Orbit Housing Association Limited (202101334)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202101334

Orbit Housing Association Limited

9 September 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 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 and her request for a management transfer for this and for medical reasons.

Background and summary of events

Policies and procedures

2. As per section 2.1 the landlord’s antisocial behaviour policy, it will take all allegations of such behaviour seriously and will use all of its available tools to resolve these issues.
3. Section 2.8 of the landlord’s antisocial behaviour policy confirms that general living noise, for example children playing, footsteps etc., are not considered to be antisocial behaviour.
4. The landlord describes management transfers as being a facility to allow residents to move quickly to another property in an emergency situation, which are very rare occurrences that are reserved for extreme circumstances where residents are deemed to be at significant risk of harm by another person or persons.

Background

5. The resident is a tenant of the landlord, residing in a flat in a low-rise block.
6. The resident raised a similar noise nuisance and management transfer complaint with the landlord, with it issuing its final stage complaint response to that complaint on 19 May 2020. It considered her reported noise nuisance concerns to be general living noise. The landlord had also confirmed that the resident’s property’s soundproofing met the required regulations and was adequate, as it had advised her during its “regular” conversations on the matter. It additionally did not consider her concerns to be an emergency, which meant that she did not qualify for a management move, as these were an emergency facility reserved for extreme circumstances, and so it suggested that she consider a mutual exchange if she wished to move.

Summary of events

7. On 4 May 2021, the landlord’s records confirmed its receipt of the resident’s latest stage one complaint. She was not happy with its handling of her subsequent reports of noise nuisance from the flat above hers, and she again did not feel that the soundproofing in her property was adequate. The resident therefore wanted to move and requested that this be to a larger property with the landlord. This was because she reported that she could not afford to rent privately, and that she had three letters from her and husband’s GP stating that they needed a home that was less noisy, had a bath, and had two bedrooms for her husband’s back condition.
8. On 18 May 2021, the landlord issued its stage one complaint response to the resident. It confirmed that it had investigated her latest reports of noise nuisance from the property above, and that it had assessed this to be general living noise. The landlord had also previously assessed the resident’s request for a management move and reports of a lack of soundproofing at her property in its last complaint response in May 2020 above. It therefore again advised her that she did not meet the criteria for this, and it suggested that she contact the local authority to be considered for sheltered housing, as it was unable to facilitate a management move for her.
9. On 24 May 2021, the resident wrote to the landlord again. She explained that she had already provided it with the above GP’s letters supporting her request for a management transfer to a larger, quieter home. The resident did not feel, however, that the landlord would carry out the additional soundproofing at her property that she felt was required to address her concerns.
10. On 26 May 2021, the landlord issued its latest final stage complaint response to the resident. It supported its above stage one complaint response, as its investigation had found general living noise from her upstairs neighbours in response to her reports of noise nuisance from them. In respect to the resident’s request for a management move, the landlord agreed with the stage one complaint response’s finding that she did not meet the criteria for this. It therefore repeated its previous suggestion that she explore mutual exchange options should she wish to move.
11. The resident then complained to this Service about the landlord’s handling of her repots of noise nuisance and her request for a management transfer for this and for medical reasons. She confirmed that she had three GP’s letters supporting her request for a move to a property with less noise and that had a bath and two bedrooms for her husband’s back condition.
12. The landlord went on to provide this Service with the above information about the resident’s complaint at our request. It also explained that the noise that the resident had reported to it related to footsteps and day-to-day living noise, so that no incident diaries were either requested by or provided to her for this, as well as that there had been no reports from other residents about this issue.
13. The landlord added that it carried out visits to assess both the resident’s and her neighbours’ upstairs properties and, although it was aware of a previous inspection there by the local authority’s environmental health department, no correspondence about this had been located or been provided by any other agencies. The landlord stated, moreover, that it had advised her to contact the local authority to ask to be considered for a move to alternative sheltered housing, as it did not complete medical assessments, and that she had agreed to do so and had confirmed that she was now bidding for this from band A on the housing register.

Assessment and findings

14. The resident has raised concerns over the effect of the complaint exacerbating her and her husband’s existing medical conditions. The Ombudsman does not dispute her comments regarding their health, but we are unable to draw conclusions on the causation of, or liability for, impacts on health and wellbeing or to award damages for these. This because we do not have the authority or expertise to do so in the way that a court or insurer might. However, we have considered the general distress and inconvenience which the situation has caused the resident and her husband.
15. Following the resident’s reports of noise nuisance from the property above, the landlord has shown evidence that it investigated the matter, including by visiting her and the upstairs neighbours, and reviewing the reports received from the resident. These included doors banging, children playing, and footsteps being heard. This was fair, and this demonstrated the landlord’s desire to resolve the resident’s complaint, as it showed that it followed its antisocial behaviour policy’s requirements above at paragraph 2 for it to take her reports seriously and use all of its available tools to seek to resolve these.
16. Following the landlord’s above investigation, it assessed the noise reported by the resident to amount to general living noise. It was therefore reasonable for it not to take further action for this, as the noise reported by her was not considered to be antisocial behaviour but general living noise, as per its antisocial behaviour policy above at paragraph 3 defining the latter as including children playing and footsteps etc., which she had reported. The landlord was also not required to do so in response to the resident’s reports of lack of soundproofing at her property, as it confirmed on 19 May 2020 that this met the required regulations and was adequate.
17. The resident additionally requested a management move because of the above noise issues that she experienced at her property, and a desire for a larger home with a bath for medical reasons. She reportedly provided further information about this from her and her husband’s GP. The landlord’s final stage complaint response of 19 May 2021 provided the resident with a fair response to this request under the circumstances by declining this, however, as it was unable to offer her a management move for these reasons.
18. This was reasonable, as such a move was for emergency cases only under the landlord’s criteria for management transfers above at paragraph 4, and the resident’s circumstances were not assessed to have qualified as an emergency case. This is because there was no evidence provided by her, the GP, the environmental health department or any other agencies that her or her husband were deemed to be at significant risk of harm by another person or persons, with the landlord also confirming that it did not complete medical assessments.
19. As the resident had expressed a desire to move to a larger property with a bath, the landlord instead suggested that she explore a mutual exchange in order to do so, as well as signposting her for possible sheltered housing via the local authority that she confirmed that she was bidding for on the housing register. These were fair options for the landlord to seek to address her ongoing concerns about the noise from the property above, and to address her wish to move home, in the above absence of evidence of antisocial behaviour, a lack of soundproofing or criteria for a management transfer at her property.
20. In summary, the landlord acted in accordance with its policies and procedures, following receipt of the resident’s complaint. It also fairly communicated the outcome of its investigation to her.

Determination (decision)

21. In accordance with paragraph 54 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 and her request for a management transfer for this and for medical reasons.

Reasons

22. The landlord investigated the resident’s reports of noise nuisance appropriately, and concluded that this was general living noise, which it was not obliged to act upon.
23. The landlord was also unable to consider the resident’s request for a management move, as she did not meet the criteria for this, or her medical evidence, as it did not complete medical assessments.
24. The landlord additionally evidenced that it communicated the outcome of its investigations fairly, and that it offered the resident suitable solutions to seek to address her concerns via a mutual exchange and the local authority’s housing register.