Sanctuary Housing Association (202016572)

A picture containing logo

Description automatically generated

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202016572

Sanctuary Housing Association

3 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 concerns how the landlord dealt with the resident’s reports of antisocial behaviour (ASB) and noise nuisance:
1. Prior to December 2019.
2. From December 2019 onwards.

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, the following aspect of the complaint is outside of the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction.

How the landlord dealt with the resident’s reports of ASB and noise nuisance prior to December 2019

During her correspondence with both the landlord and this Service, the resident explained that she had experienced multiple incidents of ASB over the last 20 years and that she wanted the entire period to be considered as part of her complaint.
The Ombudsman encourages residents to raise complaints with their landlords in a timely manner, so that the landlord has a reasonable opportunity to consider the issues whilst they are still ‘live’, and whilst the evidence is available to reach an informed conclusion on the events which occurred. As the substantive issues become historical it is increasingly difficult for either the landlord, or an independent body such as the Ombudsman, to conduct an effective review of the actions taken to address those issues.
This is in accordance with paragraph 39(e) of the Scheme, which states that the Ombudsman will not consider complaints that were not brought to the attention of the landlord as a formal complaint within a reasonable period, which would normally be within six months of the matters arising. In view of the time periods involved in this case and taking into account the availability and reliability of evidence, this assessment does not consider any specific events prior to December 2019. The historical issues provide contextual background to the current complaint, but the assessment is focussed on the landlord’s actions in responding to the more recent events and, specifically, to the formal complaint made in March 2021.

Background and summary of events

Background

The resident is an assured tenant of the landlord, which is a housing association. The property is a maisonette in a communal building.
The landlord’s ASB policy defines ASB as:
1. “Conduct that has caused, or is likely to cause, harassment, alarm or distress to any person.
2. Conduct capable of causing nuisance or annoyance to a person in relation to that persons occupation of residential premises.
3. Conduct capable of causing housing-related nuisance or annoyance to any person.”
The policy describes the five stages of an ASB complaint. On receipt of a report of ASB, the landlord will undertake a risk assessment in order to identify what type and severity of ASB has been reported, what vulnerabilities the complainant has, if any, and what additional support can be offered to the complainant. This is the first stage of the complaint. The second stage of the complaint is to categorise the type of ASB (personal, nuisance or environmental) to enable the landlord to tailor its approach to the complainant.
Stage three of the complaint is the investigation stage. The landlord will contact the parties involved, gather evidence, determine if outside bodies such as the local authority or police should become involved, and determine if further action should be taken.
Stage four of the complaint is to inform the complainant and alleged perpetrator of the result of the landlord’s investigation and what, if any, further action will be taken. Stage five is the closure of the case. The policy notes that a case should be closed with the consent of the complainant, but a case can also be closed if no further incidents are reported for a period of six weeks. In this situation, the closure letter should inform the complainant that the case would be reopened if further incidents are reported.
In reference to recording keeping, the ASB policy states that:
1. “All staff must keep full and accurate detailed records of any contact, communication and developments throughout an ASB case. This information is used for performance management purposes and is especially important for cases that proceed to legal action.
2. Full information must be logged at all stages. It is the responsibility of all staff involved in handling ASB to ensure that full and accurate records are recorded on the system, in a timely manner.”
The landlord operates a two-stage complaint policy. When a complaint is received, the landlord aims to acknowledge the complaint in five working days and provide a response within ten working days. If the complainant is dissatisfied with the response, they can request an escalation of the complaint. The landlord will then undertake a review of the complaint and provide a response within 20 working days. This will be the landlord’s final response to the complaint.
The landlord’s complaint policy also states that it would not usually investigate a complaint relating to issues that occurred more than six months prior to the complaint being raised.

Summary of events

The landlord’s records show that it opened four ASB cases between December 2019 and March 2021, following reports made by the resident of ASB and noise nuisance by two sets of neighbours. The reports made by the resident described loud music, a loud washing machine and/or tumble dryer being used at unsociable hours, the banging of doors, urination and littering in communal areas, drug use, and a party being held during the Covid-19 lockdown.
Following a report from the resident on 11 December 2019 about loud music being played, it opened an ASB case. There was no record that the landlord contacted either the resident or the alleged perpetrator, that it undertook a risk assessment, or that the resident was informed when the case was closed. The landlord apologised to the resident.
A new ASB case was opened when the resident made a further report on 16 December 2019 about loud music. The resident requested a call back to discuss the matter, but there is no record of this call back taking place. A risk assessment and action plan were undertaken. Following further reports from the resident on 14 January 2020 and 24 March 2020 the landlord informed the resident that it would contact her neighbours about noise transference, however it is not clear when or if the landlord wrote to the neighbours. The landlord also informed the resident that it would look to install noise monitoring equipment once the Covid-19 lockdown had been lifted. The landlord apologised for not contacting the resident in December 2019 and for its poor record keeping.
On 21 May 2020 the resident reported noise nuisance relating to loud music and loud noise from a neighbour’s washing machine. The landlord called the resident on 1 June 2020 to discuss the issues. The resident then requested a call back on 2 June 2020. There is no record of this occurring.
Following a further report made on 13 July 2020 of loud music and the slamming of doors, a new ASB case was opened. No further action was taken as it was determined that the alleged perpetrator lived in a different building to the resident. However, there was no evidence that the resident was informed that the case had been closed.
On 12 October 2020 the resident informed the landlord that a neighbour was having a party which included loud music and a lot of people making loud noises. The resident was advised to contact the police to advise them of illegal gatherings during the national Covid-19 lockdown and an ASB case was opened. This was closed as it was determined that the party was a one-off event. There was no evidence that the resident was informed that the case was closed or the reasons for closing the case.
On 4 November 2020 the resident sent a photograph to the landlord relating to people using drugs and urinating in a communal hallway. The landlord replied on 9 November 2020 and informed the resident that its maintenance team had been made aware of the situation and it would also check the security of the entrance door.
The resident requested a call back on 9 February 2021 regarding the installation of noise monitoring equipment. There is no record of the resident being called back, however the landlord wrote to the resident on 16 February 2021 and advised her that due to the Covid-19 pandemic it was not yet able to arrange the installation. The resident then requested another call back about the issue on 16 February 2021. There was no record of the resident being called. The landlord apologised for the two failed call backs.
On 22 March 2021 the resident called this service and expressed her dissatisfaction with how the landlord had responded to her reports of ASB and noise nuisance. This Service passed on the resident’s concerns to the landlord and requested that the landlord open a formal complaint. The landlord called the resident to discuss the elements of her complaint. It then wrote to her on 8 April 2021 to confirm that a complaint had been opened and that it aimed to provide a response by 22 April 2021.
The landlord wrote to the resident on 15 April 2021 to inform her that it would now provide the response by 25 April 2021 as it was still collecting information relating to the complaint. It wrote again on 23 April 2021 to extend the deadline to 7 May 2021 as it required more time to go through the “large volume” of evidence before providing a full response.
The resident contacted this Service on 26 April 2021 to inform us that she had yet to receive a stage one response. This Service then passed on the resident’s concerns to the landlord.
The stage one complaint response was sent to the resident on 6 May 2021. The landlord explained that it had considered ASB reports made by the resident in the previous 12 months. It then informed her that:
1. The landlord opened three ASB cases during the period of the complaint relating to noise nuisance from two neighbours.
2. In the first case, the notes were added to the case within the appropriate timescale, but it seemed that a risk assessment and action plan had not been completed. There was also no evidence that the resident was contacted, or a letter sent out when the case was closed.
3. In the second case, the notes were added 15 days after the report was made. This is longer than would normally be expected. There was no evidence that a risk assessment or action plan were completed. It was also unclear if the resident was contacted to discuss the case and there was no record of a closure letter being sent.
4. In the third case, the notes were added approximately three months after the ASB report was made. A risk assessment and action plan were completed. However, there was no record of a closure letter being sent out.
5. The resident was currently on a waiting list to have noise monitoring equipment installed into her property. Due to the restrictions placed on the landlord’s services during the Covid-19 pandemic, there would be delay in the equipment being available and it would inform her when the restrictions were lifted.
6. During their telephone conversation the resident raised issues relating to noise nuisance from a washing machine and urine being sprayed outside her property. As these events occurred more than 12-months before the resident raised a complaint, the landlord explained that it would not investigate them further. However, it had recommended that the resident receive diary sheets and the noise monitoring equipment as soon as its available in order to document any further incidents.
The landlord partially upheld the resident’s complaint due to its poor record keeping during the three ASB cases. It apologised to the resident and offered her £45 compensation, which it broke down as £15 for each ASB case.
On 7 May 2021 the resident wrote to the landlord and requested to escalate the complaint on the grounds that:
1. She had experienced ASB for the past 20 years and this was not considered in the complaint response.
2. The response did not look at the detail of the ASB cases, only administrative issues.
3. The level of compensation offered by the landlord was inadequate.
The landlord wrote to the resident on 10 May 2021 to confirm that it had escalated the complaint and aimed to provide a response by 8 June 2021. The letter then went on to explain that its complaint policy would normally only consider matters that occurred six months prior to a complaint being raised, but it had used its discretion to investigate its handling of ASB cases dating back to December 2019.
The landlord sent the stage two complaint response to the resident on 7 June 2021.The landlord informed the resident that it had upheld her complaint. It recognised that its handling of the resident’s ASB reports since December 2019 was poor and stated that “it is clear that the level of service you received in respect of these matters is not what is expected of [landlord] staff. Due process had not been followed when managing any of the cases or call back requests and we are sincerely sorry for this”. It explained that the matter had be escalated internally to senior management in order to avoid a similar issue occurring in the future and to identify what lessons it can learn from the resident’s complaint.
The landlord also informed the resident that it would install noise monitoring equipment into the property when it was safe to do so and that it would keep her updated on the progress of this matter.
The landlord then offered the resident £500 compensation, which it broke down as:
1. £100 for delays in opening the complaint, confusion caused by its communications extending the response time, and that the stage one response only addressed three of the four ASB cases.
2. £200 for its poor handling of the four ASB cases.
3. £200 for the impact to the resident caused by the landlord’s poor handling of the ASB cases.

Assessment and findings

How the landlord dealt with the resident’s reports of ASB and noise nuisance from December 2019 onwards

It is outside the role of the Ombudsman to establish whether or not the ASB and noise nuisance reported was occurring; rather, the Ombudsman’s role is to establish whether the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports was in line with its legal and policy obligations and whether its response was fair and reasonable in view of all the circumstances of the case.
In line with its ASB policy, the landlord was expected to respond to the resident’s ASB reports by categorising the ASB and undertaking a risk assessment. It should then have contacted the resident and the alleged perpetrator to discuss the allegations. Next, the landlord should have taken steps to gather evidence such as providing diary sheets and/or installing noise monitoring equipment.
Some of the activities which the resident had reported such as DIY and running the washing machine during the day would not be classed as ASB as tenants are entitled to make this type of noise during the day. Therefore, it was reasonable for the landlord not to take further action in response to reports of these activities.
The landlord’s internal records indicate that it advised the resident to report breaches of lockdown restrictions to the police. This was an appropriate response as the police are best placed to investigate criminal matters, although the landlord would be expected to co-operate with any police investigation. The landlord may be able to take action against tenants who have been found to have committed a criminal offence, however any formal action would have to be supported by extensive evidence.
Landlords can only take formal action against tenants for ASB such as acceptable behaviour orders, court injunctions or eviction if there is sufficient evidence to show that formal action is appropriate. In order to secure an injunction or eviction, the landlord would have to go to court and it would be expected to show the court that the ASB was severe and persistent and (except in the most extreme cases) reasonable efforts had been made to resolve the issues informally (mediation, tenancy warnings, acceptable behaviour orders etc.) before the landlord pursued court action.
It was appropriate for the landlord to ask the resident to complete diary entries and to arrange noise monitoring equipment as diary entries and noise recordings can be used as evidence to support future court action. The landlord’s notes from March 2020 also suggest that it spoke to the resident and confirmed it would call all residents in the building to ask them not to make excessive noise.
There was a significant delay in the landlord providing noise monitoring equipment. The landlord originally agreed for the equipment to be fitted in July 2019, but the landlord’s records state it was delayed at the time because the equipment was undergoing servicing. There were further delays caused by the effect of Covid 19 restrictions from February 2020 onwards which meant that the landlord was only carrying out visits to its properties to carry out emergency repairs with all non-emergency visits put on hold until restrictions eased.
In information sent to the Ombudsman in September 2021, the landlord explained that the contractor which it used to provide it with noise monitoring equipment had closed down and it would therefore assist the resident with using a noise recording app instead.
The Ombudsman acknowledges that it must have been frustrating for the resident to have been waiting for noise recording equipment since July 2019. The landlord could not have reasonably taken any formal action against the neighbour without supporting evidence in the form of noise recordings. Therefore, the landlord did not take any other actions while it was waiting for the noise recording equipment to be fitted, aside from contacting all residents in the building to ask them to reduce noise. As explained above, the Ombudsman is unable to consider any specific events prior to December 2019 and therefore we cannot consider any delays to the noise recording equipment being fitted prior to this date.
In view of the historic reports of noise nuisance, it would have been appropriate for the landlord to have offered to install noise recording equipment in response to the resident’s reports of noise nuisance in December 2019, although there may have reasonably been some delay in installing the equipment due to the availability of staff to fit it over the Christmas period. It may have been possible for the equipment to have been fitted in January 2020, but this would be dependant on the availability of equipment and staff during this period. The landlord’s records suggest that it considered installing equipment in February 2020 but concluded that this could not be installed right away due to Covid 19 guidance to reduce visits by staff to the landlord’s properties. The landlord has acknowledged that there were errors in its handling of the resident’s ASB reports in December 2019 as it did not follow its process correctly by assessing the ASB reports and completing an action plan. This has been considered when assessing financial compensation for any distress and inconvenience caused by these errors, as explained in more detail below.
It was reasonable for the recording equipment to be delayed due to Covid 19 restrictions and this delay was beyond the landlord’s control. After the restrictions were eased, the landlord remained unable to fit the equipment as its supplier closed down. However, it is not clear whether the resident was informed of this. Overall, there were unavoidable delays in fitting the recording equipment, although the landlord could have done more to keep the resident updated about the delays.
The Ombudsman notes that the resident has also reported to the landlord that there was drug taking urination and littering in communal areas. It is not clear from the information received whether these incidents happened recently or if they occurred prior to December 2019. In its responses to the complaint, the landlord advised it would not consider the resident’s reports of urination as this occurred in December 2018 and was the resident had not raised a complaint about this issue at the time.
The landlord would be limited in the actions it could take regarding drugtaking, urination and littering without evidence to confirm who was responsible. It is acknowledged that the resident believes her neighbours were responsible for these actions but it does not appear that there is any supporting evidence to confirm they were the perpetrators.
Drug taking would be a criminal matter, which the police would be best placed to investigate. The landlord could have written to all residents in the building to ask if anyone else had witnessed people urinating or littering in communal areas and to ask that all residents and their guests keep the communal areas clean and tidy. There is no evidence that the landlord did this, however as explained above it is not clear whether there were any reported incidents of urination after December 2019. The landlord should consider writing to all residents in the building if further incidents are reported in future.
In its stage two complaint response, the landlord acknowledged that the resident had received poor service and communication, and that the landlord had not followed its ASB policy properly when it responded to her reports. The landlord apologised to the resident and explained that it had raised the issues she had experienced internally. It also explained what action it planned to undertake in response to the resident’s reports of ongoing noise nuisance and offered £500 compensation for its service failures.
Where there are admitted failings by a landlord, the Ombudsman’s role is to consider whether the redress offered by the landlord put things right and resolved the resident’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.
The landlord acted fairly in acknowledging its mistakes and apologising to the resident. It put things right by raising the issues internally, awarding appropriate compensation, and by informing the resident how it would respond to her ongoing reports.
The compensation award the landlord made is in line with its internal compensation guidance, which suggests a payment of £51 to £400 for issues that have caused “high effort” or “high impact” to a complainant. Examples given for high effort include “repeated requests for information/clarification on an issue due to poor quality responses given by staff”, and examples given for high impact include “excessive delays to works being carried out or issues being resolved”. The landlord paid compensation for each element of service failure it identified at £100 and £200 for a total of £500.
The payment was also in line with this Service’s own remedies guidance (which is available on our website). This suggests a payment of £250 to £750 in cases where considerable service failure or maladministration had been found, but there may be no permanent impact on the complainant.
As examples for when this level of payment should be considered, the guidance suggests “failure over a considerable period of time to act in accordance with policy – for example to address repairs; to respond to antisocial behaviour; to make adequate adjustments”.
Therefore, for the reasons set out above, the landlord has made an offer of redress to the resident which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, resolves the complaint satisfactorily. The measures taken by the landlord to redress what went wrong were proportionate to the impact that its failures had on the resident.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 55(b) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the landlord made an offer of redress to the resident in respect of how it dealt with the resident’s reports of ASB and noise nuisance from December 2019 onwards, which in the Ombudsman’s opinion satisfactorily resolves the complaint.

Reasons

The landlord recognised the inconvenience caused to the resident by its failures to properly investigate her reports of ASB and the distress that this had caused to her. The landlord apologised and awarded compensation proportionate to the effect of these failures on the resident.