Southampton City Council (202339127)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202339127

Southampton City Council

20 August 2024

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 handling of:
1. Reports of antisocial behaviour (ASB) and noise nuisance.
2. Allegations of poor staff conduct.
The Ombudsman has also considered the landlord’s complaint handling.

Background

The resident is a secure tenant. The property is a 1– bedroom first floor flat. He has lived at the property since 1999.
The resident has reported noise nuisance from previous neighbours since 2005.
A new neighbour moved into the flat below in November 2020. Shortly afterwards the resident reported noise nuisance. He said that the neighbour installed laminate flooring, he could hear banging, and was concerned with the number of visitors to the property.
In January 2021 the resident reported noise nuisance from the neighbour below. He was concerned that the neighbour was using the property as a business. The landlord suggested that the resident consider a move to sheltered accommodation. It set out that it must follow procedures to investigate ASB.
In February 2021 the resident said that he had called an ambulance because of the impact three “bad” neighbours in a row had on his health. He reported noisy activity until various times of the morning as items had been delivered to the neighbour requiring assembly. He said the stress of the noise was worsening his health. He accused the landlord of not enforcing tenancy rules and said that mediation was not working. He was not sure that noise recording equipment would pick up the general noise, only the banging. He refused to move.
The resident and his neighbour attended mediation in February 2021.
In July 2021 the resident said there were multiple occupants living with his neighbour. He was concerned about potential benefit fraud. The landlord found no evidence of fraud.
In January 2022, the resident contacted his MP. He was concerned that the neighbour was running a business, and suspected drug dealing which he had reported to the police.
The landlord visited the resident on 6 February 2022. It said that it discussed the allegations with the neighbour. It believed the allegations were unsubstantiated and the resident refused further mediation.
The resident reported issues with noise nuisance to the landlord in March 2022. He believed that the neighbour was running a business from the property. He was concerned about the number of visitors to the address and could hear banging and chopping coming from the kitchen throughout the days. The landlord conducted further visits to both parties.
On 30 November 2022 the resident complained to the landlord. He said:
1. He had reported issues with ASB for 2 years.
2. He was concerned that his neighbour was running a business from the property.
3. He believed there were systemic failures in the landlord’s handling of ASB.
The landlord issued its stage 1 response on 8 December 2022. It said:
1. It had visited to discuss the ASB on 9 March 2022.
2. It had investigated the allegations made by the resident and determined no fraud was being committed by his neighbour.
3. It offered to refer the case to its mediation service.
The resident emailed the landlord on 9 December 2022 to say he was unhappy with the landlord’s response. He said the noise nuisance was ongoing and he believed the neighbour was running a food delivery business from the property.
The resident sought updates for his escalation request on 12 December 2022 and 30 January 2023.
The resident made further reports of noise nuisance in February 2023. The reports include a bike being taken into the communal areas by his neighbour, banging in the kitchen, doors slamming, and loud music. The landlord visited the resident on 23 February 2023 to discuss his reports of ASB. It noted during the visit that the resident had no television and could hear every sound from his neighbour. It said that he should “stop looking out of the window and carry on with his day to day living” and was reporting “everyday living noises”. It discussed alternative housing options with the resident.
The resident sought to escalate his complaint on 20 March 2023. The officer he discussed this with became unwell shortly afterwards and this matter was not progressed at that time.
The resident raised a further complaint to the landlord on 14 November 2023. He summarised his complaint to be about bullying from staff and ASB from a neighbour. He said:
1. Shortly after the neighbour moved into the property below there were issues with banging, chopping, loud music, slamming of doors and cupboards. He was suspicious of illegal activities or fraudulent behaviour. He had tried to speak to his neighbour who denied creating the noise. After this visit the neighbour made a counter allegation and the matter was referred to mediation.
2. He agreed to mediation in February 2021. His neighbour refused. He was told that the neighbour had permission to do DIY at reasonable times and the case was closed.
3. He found the landlord to be dismissive during its visit on 23 February 2023. He was unhappy that it said the noise was normal living noise and suggested that he move. He found the meeting unhelpful and unpleasant. It left him feeling unwell.
4. He complained and then pursued the complaint to stage 2 with the help from his local representative. He did not receive a stage 2 response.
5. On 20 March 2023 he contacted the landlord to chase the stage 2 response. He found out that the previous investigating officer had retired later that day.
The landlord acknowledged the complaint on 16 November 2023. It said that it was unable to find the original escalation request. It said that it would issue a response.
On 19 December 2023 the landlord issued its stage 2 response. It summarised the complaints made by the resident. It provided a chronology of events from November 2020 onwards. It set out what it considers ASB. It did not uphold the complaint. It said:
1. It reviewed its records and noted that it had taken reasonable action. It had discussed the resident’s reports of noise nuisance with the neighbour. The noise reports were sporadic. There was no evidence that the noise and ASB was anything other than a clash in lifestyles. Its first step was to offer mediation. It noted that the resident declined the offer of mediation and to install a noise recorder to capture the noise. It set out the threshold for statutory noise nuisance. It directed the resident to environmental health to consider the allegations of noise nuisance.
2. It documented the visit in March 2023. Its notes show that the reports were discussed, and it considered there was a disparity between two living styles that caused the issues. The resident had no TV and lived very quietly. It had suggested a move to supported housing as the noise transference would remain an issue for the resident regardless of neighbours.
3. The resident’s opinion that it was dismissive and holds a grudge was not evidenced in its records. It considered that attempts were made to manage the resident’s expectations. It recommended the resident consider more suitable alternative accommodation in view of his reported health issues.
4. It was unable to make a finding regarding the resident’s concerns that there had been a breakdown in the landlord/tenant relationship.
5. The neighbouring property was let through its general housing register in line with its allocations policy. The property was a general needs let and if whoever is on the list meets this criterion, they can be offered the property. The resident could not dictate who lives around him in his block as the landlord let properties based on housing need and not on preference.
6. The resident’s concerns that insulation between the properties exacerbated noise transference was correct. However, other neighbours adjoining did not complain about the noise. It was possible that the resident was more sensitive to the noise, and this was amplified as there was nothing in his home to absorb the ambient sounds.

Assessment and findings

Policy and procedures

The landlord’s antisocial behaviour policy says:
1. ASB is defined as behaviour which causes or could cause “harassment, alarm or distress” to persons, and as “housing-related conduct capable of causing a nuisance or annoyance to another person”.
2. Early intervention is important when tackling ASB to stop the situation from escalating. In all but the most serious cases its initial approach will be to use non-legal measures of intervention including mediation. It sets out the following timescales to deal with ASB:
  1. All other allegations of ASB should be acknowledged within 3 working days of receipt.
  2. Case reviews should be completed as agreed with the complainant but no less than monthly.
3. It may close some cases with no further action. This can be where the reports relate to ‘one on one’ lifestyle dispute and both parties have been given strategies to manage (including mediation).

Reports of antisocial behaviour (ASB) and noise nuisance.

ASB case management is a crucial aspect of a landlord’s service delivery. Effective use of an ASB procedure enables the landlord to identify appropriate steps to resolve potential areas of conflict and improve the experience of its residents. ASB cases are often challenging as options available or chosen by a landlord to resolve a case may not be the resident’s preferred outcome. It can become difficult to manage expectations.
In cases relating to ASB, it is not this Service’s role to determine whether ASB occurred or who is responsible. The Ombudsman can assess how a landlord has dealt with reports it has received in the timeframe of a complaint. We can assess whether the landlord has followed proper procedure, good practice, and behaved reasonably, taking account of all the circumstances of the case.
The evidence shows that the landlord offered mediation at the initial reports of noise nuisance in December 2020/January 2021. This was an appropriate response. The initial reports related to domestic noise nuisance and as the neighbour below was a new tenant, this would have afforded both parties the opportunity to resolve the dispute. It was made in line with the landlord’s ASB policy. It was fair and appropriate in the circumstances.
The resident had reported ASB from a former neighbour and expected the landlord to provide a “sensitive let”. He believed that no additional care was taken. There was no evidence available to the Ombudsman that sets out that the landlord would make any adjustments to its letting procedure for the property below. Its response at stage 2 was reasonable. It was fair to acknowledge these concerns and it was appropriate to explain its lettings procedure. In the absence of any evidence contrary to the landlord’s allocations procedure, the Ombudsman has found no failings in this regard.
The evidence shows that the landlord called or visited the neighbour to discuss the reports made by the resident. Limited evidence was recorded by the landlord regarding these visits. There was no formal interview conducted or any follow up in the form of warnings, or advisory notices sent by the landlord. It should have retained clear records of its conversations and visits with the neighbour. Its ASB policy states that it must retain accurate notes of the interview with alleged perpetrators. The landlord should be clear with both parties about incidents that were addressed with the neighbour. Its failure to follow these practices protracted this complaint and caused additional distress and inconvenience to the resident.
The resident frequently told the landlord that the noise nuisance made him feel unwell. He took additional time and trouble seeking support from third parties to present his case to the landlord. The landlord broadly sought to recommend alternative accommodation in response to the resident’s health concerns. It determined that as the ASB was not actionable there were limited means to resolve the issues for the resident. Its offer to assist the resident to find alternative accommodation was reasonable. However, it should have reflected on the resident’s circumstances and its own policy to review the support that may have been available to the resident.
The landlord said that there were known issues with noise transference between the two properties in its stage 2 response. It was fair to suggest that furnishings could be used to dampen the noise issues. However, it said that it gave permission to the neighbour to have laminate flooring. Its decision to allow the neighbour to have laminate flooring would have contributed to the noise transference between the properties. The records show the resident experienced a long history of noise nuisance. The landlord should have considered this when permitting the neighbour to install laminate flooring. It should have also conducted some investigation into the noise transference and considered if there were means to reduce the impact on the resident. Its decisions contributed to the nuisance and annoyance experienced by the resident.
Overall, the Ombudsman finds maladministration by the landlord in its handling of reports of ASB. Its response to many reports was reasonable. Its offer of mediation from the outset was made in accordance with its policy and procedures. Its offer to provide noise recording equipment was reasonable. It was appropriate to direct the resident to Environmental Health to investigate for a statutory nuisance. It was reasonable to close its case when there was no new evidence to substantiate the allegations of ASB. However, the landlord did not conduct any formal interview with either party. It should have used these as an opportunity to set out an action plan to manage the residents expectations. It did not fully address the issues with noise transference between the properties. The landlord should pay the resident £250 for the distress and inconvenience caused.

Allegations of poor staff conduct.

The resident expressed a dissatisfaction in relation to staff members conduct. The Ombudsman will not form a view on whether the members of staff did or did not conduct themselves in the manner the resident reported. Instead, it is the Ombudsman’s role to decide whether the landlord adequately investigated and responded to the complaint, and took proportionate action based on the information available to it.
The accounts provided from both the resident and the staff members involved do differ and it would be difficult to determine which account was correct. It was reasonable for the landlord to speak with the staff members in question and review its records from the visit to determine their version of events. Other than their accounts, no further information could be provided to substantiate one version of events over the other. Therefore, it was reasonable that the landlord would not have sufficient evidence to take any further action.
The landlord was clear with the resident how it had conducted its investigation into his concerns about staff conduct. It provided detail to show that it had taken his concerns seriously and addressed the allegations with the staff members concerned. It was appropriate to explain that it had reviewed the records made following the visit in February 2023. It was reasonable to seek to manage his expectations and reflect on the impact the issues had on the resident.
However, there was a significant delay to acknowledge the resident’s complaint about staff conduct in March 2023. The landlord did not address the resident’s concerns until he reiterated them in his email on 14 November 2023. The resident highlighted the impact the meeting had on him, saying that it left him feeling unwell. The landlord acknowledged the impact on the resident in its stage 2 response, but it did not address the delay to investigate his allegations. This delay meant the resident was without a response for around 8 months. In this time, he said that the landlord/tenant relationship had decayed and he no longer reported issues.
The landlord unreasonably dismissed the concerns about a breakdown of the landlord/tenant relationship in its stage 2 response. It said that this was the resident’s opinion and there were no plans to change who the resident would contact on the landlord’s behalf. It is important for the landlord to maintain a positive landlord/tenant relationship to ensure that the resident is confident to report new issues. It would have been appropriate to seek to repair this breakdown by meeting with the resident or providing him with a point of contact to raise his concerns.
The Ombudsman has found service failure in the landlord’s response to allegations of poor staff conduct. While the Ombudsman does not dispute the resident’s experience, the landlord took the concerns raised by the resident seriously and sought to respond to the issues he brought to it. Its stage 2 complaint response it addressed the issues he raised and showed how it reached its conclusion. Based on the evidence available, the actions taken by the landlord in response to the resident’s concerns about staff conduct were proportionate. However, it did not address the failure to acknowledge the impact the meeting had on the resident sooner. It did not resolve the resident’s concerns about a breakdown of the landlord/tenant relationship. It should pay the resident £50 for the distress and inconvenience caused.

Complaint handling

In reaching a decision about the resident’s complaint we consider whether the landlord followed proper procedure, good practice, and acted in a reasonable way. Our duty is to determine complaints by what is, in this Service’s opinion, fair in all circumstances of the case.
The landlord’s policy states that an expression of dissatisfaction, however made, about the standard of service, actions, or lack of action by the landlord will be recorded as a complaint. It is important for the landlord to ensure that it maintains its complaint handling commitments, and that it complies with the timeframes set out in its policy. Its response at stage 2 was outside those timeframes.
The landlord failed to acknowledge the request for stage 2 on 12 December 2022, 30 January and 20 March 2023. The resident took additional time and trouble seeking help from his local councillor and other representatives to get a response from the landlord. The resident had highlighted the impact the issues had on his health and wellbeing that were overlooked by the landlord’s failure to respond to the complaint.
There was a delay of around 12 months for the landlord to issue its stage 2 response. When it did on 19 December 2023, it should have taken the opportunity to reflect on its own complaint handling. It should have addressed its failures to escalate the complaint in line with its policy. It did not and it failed to treat the resident fairly as a result.
The Ombudsman finds maladministration in the landlord’s complaint handling. Without acknowledging the delays or time and trouble taken by the resident in pursuing his complaint, it did not put things right in the circumstances. The landlord should pay the resident £250 for its complaint handling failures.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was:
1. Maladministration in its handling of reports of antisocial behaviour (ASB) and noise nuisance.
2. Service failure in its handling of allegations of poor staff conduct.
3. Maladministration in its complaint handling.

Orders

Within 4 weeks of the date of this report, the landlord is ordered to:
1. Apologise to the resident for the failures set out in this report.
2. Pay the resident compensation of £550. This is comprised of:
  1. £250 for its handling of reports of ASB and noise nuisance.
  2. £50 for its handling of allegations of poor staff conduct.
  3. £250 for its complaint handling failures.
3. Meet with the resident to determine if the incidents of ASB are ongoing. Produce an action plan setting out what it can and not investigate.
4. Meet with the resident to explore opportunities to repair the damaged landlord/tenant relationship.
5. Provide evidence of compliance of the above to the Ombudsman.