Sanctuary Affordable Housing Limited (202006518)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202006518

Sanctuary Affordable Housing Limited

17 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

The complaint is about the landlord’s:
1. Handling of the resident’s reports of antisocial behaviour (ASB).
2. Response to the concerns raised by the resident about subletting.
3. Decision to issue the resident with an acceptable behaviour contract.
4. Response to the resident’s concerns about the number of visitors to the upstairs flat.
5. Response to the resident’s concerns raised about the communal garden.
6. Response to the resident’s concerns about the post being left in the communal area of the building.
7. Complaint handling.

Jurisdiction

What we can and cannot consider is called the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction. This is governed by the Housing Ombudsman Scheme (the Scheme). When a complaint is brought to the Ombudsman, we must consider all the circumstances of the case as there are sometimes reasons why a complaint will not be investigated.
After carefully considering all the evidence, in accordance with paragraph 23(a) of the Scheme, the following aspect of the complaint is outside the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction: the landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns about the number of visitors to the upstairs flat. Paragraph 39(a) of the Scheme says the Ombudsman will not investigate complaints which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion (a) are made prior to having exhausted a member’s complaints procedure.
While the resident did raise concerns about this matter, she did not raise it as a formal complaint. Accordingly, the Ombudsman has no jurisdiction to consider it. This report will focus on the other complaint issues raised with the Ombudsman.

Background and summary of events

Background

The resident had a six-year assured tenancy agreement with the landlord that started in 2015. The property is a one-bedroom flat on the third floor of a building. The landlord has no vulnerabilities recorded for the resident.
The tenancy agreement notes that the landlord shall not tolerate behaviour which causes or is likely to cause nuisance or annoyance to other people. It notes such behaviour included, but was not limited to:
1. Excessive noise such as loud music which may cause a disturbance.
2. Violence or violent behaviour to anyone.
3. Threats of violence such as bullying and abuse.
4. Using abusive or offensive language.
Under the tenancy agreement, the landlord is responsible for keeping the garden of the property clean and tidy and in good condition, including cutting the grass regularly in the growing season and weeding any borders.
The landlord’s ASB housing and support procedure has five stages: assessing vulnerabilities; categorisation of ASB; investigation; result of the investigation; and closing the case. The landlord may take action to address the ASB including acceptable behaviour contracts; involving the local authority’s environmental health team; and professional witnesses in order to gather sufficient evidence to support legal proceedings.
The landlord has a two-stage complaints procedure. On receipt of a complaint the landlord should, among other things, contact the customer to acknowledge the complaint within two working days and explore with the customer what they expect to be done to resolve the complaint. The first stage – “front line resolution” is usually undertaken by the staff member who receives the complaint. The landlord aims to resolve matters at front line resolution within five to ten days; where matters progress to a formal investigation, the landlord aims to respond within 20 working days.
The landlord’s compensation guidance says that it can consider offering compensation for, among other things, time, trouble, and inconvenience due to its action or inaction; delayed or poor responses to customers’ complaints; lack of, or unreasonable delay to, the provision of services. It may make payments of up to £150 in recognition of time, trouble, and inconvenience of a service failure – up to £50 for minor delay in raising a complaint, delay in responding to an issue without updating the customer; and from £51 to £100 for delays or difficulties raising a complaint, delays in giving a response leading to increased contact from the customer.
On 23 March 2020 the UK government announced a national lockdown due to covid-19. This was eased from June 2020 when schools and non-essential retail outlets re-opened. The government introduced new restrictions from 22 September 2020 and a second full national lockdown was announced on 31 October 2020 that came into effect from 5 November 2020.

Summary of events

On 4 and 5 December 2019 the neighbour in the flat above the resident (the neighbour) reported to the landlord that the resident had shouted and acted “aggressively” towards them.
On 30 December 2019 and 1 January 2020, the resident complained that the neighbour had installed laminate flooring that was noisy.
On 8 and 20 January 2020 the landlord visited the neighbour and found the flat had carpet, not laminate flooring. It noted the noise was likely due to works being carried out in the flat.
On 24 and 25 January 2020 the resident told the landlord that the neighbour was “walking and banging on the floor which is laminated”. She said this was disturbing her sleep. On 25 January 2020 the landlord noted it had advised the resident that the noise was likely caused by repairs being carried out and that there was no laminate flooring.
On 28 January 2020 the resident reported “squeaking floorboards in the flat above” and “banging”. She also said she believed the neighbour was subletting their flat.
On 29 January 2020 the neighbour reported that the resident “made threats” against them, was shouting and acting aggressively. The neighbour also made reports to the police.
Throughout February 2020 the resident made various reports of ASB from the neighbour including noise from floorboards creaking.
On 24 February 2020 the landlord asked a specialist ASB company to gather evidence of noise coming from the flat upstairs from the resident. It explained that the resident had complained that the flat was “constantly making noise even though the tenant is elderly, however, tenants children visit from time to time to take care of their elderly father”.
On 2 March 2020 the resident told the landlord the flat above was having lots of work done including having lino installed and this was making lots of noise.
On 24, 25, 30 and 31 March 2020 the resident reported to the landlord that the neighbour, among other things, was subletting the flat and had had visitors which was against government advice during the pandemic.
On 30 March 2020 the resident reported to the landlord that there was noise from the neighbour and that they were subletting the property.
On 16 April 2020 the landlord told the resident that the flat above was not being sublet and it knew who was living at the flat. It said it would ask a surveyor to carry out an acoustic sound test to see if the noise level was above the standard acceptable living noise once the lockdown had ended. The landlord asked her not to speak with the neighbour or any of their children/visitors who provided support to them. The landlord noted that the police had also advised the resident to not interfere with the neighbour as it could be deemed as “malicious behaviour”.
On 23 April 2020 the police contacted the landlord saying it was aware that they had had “some issues” between the resident and the neighbour. It said it had warned the resident several times and wanted to know if the landlord was taking any action such as a written warning. The police later agreed to deliver an acceptable behaviour contract (paragraph 8) to the resident, as the landlord was not undertaking home visits at that time due to the lockdown.
On 28 April 2020 the resident reported noise from the upstairs flat; she said it was “unbearable” and was “disturbing her sleep”. She also said she was unhappy with how the housing officer had handled her reports of ASB and asked for a manager to call her back. The manager tried, unsuccessfully, to speak to the resident on 14 May 2020.
Meanwhile, on 30 April 2020 the resident reported noise from the neighbour. She also said that the property was sublet and that the number of visitors to that flat broke lockdown guidelines.
On 1 May 2020 the resident reported noise from the flat above saying it came from the kitchen, which was above her bedroom, and it stopped her from sleeping.
On 4 May 2020 the landlord told the police that the outcome of the referral to the specialist ASB company was that the noise was due to the makeup of the building, rather than ASB.
On the same day the police visited the resident to issue an acceptable behaviour contract which related to nuisance and ASB as well as racial and other harassment by the resident towards other residents in the building. It included, among other things, that the resident had agreed not to approach, speak or interact in conversation with the neighbour and associates of the neighbour in the flat above her and she had also agreed not to shout through her window or shout excessively in the property. The contract also warned what action the landlord might take if the contract was breached.
On 7 May 2020 the resident told the landlord that the floorboards in the flat above made so much noise she could not sleep.
On 11 May 2020 the resident told the landlord that she was unhappy with their handling of her case and wanted the issues she was raising treated as a formal complaint.
On 14 May 2020 the resident reported that the flat above was overcrowded and noisy and this was stopping her sleeping.
On 29 May 2020 the landlord telephoned the resident to discuss her reports of noise; it said it would carry out an acoustic sound test once it was able to do so.
On 30 June 2020 the landlord wrote to the resident saying it and the police had received video footage of her harassing someone coming from the neighbour’s flat. It reminded her of the terms of the acceptable behaviour contract that was served on 4 May 2020. The landlord said any further reports of harassment of residents or associates of flat would result in legal action being taken – either an injunction order to prohibit her being within proximity of the persons in question or a Notice of Seeking Possession.
On 6 July 2020 the resident reported another resident being aggressive towards her in the communal garden. On 14 July 2020 this person made counter allegations against the resident saying the resident had also been “aggressive”.
On 1, 6, 7 and 9 July 2020 the resident tried to speak to the housing manager; these calls were not returned.
The neighbour moved out of the property at about this time.
On 18 July 2020 there was a further allegation of harassment and intimidation by the resident towards another occupant of the building.
On 21 July 2020 the resident raised a formal complaint with the landlord. The issues included the landlord’s handling of her reports of noise from the neighbour, unhappiness with the actions of the housing officer; post going missing and the lack of access to the communal gardens. She gave details of specific incidents that she had referred to the local authority’s environment health team on 19, 21 and 23 May 2020.
On 29 July and 1 August 2020, the resident complained about landlord’s delay in responding to her complaint. Also on 1 August, and on 3 August 2020, she reported being unable to use the communal garden because another resident was working in it. The resident said that only the landlord should have responsibility for the garden.
On 3 August 2020 the landlord logged a formal complaint from the resident. In its acknowledgement to the resident the landlord said that, due to the pandemic, it needed to focus all of its attention on making sure it could provide urgent services to those customers who need it the most and that might mean that it might take more time do certain things, such as respond to complaints.
On 3 and 8 August 2020 the resident told the landlord she was being deprived of the use of the communal garden as another resident was treating it like own.
On 10 August 2020 the resident asked the landlord for an update on her complaint. On 17 August 2020 the resident added further issues to her formal complaint including tenants using the communal garden.
On 27 August 2020 the housing manager wrote to the resident at stage one of its formal complaints procedures. The main points were:
1. The resident’s reports of noise nuisance and allegations of subletting of the neighbour’s flat had been thoroughly investigated and found to have no substance.
2. During its investigation it received almost daily counter-allegations and complaints of harassment from the resident in the form of her banging the ceiling under the flat above and challenging visitors to that flat in a threatening manner.
3. In relation to the resident’s reports of noise from the upstairs flat, it had visited that flat along with the police and confirmed the flooring was covered with thick underlay, carpet and a very heavy rug; the kitchen covered with lino. During some of this time it had carried out repairs to the kitchen in the flat above, which did cause some noise at that time, but this was to be expected in any property when a programme of works was undertaken.
4. It had used the services of the specialist ASB company to monitor the level of noise between both flats. The landlord said their report had highlighted that the noise was considered normal everyday noise but had confirmed that noise from the kitchen above could be heard below in the resident’s bedroom. The landlord said it would look into this but could not do so at that time due to the lockdown.
5. Although the resident was informed of this information, she continued to bang on the ceiling and challenge residents in the communal hallway and, as a result, she was served with an acceptable behaviour contract.
6. The landlord did not uphold the complaint about the housing officer saying that it was her responsibility to enforce tenancy conditions.
7. The landlord said that from the resident’s correspondence, it seemed she was monitoring the coming and goings of the neighbour and challenging them. It said the neighbour had reported these incidents and asked the resident to refrain from challenging any further visitors to the upstairs flat.
8. With regard to the complaint about the other tenants working on the communal garden, the landlord said that it was responsible for clearing the gardens and keeping the paths clear; not to undertake planting. It said it was glad to hear of residents acting as a community to enhance the area they live in. It added that all residents had the use of the gardens and the resident should not feel that they could not enjoy the use of them.
9. It would look into the feasibility of installing individual letter boxes and would update her.
10. The landlord offered the resident £25 for the delay in responding to her complaint. It also explained how she could escalate her complaint.
On 2 September 2020 the resident asked the landlord to escalate her complaint.
On 23 September 2020 the landlord discussed the complaint with the resident.
On 30 September 2020 it wrote to her at the final stage of its formal complaints procedure. It gave the background to the complaint; the main points were:
1. It apologised for the communication issues that the resident had experienced following some of the messages she had left for staff about her neighbour concerns.
2. It also apologised for the delay in issuing the complaint response adding it would stress the importance of managing complaints effectively as well as a refresher on the timescales involved at the next team meeting.
3. It assured the resident it would investigate noise transference within the building and would contact a surveyor to do so once its planned work commitments had been adjusted as a result of the lockdown restrictions. It said it was unable to give a timescale for that but said it would update the resident.
4. It did not uphold the concerns raised about the housing officer because the evidence showed she had arranged for the issues raised to be investigated independently and had also taken an approach which was in line with its ASB policy and procedure, by issuing an acceptable behaviour contract as a result of the reports about the resident’s behaviour.
5. The landlord said it was sorry for the way the resident felt when the ABC was served and later discussed by the housing officer but did not find any evidence that the resident had been treated unfairly.
6. In relation to the resident’s reports about the garden, the communal garden was there for all residents to enjoy and it was reasonable that it allowed another resident (and their friend) to carry out work to enhance the area for everyone’s benefit.
7. It understood that the nature of the planting and other work did not prevent the resident from accessing the area. While it was sorry that the resident felt uncomfortable being there, she still had access; and there was no requirement for it to carry out any formal consultation before the work began.
8. In respect of individual letter boxes, the landlord had raised an order for its contractor to visit and provide a quote. Once they have attended, it would give an update.
9. It offered the resident compensation of £75 for the communication problems the resident had experienced and complaint handling delays.
The landlord signposted the resident to the Ombudsman.
When the resident approached the Ombudsman, she said that she felt the landlord had turned the whole complaint against her and that she had made been to feel like “a troublemaker”. She said that nothing had been done about the mailboxes; that she believed it was inappropriate for the housing manager to have responded to her complaint and that she would like compensation for the inconvenience distress the landlord’s handling of all the complaint issues had caused her.

Assessment and findings

This report has considered the matters that led to the resident’s complaint from the end of December 2019 to the date of the landlord’s final response of 30 September 2020.

The landlord’s handling of reports of ASB

It is the Ombudsman’s role to assess the appropriateness and adequacy of the landlord’s actions in responding to reports of ASB and the fairness and reasonableness of its response to the formal complaint. This does not include establishing whether a party is responsible for ASB; our investigation is limited to the consideration of the actions of the landlord in the context of its relevant policies/procedures as well as what was fair in all the circumstances of the case. The Ombudsman cannot tell the landlord to take action against neighbour.
In response to the resident’s reports of various noise from the upstairs flat, the landlord took various action:
1. It visited the flat upstairs and found there was carpet fitted, not laminate, in January 2020 (paragraph 14).
2. It contracted the specialist ASB company for an independent assessment of the noise in February 2020 (paragraph 19).
3. It undertook that an acoustic sound test would take place once it was able to arrange it post-lockdown (paragraph 23).
This action was appropriate under the ‘Investigation’ stage of the landlord’s ASB procedures (paragraph 8). While it is evident that the resident did not believe that the actions taken by the landlord were sufficient, or that it was improving the situation, they were reasonable actions for the landlord to take to try and resolve the problems she was experiencing. The outcome of the specialist ASB company’s report was that the noise was “normal everyday noise”, rather than ASB and it was reasonable for the landlord to rely on this specialist advice. Ultimately, there was a lack of evidence that the neighbour was breaching their tenancy or was responsible for a statutory nuisance.
This report highlighted that noise from the kitchen in the flat above could be heard below in the resident’s bedroom. As a result, the landlord undertook to have a further test carries out to establish to see if the noise levels were above an acceptable level. This was a reasonable step to take but there was an unavoidable delay in this taking place due to the pandemic restrictions and the strict lockdown that took place from the end of March to early June 2020.
The landlord’s actions in response to the residents reports of noise were appropriate. The landlord has acknowledged in its stage one response that its communication with the resident had been lacking at that start of July 2020 when calls to the housing manager went unanswered. It offered compensation of £50 (the total compensation was £75 but £25 of that was for complaint handling).
In relation to the failures identified, the Ombudsman’s role is to consider whether the redress offered by the landlord put things right and resolved the complainant’s complaint satisfactorily in the circumstances. In considering this the Ombudsman takes into account whether the landlord’s offer of redress was in line with the Ombudsman’s Dispute Resolution Principles: Be Fair, Put Things Right and Learn from Outcomes as well as our own guidance on remedies.
The sum of £50 was appropriate as it was in line with the landlord’s compensation procedures (paragraph 10), it also reflected that the period of service failure was short.
While the landlord took appropriate action in response to reports of ASB, its lack of communication was at the start of July 2020 was not reasonable. The £50 compensation offered was proportionate to the failures identified. Therefore, the landlord has made redress to the complainant which resolves this aspect of the complaint satisfactorily.

Response to the resident’s concerns about subletting

When the issue of subletting was raised by the resident, the landlord investigated it and concluded that it was aware of who was living in the flat above (paragraph 23). The neighbour’s tenancy agreement would say whether or not subletting was permitted but, in this case, the landlord satisfied itself that there was no subletting taking place. While the resident remained unhappy with the outcome of the landlord’s consideration of subletting, without further evidence, the action taken by the landlord as reasonable and proportionate. No service failure has been identified for this aspect of the complaint.

Decision to issue an acceptable behaviour contract

There is evidence of incidents whereby the neighbour had reported aggressive behaviour from the resident (paragraphs 12 and 17). The police also contacted the landlord in relation to reports made to them (paragraph 24). In such circumstances, it was open to the landlord to take various measures to try to stop ASB, including the issue of an acceptable behaviour contract. While the resident felt that the matter had been turned against her by the landlord, there was sufficient evidence to support the landlord’s actions. Its issuing of the acceptable behaviour contract was an appropriate and proportionate step for the landlord to take to try to prevent the ongoing situation that had arisen between the resident and the neighbour. No service failure has been identified for this aspect of the complaint.

Response to concerns raised about the communal garden

The resident’s concerns here were two-fold – she considered the landlord should be solely responsible for the communal garden (paragraph 39); and she felt deprived of being able to use the garden as she had reported harassment by the other tenants who were tending to this garden (paragraphs 35 and 42). It is noted that these tenants also made counter allegations against the resident (paragraph 35).
The landlord has some responsibility for maintaining the communal garden under the tenancy agreement (paragraph 7) but this does not extend to planting or improving it. Therefore, it was appropriate that it did not have an obligation for planting in the communal garden. It was also reasonable for the landlord to allow tenants to tend the communal garden; however, it might have been helpful for it to have made this known to all its local residents who had use of this garden so that they were aware of this initiative by the other tenants and were also given an opportunity to join in. However, it is accepted that, during the pandemic, the landlord was concentrating on its essential services so it was reasonable that it did not do so. The landlord also made clear to the resident that these tenants undertaking work in the garden did not deprive her using the garden (paragraph 47). No service failure has been identified for this aspect of the complaint.

Response to the resident’s concerns about the post being left in the communal area of the building

The landlord said at stage one it would look into installing individual mailboxes to try to resolve the issue of post going missing. This was a reasonable response to the issue. At stage two, the landlord said it was arranging a quote for this work. The resident told this Service that there had been no progress on this issue and a recommendation has been made, below. No service failure has been identified for this aspect of the complaint.

Complaint handling

While the resident had expressed unhappiness with the housing officer’s decision to issue an acceptable behaviour contract, she raised a formal complaint about it on 11 May 2020 (paragraph 31). She raised a second formal complaint (incorporating her earlier complaint about the housing officer) on 21 July 2020.
The landlord’s handing of the resident’s complaints was not appropriate because it did not adhere to its procedure by logging the first complaint or contacting the resident within two working days on receipt of the second complaint. Also, the stage one complaint response was not issued within the timescales set out in the complaints procedure. These failures amount to a service failure.
While the landlord warned the resident that there might be delay due to the pandemic (paragraph 41), it also recognised that the service it had given the resident was not the level of service that was expected. It offered the resident compensation of £25 (paragraph 44). That sum does not reflect the inconvenience and distress caused to the resident or the time and trouble it took to pursue her complaint from May 2020 to when the complaint was eventually logged in August 2020. The sum of £75 better reflects the impact on the resident who was evidently frustrated and inconvenienced by the lack of response to her complaints. An order for additional compensation has been made, below.
The resident also raised concerns with the Ombudsman that it was inappropriate for the housing manager to respond to the complaint as it was partly about her. The stage two response dealt with communication issue and the evidence suggests that the scope of the complaint was widened to deal with that issue in the telephone call of 23 September 2020. As the housing manager dealt with the complaint at stage one, there was no conflict of interest at that stage. It was therefore appropriate for the Housing Manager to respond to the complaint at stage one.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was service failure by the landlord in respect of its complaint handling.
In accordance with paragraph 55 (b) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the Ombudsman considers that the landlord has made redress to the resident which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, resolves the complaint with respect to its handling of reports of ASB.
In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was no maladministration by the landlord in respect of its:
1. Response to the concerns raised by the resident about subletting.
2. Decision to issue the resident with an acceptable behaviour contract.
3. Response to concerns raised about the communal garden.
4. Response to the resident’s concerns about the post being left in the communal area of the building.

Reasons

The landlord’s response to reports of ASB were appropriate. However, there was some communication issues for which the landlord offered proportionate compensation in line with its compensation guidelines.
The landlord investigated the resident’s concerns about subletting but found no evidence to support it.
The landlord’s decision to issue an acceptable behaviour contract was appropriate and in line with its ASB procedures.
The landlord responded reasonably to the concerns raised by the resident. Its obligations with regard to the communal garden were limited and did not include planting,
The landlord’s response to the concerns raised about post going missing was reasonable by looking into the provision of individual mailboxes for residents of the building.
There were complaint handling failures. While the landlord had offered compensation, it was not proportionate to the impact on the resident.

Orders

The landlord shall take the following action within four weeks of the date of this report and provide the Ombudsman with evidence of such action:

Pay the resident the sum of £75 that it had previously offered in the stage two complaint response (if it has not done so already).
Pay the resident additional compensation of £50 for its complaint handling failures.

Recommendations

It is recommended the landlord takes the following action:
1. Investigate the noise transference between the resident’s flat and the flat upstairs, if it has not done so already and share the results of that investigation with the resident.
2. Give the resident an update on the provision of individual mailboxes for residents in the building and timescales for their installation.