The Industrial Dwellings Society (1885) Limited (202122493)

A blue and grey text

Description automatically generated

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202122493

The Industrial Dwellings Society (1885) Limited

26 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

The complaint is about:
1. The landlord’s handling of the resident’s anti-social behaviour (ASB) reports.
2. The landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint.

Background

The resident has an assured tenancy. The tenancy at this property started on 23 January 2012. The property is a one-bed flat on the third floor of a four storey block. The landlord has no vulnerabilities recorded for the resident.
The resident had raised ASB reports with the landlord around the noise from her upstairs neighbour. She raised concerns with the landlord that this was due to the property being used for business purposes. The landlord met with the resident on 21 April 2021 and said that it was satisfied that a business was not being run from the property.
The landlord proposed further investigation but this did not happen and the ASB case was closed in July 2021. The resident raised a complaint in October 2021 around the meeting from April 2021. The complaint process was exhausted in September 2022.

Scope of Investigation

It is accepted that there have been historical reports of ASB between the resident and her neighbour during her tenancy. However, a formal complaint was not raised around the landlord’s management of these reports until October 2021.
This report has therefore focussed on the events that occurred from six months prior to 18 October 2021, until the end of the internal complaint process. This is in accordance with paragraph 42(c) of the Ombudsman’s Scheme, which states that the Ombudsman may not consider complaints which were not raised with the landlord as a formal complaint within a reasonable time, which would normally be within six months of the matter arising. Although prior events will not be assessed in respect of any orders made, they have been included and may be referenced to assist with providing context.

Policies and Procedures

The tenancy agreement states that use of the property is for “residential purposes as the as the tenant’s only or principal home and not to operate any business at the property”.
The landlord’s ASB policy says that it does not consider “day to day living sounds” to amount to ASB.
The landlord operates a two-stage complaint policy comprising of:
1. Stage one – Will be acknowledged within 3 working days with a full response issued within 10 working days. If this cannot be achieved, it should write to the resident to explain and agree a suitable time frame, which should not generally exceed a further 10 working days.
2. Stage two – A member of the Corporate Management Team will review the complaint and stage one response. A response will be issued within 10 working days, or longer if agreed with the resident.

Summary of events

Events prior to the complaint period.

The landlord recorded an ASB report from the resident on 9 October 2020. It noted that the resident had “made complaints of noise and various other activities going on in the flat above”. The landlord noted it would meet on 13 October 2020 to discuss the complaints. This Service has not had sight of any notes relating to this meeting.
On 12 October 2020, the landlord noted the ASB report and said that the resident’s neighbour had emailed to complain about the resident. The neighbour had said that previous complaints had been raised to the landlord but “nothing had been done”. The landlord noted that it was “not able to find anything to prove this at present” but said it would investigate this concern further.
The resident contacted the landlord on 31 December 2020 following an interaction with her neighbour in the property above. The resident advised that after raising concerns around the noise coming from the property, her neighbour became “verbally aggressive” towards her.
The landlord met with the resident’s neighbour on 12 February 2021 to discuss the complaints. It was noted that the neighbour said “she has reduced the boxes and other items in the flat to give her more space.” The neighbour refuted claims that she was making the noise and said that she was not running a business from the flat. The landlord noted that it would “write to all tenants in the block providing diary sheets for feedback”. It agreed to have another meeting with the neighbour in four weeks, after it collated any information it received.
On 15 February 2021, the landlord received an email from somebody else in the building. Within the email, they raised similar complaints of “frequent” noise that “disturbs my sleep” as it occurs “in the evening and late at night”. They indicated that the neighbour responsible for the noise brought in lots of “plastic crates, filled bin liners and cardboard boxes” which would be “dragged across the floor or dropped”. They detailed an incident in late December 2020, in which they raised it with the property responsible for the noise and they were dismissive but later knocked at their property and accused them of “harassment”.
The resident emailed the landlord on 19 February 2021 and provided a copy of her noise diary from between September 2019 and February 2021. The landlord received this and it was forwarded to the relevant person at the landlord.
The landlord met with the neighbour on 15 March 2021 and noted that after looking around the flat, it agreed “that a business was not being run from the flat”. The landlord said it discussed the complaints with the neighbour and said it would then speak to the resident and if “all in agreement, mediation would be arranged”.

Events during the complaint period.

On 21 April 2021, the landlord met with the resident and a different neighbour to discuss their ASB reports. This Service has reviewed an audio recording made by the resident, with the landlord’s permission, of this meeting and noted the following:
1. The landlord said that following a home visit, it had “no concerns that she was running a business from there”. They said that “it would have to be registered to the address” for it to consider the business as being run from the property.
2. The resident and the neighbour both said that on numerous occasions, they had seen various people dropping off and collecting goods from the property. They suggested that the property was being used to “sort” the goods. They said that a large van was used to transport them. The resident offered pictures of the van but the landlord said “the van is neither here nor there” and said it was only the noise complaint it was considering.
3. The resident acknowledged that the last few weeks had been much better.
4. The resident was asked to fill in diary sheets for the next month. She asked if previous notes she had taken were a waste of time and the landlord said “I don’t think so, as it obviously helped you”. The landlord said they would like to see how the next month went, as they had recently visited the neighbour, who the complaints were about, and advised them of the complaints that it had received.
5. The landlord said several of the resident’s descriptions of the noise was “not ASB”.
6. The landlord said it would issue diary sheets to the other residents in the block as corroborative evidence would be required.
7. The landlord requested a copy of the audio recording of the incident in December 2020 and said it would be reviewed.
8. The resident then asked about having a surveyor to assess the property, the landlord said they would ask but “the surveyor is very, very busy” and “we can put that request in but can’t tell you the surveyor will come”.
9. The resident asked about potential soundproofing of the property. The landlord said “I can categorically state now, we do not have the money for sound insulation”.
10. The landlord suggested a “sound test” with both the resident and her neighbour to establish the levels of noise between the flats. The resident agreed to this and the landlord said it would arrange the test in the “next few weeks”.
11. The landlord directed the resident to the local authority “out of hours” noise team and suggested asking that they install sound recording equipment. The resident said she had attempted to contact them but was not successful. The landlord said to “just keep trying” and it would backup any request for this equipment.
12. Mediation was also proposed but nothing was agreed at the time.
13. During the meeting, the resident said she was “at her wits end” she was losing sleep and struggling to concentrate during the day due to the noise.
The landlord emailed both the resident and the neighbour on 5 May 2021 to arrange the sound test. Two potential dates were suggested and both were asked to respond with the most convenient day for them.
The resident responded on 11 May 2021 and said “the noise had dramatically reduced in the past 3/4 weeks – it’s like living in a different flat”. She advised that 18 May 2021 would be convenient and asked for a response confirming the appointment and the time for it. This Service has not had sight of any response to this email from the landlord.
On 7 July 2021, the landlord emailed the resident and said “as there has been no further complaints from yourself in the last 2 weeks, we are going to close your case”.
The landlord noted the ASB complaint on 16 July 2021 and said “case closed letter sent in regards complaint”.
The resident emailed the landlord on 18 October 2021 to raise a complaint about the meeting on 21 April 2021. She provided numerous quotes from the meetings and commented on them. Within the complaint, the resident said that she felt the landlord’s representatives:
1. “Misquoted tenancy regulations in favour of neighbour”.
2. Defended the neighbour and “said that there was no noise, and was not using her flat for her business”.
3. “Showed no curiosity or interest in what I had experienced or complained about”.
4. Made light of accusations by making jokes.
5. They were “dismissive” “passive aggressive” and “insensitive”.
The landlord acknowledged receipt of the complaint on 20 October 2021. It said it would provide “a full response in writing within 10 working days”.
The resident chased a response from the landlord by email on 18 November 2021.
The resident contacted this Service on 11 January 2022 as she had not received a stage one response from the landlord. A request for stage one response was sent to the landlord by this Service on 2 March 2022.
The landlord provided a stage one response on 22 March 2022, in which it acknowledged and apologised for the delay in providing its response. Within the response it said the following:
1. It had been unable to seek comment on the meeting from April 2021, as one of the staff had since left the business and the other had been absent due to illness since July 2021.
2. Between November 2021 and March 2022, it had reviewed the resident’s concerns and “determined that there is no action deemed necessary” by the landlord.
3. It said “there are support visits with trolleys, food bank deliveries and movement of furniture which does not constitute ASB”.
4. The matter is a “neighbour dispute” for which it can offer mediation.
5. It offered a goodwill gesture of £50 due to the delay in providing its response.
The resident responded to the stage one response letter on 19 April 2022 and said she was not satisfied with the stage one response as it did not address the issues raised in the complaint. The resident said the outcome she desired was:
1. A “culture change” at the landlord to ensure other residents who report ASB are not treated the same.
2. For the noise to stop.
An internal landlord email dated 29 June 2022, detailed a conversation it held with the resident on 28 June 2022. The email said that the resident mentioned the noise complaint from her neighbour “sorting bric-a-brac she does with others for a charity”. The landlord said “I have said I’m not concerned about what she is doing, but about evidencing the noise nuisance” which “to date we haven’t”. The resident said her neighbour had been away but others were still there, however, “it hasn’t been as noisy so she is happy at the moment”. The landlord’s email said that if there was further instance of noise during the night, it would refer the resident to the local authority noise team.
The landlord said within its submission to this Service that following the resident’s comments on a repair survey, it called the resident in June 2022. It did not provide a specific date. It said that the resident advised “there were no concerns at the time to address and she was advised to let us know if the issue arose again”.
On 21 September 2022, the landlord provided a stage two response. It partially upheld the resident’s complaint and said the following:
1. It acknowledged that it had not investigated the resident’s main complaint around staff behaviour thoroughly.
2. It said that both staff members from the meeting in April 2021 had since left the business.
3. It had not responded to the stage two escalation as the person who received the email had left the business a week later.
4. It said “where the neighbour denies the allegations you made and there is no supporting evidence, such as sound recording or corroborating impact from other neighbours, it is difficult to take any further action”.
5. It directed the resident to the local authority around her complaint of noise nuisance.
6. It said the resident did not respond to its letter closing the ASB case and “can understand had our communication via this meeting and subsequent complaint been better this is unlikely to have been the case”.
7. It offered the resident to take part in a session with the Tenant Forum Members on 3 October 2022 aimed at reviewing the draft ASB policy and approved complaints policy.
8. It offered a goodwill gesture of £150 for “the way in which your complaints have been handled to date”.
The resident advised that her neighbour moved out of the property in August 2023. She said that despite her neighbour having not been at the property for several months prior, other people used the property for the same purpose as before, causing the same kind of noise.
Within their submission, the resident provided a copy of the recording of the meeting from 21 April 2021 and a screenshot of her search of the Charity Commission website. She also provided a copy of the noise records she provided to the landlord that covered between September 2019 and February 2021.

Assessment and findings

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s ASB reports.

It is evident that the landlord recorded the resident’s reports of ASB in October 2020 and December 2020. However, despite requests from this Service, the landlord was not able to provide any further logs or records around these incidents or the actions it took following the reports. This demonstrates a failing in the landlord’s knowledge and information management which means it is unable to provide an accurate reflection of the associated ASB reports and the landlord’s investigation of them.
The landlord took some steps to investigate the resident’s concerns in February 2021. It visited the neighbour to discuss the resident’s concerns and provided diary sheets to other residents and asked for any feedback. It received a response from another of the residents on 15 February 2021, which described similar issues and noise coming from the flat in question. Despite a request from this Service, the landlord was not able to provide any evidence of this email being responded to or recorded within the ASB complaint record. This is another failing in regards to the landlord’s knowledge and information management.
The landlord followed up on the initial visit to the neighbour, as it attended her flat again on 15 March 2021. It said as it was satisfied that a business was not being run from the property, it would look to arranged mediation between the resident and her neighbour.
The resident had suggested throughout her reports that her neighbour was using the property for business. This was based on the type of noise, goods being left outside the property and visitors transporting goods between the flat and a van, in some instances using a metal cage. The landlord dismissed this at the meeting on 21 April 2021, as it said there was no evidence of it following its home visit. During the meeting, it said an example of evidence of a business being run from the property would be the business being registered to her address.
It is not the role of this Service to say whether the property was being used for business. However, it is the view of this Service that the landlord failed to carry out an adequate investigation into this element of the resident’s concerns. This is evident as the resident carried out a search on Charity Commission and found her neighbour’s business, registered under her name and using her address as the business address. This demonstrates that the landlord had not carried out a basic check that would have taken very little time to complete. As the tenancy agreement states that a business should not be run from the property, potential ASB aside, this would have been grounds for the landlord to raise its own concerns with the neighbour around a potential tenancy breach.
The resident’s descriptions of the noise she heard and the movement of goods between the flat and a van outside on a regular basis, would raise reasonable questions around the use of the property and the noise it caused. As the resident had provided detailed noise records for the previous two years, along with her descriptions of these events, which were corroborated by her neighbour, the landlord should have carried out further investigations of these concerns. Another example of readily available evidence would have been the CCTV at the property, which could have been cross referenced against the noise records provided by the resident. However, the landlord’s records show that it limited its investigation to a home visit only.
During the meeting on 21 April 2021, the landlord repeatedly said that the noise described by the resident was “not ASB”. The landlord’s ASB policy says that “day to day living sounds” do not constitute ASB. Even if it had been established that a business was not being run from the property, there was reasonable evidence to suggest that the noise the resident had reported would not be considered “day to day living sounds”. The resident noted and provided photographs of boxes, crates and filled bin bags left in the hallway outside the neighbours flat. She said the neighbour “sorting” through these would lead to “loud stamping”, “dropping boxes” and the sound of “furniture dropping” throughout the day and into the early hours of the morning. This was corroborated by another neighbour that said they experienced “frequent” noise “over the last couple of years or so” caused by visitors bringing in “plastic crates, filled bin liners and cardboard boxes” which were then “dragged across the floor or dropped”. Both the resident and the corroborating neighbour said that it happened late at night and during the early hours of the morning, affecting their sleeping. In view of this, the lack of any investigation, outside of the home visit, into the resident’s concerns is a significant failing on the part of the landlord. By not carrying out the most basic checks using the evidence provided, it is reasonable for the resident to have felt dismissed by the landlord and that she had wasted her time in providing the evidence she did.
Following the meeting on 21 April 2021, the landlord failed to follow up on the actions it had agreed with the resident. It proposed dates for a sound test, which the resident responded to, but it never confirmed a date or attended to carry out the test. The next contact from the landlord was two months later in July 2021, when it closed the ASB case due to no reports being made in the previous two weeks. This broken promise from the landlord caused damage to the relationship between the landlord and the resident as it would have further eroded her trust in the landlord.
Given the timeframe specified in its closure email, it is reasonable to consider that that there were further reports between 21 April 2021 and two weeks prior to the closure of the complaint on 16 July 2021. This Service has not had sight, despite its requests, of any logs or records relating to the residents ASB reports, during this period. This demonstrates a failing in both the landlord’s management of the ASB reports, and its record keeping around them. This has caused the resident unnecessary time and trouble in making the reports, only for them not to be recorded or considered.
It is evident that the landlord had directed the resident to the local authority noise nuisance team to report the noise during unsociable hours. However, the resident told the landlord at the meeting that she had been unable to contact it, despite her efforts to. Rather than offer to make a direct referral itself, the landlord told the resident to just keep trying. Given the difficulties the resident had detailed, it would have been both reasonable, and good practice for the landlord to have liaised with the local authority on her behalf. This could have assisted in providing the resident with the means by which to have the noise evidenced and it would have shown the landlord’s desire to assist the resident in what she considered a serious problem.
This Service has not seen any evidence of ASB reports made after the case closure in July 2021. However, the resident has indicated in both her submission to this Service and across her complaints that noise nuisance continued until the neighbour vacated the property. This means that during this time, the resident not only continued to experience noise nuisance, she also felt that she could not report it to the landlord. This is a significant failing as the resident was left feeling as if she had no method by which to seek a resolution to the problem.
Ultimately, the landlord failed to thoroughly investigate the resident’s concerns of ASB both prior to and after the meeting held on 21 April 2021. During the meeting, it suggested that the noise problem would not constitute ASB. The landlord failed to consider the information provided or undertake basic checks that may have brought about further action, or possibilities in dealing with the reported ASB. It failed to follow up on its own proposed actions and then closed the complaint without agreeing it with the resident. The resident was left feeling dismissed and unable to seek assistance from the landlord. When considering the failings in the management of this process, cumulatively this amounts to maladministration.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint.

It is clear that the landlord failed to provide a response to either the stage one or stage two complaint within the timeframes set out in its complaint policy. The responses should have been provided within twenty working days. However, it took 109 working days for it to issue a stage one response and 108 working days for its stage two response. This is a failing on the part of the landlord, as it failed to meet its own timeframe or communicate any potential delay in its responses to the resident.
In managing the stage one complaint, the landlord failed to show a full understanding of the resident’s complaint. The majority of the complaint was around things that were said by the landlord, during the meeting on 21 April 2021. Within the complaint, the resident made it clear that she had a recording of the meeting which could be provided. However, this Service has not had sight, despite requests, of any request from the landlord for a copy of the recording to be provided. Given that its response to this element of the complaint is that it is “unable to seek comment” from those employees, it seems unreasonable that it did not ask for a copy of the recording as part of its investigation.
Had it obtained a copy of the recording, this would have allowed the landlord to review it and make its own comments on the meeting. In the absence of those present at the meeting, it would have also provided an insight into how the resident was feeling around the reported ASB. This is a failing by the landlord as its failure to do so must have presented itself to the resident as a lack of empathy and desire to carry out a thorough investigation of the key reason for her complaint.
Within the stage one complaint response, the landlord said that between November 2021 and March 2022, it had “reviewed your enquiries”. However, it does not specify whether it was in relation to recent or historic reports of ASB, it does not provide any detail around what its considerations involved, or the basis of its decision that “no action is deemed necessary”. This response cannot be considered sufficient, as it offers no real explanation as to how it arrived at this position. It should have provided more detail on the scope and content of its investigation along with the guidelines against which it determined its findings. In offering such a limited explanation, the resident would likely have seen as the landlord diminishing the impact of the noise nuisance.
Also within its stage one response, the landlord failed to acknowledge two of the key elements of the resident’s complaint. The lack of follow up action from the meeting on 21 April 2021 and the closure of the ASB case on 16 July 2021, which the resident had made clear they did not agree with. This was not in line with the Complaint Handling Code which says that landlord’s “must address all points raised in the complaint” and it demonstrates both a lack of understanding of the complaint and a lack of acknowledgement of its own failings. This is reflected in the goodwill payment of £50, which it explained was due to the delay in providing its response. This was the only element of the complaint that the landlord acknowledged as being a failing. Having received its response, the resident was unlikely to consider it acceptable or that their complaint had been given adequate consideration. This left them with no choice but to escalate their complaint to stage two.
The landlord said that its stage two response was late due to the escalation request having been received by somebody who left the business a week later. Although this might go some way towards explaining the delay in its response, it demonstrates wider shortcomings in the landlord’s way of working. Had a more robust process been in use, the complaint escalation would have been managed sooner, reducing the significant delay that the resident experienced.
Within the stage two response, the landlord agreed that it did not previously address the resident’s complaint about its staff thoroughly. It was reasonable for it to point out that as the staff involved had since left the business, it would only have been able to speculate or make assumptions around their conduct. However, as with the stage one complaint, a recording was available for review that would have allowed the landlord to pass comment, had it requested it. This is another example of the landlord failing to carry out a thorough investigation of the resident’s complaint. This would have caused the resident further frustration given the time she had given to seeking an adequate response to her initial complaint.
The landlord missed an opportunity to engage with the resident in October 2021, following receipt of the stage one complaint. Although the complaint mostly refers to concerns around the meeting on 21 April 2021, it also mentions the lack of any follow up from the meeting and it is clear that the resident was not satisfied with the closure of the ASB case.
The resident later said in her stage two escalation email, dated 19 April 2022, that she “wanted the noise to stop”. This indicates that the noise was still ongoing at that time, one year after the meeting and six months after her stage one complaint.
Had the landlord contacted the resident at the time of the complaint being raised in October 2021, it could have established whether ASB was still an issue, and if so, began the process of investigating the resident’s concerns. This is a significant failing by the landlord, as it failed to acknowledge or contact the resident to discuss her concerns around the ASB. In doing so, it left the resident living with noise nuisance that they considered serious enough to raise reports and complaints about for an extended period. This would have added to the resident’s feeling of being ignored and the overall distress caused by the ASB.
Within the stage two response, the landlord said it understood that had it managed the reports of ASB “better”, it would have been more likely that she would have responded to the ASB complaint closure letter. It is positive that the landlord acknowledged that its actions were likely the reason the resident had not taken further action relating to the noise. In acknowledging that it’s previous failures could have made the resident feel she could not raise them any further with it, the landlord accepted that it is likely these issues were not resolved at the time of the closure letter.
The landlord offered a payment of £150 at stage two of the complaint process to address “the way in which your complaints have been handled to date”. This means that despite acknowledging that the ASB reports were not managed correctly, the landlord still only offered a payment towards the management of her complaints. It is the view of this Service that this payment does not proportionately reflect the service offered by the landlord when investigating her ASB reports, the lack of investigation within the complaint responses and the significant delays in responding to her complaints. Orders have been made below for the landlord to pay the resident compensation for the distress, time and trouble caused by both the ASB management and its management of the complaint handling failures.
Overall, there was an excessive and undue delay in the landlord providing responses to both the stage one and stage two complaints. Neither response showed a level of detail or investigation that would account for the delays in its responses. The stage one response did not address the resident’s complaint and failed to acknowledge the clear failings in its follow up action and the early closure of the complaint. The stage two response showed a better understanding of the resident’s complaint but still failed to investigate the key reasons behind the complaint. When considering the failings in the management of this process, cumulatively this amounts to maladministration.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s ASB reports.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint.

Reasons

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s ASB reports.

The landlord failed to carry out a thorough investigation of the resident’s ASB reports. It did not fully consider the evidence provided and failed to follow up on its own proposed actions before prematurely closing the ASB case. The landlord then failed to acknowledge or investigate the ASB reports when they were highlighted in the resident’s complaints.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint.

Across both stages of the resident’s complaint, there was significant and avoidable delays in providing its response. Both stages failed to address the key element of the complaint and its investigations were limited and vague in how it had come to its conclusions. It was evident that the noise issue had continued but the landlord took no actions to address the ongoing issues.

Orders

Within four weeks of the date of this report, the landlord is to pay the resident £1,000 which comprises:
1. £700 for the distress and inconvenience caused by the landlord’s handling of the ASB reports.
2. £300 for the distress and inconvenience, time and trouble caused by the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint. This should be reduced to £150, if the landlord has already provided the payment of £150 proposed in its stage two response.
The landlord must initiate and complete a senior management review of the learning from this report, it must advise this Service of its intentions within 6 weeks of the date of this report and bring into its operations its improvement actions within three months of the date of this report. This review must consider the landlord’s oversight framework for its ASB casework management procedures to ensure at minimum:
1. Adequate records are kept throughout any ASB investigation.
2. Ensure availability of equipment to determine whether alleged noise reaches a threshold of noise nuisance.
3. Action plans are completed in each instance.
4. Regular updates to the complainant, in line with agreed action plan.
5. Regular reviews of the complaints are completed.
6. Cases are not closed without agreement the resident.