Landlords can now complete the Complaint Handling Code Annual Submissions form. More information is available online.

The Guinness Partnership Limited (202126599)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202126599

The Guinness Partnership Limited

4 October 2022


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 the resident’s reports of noise nuisance.

Background

  1. The resident is an assured tenant of the landlord.
  2. The resident initially complained to the landlord about the noise from her neighbour’s property on 17 December 2021.
  3. The resident raised a complaint on 8 February 2022, as she said that the landlord’s communication regarding the issue had been poor and staff members had failed to call her back. She said the issue with the noise was ongoing and impacting her son’s health. She was also unhappy that the landlord had spoken to her neighbour regarding the reports as the issue had since escalated. She requested to be moved to a different property.
  4. In the landlord’s complaint response, it said as the noise was not considered to be statutory noise, the landlord would be unable to facilitate a move. It advised that the local authority was assessing her needs regarding a more suitable property. It apologised for the missed call backs and offered £50 compensation for the stress and inconvenience caused and £25 to acknowledge the poor communication.
  5. In the resident’s complaint to this Service, she said she remained dissatisfied with the landlord’s handling of her reports of noise nuisance and that she had not been granted a management move. She did not think the compensation offered by the landlord was satisfactory.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

  1. The resident has referenced how the landlord’s handling of her reports of noise nuisance has impacted her son’s health. We are unable to draw conclusions on the causation of, or liability for, impacts on health and wellbeing. Therefore, we cannot determine whether there was a direct link between the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of noise nuisance and problems with the resident’s son’s health. Nonetheless, consideration has been given to the general distress and inconvenience which the situation may have caused the resident. This is an accordance with paragraph 39(i) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme which states the Ombudsman will not investigate complaints which concern matters where the Ombudsman considers it quicker, fairer, more reasonable or more effective to seek a remedy through the courts.
  2. In her complaint to this Service, the resident has raised concerns regarding the landlord discussing her son’s medical conditions with his nurse without her permission, as part of its investigation into the noise nuisance. However, there is no evidence that these concerns have been raised with the landlord within her complaint. Under paragraph 39 (a) of the Ombudsman Scheme, we are unable to consider complaints that are made prior to having exhausted a member’s complaints procedure. Furthermore any complaint about the inappropriate use of personal information would be for Information Commissioner’s Office.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of noise nuisance

  1. The landlord’s anti-social behavior (ASB) policy defines ASB as “conduct that has caused, or is likely to cause, harassment, alarm, or distress to any person”, including various noise nuisance related examples such as playing loud music, shouting and slamming doors. As such, when the resident reported that she was experiencing noise nuisance, the landlord is expected to investigate her reports and take any actions deemed necessary. Its ASB policy states “the action will be proportionate to the severity, impact and frequency of the ASB and the evidence available to support the case”.
  2. The resident initially reported that she could hear noise from her neighbour’s property on 17 December 2021, including opening and slamming doors. The resident then made a further report on 21 December 2021, that she could hear slamming doors and arguing. While the resident’s initial reports of opening doors would not be considered as ASB, as the reports escalated, it was appropriate that the landlord investigated, to assess whether the noise would constitute ASB. On 10 January 2022, the landlord asked the resident to complete diary sheets to document the noise and to liaise with environmental health. The landlord then advised the resident to download a noise app on 17 February 2022. Landlords must provide a fair service. This is particularly important when an issue involves two or more of its residents, given it has obligations to all residents. A key part of a fair service is following an evidenced based approach. It was therefore appropriate for the landlord to request the resident to complete diary entries and use a noise app to document the noise. The resident has raised to this Service that the landlord has not accepted the resident’s diary entries as evidence. However, the landlord’s call notes from 18 March 2022 stated that the resident said she would not complete any additional diary entries to those she had already provided. It is recommended that if the resident does have any additional diary entries, she should send them to the landlord and it should demonstrate that it has considered any further evidence provided. Furthermore, diary sheets are an important tool to show whether reports of ASB have been consistent and sufficiently long standing to merit a proportionate enforcement response. Therefore regular diary sheets are important. However the diary sheets must also be corroborated as one resident’s statement cannot be taken over another when the landlord must remain impartial.
  3. The resident also had noise monitoring equipment installed in the property. However, she advised the landlord it was impractical as she often had to support her son, due to medical conditions, when the noise was ongoing, so she was unable to activate the machine to record the noise as it was happening.  While it was appropriate for the landlord to initially recommend use of the noise monitoring equipment, as it is a standard way many landlord’s use to obtain corroborating evidence of the reported noise, it must consider the suitability of such suggestions in line with the resident’s vulnerabilities.
  4. However, while the use (or not) of the noise app alone is not enough on its own to dictate the approach to the ASB case, the landlord must identify corroborating evidence when one resident has made reports about another. This might be the noise app when it can be used, or reports from other neighbours or local authorities. No such evidence was available to the landlord in this case, and the resident declined to use diary sheets, therefore it was reasonable for it to close the ASB case in March 2022 (subject to any future ASB reports).
  5. The landlord had initially advised the resident to discuss the issues she was experiencing with her neighbour. Although the resident did not think this was a suitable solution, it was reasonable to suggest as the landlord’s ASB policy states “we expect most people to solve their own problems with their neighbours, but if they cannot, we may take action”. The resident then asked the landlord to speak to the neighbour on 7 January 2022 and the landlord discussed the reported issues with the neighbour on 11 January 2022. In her complaint to this Service, the resident said she was dissatisfied as the landlord had told her neighbour to approach her regarding the issue, despite the resident’s request not to. There is no evidence that the landlord did suggest this to the neighbour and it assured the resident that it had not disclosed any of her details to the neighbour or advised that she had made the report. The resident also raised concerns regarding her neighbour’s posts on social media. The landlord issued a warning to the neighbour regarding the post on 28 February 2022. As there is no evidence to suggest that this behaviour persisted or escalated, the landlord would not be expected to take any further action.
  6. Ultimately, the landlord concluded that from the evidence provided by the resident, the noise was not likely statutory noise nuisance. As a result, it was limited in the actions it could take. However, the landlord still took appropriate steps to support the resident. The landlord had offered mediation to the resident; however, she had declined the offer. The landlord also signposted her to occupational therapy (OT) to assess whether she required any adaptations to the property, including additional soundproofing, in order to support her son’s medical requirements. This was reasonable as OT is more suitably equipped to make such recommendations.
  7. The resident had requested a management move as a result of the impact of the reported noise nuisance on her son. The landlord reasonably managed the resident’s expectations regarding the process of moving and advised it was a complex process. It had declined her request for a management move, but liaised with the local authority to get her banding reassessed. Management moves are granted at the landlord’s discretion and in cases of ASB are often only granted when the reported behaviour is persistent and severe, and often where there is a direct threat of harm. Therefore, although the impact of the reported noise nuisance on the resident is acknowledged, it was reasonable that the landlord did not grant a management move.
  8. In her complaint, the resident raised concerns with the landlord’s communication. In its stage one response, the landlord addressed a delayed call back, in which it stated the resident requested a call back on 4 February 2022 and 7 February 2022, and it had not responded within its response timeframes. This would not necessarily constitute as service failure as the landlord had acknowledged and apologised for the delay, and the landlord’s complaint process is as much a part of its service as any other process. However, it was reasonable that the landlord used its discretion to offer £50 compensation to apologise for the inconvenience caused and £25 to acknowledge its poor communication. Despite the failed call back, the landlord’s overall communication was prompt, clear and reasonably managed the resident’s expectations regarding the actions it could take.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration by the landlord in respect of its handling of the resident’s reports of noise nuisance.