Anchor Hanover Group (202010149)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202010149

Anchor Hanover Group

12 November 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

This complaint is about the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of noise nuisance.

Background and summary of events

Background

  1. The resident was an assured tenant in a property the landlord has described as a two-bedroom first floor flat. We have not been given a copy of the original tenancy agreement, but the information seen suggests the tenancy began around December 2019; the resident has since moved out of the property.
  2. She has said her reports of noise nuisance were not sufficiently investigated, her incident diary was ignored, and she has never received a satisfactory response to her concerns. Further, the landlord responded incorrectly at the outset and treated her in a condescending manner. As a result, between February and December 2020, the resident experienced reoccurring disturbance which adversely impacted her health and welfare.
  3. The landlord’s antisocial behaviour (ASB) help sheet shows it operates a case management and monitoring system to oversee ASB cases. Reports of ASB will be investigated by the local manager with assistance from the landlord’s Customer Relations Team (the CRT) where necessary. For all cases that are not immediately resolved, residents will be issued with an incident diary to help the landlord investigate, monitor and resolve cases. It details a range of legal and non-legal measures available to the landlord where it finds there is a case to answer.
  4. It confirms the landlord will only engage its ASB procedure where it considers there to be ASB. Where neighbourly disputes do not involve ASB, residents are encouraged to resolve difficulties between themselves where possible. It gives examples of issues that may constitute ASB which includes “persistent noise and rowdy behaviour”. It also gives examples of noise considered acceptable in communal living, which include the sound of people walking around their home, electrical goods noise and people talking at normal volume.

Summary of events

  1. The landlord’s timeline shows it logged a verbal report of noise from the resident on 1 March 2020 and, in response, agreed to send a general noise letter to all residents in the block. The letter said the landlord had received reports about frequent noise nuisance during the early hours (between 5 and 8am), such as banging doors and opening and closing of drawers. It asked residents to be considerate and make reasonable attempts to reduce noise during unsociable hours.
  2. The timeline shows the resident thanked the landlord for its letter on 9 March 2020, but confirmed the noise was ongoing. As a result, the landlord spoke to the block’s residents individually to again request that noise was kept to a minimum and consideration was shown to their neighbours.
  3. On 11 March 2020 the resident informed the landlord she had been woken before 5am by heavy footfall and other noise from upstairs, which continued for several hours. She said she was unsure what to do to resolve the issue and that she was struggling to relax in her home.
  4. The landlord responded the same day and said the resident’s upstairs neighbours had assured it they did not get up early in the morning. Further, it had become apparent that the flat responsible may be located to the side of the resident. This suggests the landlord had been holding conversations with the resident’s neighbours in the manner described in its timeline. It ended by saying, if things did not improve, it recommended keeping a diary of incident dates and times along with descriptions of the noise.
  5. On 30 March 2020 the resident contacted the landlord to advise the problem was ongoing. A copy of her incident diary was attached to the email. She acknowledged the impact of the pandemic on the landlord but expressed hope that the situation could be dealt with as soon as possible. The diary ran from
    11 March to 29 March 2020. Although it included several references to events that occurred during unsociable hours, most of its entries referred to events during regular daytime or evening hours.
  6. The landlord replied the following day and apologised that the resident was experiencing continued disturbance. It said it had never had noise problems in the past but would try to find a solution as soon as possible. The resident responded that her rent was around £500 a month and she had been reporting the issue for weeks. On that basis, she was not pleased with the landlord’s insinuation she was part of the problem. This prompted an apology from the landlord about the impression left by its previous correspondence, along with an assurance it would investigate further in due course.
  7. On 6 April 2020 the landlord responded to an update from the resident about the ongoing noise. It said it would put a note in its regular newsletter to residents about the issue. It also said, “normally at this point we may recommend getting Environmental Health to monitor the noise levels, but obviously with things as they are they are unable to visit”.
  8. The resident replied the following day and expressed doubt that comments in the newsletter would be sufficient to solve the problem. She asked the landlord to clarify whether this was the only option available given her preference was for it to raise the matter directly with the responsible parties. She reminded the landlord she had kept an incident diary and said she would contact Environmental Health if the landlord was unable to resolve the issue.
  9. The landlord responded the same day. It said it would normally be able to offer the resident more of its time in resolving the matter, but it was reacting to a crisis in the form of the pandemic. As a result, its resources were stretched supporting its residents and a number of them were extremely vulnerable. On that basis, its next step would be an article in the newsletter and this course of action had previously achieved positive results.
  10. The newsletter was issued shortly after the above interaction. It included a section titled “Considering Our Neighbours”. It acknowledged most residents were staying at home during the pandemic and asked them to be extra considerate by ensuring noise levels were kept to a minimum, particularly late at night or early in the morning.
  11. A further exchange took place on 20 April 2020 after the resident reported being awakened at around 5am. The resident said she would be seeking legal advice given the lack of action by the landlord. It responded by providing her with copies of its “being neighbourly” and ASB help sheets. She would need to read the documents and decide whether it was appropriate to raise an official ASB case with the CRT. This would likely require the resident to complete and incident diary, an example of which was attached for reference.
  12. Having read the documents, the resident responded to say she was unhappy that their advice was to approach her neighbours herself and that this was now no longer an option during the pandemic restrictions. As a result, the landlord submitted an enquiry to the CRT. This took place on 23 April 2020 and its email confirms the CRT was asked for “help and advice” about the situation. After reviewing the resident’s diary, the CRT replied to the landlord on 6 May 2020 and said it considered the incidents described to be “acceptable living noise” of a type that occurred in communal dwellings. On that basis, there was not much it could do given the circumstances.
  13. Additional correspondence resulted from a further report by the resident on
    17 May 2020. She said she had spoken to one of her neighbours directly, but it sounded like the upstairs flat had no carpets to provide sound insulation given the types of noise penetration she was experiencing. She also said her health was suffering due to the ongoing disturbance. On 18 May 2020 the resident said she had previously given the landlord a detailed incident diary which had been ignored. Further, it had left her to deal with the matter alone without providing support and she had been advised to make a formal complaint if it failed to address the issue.
  14. The landlord’s internal correspondence from 19 May 2020 shows it had spoken to the resident and narrowed down TV noise disturbance to three of the surrounding flats. It proposed to have a senior colleague write to these flats about unacceptable noise to ensure its correspondence had the maximum impact. Further, it had arranged for the corridor fire doors to be checked to ensure they were closing quietly.
  15. The proposed letter was issued within the following few days. It was addressed from the landlord’s area manager and referred to a complaint concerning excessive noise from a loud TV and banging doors in the early mornings. It included a copy of the being neighbourly help sheet and advised the landlord took ASB seriously. Further incidents would be investigated as a breach of tenancy conditions in line with its ASB procedures. This was around three months after the issue was first logged.
  16. On 14 June 2020 the resident wrote to the landlord to ask if it could print a copy of a letter she had written to her neighbour about the issue.
  17. On 29 September 2020 the resident contacted the landlord about the noise disturbance. She expressed dissatisfaction with the way the situation was handled by management at the property on the basis she had been ignored. Further, she was unable to rest in her home due the noise of banging doors, slamming windows, banging drawers and loud televisions. She had also been made aware the upstairs flat lacked carpet in the small bedroom, which may account for some of the noise.
  18.  On 5 October 2020 the landlord responded saying the matter would be dealt with as a formal complaint and suggested mediation, which the neighbour declined.
  19. On 20 October 2020 the landlord issued its stage one complaint response. It said:

a.     A discussion would take place with the property’s management in relation to the tone of its previous correspondence with the resident.

b.     The landlord would investigate the resident’s report of excessive noise due to a lack of carpet or sound proofing in a bedroom in the above flat.

c.      A diary was attached for the resident to record noise nuisance incidents that occurred after 23:00.

  1. After some additional correspondence concerning the landlord’s stage one response, the resident wrote to the landlord on 19 November 2020. She said the landlord’s lack of response or concern to her situation left her with no alternative except to contact the Ombudsman.
  2. The landlord replied the same day and said it was satisfied the issue had been dealt with in line with its ASB policy. Her neighbours had denied the allegations and there had been no complaints from other residents. As a result, the landlord’s only recourse would be to contact Environmental Health to request the installation of noise monitoring equipment. Otherwise, without evidence, nothing further could be done. However, her neighbour was in the process of moving out so it was unlikely they would be able to investigate before they left. On that basis, it was appropriate to close the resident’s case.
  3. Following contact from this Service, on 27 January 2021 the landlord issued its stage two response. The main points were:
    1. The landlord had made various attempts to resolve the situation between
      1 March and 20 April 2020 including speaking to residents individually, highlighting the issue in its newsletter and issuing its ‘being neighbourly’ help sheet to residents.
    2. The resident had been asked to keep an incident diary to allow the landlord to investigate further.
    3. Complaints were logged by the CRT, but investigations were carried out by the most appropriate operational colleague. The CRT logged the resident’s complaint as an open case on 23 April 2020. (In this context, this Service understands that complaints in this case mean reports of ASB; the landlord did not receive a formal complaint from the resident until 29 September 2020.)
    4. The landlord had been in regular contact with the resident at a local level and her allegations were unproven.
    5. The landlord had received no contact from the resident between 14 June and 4 October 2020 in relation to the noise.
    6. Given the communal setting, the landlord could not guarantee that residents would not occasionally hear day to day living noise from their immediate neighbours. However, it took instances of excessive noise or noise nuisance seriously and it worked with both residents and Environmental Health to remedy any nuisance. Further, if necessary, it took legal action against perpetrators creating anti-social noise. It hoped that this information would clarify its position on the matter.
  4. The resident’s letter to the landlord on 2 February 2021 confirms the landlord did inspect the carpets in the upstairs flat and it notified the resident they were in good condition. However, although this was likely after her neighbours moved out, the information seen does not confirm when this inspection took place

Assessment and findings

  1. It is the Ombudsman’s role to assess the appropriateness and adequacy of the landlord’s actions in responding to reports of ASB and the fairness and reasonableness of its response to the formal complaint. This does not include establishing whether a party is responsible for ASB; our investigation is limited to the consideration of the actions of the landlord in the context of its relevant policies/procedures as well as what was fair in all the circumstances of the case. The Ombudsman cannot tell the landlord to take action against neighbours.
  2. It is recognised that the situation was distressing for the resident at a time when she was having difficulties with her health.
  3. It is noted that a significant proportion of the resident’s incident diaries refer to events which the landlord’s ASB help sheet does not consider ASB. Further, many of the incidents occur between 7am and 11pm. Case law has shown that a landlord cannot be held accountable for noise nuisance that is non-deliberate, for example noise caused by poor sound insulation, because no nuisance arises due to the normal and ordinary use of premises and the landlord is not able to authorise it expressly. Similarly, if a landlord fails to act against a tenant in cases of an alleged breach of tenancy, for example the tenant causes disturbance to a neighbour, the resident affected by the noise will not be able to take action against the landlord for nuisance or negligence.
  4. The ASB help sheet confirms the landlord will not engage its ASB policy where ASB has not been confirmed. On that basis, the range of measures available to the landlord were limited in this case given the occurrence of excessive noise was not established. Nevertheless, the evidence shows it carried out investigations with the resident’s neighbours in line with its ASB procedure. Further, its CRT colleagues were notified to provide support, and the resident was advised to keep an incident diary. This took place in accordance with the information set out in the help sheet.
  5. The evidence shows the landlord engaged with the resident’s concerns by adopting an incremental approach to the issue. In addition to making face-to-face contact with her neighbours, it wrote to residents on three occasions, twice directly and once through its newsletter, to try and resolve the problem. Its written contact shows its tone became more formal and its response was increasingly targeted as it became more concerned. This resulted in its May 2020 letter, to the resident’s surrounding flats, advising further reports of noise nuisance would be investigated within the context of a breach of tenancy conditions.
  6. Further, the landlord made the resident aware of the role of Environmental Health and attempted to facilitate formal mediation between the parties. The above represents appropriate action on the part of the landlord, and it took place within a reasonable timeframe given the landlord had said it was struggling with the impact of the pandemic. As a result, this assessment found no maladministration in respect of the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of noise nuisance.

Determination (decision)

  1. In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was no maladministration in respect of the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of noise nuisance.

Reasons

  1. The landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of noise nuisance was in line with its policies and procedures. It engaged with the problem and attempted to resolve it using various methods.