Portsmouth City Council (202234943)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202234943

Portsmouth City Council

27 September 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 landlord’s:
1. Handling of the resident’s reports of anti-social behaviour (ASB).
2. Response to the resident’s requests for a more secure front door and soundproofing.

Background

The resident is a secure tenant of the landlord, a local council. The property is a bedsit flat in a block of flats. He has lived there since May 2012.
The landlord has vulnerabilities for the resident recorded on its system. They include a neurodiverse condition which can make retaining and processing information difficult.
The resident’s mother has authority to speak to the landlord. The landlord has provided evidence from both the resident and his mother. The Ombudsman has spoken to the mother as the resident’s representative. For clarity, in this report the mother and the resident will be referred to as the resident, unless specific clarity is needed.
The alleged perpetrator will be referred to as the neighbour.
In January 2022, the resident made a complaint to the landlord about one of the neighbours. They had previously spoken to the neighbour’s care provider about the noise and ASB. The resident said the neighbour was banging and shouting offensive comments, between midnight and 5am. The resident said their mental health was suffering because of it.
The landlord referred the case to an independent mediation service and tried to contact the neighbour. It contacted the neighbour’s care providers to report the incidents. The reports continued, and in May 2022 the landlord referred the case to the local council’s environmental health department (EH). A warning letter was issued to the neighbour. The resident explained they had not completed the diary sheets due to their health issues. They also said that the neighbour only stopped when an official person spoke to them, and that they think this showed the neighbour had an awareness of their behaviour. The resident and landlord met, and the resident expressed they had not realised how important the diary sheets were, and they would complete them from now on.
In July 2022, the police confirmed they were not taking any action against the neighbour and offered reporting advice to the resident. The resident told the landlord the noise from the neighbour was intermittent. In August 2022, EH closed its case as it had not received any calls from the resident.
On 12 September 2022, the resident asked the landlord about the possibility of soundproofing their flat. They said this had been discussed in June 2022. Following reports of further incidents in October 2022 the landlord wrote to and visited the neighbour. On 27 October 2022, a verbal warning was issued.
The resident made a formal complaint on 6 November 2022. They were unhappy with the service the landlord was providing, in relation to their reports of ASB. The landlord’s stage 1 complaint response provided advice on using both locks on the front door for security. It said that neither staff member could recall talking about soundproofing. It confirmed since its warning to the neighbour on 27 October 2022, it had received no reports of ASB.
The landlord agreed to meet with the resident specifically to discuss any issues the resident may have with reporting incidents and any potential adjustments that could be made. On 5 January 2023 the landlord, EH and the resident met, and the outcomes were:
1. The resident would call EH and the landlord, or report via his mother.
2. The landlord confirmed the police were not taking any action and there was not enough evidence to consider a legal remedy to the ASB.
3. The landlord offered the resident a priority move to a new property.
The resident escalated their complaint to stage 2 of the landlord’s complaint process. The soundproofing was a key reason for the escalation and that the landlord could not recall the conversation in June 2022. They also questioned the landlord’s response about the front door. The resident felt their vulnerabilities and disabilities were not being considered in the landlord’s handling of the ASB. The resident found it difficult to submit reports of ASB and felt the landlord had not sufficiently considered this.
The landlord replied on 20 February 2023. It concluded that it had taken appropriate actions to try and resolve the ASB. The resident exercised their right to activate an ASB case review, and this took place on 13 March 2023. Before the meeting took place the landlord carried out a closed-circuit television (CCTV) survey and 4 cameras were ordered.
The resident and his mother produced statements for the ASB case review. They attended the start of the meeting and read them out. The resident said they did not feel that the landlord was doing enough to resolve the situation or following its own policies and procedures.
Following on from the ASB case review, numerous actions were carried out. Noise monitoring equipment was fitted in the resident’s home. A replacement front door was ordered for the resident and fitted in May 2023. The landlord communicated with the neighbour’s care providers. CCTV was fitted at the block. The resident provided the landlord with frequent reports of incidents of ASB from the neighbour.
The landlord sought legal advice, and in July 2023 it worked in partnership with the care provider to address the issues with the neighbour. The care provider did not complete the agreed actions until 12 October 2023. On the same day, the landlord and the resident met, and the landlord confirmed that ASB legal action might be difficult due to the neighbour’s individual circumstances. The landlord said it was working on a solution to benefit everyone. The landlord suggested noise insulation and said it would make enquiries. The resident continued to report the ASB to the landlord.
The landlord made internal enquiries about noise insulation. The result was that it was not within the scope of the landlord’s repairs and maintenance service to provide noise insulation. The landlord asked for other solutions but did not get a response.
In November 2023, the resident and landlord met again at the resident’s request. The landlord told the resident it would issue the neighbour with a notice seeking possession (NOSP). It said if it went to court, it would be a lengthy process. The neighbour was also offered the chance to move. The landlord requested the NOSP from its legal team.
By December 2023, the resident was unhappy with the lack of progress and made a complaint to the landlord and asked for another ASB case review. They were unhappy that no soundproofing solutions had been offered. The resident also asked the landlord to stop offering him a move as he did not want to move and found it distressing. They agreed to meet the landlord in the new year for an update, and that an ASB case review may not be necessary. The landlord reviewed the new complaint and replied to the resident saying that all issues had been addressed in its stage 2 complaint response earlier in the year. It did not open a new complaint.
In January 2024, the resident said 2 points had been missed from the landlord’s February 2023 stage 2 complaint response and the landlord agreed to review them. This agreement effectively reopened and extended the landlord’s internal complaints process. In its additional response, the landlord apologised for the confusion caused at the beginning of the case as to who the resident should complain to. It also apologised for the delay in serving the NOSP on the neighbour.

Post internal complaint process

In January and February 2024, the following actions occurred:
1. The landlord offered the resident a priority move.
2. The landlord completed an ASB risk assessment for the resident.
3. The landlord completed the local council safeguarding adults concern forms for the resident and neighbour. These were not accepted by adult social services.
4. The resident asked for a meeting with the landlord.
5. The landlord served a NOSP on the neighbour.
Throughout this time the resident continued to report incidents of ASB to the landlord. In April 2024, the landlord met with the resident and provided an update on the case. Following a meeting with its legal team, the landlord told the resident and the neighbour’s care provider that it had made the decision to progress legal tenancy action against the neighbour. In May 2024, the landlord met with the resident, provided a further update, and offered support.
The Ombudsman has spoken to the resident, and they have confirmed the landlord has submitted the case to court and they are waiting for an update. The resident feels the landlord is currently more communicative with them.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

Throughout the period of the complaint the resident told the landlord how it felt the events had impacted their physical and mental health. The Ombudsman does not doubt the resident’s position. However, the Ombudsman does not have the power to determine a causal link between the actions or omissions of a landlord and a resident’s health. Such a determination is more appropriate for the courts. However, the overall distress and inconvenience caused to the resident has been considered in this case. The resident has the option to seek further legal advice if they consider that their mental and/or physical health has been affected by the action or lack thereof by the landlord.
The resident has referenced that they felt the landlord failed to carry out any risk assessments when it gave the neighbour a secure tenancy. The Ombudsman is concerned with the landlord’s housing duties to the resident and cannot investigate the landlord’s allocation of the property to the neighbour. The investigation has considered the situation that the allocation caused and how the landlord managed it.
The resident has expressed that they believe the landlord is in breach of their duty of care to them. A duty to care is where someone has a legal obligation to avoid acts that could unforeseeably harm others and lead to negligence. The landlord’s ASB policy states that while it is not responsible for the behaviour of its tenants, it does have the power to take action against those causing ASB and will do so where necessary and where there is evidence to support the actions. If the resident believes a duty of care is owed to them, that it has been breached and it resulted in personal injury, then this is more appropriate for the courts, and they have the option to seek legal advice.
The original complaint exhausted the landlord’s internal complaints process on 20 February 2023. The landlord then sent another complaint response on 23 January 2024 that reviewed two points the resident felt were missed in the original responses. The ASB is on-going. For these reasons, the time period that this investigation covers is from the time leading up to the initial complaint (January 2022) until February 2024.

Relevant legal guidance, landlord policies and procedures, good practice

The Anti-Social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Act 2014 (2014 Act) aims to put victims first and enable professionals to find the best solutions for their local area. It includes ASB case reviews, formerly known as a community trigger, which are used to empower victims to have a say in the outcome of their reports and hold agencies to account. The act details the other remedies available to landlords such as civil injunctions and closure powers.
The 2014 Act encourages agencies to assess the risk of harm to victims and any vulnerabilities when the agency receives a complaint about ASB. This should be the starting point of the case management. The risk assessment should be continuous throughout the life of the case.
The landlord’s ASB policy at the time of this case recognised the victim as the most important person to assist through the process and further recognises the adverse effects ASB can have on their lives.
The policy says the landlord will:
1. Place the victim at the centre of the policy and procedures.
2. Respond quickly to reports of ASB.
3. Keep residents informed of developments.
4. Offer appropriate support and advice.
5. Work in partnership with others to tackle the behaviour.
6. Carry out any physical work free of charge e.g. replacing locks.
7. Take down the details of the ASB and record it on its system and quickly allocate the case to either a housing officer or refer it to an independent mediation and assessment centre.
8. Once it has been assessed and if the ASB continues, the case will be passed to the landlord’s anti-social behaviour team, part of the housing directorate. If the ASB is noise alone, the case can be reported to the local council’s environmental health department.
The policy details the different legal actions the landlord can take including civil injunctions, possession order, demoted tenancies, and closure orders.
The policy acknowledges that the multi-agency approach offers the best chance of providing an effective and lasting solution to some ASB. At an operational level, the landlord will arrange or take part in case conferences with other relevant agencies and agree an action plan to tackle the causes.
The ASB policy recognises that issues such as disability or mental health difficulties of a perpetrator may be highly relevant to their behaviour. The landlord will involve practitioners with specialist knowledge to assess and determine what form intervention should take.
The landlord has told the Ombudsman that at the time of the complaint it did not have a housing services safeguarding policy or reasonable adjustments policy.

Resident’s reports of ASB

When considering a complaint about a landlord’s handling of ASB reports the Ombudsman considers whether it acted in line with its relevant policies and procedures, statutory duties and guidance, and good practice. It is acknowledged that the situation has been distressing for the resident and that the incidents did have an adverse impact on them. It is not the Ombudsman’s role to decide if the incidents amounted to ASB but rather whether the landlord dealt with the resident’s reports appropriately and fairly.

Initial response

On 4 January 2022, the resident reported ASB from the neighbour. They reported the neighbour was shouting and screaming late at night and banging on the walls and ceiling. The resident said it was causing them stress and anxiety. The landlord assessed and dealt with the report correctly. As set out in its ASB policy, it raised an ASB case and referred it to the independent mediation and assessment service it used. The landlord acted appropriately. It acted quickly and the resident knew what was happening.
The landlord contacted the neighbour’s care providers and told them about the incidents. It tried to speak to the neighbour. The landlord’s ASB policy stressed that its aim was not to punish people but for the ASB to stop. In many cases the non-legal approach of talking to the perpetrator can stop the ASB. Making early contact with the neighbour’s care provider was reasonable of the landlord and paved the way for some effective multi agency work throughout this case. The landlord acted appropriately, taking a fair and proactive approach to try and resolve the ASB.

Risk assessments

By June 2022, the ASB was still happening, and the mediation service and assessment service passed the case back to the landlord, with the advice to refer the case to the landlord’s ASB unit. The case was now 6 months’ old, and the landlord had not conducted a risk assessment on the resident. Its ASB policy of the time recognised the possible vulnerabilities of a perpetrator and the need to assess them. The policy aimed to put the victim at the heart of the policy and acknowledged the adverse impact ASB can have on their lives. Despite this it was silent on any risk assessment of the victim. As detailed above, the 2014 Act strongly encourages landlords to risk assess victims and it should be at the starting point of the case and throughout. The landlord acted unreasonably. In not completing an assessment it may have missed opportunities to support the resident, understand their vulnerabilities and the impact the ASB was having on them.
In January and March 2023, including at the ASB case review, the resident asked the landlord about a risk assessment. The evidence provided, as part of this investigation, did not provide a landlord’s reply and tells us that a risk assessment was not completed until January and April 2024. The resident does not recall the assessment in January 2024 and the evidence is not clear as to whether it was completed with the resident or by the landlord in isolation. The case was 2 years old before a risk assessment was completed. There is evidence throughout the case of the landlord speaking to the resident about their vulnerabilities and support in a meaningful and empathetic way. However, one of the advantages of a documented risk assessment is that the information is all in one place. It enables the landlord and resident to revisit the risk assessment to ensure the most relevant advice, support and actions have been taken. The landlord acted unreasonably. A risk assessment may have positively changed the resident’s experience of the landlord’s handling of their ASB case. It was a missed opportunity.
The landlord has since amended its ASB policy, and the victim risk assessment is included and is clearly a priority. However, it has been 11 years since the 2014 ASB, Crime and Policing Act’s guidance was published, and the landlord’s policy should have reflected this earlier.

Reasonable adjustments

The landlord knew that the resident struggled to complete ASB diaries. On 22 June 2022, the resident met with the landlord. The resident’s mother told the landlord that the resident would call her to report the ASB, and she would write the ASB diary. The landlord agreed, and accepted reports from the resident’s mother. The landlord acted reasonably. It understood the need for a different process and accepted it. Although onerous for the resident’s mother, the system worked well, and the landlord received detailed reports of the ASB.
In January 2023, the landlord met with the resident following concerns about the resident’s ability to log reports with EH. The resident said that he was able to contact EH to report the noise. A week later his mother raised concerns that he would be unable to sustain this and asked for alternative ways to collate the reports. The landlord replied the next day and explained the limitations of EH’s service and why adjustments were not possible (they need to receive the reports at the time they are happening to make a visit to witness the disturbance). The landlord was open to suggestions from the resident. The landlord acted reasonably. It had approached EH and provided the resident with an explanation.

ASB case review

On 22 February 2023, the landlord verbally accepted the resident’s request for an ASB case review. The date the request was made has not been provided, however, the quickness of the landlord’s response is not in dispute. The landlord sent the resident written confirmation that the threshold had been met for an ASB case review to take place and confirmed the date of the meeting. The 2014 Act places this duty on the landlord (or other relevant body). The landlord acted appropriately. The resident was kept informed. The landlord was customer focused and abided by its statutory duty.
The landlord arranged a meeting with the resident, prior to the ASB case review, to explain the process in person. The landlord acted reasonably. The landlord involved the resident in the process to ensure they knew what was happening.
On 13 March 2023, the ASB case review took place. The legal guidance suggests that victims are allowed to attend a section of the meeting. This is to help all members of the panel understand the level of harm and impact the ASB has had on the victim. The resident in this case was represented in person by their parents. Two impact statements were read out, one written by the resident and one by his mother. The landlord acted appropriately. The meeting notes relay that the professionals found the victim’s contributions useful and appreciated their attendance.
The 2014 Act places a further duty on the relevant body to respond to the applicant when:
1. The outcome of the review is decided.
2. Any recommendations are made as an outcome of the review.

The landlord verbally did so on 17 March 2023 and followed this up in writing on 27 March 2023. The letter contained the proposed actions for each of the agencies involved. The landlord acted appropriately.

On 18 April 2023, the landlord wrote to the resident and told them who was the point of contact for the resident. Sector wide good practice tells us that it is important for residents to have a point of contact, especially when an ASB case review has occurred. While it is positive that the landlord did this, it would have been beneficial for the resident to have known who it was earlier, at the time of the ASB case review.
On 18 December 2023, the resident requested another ASB case review. The next day the landlord told the resident it would be actioned in the new year by the new ASB manager. Further discussions took place in December 2023 and the resident stated that if they had some answers to their questions an ASB case review could be avoided. The parties agreed to meet in the new year and an ASB case review was not mentioned again. The landlord should have formally confirmed with the resident that they did not want to take their request further. The landlord acted unreasonably.
The Ombudsman has tried to find the landlord’s ASB case review procedure and published data but has been unable to locate them. Both are statutory duties under the 2014 Act and the Ombudsman urges the landlord to ensure it is compliant.

Move offer

On 5 January 2023, the landlord offered the resident a priority move. The resident agreed to consider it. On 11 January 2023, the resident told the landlord they thought it was unfair they had to consider moving, but that they were open to exploring the option. The landlord let the resident know the offer remained open. The landlord was looking for solutions to the situation and moving the resident away from the ASB was a reasonable offer. The resident has told the Ombudsman they are still upset about the offer, and it made them feel like they were considered the problem. The Ombudsman does not dispute that it made them feel like this. However, from the evidence received, the landlord’s offer of a priority move was a genuine offer of help to remove them from the situation and not an attempt to not have to deal with the situation. The landlord acted reasonably.
On 21 December 2023, the resident asked the landlord to stop telling them they could move as they found it extremely distressing. On 29 January 2024, the landlord made the offer again. The resident knew the offer remained open. The landlord should have stopped when asked and made sure it was clearly documented on the resident’s case. The landlord acted unreasonably. Its actions may have caused further distress to the resident.

Multi-agency approach

It is clear from the evidence provided that the landlord had a good relationship with the neighbour’s care providers and the police. Information was openly shared, and all agencies worked together in trying to support the neighbour to maintain his tenancy. Furthermore, when deciding what actions to take against the neighbour, the agencies all worked together proactively. They were solution driven. The case is an excellent example of multi-agency working in respect of an alleged perpetrator with complex needs and vulnerabilities. The landlord’s approach followed both the 2014 Act’s guidance and duties, as well at its own ASB policy. The landlord acted appropriately.
The evidence provided tells us that the resident, the victim, was not afforded the same service, especially when it came to the landlord working with their support providers. The landlord liaised effectively with the police and EH, in relation to the resident’s reports of ASB. However, there is little evidence of multi-agency work with the resident’s support network, apart from his parents. Except for some contact with the resident’s support worker in 2022, it was not until February 2024 that the landlord contacted the resident’s care providers to discuss the ASB case.
The landlord’s ASB policy stresses the importance of multi-agency partnerships when there are concerns about the anti-social behaviour of an individual. The Ombudsman and sector wide good practice finds that the multi-agency approach is equally important for the resident. The landord acted unreasonably. Its actions or lack thereof may have contributed to the resident feeling the landlord was not making adequate progress with the case and that the landlord’s recent efforts to engage were too late and disingenuous.

Support

Both the landlord’s ASB policy and the 2014 Act are victim centred. They put the victim at the heart of the case and express the need to support them, understanding the adverse impact ASB can have on someone’s life. The Regulator of Social Housing sets out its expectations of social housing landlords in its neighbourhood and community standard. One of the expectations is that landlords must support tenants who are affected by ASB, including signposting them to agencies who can give appropriate support and assistance.
On 17 June 2022, the resident told the landlord they recently had a Care Act assessment and further support was being put in place. In July and September 2022, the resident and the landlord exchanged emails discussing the resident’s needs and support. The resident’s mother and the landlord were working together to put support in place for the resident. The landlord acted reasonably. The resident said they felt listened to and supported.
On 22 June 2022, the landlord and resident discussed arranging a visit to assess the resident’s physical difficulties. While this was a positive proposed action, it did not happen. The landord acted unreasonably. The resident did not know what was happening and the proposed action got lost in the case.
On 30 March 2023, the resident contacted the landlord and expressed their opinion that the neighbour was offered a lot more support than them. Further communication from the resident on 19 December 2023, stated that the resident’s vulnerabilities were being ignored. The landlord’s approach to providing support to the resident was not consistent. There are examples of communication that was empathetic, inquisitorial, and proactive. However, without a risk assessment or a full understanding of the resident’s vulnerabilities, the landlord was not well placed to support or signpost the resident. It should have been more professionally curious, taking opportunities to learn about the resident’s vulnerabilities. The Ombudsman understands this adds to an already busy job, but understanding the vulnerabilities in the first instance, may have saved time later in the case. The landlord acted inappropriately. Support was not offered consistently, and the landlord should have regularly asked the resident what it could do to support them. Its inaction may have contributed to the distress the resident was feeling.
Throughout the case the resident expressed that the neighbour’s ASB was at times threatening, and that the landlord was not providing the resident or their neighbours with safe and secure homes. They said the landlord was in breach of their duty of care to them. The landlord worked closely with the police on this case and the police did not have enough evidence to bring charges upon the neighbour. The landlord provided CCTV for the communal areas and a new front door for the resident’s property. It gave permission for the resident to fit their own CCTV and provided guidance for this.
Despite the security measures listed above, the Ombudsman can determine that the landlord did not offer enough support to the resident in a consistent manner. Every time the resident expressed fear or concern, the landlord should have made attempts to speak to them, to check on them and offer support. The evidence provided does not show this to be the case. The evidence provided does not show that when the resident expressed their fear, the landlord always offered support, for example speaking to them, offering target hardening (extra security measures) or personal alarms and giving advice. There were missed opportunities to offer support or signpost to services. It is unclear whether this was an error on the part of the landlord, or a failure to provide evidence to support that it did. Either way this represents a further shortcoming by the landlord, and it acted unreasonably.
The evidence provided clearly shows that the resident’s mother was supportive of her son and was his advocate. She made it clear to the landlord that she was supporting him to the best of her abilities. The landlord did not offer the resident other support, for example from the charity victim support. The Ombudsman cannot determine why the landlord did not offer this, only that it was unreasonable of the landlord not to. Well thought out referrals to other services may have shown the resident that the landlord wanted to support them through the ASB. The landlord’s ASB policy at the time was not explicit in how it could offer support to victims. Its new ASB policy 2024 is clearer and specific on the kinds of support it can offer victims, including referrals to appropriate agencies for wellbeing support.

Landlord’s actions and communication

The landlord took numerous actions over the lifetime of the case to try and resolve the ASB. They include:
1. Visits and warning letters to the neighbour.
2. A multi-agency approach with the neighbour’s care providers and the police.
3. Offering a move to both the resident and the neighbour.
4. Installing CCTV in the communal areas.
5. Referrals to the local council’s EH service, who put noise monitoring equipment in the resident’s property.
6. Served a NOSP on the neighbour.
7. Referring the case to court for possession.
The resident queried why the landlord did not use all the legal remedies available to it. The Ombudsman has seen evidence that showed the landlord considered a civil injunction. It was discussed with the neighbour’s care providers, the police and the landlord’s legal team. The landlord worked with the relevant partners and sought legal advice. On 12 October 2023, the landlord confirmed to the resident that it could not pursue the matter through the courts. The landlord took advice from its legal department when making decisions on legal remedies. The landlord acted reasonably. However, the Ombudsman fully understands the frustrations of the resident who had to endure the ASB on a regular basis, with no end in sight.
On 6 November 2023, the landlord advised the resident it would serve a NOSP on the neighbour. The landlord explained there would be a delay while the legal team prepared the notice. The NOSP was served on 9 February 2024. The landlord was reliant on its legal team agreeing with its decision and producing the paperwork. The landlord tried to manage the resident’s expectations. When asked, it provided the resident with updates and explained the delay. The landlord acted reasonably for the most part. It may have been beneficial to arrange a set time and frequency to update the resident, even if there was no real news. This may have helped the resident feel like the landlord was committed to resolving the situation and it had not been forgotten.
The landlord’s ASB policy tells us that the landlord will update the resident on any case developments. As detailed above in such a complex case it would have been good practice to set a regular time each week or fortnight to discuss the case with the resident. The Ombudsman cannot see, within the evidence provided, that this was arranged. The landlord was reactive. It mainly responded in a timely manner to the resident’s reports and queries. It was open to face-to-face meetings, and these happened. However, there were instances when the resident had to wait too long for a response. For example, the resident emailed the landlord on 17,20 and 25 February 2024 and did not receive a response until 18 March 2024. The resident continually expressed the heightened distress and anxiety the ASB was causing them. The landlord should have proactively made contact. The landlord acted unreasonably. Its sporadic communication may have contributed to the resident feeling the landlord did not support them or understand the impact the ASB was having.
Paragraph 10.2.6 of the landlord’s ASB policy at the time tells us that the complainant will be consulted with and an action plan agreed. There is no evidence that the landlord had a comprehensive action plan that the resident had seen and agreed to. A meaningful action plan would have been an opportunity to show the resident that their reports were being taken seriously and they were being listened to. It would also have been a chance for the landlord to manage the resident’s expectation in terms of what it was able to do and to set realistic objectives, and timescales for actions. The plan could have set a formal contact arrangement and, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, helped form a better relationship between the resident and the landlord. It should also have set out specific actions the landlord would be taking to provide support, which would have given the resident some reassurance that it was taking appropriate action. It should also have been reviewed regularly, to ensure actions had been taken and to set new ones, as necessity arose.
The consequence of poor action planning resulted in the resident having to contact the landlord on several occasions to ask for an update regarding the case, which caused them additional distress and time and trouble.

Putting things right and learning from outcomes

When investigating a complaint, the Ombudsman applies its dispute resolution principles. These are high level good practice guidance developed from the Ombudsman’s experience of resolving disputes, for use by everyone involved in the complaints process. There are three principles driving effective dispute resolution:
1. Be fair – treat people fairly and follow fair processes.
2. Put things right.
3. Learn from outcomes.
The Ombudsman must first consider whether a failing on the part of the landlord occurred, and if so, whether this led to any adverse effect or detriment to the resident. If it is found that a failing did lead to an adverse effect, the investigation will then consider whether the landlord has taken enough action to ‘put things right’ and ‘learn from outcomes’.
The landlord’s stage 1 complaint response of 2 December 2022 found no fault in the landlord’s approach to the ASB case. It outlined the main events since June 2022 and explained the importance of evidence gathering.
The landlord’s stage 2 complaint response of 20 February 2023 found that the landlord was taking appropriate steps to try and resolve the ASB but also attempted to put some things right as it:
1. Apologised that the resident felt they were given the incorrect information about the soundproofing.
2. Apologised for the misunderstanding about a mutual exchange and a management move. It also explained what the landlord was offering the resident.
The landlord’s follow up response to the stage 2 complaint response was sent on 23 January 2024. It apologised for the confusion around who the resident should complain to about the neighbour and explained why there was confusion. It also apologised for the delay in serving the NOSP. The landlord accepted that the delay was not acceptable, and it had spoken to staff to ensure they expediate processes accordingly. The response explained the reasons for the delay.
No compensation for distress and inconvenience was offered. It is evident that there have been failings by the landlord in the management of this case. This is not to say that those failings are the sole reason the ASB issue is not resolved, as they are not. There are other factors to consider in this case such as the neighbour’s vulnerabilities and the legal and court processes. It would be reasonable, to put things right, for the landlord to produce an action plan with timescales with its aim to resolve the situation. It should also offer a financial compensation payment for the distress and inconvenience incurred by the resident because of the landlord’s failings. A payment of £600 would have been reasonable and in line with the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance, for failures that have significantly affected the resident.
In summary, the Ombudsman finds maladministration in relation to the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of ASB. It failed to complete a risk assessment, make appropriate referrals, or fully support the resident through the case. Its communication was at times detailed and empathetic but at other times delayed and missing answers to the resident’s queries. The evidence provided demonstrates that the landlord’s actions were decided upon based on the vulnerabilities of the neighbour. There is less evidence to show that the landlord equally considered, when deciding what to do, the impact the ASB was having on the resident and their vulnerabilities. Orders in recognition of this finding are made below.

Request for a more secure front door and soundproofing

Front door

On 6 November 2022, the resident complained to the landlord. Within the complaint they said they had asked for a new front door because of the neighbour’s threats. The landlord arranged an inspection of the door and on 6 December 2022, the landlord’s stage 1 complaint response said that the door was secure, and the resident can use both the yale and mortice locks. The landlord acted reasonably by inspecting the door and letting the resident know the outcome.
The resident was not happy with the landlord’s response and escalated their complaint to stage 2 of the landlord’s complaint process. On 20 February 2023, the landlord completed its stage 2 complaint response and agreed to arrange another inspection of the front door to see if the door panel could be reinforced. The landlord accepted the resident was not satisfied and listened to their concerns. It was resolution focused. The landlord acted reasonably.
On 14 April 2023, the landlord raised an order for a new front door. It was completed on 23 May 2023, 26 working days after the order was raised. The landlord’s repairs policy has not been provided by the landlord, nor is it on its website, to determine if the timeframe was appropriate. The landlord did complete the work within a reasonable timeframe, in line with the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985, from the point it agreed to replace the door. The Ombudsman therefore finds that the landlord acted reasonably.

Soundproofing

The resident asked the landlord about soundproofing their flat in June 2022, 12 September 2022, and 6 November 2022. It was not until the landlord’s stage 1 complaint response of 6 December 2022 that the resident had a response to their soundproofing query. The response was that the landlord could not recall the conversation. This was a long delay for the resident. They considered it a possible solution and thought the landlord had agreed to investigate it. The landlord acted unreasonably by not responding to all the points raised in the resident’s email of 12 September 2022. The resident was left not knowing the outcome of their request for too long.
The landlord met with the resident on 26 January 2023 and told them that it did not think soundproofing would be effective. It wanted to address the problem and said soundproofing would not solve the ASB in the communal areas. On 20 February 2023, the landlord confirmed its position in its stage 2 complaint response. It also apologised if the resident felt they were given incorrect information regarding this matter. The landlord is within its rights to have this opinion, and it is not the Ombudsman’s position to determine whether it should have provided soundproofing or not. It is for the Ombudsman to assess whether the landlord handled the request fairly and reasonably in all the circumstances. It took too long to provide the resident with a final decision on the soundproofing request. It would have been reasonable for the landlord to explain to the resident what they would need to do if they wanted to fund it themselves and the likelihood of the landlord approving such a request. There is no evidence that the landlord did this. There is also little evidence to suggest the landlord thoroughly considered the request and thought about how it may help the resident, who was telling them how much the noise impacted their life and health. The landlord acted unreasonably. It did not take a supportive approach with the resident.
The subject of soundproofing came up again on 12 October 2023. The landlord suggested it as a resolution that could potentially help the resident. The landlord made it clear it could not promise anything but that it would make enquiries. The landlord acted reasonably. It was trying to be solution focused. It listened to the resident and tried to think of options to reduce the impact the noise had on them.
The landlord made some internal enquiries and was aware of insulation it had completed in other properties. It also knew that there was a possibility the work could be funded by a disabled facilities grant (DFG). The outcome of the internal enquiries was that it did not fall within the scope of repairs and maintenance. The landlord’s housing officer continued to ask internally for more solutions but did not get any helpful or affirmative responses. There was no evidence provided as part of this investigation that the outcome was relayed to the resident, or that the DFG route was sufficiently explored. When the resident raised the issue again in December 2023, the landlord directed them to its stage 2 complaint response. This completely missed the fact that the landlord was the party who had, since the stage 2 complaint response, suggested soundproofing and made enquiries. The landlord acted unreasonably. It did not sufficiently explore the suggestion it had made and did not update the resident. It was not professionally curious, and its actions may have contributed to the resident feeling like the landlord was not supporting them.
In summary, there was service failure in relation to the landlord’s response to the resident’s requests. The landlord acted reasonably in relation to the door request but unreasonably to the soundproofing request. The resident was left too long without an outcome and the landlord has not shown it explored the possibility of soundproofing thoroughly enough or exhausted all avenues. Orders have been made below in recognition of this finding, in line with the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance for a finding of service failure.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in relation to the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of ASB.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure in relation to the landlord’s response to the resident’s request for a more secure front door and soundproofing.

Orders and recommendation

Orders

Within 4 weeks of the date of this report, the landlord is ordered to apologise in writing for the impact of the failings identified in this report on the resident. A copy of the apology must be provided to the resident and the Ombudsman.
Within 4 weeks of the date of this report, the landlord is ordered to pay the resident £700 made up of the following:
1. £600 for the distress and inconvenience incurred by the resident because of the landlord’s failures in its handling of the resident’s reports of ASB.
2. £100 for the distress and inconvenience, time and trouble incurred by the resident because of the landlord’s failures in its response to the resident’s request for a new door and soundproofing.
Within 8 weeks of the date of this report, the landlord must meet with the resident / resident’s representatives and complete an action plan for the unresolved ASB case and share it with the resident. It must be SMART (specific, measurable, achievable, relevant and timebound) and include:
1. An update on court proceedings.
2. A point of contact for the resident.
3. A contact plan – when and how the landlord will update the resident.
4. Any other actions required including support referrals, multi-agency meetings, landlord actions for court, resident actions required.

Recommendation

For the landlord to consider ensuring it is compliant with all the duties placed upon it by the 2014 Act, namely, to publish an ASB case review procedure and publish its ASB case review data every 12 months.