The Guinness Partnership Limited (202221921)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202221921

The Guinness Partnership Limited

4 April 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 response to the resident’s reports of antisocial behaviour (ASB) due to noise.
The Ombudsman has also considered the landlord’s complaint handling.

Background

The resident holds an assured shorthold tenancy and lives in a 1-bedroom flat. The events of this report involve the resident’s neighbour who lives directly above him in the same block of flats. The neighbour is also a tenant of the landlord.
The resident first reported an incident of ASB involving his neighbour to the landlord on 4 April 2022. The resident had prior to this requested a repair as there was a leak coming from the neighbour’s flat that was causing flooding to his property. The ASB began after the resident attempted to speak with the neighbour about the leak. The resident explained that the neighbour became abusive toward him and that there were ongoing issues with loud noise. The noise was often late at night and involved shouting, banging and explicit language.
The landlord called the resident the same day and followed this up with an email on 5 April 2022 asking the resident to use a noise app and monitoring log to record any incidents.
On 29 April 2022 the landlord called the neighbour to discuss their behaviour and then issued a warning letter on 3 May 2022 which set out agreed actions that the neighbour must follow. The resident was told that a warning letter had been issued.
Between 11 April 2022 and 27 July 2022, the landlord and resident were in regular contact about the ongoing ASB. The ASB related to loud noise late at night. The resident described that the neighbour was stamping on the floor, slamming doors, shouting and swearing. The resident explained that the noise often lasted 10 minutes or more each time it happened.
The landlord contacted the police on 5 August 2022 to obtain information about any police action related to the neighbour’s property.
On 12 August 2022 the landlord recorded that it had received no further reports of ASB from the resident and that the police had not responded to its request for information.
The landlord called the resident on 24 August 2022 and asked if there had been any further incidents or if he required any further support. The landlord recorded that the resident replied “no” to both questions.
On 12 December 2022 the landlord closed the ASB case. Following this, it contacted the resident to carry out a customer satisfaction survey on 6 January 2023. During this call, the resident explained that he was not aware the ASB case had been closed and that his neighbour was still causing a lot of noise.
The resident raised his initial formal complaint about the landlords service on 25 January 2023 stating that the landlord had done nothing about the ASB he had reported and that he would like a new case worker to take over the case.
The landlord responded on 2 February 2023 to state that the resident’s original ASB case was closed and that a new ASB case would need to be opened and further evidence gathered through a noise app and noise diary.
The resident responded the same day and raised further issues about the landlord’s service, stating:
1. The landlord had not spoken to the rest of the team as he had completed all of the procedures relating to the noise app and noise diary before.
2. That he was not advised that his ASB case had been closed.
3. That the landlord had failed to review his records and find out all the facts of his case before responding.
The landlord provided its stage 1 complaint response on 20 February 2023. The response said that:
1. The landlord had acted reasonably when closing the ASB case. However, it should have contacted the resident to ensure there had been no further incidents before the decision was made.
2. It should have referenced the original ASB case when dealing with any new incidents reported.
3. It was acting on reports of ASB in a reasonable and proportionate manner and had fed back its findings to the relevant department to ensure that an attempt to contact was made before closing any ASB cases.
4. The resident’s original case was reopened on 14 February 2023, and it would:
  1. Reattempt to contact the police to support the progression of the case.
  2. Look to survey all residents within the building regarding ASB.
The resident requested an escalation of the complaint to stage 2 on 27 February 2023. However, the landlord did not register the escalation on its system until 22 March 2023.
The landlord provided its stage 2 response on 25 April 2023 and this reply said:
1. The complaint about ASB was partially upheld as while the decision to close the case in December 2022 was correct, it did not follow its procedure to contact the resident about this.
2. It did not fully inform itself of the background to the resident’s case before the customer liaison officer responded on 2 February 2023.
3. That it had failed to initially acknowledge and record the request to escalate the stage 1 complaint to stage 2, and that there had been a delay in providing a stage 2 response.
4. To put things right the landlord offered:
  1. An apology for the overall experience and distress caused.
  2. £25 for its poor communication.
  3. £25 for the delay in responding at stage 2.
  4. £60 for the delay in issuing a stage 2 response.
The landlord also explained that it was arranging a visit to the neighbour to discuss the ASB and that it was continuing to liaise with the police in relation to the matter.
Since the stage 2 response the resident has made further reports of ASB. Alongside this the landlord has continued to take steps to deal with the ASB. It has confirmed that the case is still open and that meetings considering action against the neighbour are ongoing.

Assessment and findings

The landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of ASB due to noise

The landlord’s ASB policy sets out several bullet points that cover the main aims of the policy. These include that it will:
1. Take a victim-centred approach.
2. Ensure customers can easily and safely report incidents and are kept proactively informed about its response to those reports and progress in dealing with ASB.
3. Aim to resolve cases promptly using the full range of methods and legal powers available to it. This means taking reasonable, timely and proportionate action appropriate to the harm caused and may include a referral to a mediation service.
4. Work in partnership with other agencies to prevent and tackle ASB.
The policy goes on to state that the landlord will acknowledge new ASB reports within a maximum of 2 working days and that after receiving a report of ASB it will carry out a risk assessment.
The policy also confirms that the landlord will close an ASB case when the behaviour has improved to an acceptable level; when there is no further reasonable action that it can take to resolve the matter; or at the request of the customer reporting the ASB. The policy states that it will seek to discuss its intention to close the case with the reporting customer before closure.
The resident initially contacted the landlord to report his neighbour’s ASB on 4 April 2022. Within 2 working days the landlord called the resident and followed this up with an email attaching details on how to use a noise app and noise log to evidence the alleged ASB. This first contact with the resident was timely and showed an appropriate degree of urgency in wanting to take the first steps in resolving the matter.
The landlord called the neighbour on 29 April 2022 to discuss the alleged ASB and issued a warning letter dated 3 May 2022. The warning letter explained that if any further complaints were received with evidence, the landlord would consider escalating the case for more serious action. This shows that the landlord was proactive in contacting the neighbour to discuss the reported ASB and took proportionate action to try and resolve the matter.
Between April and August 2022, the landlord’s communication with the resident was proactive. The landlord contacted the resident on several occasions to request an update on any ongoing ASB and the resident was able to easily report any incidents of ASB to the landlord. During this period the landlord contacted the police to obtain further information about the neighbour which again showed a proactive approach to working in partnership with other agencies.
However, in the landlord’s ASB policy it says that it will “work with the complainant and the alleged perpetrator where this is possible, to agree a plan to tackle the ASB. This will set out the actions the person and the landlord will take to stop the ASB. Where it is appropriate to do so, we will use mediation to try and resolve the ASB before it escalates.”
The Ombudsman has not seen any evidence that suggests a specific plan to tackle the ASB was put in place or that mediation had been considered. Despite the resident’s ongoing reports, after the warning letter sent to the neighbour on 3 May 2022, there is no evidence to show that the resident was informed about actions the landlord was going to take to stop the ASB. Communication and planning are important parts of any response to ASB. The landlord’s lack of a clear plan meant the resident was left in a situation where he felt the reports he was providing were not being acted on. This does not align with the landlord’s policy of taking a victim-centred approach.
On 24 August 2022 the landlord contacted the resident to explain that the police had not replied to its request and to ask if there had been any further ASB incidents and if the resident required any further support. It is recorded that the resident responded “no” to both questions. The landlord said that it would chase the police for the information again and give the resident a call for an update. However, there is no evidence to show that the landlord chased the police after this date, nor that it contacted the resident again to update him.
The evidence shows that the landlord noted in its ASB case summary on 12 December 2022 that there had not been any further complaints “for some time” and the case should be closed. The summary shows that a closure letter was drafted by the landlord; however, both parties agree that the letter was not sent.
As set out in the landlord’s ASB policy, it should have contacted the resident to discuss its intention to close the case before actioning any closure. The landlord failed to do this, and it was only after it carried out a customer satisfaction survey on 6 January 2023 that the resident found out the case had been closed. By failing to contact the resident before closure the resident was left in a situation where he believed there was an open case for the ongoing ASB he was experiencing. This poor communication caused the resident some unnecessary distress at an already distressing time.
Following the customer satisfaction survey, the landlord missed an opportunity to use the information provided in the survey and respond to the resident’s concerns more proactively. Instead, the resident had to contact the landlord and raise a complaint on 25 January 2023, 11 working days after the survey, before any further action was taken in his case.
As part of the stage 1 response, it was agreed that the resident’s ASB case would be reopened and that the landlord would attempt to contact the police again to support progression of the case and survey all residents in the building about the ASB. The landlord started to follow through with these actions in February and March 2023. A final warning letter was sent to the neighbour on 23 February 2023 and the landlord contacted the police who responded on 28 March 2023 with further information. The landlord contacted the resident to update him on the progress during this period. These actions after the stage 1 response were carried out in a timely manner and were proportionate actions based on all the circumstances of the case.
The resident provided a letter from his psychologist which was sent to the landlord in March 2023 this explained that the resident had increased anxiety and a low mood, and that his neighbour’s behaviour was contributing to this. Once the landlord became aware of this information it did not use the opportunity to carry out any further risk assessments or review its actions. This was a missed opportunity for the landlord to acknowledge how the resident was feeling and consider what further support could be offered.
On 13 April 2023 the landlord told the resident that it would be requesting a joint visit with the police to the neighbour to discuss the ASB and that it was considering a “pre legal warning letter”. The landlord reiterated that it would be visiting the neighbour to discuss the ASB and an update would be provided to the resident in its stage 2 complaint response. This set the resident’s expectation that the landlord would be taking further action to resolve the ASB; however, this visit did not take place until 22 November 2023. This was a delay of about 7 months in carrying out a visit and meant that the resident, who was already anxious and distressed, was left to deal with the ongoing ASB without any progress being made in the case for a sustained period.
The resident has continued to report the ongoing issues with ASB after the visit in November 2023. The ASB case is still ongoing, and the landlord has shown it has kept a record of the reported incidents. The landlord has said that it is continuing to discuss the neighbours actions and will be in contact with the resident about this. One of the key parts in the landlords ASB policy is that the landlord will keep a resident proactively informed about its response and progress in dealing with ASB. However, the landlord’s communication with the resident since November 2023 has not been clear in detailing the actions it is due to take and when.
ASB cases are often the most challenging for a landlord, as in practice, options available or chosen by a landlord to resolve a case may not result in a resident’s preferred outcome. Dealing with ASB can often be a lengthy process as a landlord needs to consider what is proportionate in all the circumstances of the case and will often require evidence to support the actions it intends to take.
In this case the landlord has taken some steps to deal with the ASB in a proportionate way; however, there have been failings in several areas detailed above. The resident has described how the neighbour’s actions have disrupted his sleep, made it difficult to work and enjoy his home. He has said that the landlord’s response to his reports of ASB have increased the distress and inconvenience he was already feeling. In the Ombudsman’s view, had the landlord acted in a timelier way and communicated more effectively with the resident, the adverse impact on the resident would have been lessened.
Due to the landlord failing to follow its own policies and procedures and the unreasonable delay in dealing with the matter, this is maladministration.

The landlord’s complaint handling

The landlord’s complaint policy sets out that it will:
1. Acknowledge a complaint within 2 working days.
2. Issue a stage 1 response within 10 working days from the date the complaint is logged.
3. Issue a stage 2 response within 20 working days from the request to escalate the complaint.
4. Explain if either the stage 1 or stage 2 response will be delayed and agree any delay over 10 working days with the resident.
The landlord’s compensation policy sets out that it may offer compensation for distress and inconvenience caused when something has gone wrong, and that it may offer a goodwill gesture if an apology or other remedy is not sufficient.
The landlord sets out the compensation figure as:
1. Up to £250 for an issue that is resolved within a reasonable time and has caused a minor inconvenience.
2. Between £250 and £700 for an issue that took a long time to resolve which resulted in moderate inconvenience.
3. £700 or more for an issue that took a long time to resolve and resulted in significant inconvenience which is likely to cause longer term distress.
The landlord’s stage 1 response was sent 18 working days after the complaint was raised. The landlord did not contact the resident to tell him about the 8 working day delay as set out in its policy.
After the resident requested an escalation to stage 2 on 27 February 2023, the landlord did not register this escalation until 22 March 2023. This was after the resident had chased the landlord for a response. This was a delay of 17 working days in escalating the complaint which was unreasonable.
Once the landlord had escalated the complaint a stage 2 response was sent after 22 working days. The landlord did not tell the resident about this further delay of 2 working days outside the timescales set out in the policy. In total, after the resident had requested an escalation, it took the landlord 39 working days to provide a stage 2 response. This delay was unreasonable, and only added to the resident’s feeling that the landlord was not taking his case seriously.
The landlord’s stage 2 complaint did offer a total of £110 in compensation for the poor communication and delays in responding at stage 2. This was broken down as:
1. £25 for its poor communication.
2. £25 for the delay in responding at stage 2.
3. £60 for the delay in issuing a stage 2 response.
It was appropriate for the landlord to acknowledge the delays in the complaint handling and the inconvenience this would have caused when it made an offer of compensation. The landlords offer of £85 is in line with its compensation policy and is in line with what the Ombudsman would generally expect in this situation.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord in its handling of the resident’s reports of ASB due to noise.
In accordance with paragraph 53(b) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the landlord has offered reasonable redress in respect of its complaint handling.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

Within 4 weeks of the date of this report the landlord is ordered to:
1. Apologise to the resident for the failures identified in the report related to the handling of ASB.
2. Pay the resident £400 compensation for its response to the residents reports of ASB. This figure includes the £25 offered as part of the landlord’s stage 2 response for poor communication.
3. Agree a timebound action plan with the resident in relation to any ongoing ASB. The action plan should include an allocated point of contact and an arrangement to provide regular updates to the resident at an agreed frequency. The landlord should provide a copy of the action plan to the resident and this Service.

Recommendation

The landlord should pay the resident the compensation totalling £85 it offered for the complaint handling failures if it has not done so already.