Teign Housing (202113413)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202113413

Teign Housing

10 October 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

1. The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of
   1. the resident’s reports of noise nuisance from his neighbour, and;
   2. the resident’s reports of antisocial behaviour from his neighbour.

Background

2. The resident lived in a 2 bedroom bungalow and held an assured shorthold tenancy with the landlord. The resident and neighbour shared a pathway between their properties.
3. The first report of noise seen by this service took place on 5 December 2020. The resident reported his next-door neighbour’s son banging doors/walls and playing computer games loudly. The resident advised he was aware the neighbour’s son had autism.
4. From 16 February 2021, the resident reported the noise nuisance being deliberate. He reported further antisocial behaviour(ASB) including his neighbour swerving his car towards him whilst he was walking his dogs.
5. The matter was referred to community trigger and a meeting was held on 28 July 2021 with the landlord, local authority and police. The recommended actions for the landlord following the meeting were for the landlord to look into a boundary fence between the properties, speak to neighbours to see if there was a wider impact of the ASB, and look into further soundproofing.
6. The resident raised a stage 1 complaint on 8 December 2021. In summary, he was dissatisfied with the landlord’s response to his reports of the ASB and noise nuisance from his neighbour. He was unhappy that the landlord had requested further evidence.
7. The landlord issued a stage 1 complaint response on 17 December 2021. In summary it said:
   1. The landlord followed its ASB policy when responding to the resident’s reports of noise nuisance and ASB. The noise nuisance was initially raised on 16 February 2021.
   2. There was limited information which could be shared with the complainant due to data protection.
   3. The landlord followed the action points recommended from community trigger, except a fence being erected between properties as the resident was potentially going to move to alternative accommodation.
   4. The community trigger case had been closed which identified the risk as low.
   5. The landlord was seeking a direct match property for the resident to move to, and recommended he continued to look on the council’s housing register.
8. On 19 December 2021, the resident escalated his complaint to stage 2. He said the complaint response had incorrectly stated he had refused mediation, and that the first mention of fencing being erected, and door closers being applied to the neighbour’s property was 7 or 8 months ago. He reported the ASB, and noise continued to impact his family.
9. The landlord issued a stage 2 response on 11 January 2022. It said:
   1. The noise nuisance did not meet the threshold that environmental health would be able to further intervene. Further recordings since May 2021 did not give cause for concern.
   2. The landlord received counter allegations from the neighbour, at this stage it was not taking any further action.
   3. Technical experts confirmed that due to the design of the neighbour’s property, it would not lend itself to noise insulation.
   4. The landlord would support the resident to move by considering suitable 2 bedroom properties.
10. On 13 January 2022, the landlord provided a further response confirming it would not reopen the ASB case, it was happy to revisit mediation, specifically shuttle mediation which meant the parties would not have to meet. The landlord was arranging to see the resident soon to provide advice on his property transfer options.
11. The resident referred his complaint to this service on 8 February 2022. He felt his family had not received sufficient support from the landlord. He said his family did not feel listened to and were left in a vulnerable situation whilst they were experiencing the ASB and noise nuisance. He advised that the matter negatively affected his and his family’s mental health.
12. The resident accepted a direct match property offered by the landlord and moved on 17 April 2022.

Assessment and findings

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of noise nuisance from his neighbours.

13. The service acknowledges this is a difficult situation for the resident and recognises that the noise nuisance reported to the landlord has caused him and his family distress. The Ombudsman’s role is to consider whether the landlord responded to his noise reports in accordance with its relevant policies and whether its actions were fair and reasonable in all the circumstances of the case. The relevant policy is the landlord’s ASB policy which was in operation at the time of his reports and complaint.
14. When responding to a report of noise nuisance, the landlord’s ASB policy says it will respond within 5 working days and maintain regular contact with complainants to offer updates or support.The landlord commits to gather information to substantiate the allegations. This includes listening to audio recordings and working with external agencies.
15. Initially, the reported noise did not constitute ASB. Reports made from 5 December 2020 were that the neighbour’s son was banging doors and playing video games late into the night. The resident was aware that the neighbour’s son had autism and advised that he understood the situation but felt his household should not be affected by the noise. He explained his family were unable to sleep as a result.
16. The landlord acted promptly when responding to the noise reports. Within 4 days from the initial report, it had assessed the property’s suitability for soundproofing and outlined to the resident what actions it would take. The landlord confirmed it would soundproof his property. In addition, it suggested the resident’s family could try wearing earplugs when sleeping and said it would ask whether the neighbour’s son could wear headphones when playing games. The soundproofing was installed just over a month after the initial report.
17. This Service’s spotlight report on noise (available at: Spotlight on: Noise Complaints -October 2022 (housing-ombudsman.org.uk)) states that, “landlords should have a proactive good neighbourhood management policy, distinct to the ASB policy, with a clear suite of options for maintaining good neighbourhood relationships”. It continues that this ensures low level issues of neighbour friction are not inappropriately handled as potential ASB. The landlord applied its ASB policy at this stage when responding to noise reports which did not constitute ASB. The landlord is therefore recommended to consider implementing a good neighbourhood management policy for instances where reported noise is not constituted as ASB.
18. On 16 February 2021, the resident reported the noise from the neighbour and his son as being deliberate. He felt that they were in breach of their tenancy and said the soundproofing had not resolved the matter. From this point, the landlord treated the noise as ASB. It advised the resident that he would need to provide sufficient evidence and that there was no timescale in the matter being resolved. The landlord responded to the noise nuisance report within a day, opened an ASB case, and managed the resident’s expectations from an early stage. This was in line with the landlord’s ASB policy.
19. In response to reports the noise nuisance was deliberate, the landlord referred the resident to the noise app and asked him to retain diary sheets. As the resident said the soundproofing had not been successful, the landlord arranged for an acoustic engineer to conduct tests for the possibility of further soundproofing. The landlord was proactive in attempting to resolve the noise nuisance and its response was reasonable.
20. Landlord records show it responded to a number of the resident’s noise nuisance reports on the following working day. All reports were responded to within the landlord’s timescale of 5 working days. Noise concerns reported by email by the resident were swiftly forwarded to the case handler so that all relevant information was available to them. In addition, the ASB case handler maintained regular contact with the resident, providing feedback on evidence submitted. For example, on 23 February 2021 a staff member told the resident it could not hear that his recordings had picked anything up. The landlord adhered to its timescales set out in its ASB policy and maintained consistent communication with the resident throughout the complaints process.
21. On 9 June 2021, the landlord met with the resident. He was dissatisfied with the noise app and felt it was not fit for purpose. The landlord explained that in order to progress the matter or take any enforcement action, it would require recordings with sufficient evidence which it did not yet have. The landlord asked the resident to continue using the noise app. However, the landlord advised in its stage 2 response that no further recordings were received after 4 May 2021. Landlords cannot reasonably be expected to take any formal action unless noise is confirmed as causing statutory nuisance. Due to the lack of evidence, the landlord’s advice was appropriate and set the resident’s expectations of what was required for it to take further action.
22. The landlord evidenced good partnership working with the environmental health team to ensure noise reports were appropriately investigated. It sent noise recordings to be analysed and communicated with environmental health to obtain the results of noise monitoring equipment which environmental health had installed in the resident’s property. This service’s Spotlight report on noise emphasises the importance of working with external agencies when landlords respond to noise reports.
23. Environmental health advised that the noise did not meet the threshold for it to intervene further. The landlord passed this information to the resident within its stage 2 response and added that noise app submissions reviewed by the landlord had not picked up any noise of concern. It was appropriate for the landlord to communicate its findings to the resident.
24. The landlord’s stage 2 response advised that further soundproofing could not take place due to the layout of the neighbour’s property. However, it said it would pursue the option of door closures being installed in the neighbour’s property. There are no records to suggest this was completed.
25. Without clear evidence of statutory noise nuisance, it was reasonable that the landlord did not take further action and that the ASB case was closed. However, the landlord said the resident could continue to make reports of noise and these would be reviewed and responded to within the landlord’s timescales. The landlord evidenced good customer care and continued to engage with the resident’s concerns.
26. Overall, when dealing with the noise reports, the landlord conducted a thorough investigation and took a range of actions in line with its ASB policy. Although the landlord advised in its stage 1 response it was limited on the information relating to the neighbour that it could share, it adhered to its policy and communicated well with the resident. In light of the above, there was no maladministration in relation to the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of noise nuisance from his neighbour.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of ASB from his neighbour

27. The landlord’s ASB policy outlines that when a report of ASB is made, it will respond as quickly as possible and within the appropriate timescale. The landlord will look to gather evidence to substantiate allegations made, which will be done by a range of means including using CCTV footage, listening to audio recordings, and seeking information from appropriate external agencies, for example the police.
28. The resident initially reported ASB from his neighbour on 4 January 2021. He advised his neighbour had driven towards him in his car whilst he was walking his dogs, and he had reported the incident to the police. Following this, further reports were made including the neighbour attempting to attack the resident and his dog with a glass bottle, and reports that the neighbour was dealing drugs.
29. In response to the reports, the landlord arranged meetings with the resident to discuss the matter and liaised with the police in February 2021 and May 2021. In addition, it reviewed footage which the resident submitted and canvassed neighbours as potential witnesses. Landlord records show that no reports were made by neighbours and the police informed the landlord that the reported ASB was low level. The landlord recorded that having reviewed footage, it did not feel it constituted ASB. The landlord complied with its ASB policy by completing thorough investigations into the reports.
30. The landlord advised the resident on 8 December 2021 that the evidence it had been provided with was insufficient to escalate the matter. It said it would require facts from evidence which it did not yet have. The landlord outlined what it would require from the resident and advised how he could submit further evidence. This was an appropriate response, and the landlord was transparent in its communication with the resident.
31. The landlord incorrectly advised the resident within its stage 1 and 2 responses that the resident had refused mediation. This was contrary to the community trigger outcome whereby the resident had agreed to mediation. Although this inaccuracy would have caused frustration to the resident, the landlord later said it would be happy to look into mediation again. It explained it could be possible to undertake ‘shuffle mediation’ where both parties would not have to meet up. It was appropriate for the landlord to offer this option given the circumstances of the case.
32. Records show the resident reported invasive behaviour from the neighbour’s son. He advised that the son would look through the windows of the resident’s property at his children whilst walking down the front path. This was first reported on 1 December 2021. Consequently, he installed CCTV to capture any ASB from his neighbours. He felt the landlord was not taking sufficient action and requested the landlord install a fence at the front of the property to stop his family from feeling frightened.
33. Following a community trigger meeting on 2 November 2021, the landlord agreed to consider installing a fence between the 2 properties. In its stage 1 response, the landlord advised that the plan to have a fence installed was put on hold as the resident was potentially going to move to a direct match property. It said that if the resident moved, the fence would not be necessary. The landlord considered the option, and its response was reasonable.
34. A further recommendation from the community trigger process was to consider alternative accommodation for the resident. The landlord complied with this and provided advice to the resident on joining the council’s housing register. It also said it would seek a direct property match for the resident. It set the resident’s expectations by saying it did not have control over what properties would be returned and in what areas.
35. The Ombudsman does not underestimate the distress this situation would have caused to the resident, and it is clear that the reported ASB had an impact on him. However, based on the evidence available to this Service, the landlord has appropriately investigated and sought to manage the reported ASB using the tools available to it. Further, it ultimately provided the resident with alternative accommodation. Overall, the landlord took reasonable actions in response to the resident’s reports of ASB, which were proportionate and timely in the circumstances. In light of this, this service has not identified any maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of ASB from neighbours.

Determination

36. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration in relation to the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of noise from his neighbour.
37. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration in relation to the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of ASB from his neighbour.

Recommendations

38. The landlord is recommended to consider implementing a good neighbourhood management policy, distinct to its ASB policy with a clear suite of options for maintaining good neighbourhood relationships and a matrix for assessing which option is the most appropriate.