as a complaint in 2015 about the neighbour entering the garden without her permission. This was raised more recently as the neighbour had put up more cables and it agreed to consider this as part of the stage 2 complaint, although it had not been part of the stage 1.

d.     It found that it was unable to get a response from the neighbour regarding the cables in November 2021 and explained that the housing officer was then away from work leading up to Christmas. Another officer had asked the neighbour to confirm what the cables were for, and why they were situated on the resident’s property. The neighbour was asked to confirm this by 21 January 2022 and it said it would update the resident after this.

e.     It apologised that this had been ongoing for so long and it upheld the complaint.

f.        It had discussed the option of moving and for the resident to register for a mutual exchange. It said that it would also support a management move and the resident had confirmed she would have a think about this.

g.     It upheld the resident’s request for compensation and concluded that a total of £1600 should be awarded to recognise the length of time the failings had occurred and the impact they had. This was broken down as follows:

1. £1000 for sound proofing;
2. £250 for ASB handling since September 2021;
3. £250 for ASB handling from a previous complaint (2015) – it said that compensation was not requested at the time but the service failure had been acknowledged;
4. £100 for complaint handling due to incorrect advice given about escalation and a delay with the stage 2 response.

h.      It confirmed that it had identified the following learning points:

5. It required a clear process (and guidance document) about sound insulation works so that staff know step by step what needed to happen (this was being produced by the end of March 2022).
6. It was reviewing its policy on sound improvement works to consider, due to the disruptive nature of this work, whether it should only carry this out when a property was empty or where someone agreed to permanently move (it said the review would be concluded by end of March 2022).
7. It was reviewing its ASB service, including the structure of the directorate. (it said this would be done by April 2022).

Summary of events after landlord’s complaint process

56. On 13 January 2022, the resident contacted this Service as she remained dissatisfied with the £500 compensation offer for ASB handling failures due to the significant impact she said this had on her and family over the years. She also confirmed that she was unhappy with the offer of £100 for misinformation around the complaint process and the delay in providing the stage 2 complaint letter.
57. On 2 March 2022, a landlord email to the resident confirmed it visited to look at the cables the previous week and asked the resident if it was ok to contact the neighbour.
58. On 7 March 2022, the landlord’s records confirm that the resident agreed that the landlord could write a letter to the neighbour to ask him to remove the cables from above her front door and from the garden fence.
59. On 16 March 2022, the landlord’s internal emails confirm its action plan in relation to the stage 2 complaint. This included support with a management move, removal/relocation of cables and future considerations in relation to its sound insulation policy. On the same day, the landlord wrote to the neighbour requesting removal of the cables before 16 April 2022.

Assessment and findings

The level of compensation the landlord offered the resident for its failure in the handling of ASB reports

60. Following reports of noise nuisance in April 2020, the landlord demonstrated that it acted promptly and appropriately in responding to the resident, attempting to gather evidence (by signposting her to the noise app) and sending a letter to the alleged perpetrator. Although it is unclear whether the landlord opened an ASB case on its management system at that point (as later in May 2020, it said that the case had been closed for 4 years), these actions were all appropriate responses to the resident’s initial reports.
61. During May 2020, the landlord provided diary sheets to the resident as well as guidance on using the noise app. It confirmed to the resident that it had spoken and written to the alleged perpetrator and gave her advice on contacting the police to report criminal activity that included the use of cannabis and any breach of Covid-19 social distancing. This demonstrated that the landlord sought to gather evidence of any ongoing ASB to decide on next steps and that it was willing to put allegations to the neighbour and work collaboratively with the police. It also appropriately escalated its actions by submitting a further warning letter to the neighbour by the end of May 2020 when it became apparent that ASB was ongoing.
62. By mid-May 2020, the noise incidents had become more frequent and the resident reminded the landlord that over the previous 6 weeks she had experienced persistent noise. She explained to the landlord how her health was suffering and a doctor’s note was provided about her anxiety. Whilst it is not for this Service to assess health conditions, it is clear that the disturbance was causing an impact on the resident’s right to quiet enjoyment of her home.
63. The resident requested an action plan from the landlord of how it intended to deal with the noise nuisance but the landlord delayed in responding to this specific request. The resident had to remind the landlord of its service standards and even then, there was no evidence that it provided an action plan. This was a reasonable request by the resident to satisfy herself that the landlord was taking the situation seriously. It was therefore unreasonable that the landlord delayed in its response to her request; it should have taken a proactive approach by providing an action plan shortly after opening the ASB case. This would have provided assurance to the resident that the matter was being taken seriously and the landlord was exploring all the options open to it.
64. The resident continued to chase such an action plan when further incidents occurred later in 2020. For instance, during December 2020, she felt the need to provide her own action plan to the landlord to confirm how she perceived the case would progress. It was unreasonable that the resident had to initiate this and, although there were other regular communications, this likely caused uncertainty to her as to how the landlord intended to resolve her concerns.
65. The landlord should have been proactive in sending its action plan at an early stage to manage expectations and reassure the resident how it intended dealing with the case. It would have been appropriate for it to set its intentions out clearly from the outset. Whilst it is recognised that it can be difficult to manage cases involving intermittent noise nuisance, regular and consistent communication is the key to managing these types of cases effectively. The Ombudsman’s Spotlight report (October 2022) provides recommendations to landlords in managing noise nuisance complaints effectively. Recommendation 26 specifically addresses this area of concern and refers to ensuring effective communications are in place that include timescales for responses.
66. By the end of May 2020, the landlord had carried out a risk assessment of the resident’s situation and it noted a score of ‘20’ out of a maximum of ‘30’. This suggests medium to high risk but it is unclear whether the landlord assessed the risk level correctly as within its ASB policy it refers to a risk score of up to a maximum of 44. This assessment provides guidance for the landlord in terms of individual requirements, vulnerabilities and support. The risk assessment score should have served as a prompt to the landlord to determine the next course of action, provide the action plan the resident had sought and consider support measures that were available to it. It was inappropriate that these opportunities were missed by the landlord and that the risk assessment it did undertake does not appear to have led to any additional tailored support being offered to the resident.
67. During early June 2020, the resident continued to report noise and the landlord demonstrated that it was proactive in contacting the resident for an update. She confirmed that by mid-June 2020, things were better and in July 2020, the landlord confirmed to the resident that it had closed the case. This was a reasonable decision for the landlord to take as there had not been any reports of noise for around 6 weeks.
68. By mid-September 2020, the reports of noise recommenced and the landlord gave the resident advice to continue to record the noise. The noise was potentially intermittent but, given the history of ASB reports and the warnings already issued, it would have been reasonable for the landlord to have conducted an up to date risk assessment and provided the resident with a clear action plan, setting out how long it would monitor the situation, the frequency of contact it would undertake and the options it was considering to bring about a resolution. The landlord also failed to open an ASB case at this point and only told the resident in November 2020 that it was considering doing so – this delay was unreasonable.
69. Nevertheless, the landlord did take actions during this period to manage the resident’s expectations, request that she continue to offer noise app evidence, retain open communications with her, offer mediation and speak to the alleged perpetrator. These were all reasonable actions on the part of the landlord to communicate effectively and take proportionate actions in line with its ASB policy. In December 2020, the landlord confirmed to the resident that the case was closed but the noise app remained open and it offered appropriate assurance that if further incidents were reported, it would not look at these in isolation.
70. Between January 2021 and March 2021, further noise incidents were reported and the landlord demonstrated that it contacted the resident to confirm the noise recorded was excessive. At that point, in January 2021, the landlord acted appropriately and sent another warning letter to the alleged perpetrator. In early March 2021, the situation had quietened down and the landlord was again considering closing the case. The resident at that point confirmed she was in agreement and requested that the landlord did not write to the neighbour.
71. There is a gap in any evidence of contact or incidents between March 2021 and September 2021. In early September 2021, the noise reports began again and the landlord demonstrated that it spoke to the alleged perpetrator who denied the noise at that point. It said that a warning letter would be sent but there is no evidence that it actioned this; however, the resident expressed her concerns at this time that she did not want the landlord speaking to the alleged perpetrator for fear of repercussions. Whilst this is understandable given the difficulties in living in close proximity to the neighbour, it would have no doubt limited the options open to the landlord at that time.
72. During October 2021 to December 2021, the resident continued to report further incidents. She was concerned she had not been given an update and registered a formal complaint which was sent in mid-October 2021. The landlord appropriately recognised its failure in terms of delays in contacting the resident and perpetrator from September 2021. It had recognised the noise levels were excessive and it said that it would have expected an increased level of diligence in its investigation of the incidents. It confirmed that it had not handled the case in accordance with its ASB policy and that an officer would contact the resident fortnightly from then on.
73. In November 2021, the landlord demonstrated that it appropriately followed this up with a warning letter to the perpetrator, notifying him of formal action and that if there were any further breaches of tenancy, it would serve a NOSP. The landlord appropriately followed up its commitment to the resident by keeping in regular contact during November 2021 to January 2022.
74. The landlord issued its final complaint response letter to the resident in January 2022 – it confirmed again its service failures in the handling of the ASB case and offered £250 compensation for the more recent ASB/noise nuisance case handling failures (in addition to £250 compensation for the more historic reports). The Ombudsman considers this level of compensation is appropriate where there has been a failure that has had a detrimental impact on the resident.
75. Although it was reasonable for the landlord to make a compensation award alongside offers to assist with a potential move and assurance of an ASB service review, this level of compensation was insufficient given the failure of the landlord to provide a clear action plan to the resident during 2020, the lack of meaningful action following the 2020 risk assessment and its accepted shortcomings from September 2021. In this case, there has no doubt been a considerable impact on the resident by the landlord’s service failings and the Ombudsman would expect the level of compensation awarded to be at a higher level.
76. In summary, whilst the landlord demonstrated that it did act on noise nuisance reports and explored options to resolve the situation such as sound proofing, mediation, evidence gathering and enforcement actions, there were failings in its communications during 2020 and 2021. There were inconsistencies and delays in its approach and it failed to provide the resident with an action plan to set out how it would manage the case. The landlord acknowledged some of its failings but it did not offer sufficient redress given the circumstances of the case.

The landlord’s handling of cables erected by the resident’s neighbour that affects her home

77. In May 2020, the resident sent the landlord a photograph showing cables that had been erected by the neighbour around the exterior of her home. Whilst it appears this related to an historical issue from 2015, the resident confirmed more cables had been erected and therefore raised this again with the landlord.
78. The landlord has failed to demonstrate that it responded to the issue in May 2020 and it was not until September 2021 that it noted the nuisance caused. This delay was unreasonable and meant that the landlord missed an opportunity to investigate the matter, decide whether the cables represented a breach of tenancy and take action accordingly.
79. In September 2021, the landlord did demonstrate that it discussed the matter with the neighbour as it noted that he had said he had planning permission for the work. However, it is unclear whether the landlord followed up to check whether this was accurate or decided whether the cables represented a nuisance. This continued lack of action was unreasonable.
80. By October 2021, the resident said she was still unsure what was happening with the cables and requested a written action plan. The landlord responded by stating it had requested the housing officer to make contact. At this point, the resident raised a formal complaint but the landlord did not address the cable issue as part of the complaint investigation, noting it had referred this to the housing officer to be dealt with as an enquiry. As the resident had already raised concern about the landlord’s handling of the cable issue, it should have identified this as an issue that needed to be addressed in its stage 1 complaint. Nevertheless, in November 2021, it clarified that it would consider the issue as part of the complaint escalation – the landlord therefore demonstrated flexibility in its approach at that point.
81. The landlord attempted to make contact with the neighbour in November 2021 and it largely focused on the noise nuisance issue during November 2021 to January 2022. It later acknowledged that there had been a delay as the relevant officer had been away during December 2021. It was therefore not until January 2022 that the landlord evidenced that it had spoken to the neighbour and required them to take action. The delay between November 2021 and January 2022 was therefore unreasonable albeit there were mitigating factors.
82. In February 2022, the landlord demonstrated that it carried out a visit and the neighbour was sent a letter to remove the cables in March 2022, giving him until April 2022 to do so. Although this demonstrated the landlord took proportionate actions to resolve the matter in the months after the final complaint response, the prolonged delay of almost 2 years was inappropriate and will inevitably have impacted on the distress and frustrations the resident was experiencing in seeking a resolution to the wider ASB issues.

The landlord’s handling of sound proofing

83. In May 2020, the landlord appropriately made enquiries about whether the resident’s home could be put on the sound insulation list and it confirmed this to her. This was apparently after earlier conversations between the resident and landlord about sound proofing. Although it was appropriate for the landlord to update the resident, it is of concern that it failed to follow up with her after it wrote to the neighbour in May 2020 about the possibility of installing sound insulation.
84. In December 2020, the landlord replied to the MP, giving an outline of the property history along with others it had acquired from the council that had poor sound insulation. It said that it had a clear plan as part of its asset management strategy to improve insulation in these properties.
85. However, later that month, the resident set out her understanding of planned actions, noting she was awaiting a sound proof survey and to get an update from the landlord on this. There was again an unreasonable delay and a lack of communications as it was not until March 2021 that the landlord confirmed the sound proof works were still scheduled for later that year. It is unclear whether the landlord had made any further contact with the neighbour at that point.
86. By September-October 2021, the resident had still not heard anything on this matter and the landlord’s response to her query was simply that it would forward it on to the relevant team. The resident made a formal complaint, outlining that the landlord was still to clarify its position and she had to ask it when she would receive an update. This lack of pro-active response from the landlord was inappropriate and meant that the onus was put on the resident to pursue an outcome. Whilst it is recognised that sound proofing is major works and that there was no obligation on the landlord to conduct these, it should have had a clear plan and timeline for regular communications with the resident.
87. During late October 2021, the landlord confirmed the work would be done in the new financial year. However, it was unable to answer her question about when her property had been placed on the list and the landlord failed to offer clear guidance to the resident as to how it had prioritised her property for such works and how it managed the waiting list. This was unreasonable and meant that the resident was not given clarity on the decision-making process around sound insulation works.
88. By mid-December 2021, the landlord evidenced that it had spoken to the neighbour about the sound insulation works and recorded that he was not prepared to move out for the work to be carried out. Given these works were not classified as health and safety improvements, the landlord correctly advised the resident that it could not enforce this type of work albeit it should have reached this conclusion much earlier than it did and the failure to do so meant that the resident’s expectations were incorrectly raised.
89. Within the landlord’s stage 2 complaint response, it recognised the service failure in its handling of sound insulation works in relation to miscommunication and errors in the information it had previously given the resident. It offered £1000 compensation and explained the measures it intended to take to review its process and policy for sound insulation works.
90. This level of compensation was significant and within the range that the Ombudsman would recommend for a service failure that has caused a severe significant impact. The landlord also acted in accordance with the Ombudsman’s Dispute Resolution Principles by committing to learning from the complaint by reviewing relevant processes, providing an action plan and timeline for when it intends to implement changes. Overall, the landlord has offered appropriate redress for the recognised failings in its management of the potential sound proofing works.

The landlord’s complaint and communication handling

91. Early October 2021, the resident raised a formal complaint explaining how the noise nuisance issues in particular had impacted her family and own health. The next day, the landlord acted appropriately by contacting the resident to give information on the complaints process and take additional information to help it investigate the complaint. It also followed this up with an acknowledgement letter, giving a date when it aimed to complete its investigation and provide the response.
92. The stage 1 complaint response was sent in mid-October 2021 – this was 9 days after the complaint was received and in compliance with the landlord’s complaints policy. Further, the landlord demonstrated best practice by not only sending the response but contacting the resident by phone to discuss the outcome.
93. The resident requested to escalate part of her complaint in late October to early November 2021. The stage 2 complaint response was not sent until mid-January 2022, around 2 months later and outside of the landlord’s complaints policy of responding within 20 working days. This delay was therefore inappropriate. However, it did contact the resident to explain the situation and advise when she would likely receive a response, maintaining communications on the substantive issues during this period.
94. Through the final complaint response, the landlord recognised a failure in giving incorrect advice about the escalation of the complaint and delays in its response. It offered £100 compensation for this element of service failure. Given the relatively short period of delay and that the landlord continued to communicate with the resident though this period, the Ombudsman considers this level of redress to be proportionate.

Determination (decision)

95. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was service failure in relation to the level of compensation the landlord offered the resident for its failure in the handling of ASB reports.
96. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was maladministration in relation to the landlord’s handling of cables erected by the resident’s neighbour that affects her home.
97. In accordance with paragraph 53b of the Scheme, there was reasonable redress offered by the landlord for the failings identified in its handling of:

a.     sound proofing;

b.     the related complaint and communications.

Reasons

98. The landlord did not offer a level of compensation to reflect the significant service failures in its handling of ASB reports given it was inconsistent in its communications, did not answer repeated requests for an action plan and did not offer sufficient support to the resident given its risk assessment score and the major impact she described the issue as having.
99. The landlord delayed significantly in addressing the resident’s concerns in relation to the cables around the exterior of her home.
100.      The landlord failed to provide accurate information to the resident over an extended period in regard to the option of sound proofing the property. However, its compensation award and commitment to review its approach to this issue represented reasonable redress given the circumstances of the case.
101.      The landlord delayed in providing its final complaint response but its compensation award offered sufficient redress given the circumstances of the case.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

102.      Within 4 weeks of this report, the landlord to write to the resident and apologise for the service failures outlined in this report.
103.      Within 4 weeks of this report, the landlord is to pay the resident compensation of £1800 (including the £1600 already offered to the resident if it had not already done so) made up of the following:

a.     An additional £250 in recognition of the failures identified in its handling of the ASB reports (on top of the £250 it offered through its complaints process);

b.     £200 in recognition of the delays in its handling of the cables erected by the resident’s neighbour that affected her home;

c.      £1000 in recognition of the service failures the landlord’s handling of sound proofing.

d.     £100 in recognition of the failure in the landlord’s complaint and communication handling.

104.      Within 4 weeks of this report, the landlord is ordered to provide this Service with an update on the learning outcomes identified within its stage 2 complaint response in relation to:

a.     Its updated sound proofing policy and process;

b.     The ASB service review.

105.      The landlord should reply to this Service with evidence of compliance with these orders within the timescales set out above.

Recommendations

106.      If it has not already done so, within 8 weeks of this report, the landlord should complete a self-assessment against the Ombudsman’s October 2022 Spotlight Report on Noise complaints.
107.      The landlord should reply to this Service to confirm its intentions in regard to this recommendation.