Southwark Council (202109904)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202109904

Southwark Council

29 December 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

1. The complaint is about the landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns with reports of noise nuisance emanating from her property.

Background and summary of events

2. The resident is a tenant of the landlord.
3. On 8 April 2021 the landlord sent the resident a letter. It stated that it spoke to her on 29 March 2021 about complaints it had received about noise nuisance coming from her property. It advised her that in line with her tenancy agreement, she must not do anything to cause nuisance, annoyance, distress, or alarm to other residents.
4. The landlord wrote to the resident again on 18 May 2021 stating that it was still receiving reports of noise nuisance coming from her property. It asked her to reduce the level of noise.
5. The resident raised a formal complaint to the landlord on 25 May 2021. Evidence of this complaint has not been provided for this investigation.
6. The landlord issued its stage one complaint response on 16 June 2021 in which it reiterated that it had received several noise nuisance complaints from her neighbours. A staff member had also confirmed witnessing loud music coming from her property on at least one occasion, and that she was abusive when they approached her to discuss the matter. It said the letters it sent were part of its low-level anti-social behaviour (ASB) procedure. Despite verbal and written warnings to her, it was still receiving complaints about noise nuisance. It stated that if it continued to receive complains which could be substantiated, it could take formal action. It concluded by explaining how the resident could escalate her complaint if she remained dissatisfied.
7. The resident responded to the landlord on the same day. She asked it to provide evidence to corroborate the staff member’s claims. She disputed that the landlord’s assertions that it had visited and there had been an altercation with her. She asked why the landlord had not installed noise meters in her neighbour’s properties to evidence the alleged noise. She asked it to provide “physical proof before [it sent her] anymore threatening emails”. She disputed that she made a noise nuisance.
8. The landlord issued its stage two complaint response on 27 June 2021. It reiterated what it had explained in its stage one response concerning complaints being made against her for alleged noise nuisance, and her being abusive towards its officer. From having reviewed the history and documents of the case, it believed that it had adequately addressed the matter. It asked the resident to continue making noise diaries so it could review them and take necessary action. It concluded by explaining how the resident could refer her complaint to this Service if she remained dissatisfied.
9. The resident brought her complaint to this Service on 28 July 2021. She said the landlord’s staff member had made false allegations, and she wanted the landlord to suspend them. In further correspondence, she said reported further concerns with the staff member, and said they were bullying her.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

10. The resident has also explained that as an outcome of her complaint she wants the landlord to suspend the officer. However, this Service is unable to make any orders regarding a landlord’s management of its employees or require it to take enforcement action against its staff members. This is in accordance with paragraph 39 (r) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme as the resident is seeking an outcome which we do not have the authority to provide.
11. Also, the evidence shows that the resident’s concerns with the staff member have not yet exhausted the landlord’s complaints procedure. Therefore, in accordance with paragraph 39 (a) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, we will not investigate this aspect. The resident should raise her concerns with the landlord in the first, she may consider referring the matter to this Service if she remains dissatisfied with its response as the conclusion of its formal complaints procedure.

Reports of noise nuisance emanating from the resident’s property

12. The landlord’s ASB policy states that it can consider non legal remedies to tackle ASB. Examples include sending warning letters, interviewing alleged perpetrators, making a referral to mediation, or issuing an acceptable behaviour contract.
13. In the landlord’s stage one complaint response it explained why it had sent the letters on 8 April 2021 and 18 May 2021. As explained above, the landlord can issue written warnings to residents following reports of ASB. Therefore, given that the landlord explained that it had received reports of ASB concerning noise nuisance coming from the resident’s flat, it was reasonable to send her the letters as its policy deemed it an appropriate remedy.
14. In the landlord’s stage one complaint response it said its officer had attended, witnessed a noise nuisance, and that the resident had been aggressive towards them. The resident disputed this and asked the landlord to provide evidence to substantiate its claim. The landlord did not acknowledge or address her concern in its stage two complaint response, as it should have. Given the resident’s different account of events, the landlord should have at least explained when its officer had attended, especially considering the nature of its allegation.
15. The Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (issued on our website) explains that we expect landlords to address all points raised in the complaint and provide clear reasons for any decisions made. In this case, the landlord failed to address any of the points raised in the resident’s escalation. It initially reiterated what it had explained in its stage one response, and therefore acknowledged that the resident was concerned with complaints of noise nuisance being made against her. Then, in the second part of its response, it encouraged her to continue reporting noise nuisance herself. It therefore contradicted itself and provided an illogical response. It missed its opportunity to explain its position, substantiate its claims, and demonstrate that it had not taken her concerns seriously, as ultimately it was unaware of the grounds for her escalation. This was a significant failing in terms of complaint handling by the landlord.

Determination (decision)

16. In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure in respect of the complaint.

Reasons

17. The landlord failed to address any of the points raised in the resident’s escalation.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

18. The landlord is ordered to undertake the following actions:
    1. Pay the resident £100 for the inconvenience and frustration experienced as a result of the failings identified with the landlord’s handling of her complaint.
    2. Write to the resident, apologising for the failings detailed in this report and addressing the issues she raised in her stage two escalation letter.
    3. These orders should be completed within four weeks of the date of this report. The landlord should update this Service when the payment has been made and provide a copy of its updated stage two complaint response.