Sanctuary Housing Association (202111250)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202111250

Sanctuary Housing Association

30 August 2023

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 response to the resident’s:
1. Reports of noise disturbance.
2. Request to be transferred into a suitable property.
3. Related complaint.

Background and summary of events

Background

The resident has an assured tenancy with the landlord which commenced on 4 November 2013. The property is described as a two-bedroom flat on the ground floor within a block containing two flats. The property has a shared communal garden.
The resident is over pension age and had a stroke some time ago. The resident has a live in carer.
The landlord’s anti-social behaviour (ASB) housing and support procedure 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 person occupation of residential premises or
3. Conduct capable of causing housing- related nuisance or annoyance to any person. This includes noise nuisance, which can be intermittent and must affect the comfort or quality of life of a reasonable person.”
The landlord’s ASB housing and support procedure also says that it is bound by the statutory definition of noise nuisance and can only address noise nuisance that meets this definition. It recognises that low level noise disturbance can impact residents who have a disability and staff need to have regard to that.
On receipt of an ASB report, a vulnerability assessment will be taken which should take into account the personal, situational and incidental. Staff can use a specialist mediation service to resolve the ASB before commencing legal action. Progress of the case must be communicated with the perpetrators as a preventative measure. Also, residents should be kept informed with progress monitored.
The noise app should be downloaded and an account should be created using the landlord’s details. Once the recording is made, the form should be completed and the report is submitted online. A response is received from the service provider.
The landlord’s voids, allocations and lettings – housing procedure states that an eligible resident should be sent an application pack. Where appropriate, staff should assist residents within the completion of the application including agreeing a convenient date and time to carry out a home visit.
The transfer process states that officers should check whether the transfer list is open. The criteria for a transfer will depend on the operation of the choice-based lettings (CBL) agreement in the area. The reason for moving should be checked and the application process followed.
Since 5 April 2021, the landlord’s allocation policy is managed by another social housing provider along with a local authority and other specific registered providers. There is a common register used by the housing providers for people to access social housing. Complaints about the allocations scheme are handled by the local authorities complaint procedure. Complaints regarding the handling of the transfer application are dealt with by the registered social housing providers complaints procedure.
The landlord’s complaints housing support policy states that at stage one complaints are acknowledged in five working days and responded to in 10 working days. At the final stage complaints are responded to within 20 working days. If a complaint is not processed, it will give reasons to the resident and signpost to an alternative process. Also, it aims to resolve the complaint at the first point of contact.
The landlord’s compensation guidance acknowledges that on occasions services can fail or fall below its service standards. It gives guidance on the appropriate levels of compensation having regard to the impact on the resident.
The resident’s complaints concern one of his neighbour who is a tenant of the landlord. This Service has not been provided with a copy of the tenancy agreements for his neighbour, but it would be reasonable to conclude that the same, or similar tenancy conditions apply as to the resident.

Scope of complaint

The resident’s complaint references a transfer application that he made which was not progressed in 2019. From what can be seen, the transfer application was cancelled as the resident did not provide information requested by the allocations team. The Ombudsman will not investigate complaints which in his opinion, were not brought to the attention of the landlord as a formal complaint within a reasonable period, which would normally be six months of the matters arising. There is no evidence that any formal complaints raised by the resident about the transfer application in 2019 have exhausted the landlord’s complaint process and/or that any such complaint was referred to the Ombudsman. Also, the responsibility for the handling of the transfer application lies within the jurisdiction of another Ombudsman, the Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman.

Summary of events

The landlord’s records show that in August 2020 the resident complained about constant noise disturbance occurring at night, such as vacuuming late at night from Tenant A. The landlord’s records do not show a further report until 18 February 2021 when a new ASB case was logged. The landlord’s records do not give any further details about the resident’s concerns that the resident raised.
The resident’s carer reported on 29 March 2021 that at 1.30am both her and the resident had been woken by a bang from Tenant A property. She advised that the sound affected the resident’s health as he had a heart problem.
The following day, 30 March 2021, the landlord forwarded the resident’s carer’s email to the mediator regarding the noise report.
The landlord records show that it received a letter regarding the ASB from the resident on 10 April 2021. In response, the landlord informed the resident on 16 April 2021 that its professional mediator was dealing with the case and it forwarded the communication to him. A copy of the letter has not been provided to this Service for the investigation.
On 26 April 2021, the resident reported noise disturbance and verbal abuse from Tenant A and made a request to move to another property.
The landlord responded on 11 May 2021 that its professional mediator was involved and provided the direct contact details of its professional mediator.
The resident’s carer reported ASB from Tenant A on 21 May 2021 and the resident’s representative contacted the landlord on 24 May 2021 to advise that he was unable to continue acting as his father’s representative due to his work commitments and his father was having difficulty contacting the professional mediator. Also, he had purchased a new phone for his father to download the noise app, his father had taken multiple recordings of the noise disturbance after 11pm and he had been unable to contact the Environmental Health Service by phone.
The landlord responded the same day acknowledging the representative unavailability and that the resident’s carer would be the point of contact. It confirmed that it had forwarded messages to the professional mediator, including that the resident had made recordings using the noise app.
The resident’s carer reported that Tenant A was banging right above the resident’s bedroom on 7 June 2021. On 17 June 2021, the resident’s carer reported an argument between the resident and Tenant A and provided the crime reference number. The resident’s carer was signposted to its professional mediator.
The landlord’s records noted on 9 August 2021 that the resident was unable to contact the professional mediator. On 12 August 2021, the resident called to report noise disturbance from Tenant A. The landlord’s records do not show any further detail about this report.
The resident contacted this Service on 13 August 2021 to report that the landlord had not responded to his complaint about noise disturbance and he had been in contact with them for the past two years about this matter. In response, this Service contacted the landlord requesting that it respond to the resident’s request to be transferred.
The landlord’ internal records note on 27 August 2021 that it had spoken to the resident. The resident advised that he had posted a letter requesting a transfer to their officers. During the conversation, it was explained that it does not manage the allocation process and that it would arrange for an officer to visit the resident to complete the transfer application on 3 September 2021. It had decided that the resident’s concerns should not be addressed under the complaints process.
On 9 September 2021, the resident reported noise disturbance at 11:45am. He advised that he fell from his bed and banged his head. The resident’s carer advised that she had checked the resident and that he was fine.
The following day 10 September 2021 the landlord’s records show that the medical letter sent by the resident was forwarded to the allocations team to support his transfer application.
This Service contacted the landlord requesting that it respond to the resident’s complaint. In response, the landlord wrote to the resident on 17 September 2021. It confirmed that it had cancelled the complaint he had made as during the conversation it held with him, the resident had advised that he wanted help to complete the transfer application. The housing officer had visited him on 3 September 2021 to complete the transfer application and it requested that the resident clarify whether he wished to make a complaint.
The landlord’s records note that the resident called the landlord on 21 September 2021 but was not able to speak with the area manager.
The landlord provided its complaint response on 4 October 2021. It repeated that the resident had said that he did not want to make a complaint, rather he wanted help applying for a bungalow. Following the housing officers visit on 3 September 2021, it had submitted the transfer application on his behalf and the allocations team had requested further information on 22 September 2021 which had not been received. The previous transfer application was closed on 21 April 2020 for a similar reason as requested documents had not been supplied. The landlord advised that for the transfer application to be progressed the resident needed to supply the information to the allocations team. It explained that it was unable to help as it did not manage the allocations process and it signposted the resident to the allocations team if he had any concerns.
The resident representative escalated the complaint on 7 October 2021. He explained that the resident did not have access to the internet or email and disputed that there had been a request for the complaint to be closed. He complained that:
1. Over the past 12 months, 100 recordings of noise disturbance from Tenant A had been made and questioned whether they had been listened to or sent to the professional mediator.
2. The transfer process had not been correctly explained to the resident. His conversation with the housing officer was brief and rushed and the housing officer had not advised him during the conversation of the supporting documents required for the transfer application.
3. The allocations team had asked whether the resident needed assistance applying for a flat when his preferred property is a bungalow.
4. The resident was not informed of the documents required to support the previous transfer application.
In summary, the landlord had not processed the resident’s transfer application, his previous application was cancelled and the professional mediator had not been sent the recordings that the resident had made.
The landlord’s internal records show in October 2021 that:
1. The housing officer advised that he spent over an hour with the resident to complete the transfer application and explained the process on more than one occasion. He spoke to the resident’s representative on the phone at the time and was willing to spend longer if necessary.
2. It forwarded a medical letter to the allocations team on 13 October 2021.
3. The housing officer advised that he would check that the noise monitoring equipment was working and did so on 26 October 2021. At that visit, he advised the resident to keep a dairy of the incidents.
On 2 November 2021, the landlord acknowledged the complaint and advised that it would respond by 24 November 2021.
The landlord’s internal records on 2 November 2021, 3 November 2021 and 9 November 2021 noted:
1. The landlord does not hold a transfer list and all properties are allocated through choice-based lettings. The resident needs to bid on properties that he is interested in and the allocations team can assist with this.
2. Reviewed the resident’s areas of choice. The top two areas had bungalows available but these did not become available often. The third area have more availability.
3. The size of the bungalow is smaller than a one-bedroom property. If the resident required a two-bedroom property, evidence would need to be provided.
4. Resident currently unable to bid for a property as his application was still pending. The allocations team was experiencing delays of between four to eight weeks to process applications.
5. The landlord had not received a log of incidents regarding the ASB reports.
6. The resident’s representative informed the landlord that the allocations team had requested that he contact them.
7. The landlord had installed noise monitoring equipment from 3 November 2021 and it was removed on 10 November 2021. The first week, the noise recording equipment did not work and it remained for another week.
The housing officer visited the resident to collect the noise monitoring equipment. the recordings were reviewed, it decided that the noise nuisance was not serious and did not match previous reports that it had received.
On 22 November 2021, the professional mediator informed the landlord that to take action, he needed evidence of the noise disturbance and confirmed that he had not received any noise recordings from the housing officer. He did not have evidence of excessive noise. Tenant A was engaging with him but denying that there was noise nuisance.
The landlord wrote to Tenant A on 23 November 2021 regarding reports of banging, shouting and talking loudly. It requested that Tenant A be more courteous to their neighbours and keep noisy activities to the day time.
On the same day, 23 November 2021, the landlord provided the occupational therapy report to the allocations team and queried whether there was any outstanding information required to progress the transfer application. In response, the allocation team advised that the resident’s transfer application was likely to be in Band A.
The landlord responded to the complaint at its final stage on 24 November 2021. In summary, the key findings were that:
1. Explained why it did not address the resident’s complaint in August 2021.
2. Acknowledged that it did not acknowledge the resident’s escalation request on 7 October 2021.
3. Confirmed that the accommodation is designated for older people. This is defined as person aged over 55 and that on occasion it received reports of ASB.
4. Noise recordings
  1. Confirmed that it was using a professional mediation service regarding the resident’s reports of noise disturbance.
  2. It had not received the noise recordings; therefore, it was possible that the app was not working. It would arrange for its housing officer to check the noise app.
  3. Confirmed that the noise monitoring equipment had not worked for the first week of its installation.
  4. It had listened to the recordings from the noise monitoring equipment for the period 3 November 2021 to 11 November 2021.
  5. Requested for evidence that the noise recordings had previously been sent.
5. Call recordings
  1. It advised that call recording to its call centre are held for one month and it does not record calls to and from its local office. Therefore, it was unable to listen to the call that it had with the resident. It apologised for the misunderstanding regarding the closure of the resident’s complaint.
  2. It advised that it could not evidence what had occurred during the conversation between the resident’s representative and the housing officer. Its officer had presented a different version of events and apologised if the representative felt that the conversation was rushed.
6. Transfer application
  1. Clarified that it had responsibility for the beginning of the transfer application. Once the online application was completed, this was managed by the allocations team. Therefore, its officer could not advise on the information that the allocations team would require.
  2. Confirmed that the resident’s housing application had been recorded as requiring ground floor accommodation and that he was eligible for a one-bedroom property. The resident was responsible for placing bids for suitable properties and it had no involvement in the bidding process.
  3. Signposted the resident to the allocations team regarding the closure of the previous application as it had no involvement once the online application had been submitted.
7. Compensation
  1. Apologised for the confusion caused when the resident made his complaint, and its failure to respond to the email of 7 October 2021. Acknowledged that the resident was inconvenienced by the noise monitoring equipment not working. It offered a gesture of good will of £100 for this, broken down as £50 for each element.
  2. Recognised the difficulties experienced by the resident in making the complaint and offered £150 for this.
  3. Acknowledged the time and trouble the resident experienced during the complaint process and made an award of £75.
On the same day, 24 November 2021, the resident’s transfer application was approved, which enabled him to bid for another property.
After the complaint process was exhausted the following occurred:
1. The landlord checked the noise app and established the account was registered with the local authority and not registered with the landlord.
2. The resident continued to report banging, shouting, loud talking from Tenant A.
3. The landlord established that the noise complained about originated from the shower. Its repair team inspected the shower and did not find a fault.
4. It wrote to Tenant A regarding reports of banging, shouting and loud talking on 11 January 2022 and that it may use noise monitoring equipment if necessary. A further letter was sent on 1 November 2022 regarding the same report and the use of exercise equipment.
5. The resident’s Member of Parliament wrote to the landlord in January 2023 regarding reports of noise disturbance.
The resident remained dissatisfied and escalated his complaint to this Service.

Assessment and findings

Reports of noise disturbance

The Ombudsman’s role is to assess whether the landlord’s response to the residents reports of noise disturbance was in accordance with its legal and policy obligations. In addition, whether the landlords actions were fair in all the circumstances of the case.
It is clear from the resident’s submission that he has been distressed by the reported noise disturbances and he believes that the landlord has not taken appropriate action to resolve the noise that he experienced. The resident’s feelings are understood and it is not disputed that dealing with such situations is stressful.
The landlord has a responsibility under the terms of the tenancy agreement to take appropriate action in response to any reports of noise disturbance that it receives. Its ASB housing and support procedure provides the framework under which it manages its cases.
Looking at the available information, the landlord assessed in accordance with its ASB housing and support procedure that the resident’s report of vacuuming by Tenant A in August 2020 did not meet the threshold to be considered as ASB.
The landlord uses a professional mediator and the landlord’s records do not show when it first referred the resident’s concerns. From what can be seen, following the resident’s reports in February 2021 and March 2021, that he and his carer had been disturbed by noise these were sent to the professional mediator. Further reports made by the resident and his carer in June 2021 and August 2021 were also referred to the professional mediator with the landlord also signposting the reference. However, the landlord failed to act when it was informed by the resident and his representative that he was experiencing difficulty contacting the professional mediator in May 2021 and August 2021. Whilst the landlord acknowledged this, this was of particular concern as it was aware that the resident’s representative due to his work commitments could not provide advocacy for him and meant that the resident was not able to access the service to resolve the reports for noise disturbance.
The landlord’s ASB housing and support procedure states that it would carry out a vulnerability assessment which takes into account personal and social situations that affect the resident. There is no evidence in the landlord’s submission that this was carried out, even though it was aware of the resident’s personal circumstances in respect of his age and medical condition. Also, he was supported by a carer, he did not have internet access or an email.
Furthermore, the resident’s representative had informed the landlord that he had purchased a phone to enable the resident to download the noise app and that significant amounts of recordings had been made. The landlord was aware that the recordings had been sent to the environmental health service and there is no evidence that it contacted its partner to retrieve those recordings. This was unreasonable as the resident was under the impression that he was using the noise app correctly when clearly, he was not. From what can be seen, the landlord missed an opportunity to check that the noise app was correctly set up on the resident’s phone, which it was able to do when it visited the resident to complete the transfer application. This was not reasonable as the reason that the resident wanted to move related directly to the noise disturbance complained about. There is further evidence of a lack of partnership working as the resident’s carer had informed the landlord that a noise report had been made to the police. The landlord’s submission to this Service does not show that the landlord contacted the police to obtain information about the report including the police assessment of the severity of the situation. This was not appropriate.
Around six months after the resident made the first report of ASB, the landlord decided to install noise monitoring equipment in the property. The landlord’s records do not say what led to this decision. However, this does represent an unreasonable delay in the landlord reaching this decision. At the same time, it also informed the resident that he should manually record incidents.
The landlord in its complaint response has said that it did not receive recordings neither did it receive the hard copy diary sheets from the resident. It is of note that the submission to this Service has not identified that the professional mediator took any positive steps to assist the resident to provide the recording or incident logs for his assessment. The landlord failed to consider its responsibilities under the equalities act 2010 to provide reasonable adjustments to the resident. There is no evidence that it considered the impact of the resident’s medical condition on the resident being able to manually log incidents or his ability to correctly record the noise that he was experiencing using the noise app. It received reports from the resident’s representative that he had fallen trying to use the noise app which was supported by the resident’s carer and the landlord failed to adequately respond to the reports. This was not reasonable.
Once the noise recording equipment was installed in the resident’s property, for the first week it did not work. Following review of the noise from the noise monitoring equipment, the landlord determined that the noise experienced by the resident did not match his reports and did not meet the threshold to be considered ASB. However, the landlord did not explain in what way the information from the noise monitoring equipment differed from what the resident had said. This was not appropriate as the resident was entitled to know the basis on which the landlord had assessed that the noise he experienced, did not meet the threshold. After the complaint response, it is noted that the landlord assessed that the noise complained about arose when Tenant A used her shower and having checked the shower, determined that there was no further action to be taken.
In line with this services spotlight report on noise complaints – time to be heard (October 2022) although the noise complained about does not meet the threshold of ASB, tenancy action can still be considered. The landlord sent Tenant A, a warning letter dated 23 November 2021 regarding the reports of nuisance and requesting that Tenant A be more courteous.
The landlord’s submission to this service stated that its professional mediator had stated that Tenant A was engaging with the process, though she denied that she was causing nuisance. It also said that the resident refused mediation it offered but did not give dates and times proposed to the resident to undertake mediation. The landlord submission to this service does not give information regarding the types of engagement it agreed with Tenant A and its response did not provide any evidence that the professional mediator had taken any steps to resolve the reported noise disturbance experienced by the resident. It is noted that the resident undertook mediation offered by the police but he did not find it successful.
The resident has said that he supplied recordings using the noise app since October 2020. The landlord has said that it did not receive these recordings but its records do not show the action it took in relation to this. In its complaint response, the landlord requested that the resident evidence that it had sent the recording. This was not reasonable as it knew that the resident did not have the digital skills to do this and after the complaint process was exhausted it confirmed that the noise app was registered to the council via the noise app, rather than to the landlord. There is no evidence that the landlord took appropriate steps to obtain the recordings or to review the recordings. Furthermore, considering that the resident was having difficulty using the noise app, it could have suggested much earlier that the resident provide diary sheets regarding the noise he was experiencing. The landlord has told this service that it informed the resident’s son to contact the council to retrieve the recordings. This was not appropriate as the landlord was responsible under the tenancy agreement to ensure that the resident has quiet enjoyment of his home.

Request to be transferred into a suitable property.

The landlord operates a common allocation process which is operated by another social housing provider. The landlord responsibilities within this process are to assist residents to register for a transfer. The assessment of the transfer application and decision-making process is not part of the landlord’s responsibilities.
The resident rang the landlord in April 2021 to say that he wanted to move from the property due to the noise disturbance that he was experiencing. There is no evidence that the landlord acted or responded to this report until the resident made his complaint in September 2021. Neither is there any evidence that the resident or his representative followed up his request to be moved.
In accordance with its voids, allocations and lettings- housing procedure, the landlord visited the resident to complete the transfer application in September 2021. There is a dispute about what happened at the visit. The landlord recorded that it explained and assisted the resident with the transfer application. By the end of the visit, it was of the view that the resident understood the process and the next steps. The resident’s representative had asked his father to contact him when the housing officer arrived and advised that the housing officer had not given sufficient time to provide adequate explanations to him regarding the process.
In its final complaint response, the landlord apologised to the representative for the conversation taking place between him and its officer. It explained that it had received a different version of events from its officer regarding the content of the telephone conversion which did not match his account. This was reasonable for it to review and consider both accounts of the handling of the resident’s transfer application and that on the basis of the available information, it could not verify exactly what had happened on the day.
The resident’s representative queried whether the landlord had recorded the correct information during the visit regarding the type of accommodation required by the resident. It is noted that the allocations team asked the resident whether he would consider a flat when the resident had stated that his preference was for a bungalow. Whilst the resident’s online form has not been provided for this investigation, it is reasonable that the allocations team would explore with the resident, the types of properties he would consider as this would increase the likelihood of a suitable property being identified and decrease the waiting time. The enquiry from the allocations team does not mean that the housing officer did not correctly record the resident’s preferences.

Related complaint.

The complaint handling code (July 2020) informs landlords that resident do not have to use the word complaint for their concerns to be treated as such. Despite being informed by this service that the resident wished to make a complaint, the landlord’s first response was to dismiss that the resident wished to make a complaint.
In the landlord’s final complaint response, it explained that it was unable to review the call with the resident as it only retained calls for one month. It apologised to the resident for this. Whilst each organisation has its own call handling retention policies, a month seems to be a particularly short time, not to have calls conducted by the organisation, available for review. Not only in terms of complaint handling, audit and to scrutinise how it performed against its service standards.
The landlord’s complaint procedure says that it will respond within 10 days at the first stage of the complaints procedure. Its first response to the resident exceeded this target as it was aware on 13 August 2021 that the resident wished to make a complaint and after our intervention, it raised a complaint on 29 September 2021 its initial response was not sent until 4 October 2021. This meant that the resident waited 36 working days to reach a complaint response, which is unreasonable. In its final complaint response, the landlord apologised for any confusion or upset experienced by the resident and acknowledged that it did not hold the correct third-party permissions regarding the resident’s representative and this had been fed back to the necessary service.
The complaint was escalated on 7 October 2021 and again the landlord exceeded its complaint timescales as it provided its final complaint response on 24 November 2021. This was 34 working days later.

67. The landlord has acknowledged that it delayed in the resident receiving the complaint response. It apologised for this and made an award of compensation of £150 for the complaint handling delays he experienced. The Ombudsman’s dispute resolution principles are: be fair, put things right and learn from outcomes. The landlord has demonstrated that it has acted in accordance with this as it has recognised its complaint handling failures as it did not meet its published complaint handling timescales at both stages of the complaint procedure which impacted the resident. The landlord’s compensation policy gives examples of redress for poor complaint handling with awards ranging from £101 to £150 for significant difficulties in raising a complaint and delayed responses. The landlord appropriately assessed that the resident circumstances fell within its highest award. Therefore, the landlord’s apology for these failings and its award of compensation is appropriate and proportionate and represents reasonable redress.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of noise disturbance.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration in the landlord’s response to the resident’s request to be transferred to a suitable property.
In accordance with paragraph 53(B) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the landlord has offered redress to the resident, prior to investigation which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion resolves the complaint satisfactorily.

Reasons

The landlord failed to undertake a vulnerability assessment as outlined in its ASB housing and support procedure. Also, it did not put in place the adjustments required by the resident to record the noise disturbance that he experienced. There is no evidence that the landlord assisted the resident in providing the noise reports, that it conducted partnership working with environmental health to obtain the recordings the resident made or with the police.
The landlord acted in accordance with its voids, allocations and lettings- housing procedure and visited the resident to complete the transfer application to enable him to move to another address. The medical letters were forwarded to its allocation partner to be considered as part of the resident’s request for a transfer.
The landlord has acknowledged and recognised its complaint handling failures. It has apologised to the resident and made an award of compensation for this.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

The landlord to write to the resident to apologise for the service failures identified in this report.
The landlord to pay the resident compensation of £300, in addition to the £325 it agreed to in its final complaint response dated 24 November 2021. The compensation award of £300 is for the delay experienced by the resident in the landlord determining that the noise disturbance did not constitute ASB and for its failure to act in accordance with its ASB and housing and support procedure regarding the assessment of his vulnerability. Also, its failure to support and check his use of the noise app.
The landlord’s ASB policy says that it only recognises statutory noise nuisance. Therefore, it should self-assess itself against this service’s spotlight report on noise disturbance regarding its handling of non-statutory noise nuisance.
The landlord should confirm compliance with these orders to this Service within four weeks of the date of this report.

Recommendations

If it has not already done so, the landlord to pay the resident the £325 compensation it awarded in its final complaint response.
If it has not already done so, it should self-assess itself against the recommendations regarding record keeping outlined in the spotlight report on knowledge and information – on the record (May 2023).