Richmond Housing Partnership Limited (202011270)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202011270

Richmond Housing Partnership Limited

22 April 2022

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 regarding:
1. The landlord’s handling of the resident’s anti-social behaviour reports (ASB).
2. The landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint.

Background and summary of events

Background

The resident is a tenant of the landlord, a Housing Association. He has a fixed term AST at the property, a one-bedroom, ground floor flat, which began in 2018, although he had resided at the property for longer.
The landlord operates a two-stage complaints procedure. It aims to respond to complaints at Stage One within five working days and at Stage Two (Appeal stage) within seven working days.
The landlord’s ASB policy advises it operates a ‘harm-centred approach’ and it will use ‘what we assess to be the most proportionate intervention and enforcement method…for the particular case’. It lists actions it may take, including verbal warnings; warning letters; mediation; Acceptable Behaviour Agreements; injunctions; Possession Orders. The policy also states it will agree an action plan with reporters of ASB and will confirm this in writing.

Scope of Investigation

Information provided to this investigation indicates the disturbances reported by the resident from various neighbours in his block cover a considerable period, and he has advised this Service that they are continuing. He has also advised he is no longer residing at his property due to ongoing ASB and is ‘sofa surfing’ at various other addresses. While this is of concern, and a recommendation has been made at the end of this report regarding the current status of the ASB case, this investigation will focus on the landlord’s handling of the issue during the period between the resident’s initial reports (around April 2020) and its final complaint response, issued in March 2021. However, events reported, and actions taken by the landlord outside of this period may be referred to in this report for context.

Summary of Events

In April 2020, the resident contacted the landlord on several occasions via its Webchat service to report incidents of noise disturbance from Neighbour A and Neighbour B, particularly loud music coming from both properties, apparently in a tit-for-tat fashion. While some of the reports were sent in via an anonymous email account, landlord records indicate that the resident has advised he was also the author of these reports. The landlord advised the resident it would write to both neighbours regarding their behaviour.
The resident submitted further reports of noise disturbance from Neighbours A and B in May 2020, via both email and the Webchat service, which also included Neighbour A making slamming and banging noises at unsociable hours. Landlord records of a conversation on 12 May 2020 indicate it advised the resident it would contact both neighbours regarding the reports and encouraged the resident to use its Noise App to record the incidents. However, it noted that the resident declined to do so and instead advised he would be submitting a complaint against the landlord for its failure to investigate his ASB reports.
On 17 May 2020, landlord records show the resident contacted to advise that the banging noises had reduced over the past weekend and his most recent reports had regarding incidents from the previous week. The landlord acknowledged his email and advised it would get back in touch with Neighbour A if he reported that the problem arose again.
On 1 June 2020, the resident reported further noise disturbances from Neighbours A and B via both email and Webchat. Landlord records noted the resident advised it was ‘not the first time’ he had raised these concerns and he was now ‘lodging a complaint against (the landlord) for failing to improve the situation and…to make his home safe’. Notes show he also asked for his complaint ‘to be escalated’. However, landlord records indicate it responded to advise his concerns would be addressed via its ASB procedure.
The resident continued to contact the landlord regarding alleged noise disturbances from Neighbour A and Neighbour B and landlord records show at least ten contacts up until 2 January 2021. Records show that the resident had also begun submitting recordings via the noise app on or around 17 November 2020, which the landlord noted referred to loud music playing at 5:22am. A further submission via the app on 19 November 2020 was noted by the landlord to include ‘banging…(which) did sound deliberate’ and was ‘loud and constant’. It is also noted that landlord records show it was contacted by the Local Authority in July 2020 regarding a Community Trigger application, which is believed to have been made by the resident. The landlord noted that the Local Authority advised the criteria had not been met, partly because the landlord ‘had been responding’.
On 5 January 2021, the resident contacted this Service to raise concerns over how the landlord had managed reports he had made regarding ASB and its lack of response to a complaint he had submitted in June 2020. Following his contact, this Service wrote to the landlord on 22 January 2021 to ask that it respond to the resident regarding his concerns over ASB in his block.
On 28 January 2021, the landlord wrote to the resident and advised it was responding at Stage One of its complaints procedure. In its response, the landlord noted the following:
1. It’s Contact Team had spoken to him that week and he had raised concerns regarding ‘how we managed your contact in June last year (2020)’. The landlord acknowledged that there appeared to have been ‘limited to no response from our Customer Services Team’ at the time.
2. It had reviewed the resident’s ‘contact from last Summer’ and apologised that it had not responded appropriately. It advised it had records of receiving three emails from the resident in June 2020 which were not responded to.
3. Referring to two emails received on 26 June 2020, one regarding a fence repair and the other regarding correspondence via the landlord’s Web Chat service, the landlord apologised that these had not been responded to appropriately. Regarding the web chat session, it apologised for the fact ‘the chat should have been managed more professionally’ and acknowledged it ‘shouldn’t have allowed it to escalate in the way we did’. It advised the staff member who was using the chat service at the time no longer worked for the landlord, so it was unable to investigate the matter further but apologised again and for the fact the resident’s email of the same day had not been responded to. It also apologised for not responding to his email about the fence repair and advised this had been flagged to the relevant team.
4. Addressing a further email sent on 1 June 2020 regarding ‘reports of nuisance’, it acknowledged the resident had requested to ‘have the matter escalated to a complaint’ but this had been ‘ignored’. It also accepted it was ‘unacceptable’ that its reply of 3 June 2020 had not made any reference to his request either. However, the landlord went on to advise it considered that ‘complaints’ of ASB are ‘somewhat different to that of normal service related complaints and that it was ‘not responsible for the behaviour of individual customers’. It noted that only if it failed to ‘appropriately manage the (ASB) reports’ would the matter be a formal complaint about itself and as such, his reports were handled under its ASB Policy, rather than its Complaints Policy. It advised it was unable to share details of the action it had taken regarding reported anti-social behaviour as it was ‘bound by GDPR’ but stressed it ensured that ‘victims of (ASB) are regularly updated on the progress of our case investigations’. It confirmed there was a case being actively investigated relating to ‘nuisance’ at the resident’s block and offered to put him in touch with the advisor in charge of the case.
The resident responded the same day. He advised he considered the aforementioned ‘incidents add up to serious failures warranting goodwill payments’ and attached a copy of the landlord’s Complaints Policy, which he stated indicated it would pay between ‘£100-250+’ for failing a customer on ‘multiple occasions around the same issue’ and which led to ‘a significant impact on (residents)’. He noted the landlord had taken 34 weeks to respond to his complaint and this had ‘added a great deal of stress…combined with the ASB which (the landlord) is failing to address’ and asked why it had taken so long. He clarified that his complaint was regarding ‘your case handling…rather than behavioural responsibilities’ and the landlord’s failure to stop the ongoing ASB. He also asked if the landlord ‘cannot assure [me] that if my tenancy will not be subjected to endless ASB…should I be offered a better tenancy?’.
The landlord responded on 2 February 2021. It reiterated that it accepted it had not ‘appropriately’ acknowledged the resident’s correspondence in 2020, that it had addressed the emails with relevant managers and that the matter would be ‘proportionately investigated’. Regarding its Complaints Policy, it clarified the resident had shared an old version of the document, from 2018/2019, but agreed there had been a service failure which had ‘clearly impacted on [him]’ and offered £150 ‘to acknowledge and apologise for the way in which our Customer Service Team managed your contact’.
Regarding the resident’s reports of ASB, the landlord clarified that ‘not all evidence provided enabled us to begin tenancy enforcement action’ but advised that further evidence received in September 2020 ‘was sufficient for a tenancy enforcement case to be launched’ which it stated was still ongoing. It noted the resident’s comments in his previous email that he would not find it helpful to be updated on progression of the case but offered again to ‘include (him) in the case management’ as he had reported being affected by the behaviour of his neighbours. It advised it did not agree that it had failed to address the resident’s reports appropriately and made a further offer to put him in touch with the advisor who was managing the case. It further clarified that it would not ‘reactively’ move residents accused of ASB and that any action would depend on the outcome of an investigation. It also advised it would not move residents who reported to be affected by ASB ‘unless there was sufficient evidence to suggest the need for someone to be rehoused due to the impact of the situation…on them’.
The resident responded the same day and requested that the landlord revise its offer of £150 compensation as this had not ‘taken into account the other service failures you mentioned’, although he did not specify which service failures he referred to. He also asked the landlord to clarify whether it would ever evict a tenant for committing ASB, queried the landlord’s use of ‘alleged’ when referring to the neighbours he had reported committing ASB and stated that he could not agree the landlord had appropriately dealt with his reports ‘until (he had) evidence of the situation going away’. He asked why the landlord could not assure him that he would not be subjected to ‘continuous’ ASB, which was ‘putting my and my family’s wellbeing and safety at risk’.
The resident also stated the landlord’s requirement for him to supply it with noise recordings was onerous and ‘forcing (him) to live an unwanted life of providing endless recordings of ASB…using an app that only records for 30 seconds of poor quality’. He further queried what the landlord would consider to be ‘sufficient’ evidence, noting that then ASB had been going on for ’20 weeks’ and that he considered that, as he had already supplied five months’ worth of evidence, the ASB ‘should not be happening any more’.
On 4 February 2021, the landlord responded to the resident. It advised:
1. It would ‘take action’ against an individual’s tenancy ‘if the evidence is sufficient enough’, although it clarified that ultimately only a judge could evict anyone.
2. It appreciated that the resident ‘may not feel this day to day’ but there was a live case regarding his reports about his neighbour and it was taking ‘proportionate action’ to address this.
3. It could not guarantee he would not be impacted by ASB, but it would ‘proportionately address’ any breaches of tenancy. It advised it was doing so in this case and collaborating with the Police to ‘reach a sustainable resolution’ and that it had ‘sufficient evidence to investigate (the neighbour) on tenancy breach grounds’.
4. The resident could submit diary sheets regarding ASB incidents if he found the noise app ‘too cumbersome’.
5. That it would only move residents on a ‘priority basis if there is a threat to life’ or their safety and if this was supported by ‘an external agency like the Police’.
6. The compensation offer related to the failure to respond appropriately to the resident’s correspondence in June 2020.
The resident replied the same day, further querying the landlord’s position on its handling of the ASB reports and noting that he had asked it to assure him he would not be subject to ‘continuous ASB’ rather than at all. He suggested that if the landlord could not do so, it would be a breach of his tenancy. He also queried why a resident would be moved for their safety rather than a perpetrator and whether any evidence he submitted would be used if the case went to Court. He stated that the compensation could not be agreed until his dissatisfaction over landlord’s handling of the ASB case ‘had been resolved’.
The landlord provided a further response on 9 February 2021. It clarified that it would only submit evidence as part of any Court case if it had the resident’s consent to do so but stressed it may undermine any case if the evidence was of a crucial nature. It also noted that, as the resident continued to refer to the ‘continuous’ ASB, it was important that it was made aware of the continuing issues and urged him to grant permission to be put in touch with the advisor investigating the current ASB case. The landlord further clarified that its offer of compensation related to how it had responded to his correspondence from June 2020 and did not relate to the ongoing ASB investigation.
The resident responded the same day and gave permission for the ASB case handler to contact him. He stressed he considered the complaint to remain open and that he expected the landlord to provide ‘assurance…that it will make my tenancy unaffected by ‘constant’ ASB’ and that he would ‘need to see evidence of improvements over the coming months’. He advised it would speak with the case handler before ‘dealing with compensation for the other service failures’.
On 12 February 2021, the landlord responded and further clarified that the complaint investigation, and its offer of £150 compensation, had centred on its handling of correspondence with the resident in June 2020, and it did not consider it be regarding its handling of the ongoing ASB case. The resident replied the same day and stressed that he considered the complaint be about the landlord’s handling of the ASB case and that the other issues ‘were incidents (the landlord) added’. He advised that the landlord was ‘failing to acknowledge’ the complaint he sent ‘over 30 weeks ago’ and requested that it open a new case to consider this aspect of his complaint.
The landlord responded three days later and again clarified the scope of its original complaint response, advising that it had ‘set out what was being investigated’ and that it had ‘attempted to explain…why we couldn’t investigate your neighbour for tenancy breaches last summer’ but that ‘this changed in September (2020) when sufficient evidence was presented to us that enabled us to launch a tenancy enforcement investigation’. It apologised that the resident was not happy with how the complaint had been investigated and advised that he had the right to escalate the complaint and noted that he had already been in contact with this Service.
The resident and landlord exchanged further emails the same day, in which the resident requested the complaint to be escalated, for reasons which included:
1. The landlord had not responded to his complaint of 1 June 2020, regarding its handling of his ASB reports, or provided an explanation as to why it had not done so. The resident stated that this Service had also asked the landlord to provide a response on this matter.
2. The landlord’s complaint response had addressed ‘other service failures’ which he had not mentioned in his complaint.
3. The landlord’s Complaints Policy was not available on its website.
The landlord acknowledged the escalation request the same day and advised it had logged a Stage Two (Appeal) complaint and this would be investigated over the next seven working days. It denied that its Complaints Policy was not available online and advised that the link to the policy, which it had sent to the resident, had been taken from its website earlier that day.
The landlord issued a Stage Two (Appeal) response on 17 March 2021. It apologised to the resident for the delay in replying and offered additional compensation of £150 to reflect this, bringing the total amount to £300. It addressed three of the issues raised by the resident in his escalation request:
1. Its Stage One response did not acknowledge the complaint raised on 1 June 2020 – the landlord reiterated its apology for how it handled the contact from the resident on 1 June 2020 and found that it had been appropriate when it apologised to him for ‘the inconsistency of service provided’. It clarified again that it treated ASB reports separately from complaints about its service but acknowledged that this could have been explained to him ‘differently’.
2. The landlord stated that it was ‘not responsible for the behaviour of an individual customer’s actions’ and therefore, ‘issues relating to their behaviour would be managed in accordance with our ASB Policy’, rather than its Complaints Policy. It noted that it had subsequently advised the resident what information would be required to progress an ASB investigation and that it had ‘made appropriate interventions’ at the time. It advised it therefore stood by its Stage One response and found that, having acknowledged its failure to respond to the resident’s initial correspondence, it did not consider the issue had been ‘unopened’ or remained unresolved.
3. Its Stage One response dealt with other service failures not mentioned in the resident’s complaint – the landlord advised it had included ‘other issues you raised with us as part of our…response to the concerns you raised about the services provided by our customer call centre’. It reiterated it did not agree there had been a service failure regarding its response to his ‘reports of nuisance last summer’ and advised its position remained the same.
4. The resident’s complaint was always about the landlord’s ‘contractual breach of service to respond (to) and resolve the ASB’ – the landlord refuted there had been a ‘breach of the service we provide you’ and advised it was ‘actively investigating the breaches of tenancy by your neighbour’ and taking ‘appropriate’ tenancy enforcement action. It again advised that ‘complaints around ASB are handled differently than normal service failure complaints’ and it would manage ASB reports through tenancy enforcement actions.
Later the same day, the resident sent the landlord a lengthy email outlining his dissatisfaction with its response. Points he raised included:
1. He reiterated that the correspondence regarding ASB sent on 1 June 2020 was a complaint rather than a report and stated that he did not begin submitting ASB reports until September 2020.
2. He considered that, by rejecting his complaint about its ASB case handling, the landlord was putting his safety at risk.
3. He wanted the landlord to acknowledge that, in its complaint response, it had addressed issues that did not form part of his original complaint.
4. He remained unhappy that the ASB situation had not been resolved and the measures the landlord had taken were ineffective.
5. He still considered his complaint of 1 June 2020 to be ‘unopened’ and requested that the landlord respond to it accordingly. He also stated that the landlord had not addressed his request for compensation and therefore considered that the landlord should:
  1. Reduce his rent by half.
  2. Refund half his rent backdated to 1 June 2020.
  3. Register him for alternative accommodation with a garden and ‘at least’ one bedroom.
  4. Reimburse him for refurbishment he had carried out to his current garden if he were to move to a new property, although the resident did not specify how much this would amount to.
6. He advised he would refer his complaint to this Service.

Assessment and findings

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s ASB reports

Having considered the information supplied to this investigation, this Service acknowledges that the noise disturbance incidents reported by the resident have caused, and continue to cause, him distress in his property. However, it is important to note that it is not this Service’s role to determine whether ASB occurred or, if it did, who was responsible. What the Ombudsman can assess is how a landlord has dealt with the reports it has received and whether it had followed proper procedure, followed good practice, and behaved reasonably, taking account of the circumstances of the case.
Landlord records show that the resident made reports in April and May 2020 regarding noise disturbances from Neighbour A and Neighbour B. He advised that the neighbours had been playing loud music, often at unsociable hours, along with Neighbour A making banging and ‘scraping’ noises and both parties slamming doors. He reported that the loud music appeared to be retaliatory between Neighbour A and Neighbour B, as one would attempt to drown out the other.
From the information seen by this Service, the landlord dealt with these initial reports appropriately. In May 2020 it advised the resident how he could submit further evidence via its noise app and that it would speak to both neighbours regarding the reports, and records show that it did so promptly, contacting both parties to remind them of the effect the noise could have on others. Following further contact from the resident, and from an anonymous source in the block, records show the landlord continued to contact the neighbours regarding the noise disturbance reports, often on the same day as the reports were received. This was a reasonable and proportionate response from the landlord and showed that it took the issue seriously, while also seeking to address the matter at an early stage to potentially avoid it escalating.
However after a brief improvement in May 2020, the situation continued, and the resident made further reports of noise disturbance from Neighbours A and B. The resident also contacted the landlord on 1 June 2020 to raise a complaint over its handling of his reports as the matter had not been resolved. However, while the landlord did not address this complaint, as will be addressed later in this report, the evidence available to this Service indicates that, at the time of the complaint, the landlord had responded reasonably and appropriately to his ASB/noise reports and had taken appropriate action as outlined above.
While this Service appreciates the impact that the noise disturbance had on the resident, particularly during a period when households spent the majority of their time at home during the Coronavirus related lockdowns, it is noted that ASB cases are often challenging for a landlord to resolve promptly, particularly in scenarios involving multiple parties. It is also true that, in practice, options available to a landlord may not include a resident’s preferred outcome.
The evidence available indicates that, subsequent to this, the landlord continued to take appropriate action regarding the reports it received and responded regularly to the resident to advise him of the action it would take, and of the evidence that would help it to build a case should further tenancy enforcement action be necessary, such as diary sheets and noise app submissions. It was also appropriate that the landlord considered other options, such as mediation. However, the resident considered that this was not appropriate as the dispute was between Neighbours A and B and he did not consider himself to be involved (and wanted to remain anonymous). While this Service understands his position, it was reasonable of the landlord to suggest mediation as an option as it recognised that, while he may not have been involved in the dispute directly, its consequences were affecting him.
The evidence available to this investigation indicates that the landlord continued to address the issues raised appropriately and respond reasonably to the noise disturbance reports submitted by the resident between June 2020 and March 2021. Records indicate it opened a formal ASB investigation in September 2020 and took appropriate action by issuing relevant warnings and taking subsequent tenancy enforcement action. In correspondence seen by this Service, the resident’s frustration that the landlord could not provide details of the actions it took is obvious and understandable. However, while this Service will not be able to outline the precise actions taken by the landlord in relation to Neighbour A due to third party information and data protection considerations, records indicate they were appropriate and proportionate. They were carried out promptly and were in line with its policies and what this Service would expect to see in cases such as this. There is also evidence the landlord sought to update the resident as far as it could, and regularly assured him there was an active enforcement case.
Landlord records also show that the resident contacted it in March 2021 to advise that the noise had reduced from Neighbour A and he was ‘happy’ with how it had been handling the ASB case. While it is acknowledged that the ongoing noise disturbance would have an impact on the resident and this Service is sympathetic to his desire for the issue being resolved swiftly, as noted above, ASB issues can be difficult to resolve quickly, and landlords must go through the correct procedures when carrying out enforcement action. From the information seen by this investigation, particularly in relation to the reported nuisance from Neighbour A, the landlord’s handling of the reports and its progression of its investigation was reasonable.
After the landlord issued its final complaint response in March 2021, which did not address its handling of the ASB case, the resident continued to make reports regarding noise disturbance from Neighbours A and B and the situation had unfortunately not been resolved. However, evidence available to this investigation covering the period up to and including September 2021, again indicates the landlord dealt with the resident’s reports appropriately and sought to progress enforcement action, particularly in relation to Neighbour A. It is understandable that the resident may have perceived that the continuing ASB was down to a lack of action on the landlord’s part, but while this Service is again unable to provide further details of actions the landlord has taken due to third party information and data protection concerns, the evidence available indicates it was taking reasonable and proportionate actions and engaging with the relevant authorities to progress the case, including the Police, acting in line with its ASB policy. Records show the landlord had regular contact with the Police and carried out a join visit to the estate, and the resident’s property, in April 2021 to interview residents regarding the situation.
The landlord has also been careful to show empathy with the resident at times, noting in correspondence in April 2021 that it would be ‘tedious’ to keep submitting diary sheets and evidence via the noise app. However, it was also reasonable of the landlord to stress the importance of this.
While the ongoing noise disturbance has undoubtedly had a detrimental impact on the resident, it is acknowledged that taking legal action is not a quick process for landlords. Nevertheless, records show the landlord discussed this option with the resident and he spoke with its Solicitor in July 2021. While it is noted that, at various points during the case investigation, the resident has made clear that he would not be willing to provide a witness statement, even anonymously, to support any legal action taken by the landlord and there are occasions when the noise app submissions have been sporadic, the landlord and its Solicitor were consistent in seeking to manage his expectations by stressing the importance of additional supporting evidence to help build any legal case.
As noted above, the resident has advised that the situation remains unresolved and has reported to this Service that the ASB has forced him to temporarily vacate the property. As the period covered by this investigation only covered up to September/October 2021, this Service is unaware of the current status of the landlord’s ASB investigations against Neighbours A and B, and what stage the legal action against Neighbour A it referred to in September 2021 is at. A recommendation has therefore been made at the end of this report for the landlord to update the resident and this Service regarding the current situation and any outstanding action.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint

Landlord records show that the resident contacted it on 1 June 2020 to raise a complaint about how it had responded to his ASB reports. Via its Webchat service, the resident also asked that his complaint be escalated. However, the landlord did not acknowledge that this was a complaint about its service, and instead it treated this as being a complaint about a neighbour. This was not appropriate. From the information available, it is clear that the resident was simultaneously making a noise disturbance report, i.e., a complaint about noise from his neighbours, but was also clearly advising the landlord that he was making a complaint about how it was handling his reports. It was therefore not appropriate that the landlord failed to engage its complaint procedure at this stage, and it treated the resident unfairly by not doing so.
The landlord issued a Stage One response to the resident in January 2021, after he had contacted this Service to advise his complaint from June 2020 had not been responded to. After contact from this Service, the landlord acted reasonably, engaging its complaints procedure and issuing its Stage One response promptly, in line with the timeframe set out in its complaints policy.
However, in its response, despite acknowledging the resident’s complaint had been ‘ignored’, the landlord continued to stress the difference between a complaint about its service, and a complaint about the behaviour of residents. It noted it ‘was not responsible for the behaviour of individual customers’ and that only if there had been a failure to ‘appropriately manage the (ASB) reports’ would it have considered addressing the matter as a formal complaint. This was not appropriate and meant the landlord had still not reasonably identified the complaint the resident had sought to raise. By advising it would not consider the issue as a formal complaint unless there had been an identified failure, the landlord was effectively stating it had not been at fault without carrying out any kind of investigation. This did not treat the resident fairly and, while its response was otherwise appropriate – identifying failings with how it had dealt with other correspondence from the resident in June 2020 and offering compensation for this – it did not acknowledge it had made a mistake in not responding to the concerns the resident had raised about its handling of the ASB case by engaging its complaints procedure appropriately at the time.
It is of further concern that, following further correspondence with the resident, its Stage Two (Appeal) response maintained the same position and this calls into question the thoroughness of its complaint investigation and its understanding of the difference between a complaint about its service and a complaint about ASB and/or noise disturbance. While the landlord’s responses sought to explain this difference to the resident, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, it was the landlord that had made the error in this regard and its repeated stance on the matter would likely have caused the resident further frustration. This resulted in a significant delay in responding to the resident’s complaint, which in the Ombudsman’s opinion, the landlord’s responses have yet to appropriately address.
While the landlord’s Stage Two (Appeal) response did offer some detail regarding how it had progressed the ASB case, noting that, as of January 2021, there was a ‘case being actively investigated’ and noting that it had kept him updated on progression of the case, there did not appear to be any specific consideration regarding how it had handled the reports he had made immediately prior to his complaint, in April and May 2020. This was not appropriate and means that, to date, the resident’s complaint has still not been fully addressed.
However, the landlord’s responses from January 2021 and March 2021 were otherwise generally reasonable. While it is noted that the landlord’s Stage One response did not advise the resident of his rights to escalate his complaint, it did do so later in correspondence with him, and it did not otherwise impede him from escalating his complaint and progressing the complaint through its procedures.
While the resident was unhappy that the landlord’s response addressed other issues regarding correspondence, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, it was reasonable for the landlord to address failings it had identified (regarding emails that had not been responded to and Webchat communication that had not been handled appropriately). It was also a proactive step for the landlord to apologise for this and offer compensation. As outlined in the Ombudsman’s Dispute Resolution Principles, a reasonable offer of an apology can be an appropriate way of trying to ‘put things right’ and it was encouraging that the landlord apologised to the resident at several stages during its responses.
It was also appropriate that the landlord offered a further award of compensation for the slight delay in issuing its Stage Two (Appeal) response, which is noted was above what the Ombudsman would normally expect to see. It was positive that, even after issuing its final response, the landlord continued to correspond with the resident about the concerns he had raised.
The landlord’s offer of £300 compensation (£150 for the way it responded to communication from the resident in June 2020, and £150 for the delay in providing its Stage Two (Appeal) response) was reasonable. However, at the end of this report the Ombudsman has made a further award of compensation to reflect the inconvenience caused to the resident by the landlord not engaging its complaint procedure appropriately in June 2020 and its subsequent failure to acknowledge this.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with Paragraph 55 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was:
1. No maladministration by the landlord regarding its handling of the resident’s ASB reports.
2. Maladministration by the landlord regarding its handling of the resident’s complaint.

Reasons

The evidence available to this investigation indicates the landlord responded appropriately to the resident’s reports of ASB and noise nuisance from his neighbours. While it is acknowledged that the situation was not resolved by the landlord in a timely fashion – and the resident has indicated that they remain unresolved to date – the actions taken by the landlord have been reasonable and there is no evidence of any unreasonable delay or inaction by the landlord affecting the progression of the ASB investigation.
Evidence indicates that the landlord took appropriate action regarding the reported noise nuisance and that it sought to escalate the case in line with its published ASB policy, including liaising with relevant outside authorities and seeking assistance from its legal department regarding tenancy enforcement action. It had communicated regularly with the resident and advised him of the information it needed to progress the case, while seeking to manage his expectations and explain why it was unable to provide further details of the actions it was taking.
The landlord did not respond to the complaint the resident submitted in June 2020 regarding how it had handled his ASB reports. Once it did issue a complaint response, following contact from this Service in January 2021, it maintained its incorrect position that it had responded appropriately at the time via its ASB procedure. This was not appropriate and meant that there was a significant and avoidable delay in responding to his complaint and, once its complaint procedure had been exhausted, the resident’s concerns had still not been appropriately responded to.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

The landlord should, within four weeks of the date of this letter, pay the resident a total of £450 compensation, consisting of:
1. The £300 originally offered to the resident in its final response.
2. An additional £150 to reflect the fact it did not appropriately categorise to the resident’s complaint in June 2020 and failed to appropriately respond to it.
The landlord must provide evidence of its compliance with the Ombudsman’s Orders to this Service by 20 May 2022.

Recommendations

The landlord should update both the resident and this Service as to the current status of its ASB investigations against Neighbours A and B and the current status of any legal action it has taken, as far as it is able to share. The landlord should also contact the resident to assess if any additional support can be offered regarding the fact that he currently feels unable to reside in his property.