Lambeth Council (201812140)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 201812140

Lambeth Council

29 April 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 reports of noise nuisance from his upstairs neighbour.

Background and summary of events

2. The resident is a tenant of the landlord. The property is managed by a tenant management organisation on its behalf. Both the landlord and the tenant management organisation will be referred to as ‘the landlord’ in this report.
3. There is evidence of the resident reporting the issue of noise to the landlord since 2016; however, this investigation will only focus on events from April 2019 onward. This is because the Ombudsman would expect that complaints are raised about dissatisfaction with the landlord’s action or omissions within a reasonable time, which would normally be within six months of the matters arising.
4. The resident contacted this Service on 4 October 2019 to express his dissatisfaction with the landlord’s handling of his reports of noise transference. He was further unhappy that he did not receive formal responses to his reports to it. The Ombudsman contacted the landlord later that day to request that it respond to the resident’s complaint.
5. The landlord informed this Service on 29 October 2019 that the last report it received from the resident about noise transference from his upstairs neighbour was in July 2019. It explained that this was “normal day to day household” noise from the upstairs neighbour. The landlord advised that it had previously had several discussions with the neighbour who had implemented measures to reduce the amount of noise transference. It added that it had previously told the resident that it would commence possession proceedings against the neighbour, but he had told them that he did not want this outcome. The landlord confirmed that it presently had no intention of contacting the neighbour as the resident had made no reports of noise since July 2019.
6. On 14 November 2019, this Service requested that the landlord register the resident’s dissatisfaction with its service as a complaint.
7. The resident advised this Service on 6 December 2019 that he had received a stage one complaint response from the landlord, which he continued to be dissatisfied with. This response was not made available to us.
8. On 4 October 2020, the Ombudsman relayed to the landlord that the resident wished to escalate his complaint to the final stage, having been delayed in doing so until then because of personal circumstances.
9. The landlord issued its final stage complaint response to the resident on 16 November 2020. In this, it summarised the content of its stage one response which discussed exchanges between itself and resident regarding noise from the upstairs neighbour. The landlord had advised that this noise was everyday household noise and acknowledged that it was more pronounced at certain times due to school hours. It had relayed to him that, despite his neighbour’s property having wooden laminate flooring left by a previous occupant, it considered that there was adequate underlay. The landlord also relayed that the neighbour had laid “big rugs” to minimise noise in response the resident’s previous complaints.
10. The landlord relayed that, in its stage one response, it acknowledged the resident did not want possession proceedings to be made against his neighbour and it had little evidence of the noise issue as the resident had not reported noise transference since July 2019. It had informed him of the neighbour’s “willingness” to manage the noise, its offer to arrange mediation between the two parties, and how to report noise pollution to the local authority’s Public Protection team.
11. The landlord noted that, after the Ombudsman’s request to it to escalate the complaint, the resident had emailed it on 15 November 2020 to state that he had experienced “continuous disturbance to [his] quality of living over the past four years”. He highlighted that the upstairs neighbour had laminate flooring which it had not taken action to remove. The resident described the noise he experienced as the sound of doors slamming, banging, children running, and a bass sound and sharp noise which he attributed to insufficient insulation. He had also contended that the carpet did not sufficiently reduce the noise and it had not assessed the upstairs property to determine the level of noise generated.
12. The landlord recounted that the resident had added in his email that he had recordings of the noise, including one showing his neighbour threatening to intentionally generate more noise, which they did, and the landlord had not responded to this. He said the level of noise was affecting his mother’s health, for whom he provided care.
13. The landlord referred the resident to his tenancy agreement which specified that laminate flooring was not permitted on higher floors and, if the noise was complained about, then it would remove it or specify measures to minimise noise transference. It clarified that older properties would not have the same level of sound insulation as modern properties due to older building regulation specifications. The landlord also clarified what types of noise were actionable as noise nuisance, of which everyday living noise was not.
14. The landlord noted that, since it stage one complaint response, it had received three reports of noise: on 25 March 2020, following a welfare check on the resident’s mother, the neighbours were emailed to request they reduce their noise levels; on 31 March 2020, following an enquiry from a councillor on his behalf, it left a voice message with the neighbour to ask that noise be minimised; and on 13 July 2020, following contact from the landlord’s Public Protection team, the landlord wrote to the resident to arrange a meeting to discuss the noise reported. It stated that the resident had not received a reply to this.
15. The landlord stated that from “various inspections” it had determined that the noise the resident reported was everyday household noise. It explained that it had not carried out an inspection of the neighbour’s property in 2020 due to corona virus restrictions and that it had only received one complaint in July 2020. The landlord advised that an inspection would be considered once corona virus restrictions permitted. It noted that information received from the Public Protection team recorded the noise reported as everyday household noise and not statutory noise nuisance.
16. On reviewing its earlier responses to the resident, the landlord found that it had responded reasonably. It stated that, although laminate flooring was not permitted in the neighbour’s property, it was permissible if noise reduction measures were taken, and it noted that these measures had minimised noise transference. The landlord encouraged the resident to consider mediation and to arrange a meeting with it to discuss the noise issues raised. It also proposed to arrange an inspection of the neighbour’s property and to assess the noise reduction measures they had in place.
17. The landlord asked the resident to provide evidence the previous contact he had made with it to which he had not received a response so that this could be investigated further. It confirmed this was its final response to his complaint.

Assessment and findings

Policies

18. The landlord’s tenancy agreement states that the installation of laminate floor coverings in a property which is located above another is not permitted. However, any existing laminate floor coverings may remain in place if no complaints are made. In the event of complaints then it may either remove the laminate or request the resident take measures to minimise noise transference.
19. The landlord’s antisocial behaviour (‘ASB’) policy and tenancy agreement state that it regards noise nuisance as that created by playing music or using a radio, television or other equipment in a way which is likely to annoy another person. It also specifies that the revving of engines or use of noisy machinery or tools may be considered a nuisance. 

The landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of noise nuisance from his upstairs neighbour

20. The noise reported by the resident was noise transference from his upstairs neighbour which included the sound of children, doors slamming and sound of indeterminate cause. These are not considered noise nuisance under the landlord’s tenancy agreement and ASB policy, above at point 19. As the local authority’s Public Protection team confirmed that the noise reported was not statutory noise nuisance, it was reasonable for the landlord to address the resident’s reports of noise as noise transference due to everyday living, as opposed to ASB.
21. It is noted that the resident reported that there was one occasion of his neighbour threatening to create more noise and fulfilling that threat. This would likely be considered ASB as this would be intentional noise nuisance. While the landlord asked, in its final stage complaint response on 16 November 2020, for the resident to provide further information concerning his reports which had not been responded to, it missed an opportunity here to recognise the potential for an investigation for the neighbour’s behaviour under its ASB procedure. The landlord will be recommended to liaise with the resident to investigate this further.
22. In the landlord’s final stage complaint response, it referred to carrying out “various inspections” to assess the noise transference. It is unclear when these took place and considering the further reports it received on 25 and 31 March, and 13 July 2020 it would be expected of the landlord to carry out further assessment of the noise transference to ensure that the measures previously taken to tackle this were still sufficient. It was, therefore, reasonable for the landlord to propose to carry out a visit to the neighbour’s property once restrictions permitted.
23. The landlord acted in accordance with its tenancy agreement in requesting the neighbour use soft floor coverings to minimise noise transference through the laminate floor. It also acted proportionately in response to the resident’s reports of noise on 25 and 31 March 2020, by contacting the neighbour to request that they be mindful of noise. As the noise reported was confirmed not to be statutory noise nuisance but everyday household noise, it was a reasonable and proportionate suggestion by the landlord for the resident to participate in mediation; this may lead to better relations between the occupants of both properties. In conclusion, there is no evidence of any failure by the landlord in its response to the resident’s reports of noise.

Determination (decision)

24. In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration by the landlord in its response to the resident’s report of noise nuisance from his upstairs neighbour.

Reasons

25. The landlord responded reasonably in response to the resident’s reports of noise, which was confirmed to be everyday household noise, and proposed reasonable actions to address the issue in its final stage complaint response.

Orders and recommendations

Recommendation

26. The landlord is recommended to liaise with the resident to assess his evidence of his neighbour threatening to intentionally create noise nuisance, and address the matter appropriately, in accordance with its ASB policy if applicable.