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

Peabody Trust (202015202)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202015202

Peabody Trust

22 October 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 concerns the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of noise nuisance.

Background and summary of events

  1. The resident is an assured tenant. The property is a second floor flat in a six storey building and the tenancy started on 21 February 2000.
  2. On 26 May 2020, the landlord opened an antisocial behaviour (ASB) case in response to a call received from the resident that day. The landlord’s notes said the resident said he had called last week in relation to a noise issue from his neighbour and was told to keep a dairy log of the noise, as the issue was not reported as ASB at the time. The landlord’s notes said it gave him the address for where to send the diary sheets and to mark for the attention of the Neighbourhood Manager. The notes also referred to the resident advising it that other residents in the property building had signed a letter about the noise although they wanted the report to remain anonymous as the neighbour was “quite intimidating”.
  3. On 27 May 2020, the resident’s councillor contacted the landlord advising they had received a complaint from the resident about noise nuisance from his neighbour in the downstairs’ flat. The landlord’s notes indicate that after an unsuccessful attempt at calling the neighbour, it sent them a warning letter concerning the noise.
  4. On 28 May 2020, the landlord’s Neighbourhood Manager replied to the councillor confirming it had received a report of noise nuisance from the resident the previous week when it asked him to fill out diary sheets to establish the frequency and type of noise. It said the resident was also advised to contact the Council’s Environmental Health Team (EH) and the police if appropriate. The landlord said it had called the resident that day who had advised that the noise nuisance was loud talking, shouting and occasional door slamming from the flat underneath him. It confirmed it had written to the neighbour asking them to lower and control the noise from his flat. The landlord also emailed the resident confirming it had sent a warning letter to his neighbour, reiterating that he should report the issue to EH and the police and to log incidents in the diary sheets for evidence.
  5. On 1 June 2020, the resident told the landlord that although he had been woken up the previous night by his neighbour talking, the situation had improved a bit. The landlord replied on the same day saying it was glad to hear this. It said it had made a note to visit the resident’s neighbour when the lockdown was lifted to discuss the matter in person with him.
  6. On 8 June 2020, the resident called the landlord to report that on 5 June 2020 from 5 pm to 10 pm there was a lot of shouting and banging coming from his neighbour’s flat. The resident said he banged on his floor which resulted in the neighbour coming up to his flat whereupon they had “a shouting/slanging match”. The resident advised he had also reported it to police who said they would speak to his neighbour. The landlord replied on the same day acknowledging his email and saying that it thought the police would speak to his neighbour.
  7. On 15 June 2020, the resident reported a further incident of noise nuisance from the same neighbour. On the same date, the landlord said it would send another warning letter about the noise to his neighbour which it did on 15 June 2020.
  8. The landlord’s notes show it was contacted by the resident’s neighbour’s support worker who asked for the landlord to call them to discuss the letter regarding a noise complaint. 
  9. On 30 June 2020, the landlord’s internal notes show it received an email from the police who said they had visited the neighbour to raise the issue of excessive noise. They said the neighbour denied they made excessive noise and it was the lino in their kitchen that was the issue. The police said due to noise not being a police matter there was not much they can do but advised the landlord that they had warned the resident’s neighbour that excessive noise needs to stop in the hope that this might alleviate the issue. The police also said they had spoken to the resident and advised that he needed to call EH to complain every time there was excessive noise.
  10. The landlord’s internal notes show that on 8 July 2020, it held a telephone case conference with the neighbour and his support worker. The resident’s neighbour said his family stayed with him at the property a lot but he denied they talked loudly. The landlord’s notes of the call indicate it told the neighbour to be mindful that the property lacked adequate sound insulation and that noise level should be kept at the barest minimum. The notes state the neighbour agreed to keep conversions low and eliminate chatting between 11 pm and 7 am and to not slam doors. The notes state the resident’s neighbour was reminded of his tenancy conditions and he needed to manage his tenancy well to avoid any further actions.
  11. On 13 July 2020, the resident made another report of noise nuisance to the landlord. The landlord contacted the resident’s neighbour’s support worker to advise that it had received a further report of noise nuisance. The landlord asked them to remind the neighbour to comply with the agreement. The landlord told the resident of the action it had taken. The support worker replied to the landlord on the same day advising that they would visit the neighbour to discuss the concern raised.
  12. The landlord’s internal note of 29 July 2020 stated the situation was being monitored and that the neighbour complained about was staying with his father.
  13. On 9 September 2020, the resident reported noise nuisance coming from his neighbour’s flat at 4 am in the morning which he said woke him up. He said he would report this to police as he believed his neighbour had been ordered by the police not to spend the night at the property. He said he had sent the landlord another diary sheet detailing the incident. At the same time, the landlord received a counter ASB report from the resident’s neighbour regarding the same interaction alleging the resident had verbally abused and racially harassed him. Following this, the landlord sent the resident a tenancy warning letter.
  14. On 14 September 2020, the resident complained to the landlord that he had been reporting a noise nuisance issue for five months which was “unbearable” and that it had not been resolved. He said another resident below his neighbour had made similar reports as they had also been seriously disturbed and harassed by the neighbour’s noise nuisance which was all day and sometimes at night. The resident said his councillor had written to the landlord and whilst warning letters had been sent to the neighbour, nothing had changed. The resident explained that he was 74 years old and suffered from various health conditions and this situation was having an adverse effect on his health. He said that in July 2020 the police had searched and raided the neighbour’s flat. He said the police told him this individual had violated his bail conditions but he did not know if this was true. He acknowledged there had been angry confrontations between him and his neighbour however he denied racism and said this situation has arisen due to ASB from this individual which had been ongoing for five months. He attached a petition signed by five other residents from the block asking the landlord not to renew his probationary tenancy.
  15. On 16 September 2020, the landlord replied to the resident advising it would not accept petitions from one group of residents that directly supported the eviction of another resident. It said however that it would take the required action to address any ASB the individual was responsible for and this would be evidence based as per its policies and procedures.
  16. The resident advised the landlord on 18 September 2020 that there had not been any incidents of noise nuisance for nearly a week.
  17. On 30 September 2020, the resident reported noise nuisance coming from his neighbour’s flat and said he had sent to it another noise record sheet with the full details. On the same date, the landlord sent a further warning letter to the neighbour in question.
  18. On 1 October 2020, the resident’s MP wrote to the landlord advising they had been contacted by the resident who was extremely worried about the ongoing noise he was experiencing from his neighbour. They said the resident was disappointed by the lack of support received so far from the landlord.
  19. On 14 October 2020, the landlord’s Area Manager provided a response to the MP’s enquiry which advised that it had an ASB case open for this issue. It advised it had spoken to the resident’s neighbour and asked them to take steps to reduce the noise. It said they made counter allegations against the resident that he was abusive towards him and his family and it had viewed video footage confirming this. It had asked the resident not to approach his neighbour and instead report any noise nuisance to it and EH. It advised it would find out if the resident and his neighbour would be willing to mediate. It explained that it was unable to compel any of its residents to move to another flat. It said it could only deal with noise which occurs within anti-social hours, i.e., between 11pm and 7am. The landlord said both parties also need to be mindful that they were in a building with very poor sound insulation, which meant that noise travelled very easily.
  20. In a further response to the resident’s MP dated 21 October 2021, the landlord said that as well as diary sheets, it was able to install its sound monitoring equipment in the resident’s home for up to a week which would give it a clearer understanding of the frequency, noise levels and type of noise that was occurring. This could also provide evidence that the noises being reported by the resident are of an anti-social nature.
  21. On 23 October 2020, the resident’s MP wrote to the landlord advising the resident was extremely dissatisfied with its responses. They asked that the landlord respond to the resident’s further points raised:
    1. He had been giving the landlord evidence for six months; 25 noise record sheets, so had his other neighbour who lived underneath flat the neighbour.
    2. He had no desire to speak to the neighbour complained about who was “a disgustingly anti-social person, deeply unpleasant…”.
    3. The landlord had refused to take significant action. He has had two confrontations with the neighbour which were fully justified due to him having suffered six months of daily and nightly noise harassment. He said the landlord should enforce the terms of the tenancy agreement which forbids ASB however said the landlord did not want to spend the money. He has asked if it would transfer his neighbour but he had not received a reply. If it was unwilling to transfer the neighbour, he would ask to move however he said he should not have to.
  22. On 30 October 2020, the landlord’s Area Manager sent a reply to the resident’s MP in which it said it needed current, up to date evidence that the problem was still occurring to build a case so it was important that the resident continued to keep diary sheets. The resident had said the neighbour was not currently living at the flat so diary sheets would give it a picture of how frequently the noise nuisance was occurring at present. It said whilst the noise was having a significant impact on the resident, it was not acceptable for him to retaliate with abuse. It reiterated its offer to install sound monitoring equipment in the resident’s home which it said could then be used as evidence. The landlord said this was its final position however it would continue to monitor the situation and take appropriate action.
  23. On 17 November 2020, the landlord provided a stage one response. It said as part of its investigation, it had reviewed all of the case notes on its systems and had sight of the responses from its Area Manager previously sent to him and his MP. It could see that steps had been taken to substantiate his complaints of noise nuisance from his neighbour as it had asked him to complete diary sheets and also offered the use of sound monitoring equipment. It said it had also spoken to his neighbour and sent tenancy warning letters. It said that in order to take any action, evidence was needed to show that the neighbour was or had been behaving unreasonably however any action taken must be fair and proportionate. It reiterated the importance of diary sheets. It said it understood that the resident had more recently declined to fill in diary sheets and he had refused its offer of installing noise recording equipment.
  24. It referred to the complaint it had received against the resident. It said complaints about noise can be very difficult to manage as noise was very subjective as people had different levels of tolerance. It could only act if the noise he was experiencing was excessive. If the noise was as a result of someone acting unreasonably, the landlord said that mediation between households could be very useful and it would be happy to facilitate this and to let it know if he would like to participate. It was satisfied it had acted appropriately.
  25. On 25 November 2020, the resident emailed the landlord advising he was dissatisfied with the landlord’s letter. He said he had lived at the property for 32 years and never made a complaint about any of his neighbours before then. He said:
  1. He believed the neighbour complained about had mental health issues which took the form of “compulsive noise-making”, and he should not be living in a flat with no sound-proofing.
  2. His neighbour had broken the terms of his probationary tenancy so this was grounds for the landlord not renewing it at its expiry in September 2020. The resident said the landlord should have either transferred this individual to a flat with sound-proofing or ended his tenancy. The resident asked if it had given the neighbour complained about a final warning.
  3. He was told by its Neighbourhood Manager that this man was classified by Social Services as ‘vulnerable’ and that he had a case worker attached to him. The resident said he was unsurprised by this as this individual would continue with “compulsive loud talking/almost shouting all day and night” regardless of how many times he was asked to stop. This became unbearable for him and sometimes he had to leave his flat and go out and walk the streets to escape it. This had started to affect his own mental and physical health and after speaking to his doctor about it, they wrote a supporting letter which he sent to the landlord.
  4. In October and November, it had asked him to fill out more diary sheets however he had already filled out 25 of these detailing 100 incidents. The resident questioned how many of these sheets the landlord needed. Asking him to do more was “almost insulting”. He said for this reason he was unwilling to waste any more of his time and add to his stress levels by spending his days recording more incidents. Regarding the landlord’s suggestion of mediation, he said as this individual was “aggressively rude, unrepentant and defiant” and had never shown any consideration or intention to change his behaviour. When the noise started he and another resident independently went to the flat to complain and his reaction was to smirk at them. When police spoke to the neighbour in question about his concerns regarding the noise harassment, he repeated the same noise harassment within 6 hours. Therefore, he felt mediation was not a viable option.
  5. The worst of the noise harassment was from May-July 2020. After the police raided this individual’s flat in mid-July, he and his father had only been there intermittently and rarely overnight. He believed this was due to police action rather than any action taken by the landlord but he was worried that his neighbour may return to his flat full-time and the “whole nightmare will begin again”. For this reason, he had asked for a transfer via the landlord’s internal transfer process although he did not think he should be forced out of his home.
  1. The resident attached a letter from his GP dated 2 July 2020 which outlined the resident’s health conditions and stated the resident had been caused stress by the recurrent noise harassment by his neighbour. The resident asked for his complaint to be escalated to stage two of its complaints process.
  2. On 2 December 2020, the landlord acknowledged the resident’s request to escalate his complaint to stage two of its complaints process.
  3. On 5 December 2020, the resident reported to the landlord that the police had banged on his neighbour’s door but he was not in. The resident said that afterwards the police had asked him to let them know if he saw the neighbour there.
  4. On 29 December 2020, the landlord advised the resident it was nearing completion of his review but it needed a bit more time as it was waiting for additional information from its Neighbourhood Team. It apologised for the delay. On 30 December 2020, the resident replied to the landlord advising that the neighbour was rarely there “nowadays” due to what he believed were police restrictions as he may be on bail.
  5. On 8 January 2021, the landlord provided a stage two final response to the resident which set out the actions it had taken in response to the resident’s noise nuisance reports. The landlord said this included: providing the resident with diary sheets; discussing his allegations with his neighbour and asking him to be mindful of the noise as this was disruptive to other residents; and sending his neighbour letters about his actions and the allegations reminding him of his obligations to his tenancy. It referred to the counter allegation received from the resident’s neighbour and the supporting video evidence provided which it said it had been obliged to follow up on. The landlord said this resulted in a letter sent to the resident about the incident and this was in line with its ASB policy. It reiterated it could not comment on his neighbour’s circumstance or disclose information regarding his tenancy due to GDPR rules but said it was satisfied that the actions taken at this time were correct and within the ASB procedures.
  6. It acknowledged the medical evidence the resident had provided and that this matter had caused him anxiety. It said however that it must consider the circumstances of all residents when deciding if any enforcement action can be taken. It explained this was also based on ongoing evidence to support any action taken.
  7. It acknowledged the diary sheets the resident had provided of the incidents but said it was necessary that he continued to provide these to enable it to build a case. It said he had declined to do this.  It referred to its offer of installing noise equipment which it reiterated was to ascertain noise levels and to help differentiate excessive noise from what is termed as normal ‘household noises’, as it would capture noise made during unsociable hours. It said its records show he had not accepted this offer. It explained that prior to any legal action, it must be able to evidence to the court that all avenues to resolve the matter have been exhausted. It said in his case, the evidence it had did not establish that a full breach of tenancy had taken place.
  8. Within its final response the landlord reiterated it offered a mediation service which it thought might help find a satisfactory resolution to all concerned. It noted that the resident had not taken it up on this offer. It also said that on reviewing the records to date, they did not indicate the resident had reported any recent incidents to it. It said if he did experience any further noise nuisance, it would ask him to report these to it and his local authority. It also said to let it know if he wanted to take up the offer of using sound recording equipment.
  9. On 12 and 13 January 2021, the resident reported further incidents of noise nuisance from his neighbour. In its reply of 14 January 2021, the landlord said it was aware that the sound insulation in the block was not very good and as the complaint was about loud talking, it needed to establish that it falls in the category of noise nuisance and ASB and not just a day to day living noise. The landlord reiterated that in order for it to take a successful legal action against the resident’s neighbour for ASB, the court would require evidence of such. It referred again to its offer of installing noise monitoring equipment at his property to capture the noise which could provide it with the required evidence for a legal action and assist its case.
  10. The resident reported noise nuisance to the landlord on further occasions including 22 January 2021 and 22 February 2021. The resident also reported to the landlord multiple occasions when the police had knocked on the neighbour’s door in connection with enforcing his bail conditions.
  11. On 15 September 2021, the resident told the Ombudsman that at that time he was not experiencing any ASB noise-harassment apart from one noisy weekend, as the neighbour in question had virtually not been there at all as he was under police bail instructions to live elsewhere. However, he said he was still worried that either his neighbour’s bail conditions may be changed or he would be acquitted when his case comes to court, and “the whole nightmare” could begin again.

ASB and Complaint policies

  1. The landlord’s approach to tacking ASB includes prevention and intervention: to ensure it targets support to the most severe cases and high-need customers, whilst offering early intervention to ensure customers are able to self-manage lower-level issues that they may be experiencing; and to ensure all residents and customers are treated in a fair and equitable manner. It will work in partnership with communities and local organisations to ensure it tackles discrimination, promote equal rights and treat its customers according to their needs.
  2. The landlord’s ASB policy says that types of behaviour that it considers to be antisocial includes repeated prolonged high-level noise nuisance. It will only investigate noise nuisance where the noise is frequently excessive in volume and duration or occurs at unreasonable hours. It encourages and expects residents and customers to take responsibility for solving personal disputes between themselves where appropriate. This may include collating evidence, liaising with other agencies and taking part in mediation.
  3. The landlord’s ASB policy states it uses a range of preventative measures, early intervention and legal action to tackle ASB. This includes the full range of tools and legal powers available to it. The methods used are proportionate to the seriousness, impact and frequency of the behaviour, the level of risk that it poses to those affected, and the evidence available to support the case.
  4. The landlord’s complaint’s policy states its complaints process is comprised of two stages. Stage one will be an investigation carried out by a case manager from the relevant service area. If the complaint is escalated to stage two, an independent review will be carried out by the Customer Experience Team.

Assessment and findings

  1. The service acknowledges this is a difficult situation for the resident and recognises that the noise nuisance reported to the landlord has caused him distress. The Ombudsman’s role is to consider whether the landlord responded to his noise reports in accordance with its relevant policies and procedures and whether its actions were fair and reasonable in all the circumstances of the case.  The relevant policies and procedures here are the landlord’s ASB and complaints policies and procedures which were in operation at the time of his reports and complaint
  2. The landlord opened a ASB case file on 26 May 2020 following a call received  from the resident that day in relation to noise nuisance from his neighbour. The landlord’s note of the same date suggest resident also referred to the neighbour being “intimidating”. As the landlord’s ASB policy makes clear that certain types of noise nuisance can be ASB, it was appropriate for the landlord to open an ASB case. The landlord’s note suggests the resident had called the landlord the previous week in relation to the same issue when it was logged as a noise nuisance issue and that he was told to complete diary sheets. According to the landlord’s response to the resident’s councillor of 27 May 2020, the resident was also advised during this initial call to contact EH and the police, if appropriate although this service has not seen any call notes to confirm this.
  3. The landlord’s ASB policy states that it will only investigate noise complaints where the noise is frequently excessive in volume and duration or occurs at unreasonable hours. Its policy also makes clear that it expects residents, where appropriate, to collate evidence and liaise with other agencies. As completed diary sheets would establish the frequency and times of the reported noise, it was appropriate for the landlord to request the resident to record the noise events on diary sheets. Furthermore, as both EH and the police could attend at the time and take action in relation to certain types of noise complaints and ASB respectively, any advice to the resident to report to these agencies was appropriate. However, there is a lack of evidence to show that the landlord explained to the resident during these phone calls about what types of noise complaints it considered to be ASB, how it investigated these and its approach to tackling these types of complaints. It would have been appropriate for it to do so at the outset in order to manage the resident’s expectations. The landlord has not demonstrated it clearly communicated this to the resident either during his initial reports or over the next two months when he made four further reports to the landlord of loud talking, shouting and doors slamming from his neighbour during both the day and night. This was a shortcoming in its service.
  4. It would have been helpful for the landlord to have spoken to the neighbour as soon as possible to ensure he understood the reports against him and any consequences of this as well as getting him to explain his position in relation to the reports. The evidence shows that the landlord had attempted on 27 May 2020 to call the neighbour but did not have a valid phone number on its system for him. It did however send a warning letter to the neighbour on the same date asking him to lower and control the noise from his flat. It is evident that the police had visited the neighbour around this time to warn him about the noise and that the landlord was aware of this as it had been in communication with the police, which was appropriate. The landlord sent a further letter to the neighbour after receiving a further noise complaint from the resident in mid June when he reported there had been “a shouting/slanging match” incident outside of the neighbour’s flat. The landlord told the resident that it would visit the neighbour in person once lockdown restrictions were eased if the noise continued. This action was reasonable in the circumstances.
  5. The landlord was able to hold a telephone case conference with the resident’s neighbour and his support worker on 8 July 2020 when it clearly set out its expectations to the neighbour in regards to the noise complaints received against him. The landlord told the neighbour that due to poor sound insulation in the property building he had to keep noise levels to a minimum during the day and to eliminate late night chatting from 11 pm to 7 pm as well keep internal doors open, which the neighbour agreed to do. The landlord subsequently contacted the neighbour’s support worker after it received a further noise report from the resident a few days letter to ask them to tell the neighbour to comply with the agreement to which they said they would do.
  6. As the noise complaints were about loud talking, shouting and doors slamming these steps taken by the landlord to get the neighbour to keep his noise down was appropriate particularly as the landlord had identified the property building had poor insulation. The landlord’s note dated 29 July 2020 confirms it was monitoring the situation however the neighbour was staying with family at that time. This is evident from the lack of any noise issues reported by the resident over the next few weeks.
  7. In September 2020 however the landlord received a further noise report from the resident and at the same time a counter-allegation from the resident’s neighbour of verbal abuse and racial harassment from the resident. According to the landlord this was supported by video evidence although this service has not seen this video evidence. The landlord sent the resident a warning letter although this service has not had sight of the letter. The resident acknowledged that the incident had occurred but explained to the landlord that his behaviour was not racially motivated but due to the months of noise harassment. The landlord’s policy makes clear it tackles discrimination and treats all residents in a fair and equitable manner therefore it was reasonable for the landlord to send a formal letter to the resident explaining this and warning of the consequences of these types of incidents. The landlord has also provided evidence to the Ombudsman to show it took action in relation to neighbour’s tenancy around this time. For reasons of third party confidentiality, the Ombudsman is not able to disclose the detail of the landlord’s action in this regard but can confirm it was reasonable and proportionate.
  8. The landlord subsequently offered the resident to install noise recording equipment at his flat. This was a reasonable approach to take as this would allow the landlord to obtain evidence so it could decide the most appropriate course of action to take including legal action if noise nuisance could be established. The landlord explained this to the resident.   Therefore, it was reasonable for the landlord to ask the resident to assist with its investigation in this way. It also asked him to continue to provide diary sheets of any further incidents for the same reason. The resident explained in his stage two escalation request to the landlord that he had already completed 25 diary sheets which included 100 instances of noise nuisance and said to complete more was a waste of time and would cause him distress. Whilst the resident was clearly frustrated with the ongoing situation with his neighbour and the lack of progress, the landlord needed evidence to progress its investigations and in turn any enforcement action and these requests were in accordance with its ASB policy. Therefore, the resident’s unwillingness to assist in this regard would have limited the landlord’s investigations.
  9. The landlord also offered mediation in its 21 October 2020 and stage one responses; it said in cases of noise reports, mediation between two households can be useful and help resolve neighbour disputes. Again, the landlord’s ASB policy makes clear it expects residents, where appropriate, to take part in mediation. The resident did not accept to participate in mediation telling the landlord that he believed the neighbour would not respond to this and therefore mediation was unsuitable in the circumstances.
  10. On 5 December 2020, the resident reported to the landlord that the police had visited the neighbour’s property the day before. On 30 December 2020 the resident advised the landlord that the neighbour was rarely there due to what he believes, police restrictions as he may be on bail.  It is noted that the resident continued to report the occasions the police visited his neighbour’s flat to the landlord.  The police visits were not in connection with the noise reports, as such it was appropriate for the landlord to make a note of this rather than take any action in relation to these police visits. 
  11. In summary, the landlord has demonstrated that since the resident’s initial reports of noise nuisance in May 2020, it has taken appropriate steps to investigate the reports and resolve the situation by challenging the resident’s neighbour about the noise, sending him tenancy warning letters and taking appropriate action in regards to his tenancy. When the noise issue continued, it offered to install sound recording equipment at the resident’s flat which would capture, along with dairy sheets, any noise made during unsociable hours which would help build a case for enforcement action. This approach was reasonable and appropriate. The landlord also responded to the resident’s reports and complaints, or those made on his behalf via MPs enquires, in a timely and reasonable manner throughout, although, as previously mentioned it could have been clearer at the outset about what types of noise complaints it considered to be ASB and its approach to tackling these types of complaints in order to better manage his expectations.  In its final response the landlord explained that the evidence it had did not establish that a full breach of tenancy had taken place but advised the resident to let it know if he wanted to take up its offer to install sound recording equipment or participate in mediation going forward. It said this was important as prior to any legal action, it must be able to evidence to the court that all avenues to resolve the matter have been exhausted. As the resident had previously declined these offers, it was appropriate for the landlord to reiterate these options in case of any ongoing noise issues.  The Ombudsman is mindful however that the landlord has confirmed that there is a lack of adequate soundproofing in the resident’s building and as a result the resident is more likely to hear his neighbour’s conversations. The landlord did not refer to this issue in its final response and it is unclear from the available evidence if there is any reason for the soundproofing being ineffective or whether the landlord has plans to improve or provide soundproofing within its properties. Therefore, a recommendation has been included below for the landlord to explain its position regarding the sound proofing issue in the property and explain to the Ombudsman and the resident whether it can take any action to improve the noise transference issue.
  12. Whilst the scope of this investigation is restricted to the events and complaints that were raised by the resident during the landlord’s complaints process prior to the landlord’s final response on 8 January 2021, the resident has continued to report noise nuisance incidents to the landlord. The resident told the Ombudsman on 15 September 2021 that these events are currently rare as the neighbour is currently living elsewhere. The Ombudsman expects the landlord to respond to any new reports in accordance with its ASB policy. Iit is also reasonable for the resident to assist with its investigation of any further noise reports by agreeing to provide diary sheets of incidents and allowing temporary noise recording equipment to be installed.

Determination (decision)

  1. In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration by the landlord when handling the resident’s reports of noise nuisance.

Reasons

  1. The landlord took reasonable and proportionate action in response to the resident’s noise complaint. However when the noise nuisance continued, the landlord was unable to progress its investigations partly due to the resident declining its offer to participate in mediation and to install noise recording equipment which would have enabled the landlord to obtain evidence of any noise nuisance. This limited the possibility of the landlord pursuing legal action against the neighbour. The neighbour was also not staying at the property for periods of time during the complaints process including around the time of the landlord’s final response. Within its response, the landlord reiterated its offer to install noise recording equipment and provide mediation in case of any ongoing noise complaints, which was appropriate.

Orders and recommendations

Recommendations

  1. The Ombudsman recommends that the landlord: 
    1. Investigate any further reports of noise nuisance in accordance with its ASB policy.
    2. Explain to the Ombudsman and the resident what action it can take, if any, to improve the noise transference issue.