Richmond Housing Partnership Limited (202004009)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202004009

Richmond Housing Partnership Limited

10 November 2021

Our approach

The Housing Ombudsman’s approach to investigating and determining complaints is to decide what is fair in all the circumstances of the case. This is set out in the Housing Act 1996 and the Housing Ombudsman Scheme (the Scheme). The Ombudsman considers the evidence and looks to see if there has been any ‘maladministration’, for example whether the landlord has failed to keep to the law, followed proper procedure, followed good practice or behaved in a reasonable and competent manner.

Both the resident and the landlord have submitted information to the Ombudsman and this has been carefully considered. Their accounts of what has happened are summarised below. This report is not an exhaustive description of all the events that have occurred in relation to this case, but an outline of the key issues as a background to the investigation’s findings.

The complaint

This complaint is about the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of noise related ASB by her neighbour.

Background and summary of events

The resident has an assured tenancy for a two-bedroom flat.

Scope of investigation

This report will look at the landlord’s handling of the resident’s concerns from when they were initially raised in October 2019, up until August 2020, when the matter was referred to this Service. The Ombudsman understands that the ASB case was still being actively investigated by the landlord after the complaint process had been exhausted, and there has been further developments with the ASB case with the neighbour (alleged perpetrator of the ASB) having moved out.

Policies, procedures, and agreements

ASB policy:

This sets out how the landlord handles ASB reports. It states that, after the initial triage, if the issue is determined to be high risk, then the case will be passed over to the resolution team who will undertake an Initial Report Form and Risk Assessment to better determine the seriousness of the reported ASB. The Resolution Team will investigate high risk nuisance and antisocial behaviour where behaviour is repetitive or is of such serious nature that further investigation and/or enforcement is necessary. Examples of ASB that will be dealt by the specialist Resolution team include ‘Persistent and or serious neighbour noise’.
The policy sets out the types of interventions available to the landlord, including, warnings, mediation, support, Acceptable Behaviour Agreements (ABA) as well as legal options such as injunctions and possession orders.
The policy also states that the support needs of the alleged perpetrator of the ASB will be taken into account when investigating the ASB and it will refer matters to the appropriate external support agencies when considering action.

Compensation policy:

This sets out where the landlord can consider discretionary compensation e.g. if a customer has had a poor experience, it may offer them a goodwill payment. Examples of this would be:
1. Where a customer has had a really poor experience because of our mistakes.
2. Where we’ve failed to keep a promise.
3. Where we want to recognise the unnecessary time and effort a customer has had to make to get their issue resolved.
The policy has a compensation limit of up to £100 for ‘Service failure’ where ‘…our mistakes cause customers unnecessary distress. This generally occurs because of our failure to follow our policy, procedures or to meet our service style behaviours. Examples can include… not keeping customers informed with actions and information’.
The policy has a compensation limit of up to £250 for ‘Serious service failure’ where it has failed a customer ‘on multiple occasions around the same issue or our failure to follow our policies and procedures will lead to a significant impact on them…’

Summary of events

The available records show that the resident reported incidents of noise disturbance in October 2019 from her neighbour. The noise issues related to loud shouting and slamming doors late at night. It is not disputed that the landlord responded to this report by writing to the neighbour about being mindful of causing such disturbances.
The landlord’s email to the resident on 30 October 2019 confirmed that the landlord had written to the neighbour. It also explained its ASB process, and that if a tenant persistently breached their tenancy in the form of noise nuisance it would need evidence of this noise via sound recordings. If the noise is shown to be excessive and a disturbance it would speak with the tenant to try and improve their behaviour. If further reports of noise disturbance are made then it will consider issuing an Acceptable Behaviour Agreement (‘ABA’) outlining their responsibilities, and this will be monitored for a period of time. If the ABA is breached then the landlord will consider other enforcement actions, such as seeking a Notice of Seeking Possession via a court order which will then be suspended for 12 months to allow their behaviour to improve. If the reports of noise continue then it will consider requesting an eviction order from the court. However, it explained that ‘evictions due to noise nuisance are incredibly rare so it would be unfair of us to advise you differently’.
Further correspondence between the landlord and the resident around this time confirmed that the landlord would consider any further action in respect of noise disturbance but it would require evidence in order to do so. The resident hoped that the warning letter would help resolve the situation. While the records are not clear, it is not disputed that the resident was given general information about using the Noise App to evidence the noise disturbance.
The resident kept her own diary logging incidents of noise disturbances which showed sporadic entries on 21 December 2019, 6 and 7 February 2020. The resident has said that she reported this to the landlord between 9 and 11 February 2020 by email. The landlord’s records do not show any reports of ASB being logged at this time.
Further incidents are noted on the resident’s diary on 14 and 20 February 2020 and on 15 and 22 March 2020. It is not disputed that these incidents were not reported to the landlord at the time.
The records show that the landlord received a report of noise disturbance on 24 March 2020. It responded the next day said it would review the noise recordings and the resident should continue to use the Noise App. Due to the COVID restrictions at the time, it was not possible to do home visits, but it said it would write to the neighbour if necessary.
The landlord has said that it issued the neighbour with a warning letter on 25 March 2020 but it has not provided this Service with a copy of this letter.
Further reports of continued noise disturbance were reported by the resident on 5 April 2020. The landlord responded the next day and said that it had reviewed the noise recording and could hear stomping, but this did not constitute statutory noise nuisance as it was not persistent. It advised the resident to keep using the Noise App to gather more evidence.
Following further incidents of noise disturbances over the next two weeks, the landlord then escalated the case to its ‘Resolution Team’ on 16 April 2020 for further investigation.
The landlord issued the neighbour with a further warning letter on 24 April 2020 and said that if the noise disturbance persisted then it would issue an ABA.
The records show that the landlord had a lengthy discussion with the resident on 30 April 2020 about her case. The next steps were discussed and the resident was also advised to contact the noise nuisance team at the council. The landlord also agreed to the resident’s request to consider whether it would be possible for the resident to be moved into temporary accommodation until the noise issue is resolved. It said it would ask the council about whether this was possible.
The resident submitted a formal complaint to the landlord on 4 May 2020.
The landlord’s records show that it spoke to the neighbour on 4 May 2020 about the noise disturbances. The disturbances were mainly from her teenage son rapping and talking loudly during the night and earlier hours of the morning on his headset whilst gaming. The neighbour explained that she was aware of the complaints and said that her son had mental health issues she was dealing with. The landlord noted this and reminded her that she was still responsible for members of her household if they cause noise nuisance and that this could be a breach of her tenancy agreement.
The landlord’s records show that it had listened to further noise recordings submitted by the resident and it noted that this was general household noise and not a nuisance.
The landlord acknowledged the complaint on 6 May 2020. It discussed the complaint with the resident on 11 May 2020 and it explained that it was still reviewing the active ASB case to see what further action could be taken.
The resident remained unhappy following further disturbances and reported that the Police had attended on a few occasions. The resident told the landlord that she wanted the neighbour evicted. The landlord explained that it will now put the neighbour on an ABA for six months, and if this is breached then it will consider legal action e.g. injunction or possession proceedings.
The landlord wrote to the neighbour on 13 May 2020 and confirmed that due to continued complaints of noise disturbances she would be put on an ABA from 14 May 2020 and this would be monitored for six months, and if the noise issues persisted then tenancy enforcement action would be taken via the courts.
The landlord’s records show that on 14 May 2020 it was advised by the Police that they were not taking any further action against the neighbour or her son at this time.
The resident contacted the landlord on 15 May 2020 and reported further incidents and said matters had got worse. She wanted clear information from the landlord as to what steps it would take to prepare its case for evicting the neighbour. She also mentioned how the noise was adversely impacting her and her daughter’s mental and physical wellbeing. She also requested that her case be assigned to a more senior caseworker and that she would be preparing legal action against the landlord because she felt she could no longer live in the property due to the noise.
The landlord acknowledged the resident’s correspondence but maintained that it did not have sufficient evidence to pursue the matter legally via the courts at this time.
The landlord issued its Stage 1 complaint response on 20 May 2020:
1. It apologised for the ‘slight delay’ in issuing the complaint response and said this was due to the complexity of the case.
2. It explained that when the issues were first reported in October 2019 they were dealt with appropriately and the resident was given the correct advice about how it deals with such ASB issues and the evidence needed and it also wrote to the neighbour.
3. The matter was reviewed again on 25 March 2020 after further contact from the resident. The recordings were reviewed and the case was being actively investigated. It explained why the use of the Noise App was vital in collating evidence in these types of cases. Based on the evidence that had been provide at that time, it escalated the case for further investigation. It was satisfied that that the actions it took were appropriate.
4. It explained the ABA and what can happen if there are continued breaches.
5. It acknowledged the impact on the resident and said that I was continuing to investigate the case, and where possible, it would take further enforcement action as necessary.
The landlord’s notes of its discussions with the neighbour on 21 May 2020 show that it obtained further information about her son’s vulnerabilities and the involvement of the council’s social care service. It was noted that he was subject to a care plan and that the neighbour was actively working with Social Services to get her son help for his behavioural issues.
The resident requested escalation of her complaint on 21 May 2020 and this was accepted.
The resident has said that due to the impact of the disturbances she felt she had no choice but to move out of her property, and she went to stay at an alternative property arranged for her by her friend.
The landlord issued its Stage 2 complaint response on 29 May 2020:
1. It apologised for the slight delay in its Stage 1 response.
2. It acknowledged service failures in its initial handling of the reports in October 2019. It confirmed that its advice in October and November 2019 was correct about the need to collate evidence via the Noise App. However, it accepted that it had failed to offer the use of diary sheets, and it did not clarify how long it expected the resident to collate evidence for. It apologised for this and said that it would ensure that going forward appropriate advice is issued at the early stages of a case.
3. It maintained that it had not received any ASB reports from the resident between November 2019 and March 2021. It had reviewed the contact during this time and no ASB reports had been noted. It explained that, as it had not received any further reports following its intervention in November 2019, it had no reason to believe that the noise issues were still ongoing.
4. It reiterated its apology for not being clearer at the outset about how long the resident needed to keep using the Noise App and logging the incidents. However, it maintained that its interventions were proportionate, and once there was evidence presented of an ongoing issue, the case was duly escalated to the Resolution Team for appropriate enforcement action.
5. The landlord agreed to the resident’s request to change the ASB officer investigating her case. It also apologised for referring to an older ASB policy instead of its current policy. It said that this was an administrative error which had no impact on the case.
6. In conclusion it accepted that it could have provided a better service at the outset of the case in terms of its communication and advice. For which it apologised and said, ‘we could have done better in advising you on what would happen, by when and be clearer on what our expectations of you were going to be’. In recognition of this failure, it offered £250 compensation.
The resident rejected the compensation offer. The landlord then spoke to the resident on 3 June 2020 and gave her an update on the next steps on her case, which included working with the neighbour due to her (confidential) support needs, liaising with the council about the possibility of temporary accommodation; liaising with the Police; liaising with the council noise team to get their advice; and it advised the resident to continue to record and report any further disturbances.
The landlord’s records show that on 5 June 2020 it contacted the council noise team for its advice on the recordings so far. It also spoke with the neighbour and discussed possible mediation.
It wrote to the resident on 9 June 2020 and confirmed its position that, as it presently stood, the noise was not deemed to be a statutory nuisance but it said it was continuing to make enquiries and it would review the case every 14 days.
The landlord received a response from the council on 9 June 2020 about possible temporary accommodation for the resident which said ‘I would advise that noise nuisance is not considered a reason to be threatened with homelessness…’
The landlord received a response from the council noise team on 16 June 2020 which said that it would need to carry out its own investigation and it asked that the resident contact them to discuss this further.
The landlord issued a further complaint response on 18 June 2020 and it reiterated its apology for the lack of advice about using the Noise App. It maintained that it had not received any ASB reports in February 2020 and while the resident had provided a copy of an email this was not showing on its system. It said it was continuing to investigate her case in line with its action plan. It apologised for not offering diary sheets at the outset and said it had not been made aware by the resident that she was not happy with using the Noise App.
The Ombudsman understands that the resident moved back into the property in late July 2020 and that the neighbour had moved out of her property around that time. The resident also pursued a potential legal claim against the landlord for reimbursement of her costs for temporary accommodation amounting to £1600. The landlord also attended a Community Trigger Review meeting in July 2020 where it was decided that no further action was necessary at the time as the neighbour was not living at the property anymore.
The final correspondence on the complaint was issued by the landlord on 18 August 2020 when it said that it could not agree to the resident’s request for £1600, and it was happy to honour its previous offer of £250 compensation to acknowledge the issues that were identified during the complaint investigation. This offer was based on the fact that it did not offer diary sheets at the outset, and when it did, it did not explain how long to make use of them; it also acknowledged the error regarding referencing the old ASB policy, and the delay in contacting the resident after the case had been escalated.

Assessment and findings

It is noted that there has been a very significant amount of correspondence between the resident and the landlord. Whilst the resident’s dissatisfaction with the landlord is duly noted, the report will not be addressing each and every specific issue or incident. Rather, the Ombudsman has carefully considered all the available evidence and this report will take a view on the landlord’s overall handling of the matter up until August 2020.
It is clear from the resident’s submissions that she has been distressed by the ongoing noise disturbances and she believes that this distress has been exacerbated by the lack of strong action by the landlord to tackle the problem. The resident’s feelings are duly acknowledged and it not disputed that dealing with the noise incidents would no doubt have been stressful for the resident. However, the Ombudsman’s role in such situations is not to investigate the actual ASB itself, but to look at how the landlord responded to the resident’s reports and her concerns and whether or not it acted reasonably and in accordance with its policies. It is important to note that it is not the purpose of this report to investigate the severity of the noise disruption or to assess the credibility of the resident’s reports. Our role is to consider the landlord’s response to the reports it received, and to the formal complaint, and consider whether its response was reasonable in all the circumstances of the case, in accordance with its policies and its obligations under the tenancy agreement and any relevant legislation.
Having considered the available information, the Ombudsman also recognises that this has been a challenging case for the landlord to manage due to the vulnerability and support needs of the neighbour and her son. The landlord is required to balance its obligations towards the resident, under her tenancy agreement and its ASB policy, with its obligations to support the neighbour and her son (the alleged perpetrator) under her tenancy, its ASB policy and other relevant legislation. The landlord is also obliged to respect the confidentiality of the alleged perpetrator’s personal data and information, and as such, this can impact on the extent of information it can disclose to the resident about the case, which in turn can cause problems when considering enforcement actions and explaining why a particular course of action may not be appropriate.
Looking at the facts of the case, and the available evidence, the resident made initial reports in October 2019 and these were dealt with appropriately. The landlord’s initial triage review resulted in the case being dealt with by way of general advice, signposting the resident to appropriate help and providing information on the Noise App. The landlord also wrote to the neighbour about the noise complaint. Given the relative severity of the reports, this course of action was appropriate at the time. It is also noted that the resident had hoped that this warning letter would help.
The landlord also acted appropriately by setting and managing the resident’s expectations at that time about how it deals with such ASB cases and that legal enforcement options were possible, but unlikely, and would very much depend upon the evidence to demonstrate the nature and severity of the noise disturbances.
However, the landlord has rightly acknowledged that its communication and advice could have been better during this early period. In that it failed to offer the resident the use of diary sheets and it did not clearly set out how long she should collate recordings for. The landlord acted appropriately by apologising for this service failure and offering compensation in its complaint responses.
The service failure here, with regards to the failure to provide diary sheets, did not significantly impact the ASB case or the outcome. This is because the resident had kept her own diary logging noise incidents as and when they occurred.
With regards to the issue of not being clear in its advice about how long to keep logging incidents and making recordings, this was a shortcoming in its service provision. Had it been clearer in its advice it is possible that the resident may well have contacted the landlord earlier and the landlord could possibly have got involved again at an earlier point than March 2020. However, having said that, the fact remains that the diary logs provided by the resident showed isolated and sporadic incidents of noise between November 2019 and March 2020 and the resident did not actually report any of these incidents to the landlord at that time. Therefore, as the landlord was not made aware of any ongoing ASB noise issues during this time, it was not in a position to investigate these incidents.
There is some dispute between the parties about whether or not an email was received by the landlord in mid-February 2020 about a reported ASB noise incident. The resident provided a copy of this email to the landlord during the complaint investigation but it said it could not locate this email on its IT systems. The Ombudsman has noted that this particular email is not logged on the landlord’s records it has seen, which would suggest that it had not been received by the landlord at that time.
The Ombudsman is satisfied that as no ASB reports were received by the landlord during November 2019 to March 2020 it was not required to take any action during this period.
Turning now to the handling of the case once it had been re-opened following the report from the resident on 25 March 2020, the available evidence shows that the landlord, overall, handled the matter appropriately.
The landlord reviewed the noise recordings submitted by the resident and took the view that it was not deemed to be a statutory nuisance. It acted in line with its policy by writing to the neighbour about the noise complaints received. It asked the resident to continue to log and record incidents for a further 14 days, and once that had been done, it then escalated the case to its Resolution Team to carry out further investigations – which was reasonable.
The landlord contacted the resident and the neighbour within a reasonable time and discussed the issues at length with both parties. It continued to review the recordings and explained that it needed more consistent evidence in order to consider more formal enforcement action.
During this time the landlord established that the noise disturbance was being committed mainly by the neighbour’s teenage son, and that both, the neighbour and her son had vulnerabilities. The landlord’s ASB policy requires it to take into account not only the impact on the victim, but also any factors that may affect the ASB perpetrator(s) in terms of their vulnerability and/or mental health. The landlord acted appropriately by establishing that assistance would be required from third party agencies to try and amicably resolve the ASB, in particular with regards to the son’s behaviour. Once this had been established the landlord acted appropriately by liaising with the support agencies involved. The landlord acted reasonably by providing the resident with advice and guidance about the council’s noise team it also agreed to liaise with the council about trying to place the resident in temporary accommodation.
The landlord acted in accordance with its ASB policy by issuing the neighbour with an Acceptable Behaviour Agreement and warning her of the consequences of continuous breaches of the ABA.
The landlord has provided this Service with its analysis of approximately 40 noise recordings collated following the issuing of the ABA. Whilst there may be some dispute between the parties about a particular recording, the vast majority of the noise was deemed to be general living noise and not nuisance. Given this evidence, the landlord’s approach was appropriate and proportionate to the issues being reported and the evidence available to it at the time.
The landlord’s records show that, on the whole, it responded to the reports of ASB within a reasonable time and consistently explained what it had done, and why it could not take further action. The landlord considered the evidence and it has shown that it actively engaged with other services, such as the Police, Social Services, and the council to try and assist the resident. Given the lack of clear evidence of a statutory noise nuisance, and the lack of action taken by the Police and/or the council noise team, it was not unreasonable for the landlord to say that it did not have enough evidence to justify starting formal legal action against the neighbour for tenancy breaches.
The resident is clearly unhappy with the lack of formal legal action, but it must be borne in mind that the landlord is guided by the evidence available to it, and in this case, whilst the resident has provided numerous noise recordings, this has been considered by the landlord as being insufficient for further action to be taken. Whilst the evidence did not justify formal legal action, the landlord’s records show that it continued to investigate the reports and monitor the situation.
The landlord has, in its complaints process, explained its reasoning for not starting legal proceedings and this is reasonable. The resident may well want stronger action to be taken by the landlord, but the Ombudsman is satisfied that the landlord’s decision-making and rationale shows that it carefully considered its options and it deems this to be a reasonable and proportionate response based upon the evidence available to it at that time.
In its complaint response the landlord acknowledged that, whilst the evidence did not presently support or justify any formal action against the neighbour, it did highlight that it could have done better in terms of its communication with the resident. In recognition of this, it offered the resident £250 compensation.
The resident rejected this offer and has said that she felt she had no choice but to move out of the property and into temporary accommodation for two months because of the noise disturbances. The resident has said that she wants the landlord to reduce her rent for those two months to zero on the basis that the property was uninhabitable due to the noise disturbances. She has also asked that the landlord pay her £1600 for the cost of her temporary accommodation and pay compensation that adequately reflects the impact on her and her daughter’s mental health.
In considering whether or not the landlord’s offer of compensation is reasonable, the Ombudsman has taken into account the landlord’s compensation policy, and this services’ own Dispute Resolution Principles (be fair, put things right and learn from outcomes) and our published Remedies Guidance.
In particular, the ‘Remedies Guidance’ explains that where there have been service failures by the landlord, if the landlord has recognised the failures itself and has taken appropriate action to put this right, including offering reasonable compensation, then the Ombudsman will not necessarily require that the landlord do anything more. One of the factors that the Ombudsman considers is whether the redress is proportionate to the severity of the service failure by the landlord.
Looking at the severity of the service failure in this case, whilst the landlord has acknowledged that it could have done better in terms of its communication, the Ombudsman has not seen any evidence of significant service failure. Without wishing to diminish the resident’s experiences, the Ombudsman is satisfied that the landlord’s overall handing of the matter was reasonable and it maintained a consistent approach in explaining why it could not take further action.
Taking an overall view on the matter, the Ombudsman has noted the landlord’s acceptance that its service provision could have been better with regards to its communication with the resident. The landlord has acted appropriately by not only recognising its shortcomings but has also offered the resident an apology and compensation. In the Ombudsman’s view, the offer of compensation recognises the service failure in communication and the offer represents proportionate and reasonable redress for this.
With regards to the resident’s request for reimbursement of her temporary accommodation costs, the Ombudsman understands that the resident had issued a pre-claim letter of action and was in the process of a legal claim for this cost, and the landlord has sought legal advice on this. It is not for the Ombudsman to comment on any legal claim. As far as the Ombudsman is concerned, it is satisfied that the landlord was not under any obligation to provide temporary accommodation and it acted reasonably by liaising with the council on the resident’s behalf.
With regards to the resident’s request for additional compensation to take into account the impact on her mental health, it is not disputed in any way that the resident felt distressed by the noise disturbances. However, it is not for the Ombudsman to determine the severity of the ASB and/or the validity of the allegations. Furthermore, we cannot medically assess the impact of the ASB on the resident’s health and mental wellbeing, and nor can we make any determination on a causal link between the two.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 55(b) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme the landlord has made a reasonable offer of redress in respect of its handling of the resident’s reports of noise related ASB from her neighbour.

Reasons

The landlord has acknowledged the resident’s concerns and has accepted that there were initial failings in its communication with the resident. It has apologised for this and has offered compensation which the Ombudsman considers to be reasonable and proportionate redress for the service failure.

Orders and recommendations

Recommendation

If it has not already done so, the landlord to pay the resident £250 compensation it offered in its final complaint response.