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

Islington Council (202011018)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202011018

Islington Council

27 January 2022


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:
    1. The landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of noise nuisance from her neighbour.
    2. The landlord’s handling of the associated complaint.

Background and summary of events

  1. The resident is a tenant of the landlord, which is a local authority, and occupies a flat.
  2. The resident reported to the landlord on 29 October 2020 that her neighbour (Mr A) had been causing a noise nuisance with banging and constant drilling at unsociable hours. She wanted it to visit Mr A to inform him of the acceptable hours in which he could carry out DIY work and she wanted a date of when the work would end. The landlord spoke to the resident later that day to advise that it would log the report which would be dealt with by its housing team.
  3. The resident made further reports of the noise from Mr A on 3 and 5 November 2020, in which she said Mr A continued to carry out DIY work which occurred all day long and into the night. She said she had approached Mr A who did not give a date for when the work would complete.
  4. The resident raised a formal complaint with the landlord on 9 November 2020 about the lack of contact from it in response to her reports of “constant neighbour daily drilling, banging and knocking” which had lasted two months. She said that the neighbour had become a daily nuisance and she was unhappy that she had needed to chase it several times despite notifying the police about the matter.
  5. The resident contacted the landlord on three further days in November 2020 to make more reports of noise from Mr A and request contact from the landlord. It attempted to call her on 25 November 2020 and it wrote to her on 26 November 2020 to advise her that it had issued an ASB warning letter to Mr A. This letter included information about how to record noise using its noise app.
  6. The landlord issued its stage one complaint response to the resident on 30 November 2020 in which it acknowledged that an ASB report had been made directly to a member of staff who no longer worked for the landlord on 12 October 2020. It passed this to the appropriate department on 21 October 2020. The landlord noted that “regrettably” it did not make a call to her until 25 November 2020 and that it did not respond within its target timeframe of ten working days to her repeated reports. It explained that it did not open a case for reports of low level ASB, although it would monitor this, dependent on whether the ASB persisted.
  7. The landlord said that it was currently dealing with an increased workload and attributed its lack of response to this. It upheld the resident’s complaint and confirmed that it had sent an ASB letter to Mr A. The landlord asked her to continue to report any incidents of ASB to it and to consider using the noise app to provide recordings of any noise.
  8. The resident made further reports to the landlord of noise from Mr A’s DIY on 7, 8, 23 and 24 December 2020. The landlord informed the resident, on 8 December 2020, that Mr A had informed it that the work in his property would be completed no later than 23 December 2020.
  9. The resident wrote to the landlord on 29 December 2020 to escalate her complaint as she reported that Mr A had continued to generate noise on a daily basis through the use of power tools and DIY in his property which transferred to hers through the ceiling. She was unhappy that it had allowed the situation to continue and said that she had heard that this had been occurring since March 2020. The resident asked if Mr A had been visited by the landlord and asked it to provide a date by which she could expect the noise to end. She said that the impact of the noise had prevented her from studying, caused her to be unable to attend virtual job interviews from home and she was now experiencing an impact on her health which included nervous twitches, headaches and stress.
  10. Between 29 December 2020 and 2 January 2021, the resident contacted the landlord five times to report noise from Mr A’s property, which included recordings of the noise.
  11. The landlord spoke to the resident on 4 January 2021 to discuss her contact. It said that it “the noise can be heard quite clearly” in the recordings she had sent it. It noted she said that Mr A had reported her to the police and told them that he had been given an extension to carry out the works, which it acknowledged was incorrect. The landlord agreed to contact Mr A.
  12. Between 4 and 15 January 2021, the resident contacted the landlord eight times to report DIY noise from Mr A’s property which occurred at unsociable hours, sometimes early in the morning or late at night. The landlord spoke to the resident on 15 January 2021 to advise that it had told Mr A on 4 January 2021 not to carry out any further works until building control had inspected his property. It said that it would write to Mr A again to advise it would be taking further action against him if the noise did not cease.
  13. The landlord issued a review of its stage one decision to the resident on 18 January 2021, in which it stated that it had responded to her complaint adequately in its previous response. It asked her to continue to make reports of ASB to it; it said that ASB was difficult to resolve and required a “substantial body of evidence” to address the issues which could be “ongoing for an extended period of time”. It continued to uphold her stage one complaint due to its lack of communication to her initial reports. It advised that she could still escalate her complaint to the final Chief Executive stage of its complaints process if she remained dissatisfied.
  14. Between 22 January and 1 February 2021, the resident made seven reports to the landlord of DIY noise from Mr A’s property which occurred at unsociable hours. It called her on 1 February 2021, after leaving a message with her on 27 January 2021, to advise that it was awaiting a report from building control about its inspection of Mr A’s property. The landlord confirmed that it had instructed Mr A not to carry out any further work until this inspection had been carried out and he had said that he had stopped works on 31 December 2020. It noted that the resident asserted that this was untruthful as she had needed to call the police the previous day about the noise and she was receiving support from her GP and Victim Support. The landlord proposed mediation between her and Mr A, to which she agreed, and noted that the resident wanted weekly updates on the situation.
  15. Between 1 February and 2 March 2021, the resident made 16 further reports to the landlord of DIY noise from Mr A’s property and requested updates on the situation. It called her on 2 March 2021 to advise that it had granted an extension until 19 March 2021 to Mr A’s request to carry out improvement work at his property but this work was to be carried out between 8 am and 5 pm on weekdays. She requested to be moved to temporary accommodation for the duration of this. The landlord advised that it did not do this for noise nuisance and provided information to her on carrying out a mutual exchange if she wished to move. It confirmed to her that it would be carrying out a visit on 11 March 2021.
  16. The landlord informed the resident on 16 March 2021 that it carried out a visit to Mr A’s property on 11 March 2021 to inspect the works and take photographs. It said that it spoke to a neighbour who confirmed that late night DIY noise and ceased. The landlord relayed to the resident that it had reminded Mr A of the acceptable times to carry out improvement work and that the work was to be completed no later than 19 March 2021.
  17. On 1 April 2021, the resident asked the landlord to contact her about the case. On 4 and 5 April 2021, she made three reports of DIY noise from Mr A’s property. The landlord’s internal correspondence noted that it did not call the resident back about her reports as it was currently unable to carry internal visits to properties. She contacted it twice on 6 April 2021 to request a call-back and report more DIY noise from Mr A’s property.
  18. The landlord called the resident on 9 April 2021 when she reported that Mr A had not kept to his agreement with it and had continued to carry out DIY work with powers tools which caused an excessive level of noise. It agreed to contact him to clarify the actions it could in respect to persistent noise nuisance.
  19. After contacting the Ombudsman, this Service contacted the landlord on the resident’s behalf on 13 April 2021 to escalate her complaint to the final stage of its process. It was relayed to it that she remained dissatisfied as it had not resolved the ASB noise issue she was experiencing from Mr A. The resident said that the landlord had avoided dealing with the situation which had led to her experiencing a decline in her health.
  20. The landlord wrote to the resident on 22 April 2021 to advise that it currently had a high volume of final stage complaint requests and, therefore, could not start its investigation. It advised her that it would send her a formal acknowledgement letter once its investigation began.
  21. Between 14 April and 5 May 2021, the resident contacted the landlord a further nine times to report noise nuisance from Mr A and request updates on the case. The landlord issued a warning letter to Mr A on 26 April 2021.
  22. The landlord called the resident on 5 May 2021 to advise her that it had given Mr A an extension of a further week, until 10 May 2021, to complete work at his property. It said that it had warned that it would provide no further extension after this date. The landlord relayed that it had held a community trigger meeting on 29 April 2021 to discuss the resident’s case. As it had not witnessed the noise she had reported, it was decided that, once corona virus restrictions permitted, it would install noise monitoring equipment in the property for one week to monitor the noise reported.
  23. From 5 to 19 May 2021 the resident made six reports to the landlord of continuing noise nuisance from Mr A’s property. It spoke to her on 19 May 2021 when she relayed that she had been experiencing ill health which she attributed to the continuing noise which prevented her from having restful sleep. The resident contended that Mr A was now intentionally targeting her with the noise and she had reported this to the police.
  24. The landlord spoke to the resident on 1 June 2021 in response to her reports. It informed her that it had spoken to Mr A who denied creating any noise. The resident disputed this and reiterated that the noise was impacting her health. The landlord proposed mediation to her, which she agreed to and it agreed to carry out a visit to Mr A’s property on 3 June 2021 to attempt to witness any noise. Its records on 4 June 2021 noted that it waited at Mr A’s property for “over one hour” but no noise was witnessed.
  25. The resident made eight further reports of noise to the landlord between 14 June and 3 July 2021. On 6 July 2021, the landlord records noted that the noise recording equipment installed at her property had developed a fault and was collected.
  26. The landlord emailed the resident on 8 July 2021 to inform her of its observations from sound recordings she had submitted to it. It noted that drilling could be heard on the recording from 1 July 2021 and a faint thud on 7 July 2021. The landlord advised that it would seek advice from its management and legal team as there was “clearly some type of work being carried out by [Mr A]”. It stated that it was waiting to heard about when the noise recorder could be installed in the property.
  27. The resident emailed the landlord on 9 July 2021 to confirm that the noise recording equipment was installed for five rather than seven days. She reported that the there was no loud drilling at present but random clicks, bangs and vibrations still occurred which woke her up at night, which affected her health.
  28. The resident contacted the landlord four times between 16 July 2021 and 3 August to report noise from Mr A and request updates. Its internal correspondence on 4 August 2021 noted that it had reviewed 13 noise recordings submitted by the resident between 25 July and 3 August 2021 and found that these did not contain any evidence of statutory nuisance. The landlord also noted that she was on the waiting list for noise recording equipment to be reinstalled at the property. It concluded that there was currently insufficient evidence of Mr A breaching his tenancy conditions.
  29. Between 6 and 31 August 2021, the resident contacted the landlord nine times to report that noise from Mr A’s property continued and this was having an impact on her health. She asked if further permission for improvement had been given to Mr A and expressed her dissatisfaction that it had provided no resolution to the noise nuisance.
  30. The Ombudsman wrote to the landlord on 11 August 2021, after receiving contact from the resident, to highlight that it had yet to provide a final stage complaint response to her. It was asked to provide its final response to her within five working days.
  31. The landlord’s records on 1 September 2021 noted that it had reviewed 17 noise recordings submitted by the resident which indicated that the noises reported were “very low” and “not very audible”.
  32. The resident emailed the landlord on 4 September 2021 to express her dissatisfaction that there was no action taken in response to the recordings she had submitted. She was also unhappy that there had been little contact from the landlord.
  33. The landlord emailed the resident on 5 October 2021 to advise that it was not able to issue its final response to her the following and advised it was hoping to provide this by the end of that week.
  34. The landlord issued its final complaint response to the resident on 18 October 2021 in which it acknowledged that it had been unable to respond to the complaint within its corporate timescale due to an increased workload. It offered compensation of £75 to the resident to recognise this delayed response.
  35. The landlord stated that the resident’s reports of noise had been classed as a low priority case which it would normally resolve through warning letters and mediation. It noted that “pre-mediation” had been conducted with her on 13 July 2021 but this did not progress as she subsequently declined and reported the matter to the police.
  36. The landlord relayed that Mr A had originally commenced improvement work to his property during the corona virus pandemic lockdown without permission. It confirmed that it had granted him permission to complete the work by 19 March 2021 with the condition that work could only be carried out between the hours of 8 am and 5 pm on working days. Mr A subsequently requested two extensions to this deadline, the last of which it had not yet approved.
  37. The landlord said that it had visited the resident’s property on 5 June 2021 to observe the noise but had witnessed none. It said that its review of the recordings she had sent had showed there was some sound which did not exceed the statutory limit. The landlord confirmed that the most recent recording it had received on 11 October 2021 recorded “a faint noise in the form of drilling”.
  38. The landlord noted that there had been delays in reviewing the recordings submitted by the resident due to staff absence but assured her that all recent recordings would be reviewed and the appropriate action taken. It apologised for the time taken to review these. The landlord asserted that ASB issues took time to resolve due to requiring robust evidence to be gathered and urged her to continue to make reports to it. It acknowledged that it had not handled her reports in a timely manner or provided her with sufficient support. The landlord offered the resident £25 compensation in recognition of this.
  39. The resident continued to report ASB to the landlord from 19 October 2021 onwards. It wrote to her on 9 November 2021 to advise her that it had reviewed the recordings made from its installation of noise monitoring equipment in her property between 1 and 6 July 2021 and her submissions made through the noise app between 8 September and 16 October 2021.  The landlord said that the recordings did not evidence that Mr A was causing a statutory noise nuisance. It therefore confirmed that it could not take any enforcement action and would therefore be closing the case.

Assessment and findings

Policies and procedures

  1. The landlord’s tenancy conditions webpage states that residents are “To be responsible for the behaviour of every person, including children, living or visiting your home.”  
  2. The landlord’s ASB case management procedure defines ASB as conduct which is capable of causing harassment, alarm or distress to any person. It includes excessive noise as an example of ASB. This procedure states that it will contact the resident to carry out an interview in response to a report of serious ASB within 24 hours. For cases of ASB which are not considered serious it will do so within five working days. This procedure provides for an action plan and diary sheets to be sent to the resident after completion of the interview. This also states that reports of ASB would be updated on the progress of the case every two weeks. 
  3. The landlord’s noise and neighbour nuisance webpage states that “DIY work is not considered to be anti-social unless it happening at unreasonable hours and persistent”.
  4. The landlord’s corporate complaints policy provides for a two-stage complaints process, with an intermediate stage where the stage one complaint is reviewed before a complaint may be progressed to the final stage. At stage one, the complaint response must be provided within 21 calendar days of receipt of the complaint. The timeframe for providing a stage one review response is ten working days. At the final stage the landlord is to provide a final complaint response to the resident within 28 calendar days.

The landlord’s response to the resident’s report of noise nuisance from her neighbour

  1. The landlord has a responsibility to ensure that its residents do not behave in a manner which may cause a nuisance to others in the vicinity of their properties. This is confirmed by its tenancy conditions webpage above. When it receives a report of nuisance, it would be expected to investigate this appropriately, and gather evidence to assist it in determining whether tenancy enforcement action can be taken against the resident. 
  2. In this case, the noise nuisance reported by the resident was related to noise from DIY. As confirmed by the landlord’s noise and neighbour nuisance webpage above, noise from DIY is not considered to be antisocial unless it occurs at unsociable hours or is persistent. As the reports made by the resident were of DIY noise occurring outside of working hours, in the evenings and late at night, and were repeated reports of the noise occurring on a regular basis spanning 12 months, this would be considered antisocial noise nuisance.
  3. As the noise reported by the resident was persistent and occurring at antisocial hours, it would have been appropriate for the landlord to investigate the reports as ASB. This would have involved carrying out an interview with the resident, formulating an action plan and updating the resident on the progress of the case, as confirmed by its ASB case management procedure above.
  4. There was no evidence that the landlord contacted the resident within five working days of her report to carry out an interview about the issue in accordance with its ASB case management procedure. There was also no evidence that it agreed an action plan with her. There was evidence of contact between the landlord and the resident, however, this was not every two weeks. The frequency of contact was irregular with intervals of approximately a month between 8 December 2020 and 4 January 2021, 1 February and 2 March 2021, 9 April and 5 May 2021, 1 June and 8 July 2021, and 29 July and 31 August 2021. Given that the noise nuisance was continuous and the resident reported that it was having an effect on her health, it was a failure by the landlord to not keep her more regularly updated on the progress of the ASB investigation, which was likely to have led to continued distress and inconvenience for her. This was particularly so due to the level of involvement required of the resident in repeatedly requesting updates on the progress of the case.
  5. The landlord acknowledged in its final response to the resident that it had delayed in reviewing her submissions of noise recordings and that it had not provided an adequate level of support to her through the process. It offered her £25 compensation for this. The Ombudsman’s remedies guidance, available to view at https://www.housing-ombudsman.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2020/11/Remedies-Guidance.pdf, provides for compensation awards of between £250 and £700 for instances of considerable service failure or maladministration which involve “a complainant repeatedly having to chase responses” and “failure over a considerable period of time to act in accordance with policy”.
  6. It is noted that the eventual outcome of the ASB investigation resulted in it not being able to take tenancy enforcement action against Mr A as the level of noise recorded did not meet its threshold for formal action. However, this does not release the landlord from its responsibility to act in accordance with its procedure. Therefore, due to the period of approximately one year in which the landlord failed to provide adequate support to the resident and maintain regular contact with her in its investigation of the noise nuisance, compensation of £300 should be paid to her. This is £275 in addition to the £25 it offered the resident in its final stage complaint response.

The landlord’s handling of the associated complaint

  1. The landlord provided its stage one complaint response to the resident on 30 November 2020, 21 calendar days after her complaint on 9 November 2020, in accordance with its corporate complaints policy above. It provided its stage one review response to her on 18 January 2021, 13 working days after her escalation request on 29 December 2020, which was in excess of the ten working day timeframe specifies in its policy.
  2. The resident subsequently sought the intervention of this Service and the Ombudsman requested, on 13 April 2021, that the landlord respond to her complaint at the final stage of its procedure. It sent a holding letter to the resident on 22 April 2021 to advise of a delay in handling the final stage complaint due to its workload; this was reasonable in the circumstances. However, there was no further contact from the landlord to keep the resident updated as to the progress of her complaint and the Ombudsman intervened on 11 August 2021 to request the landlord provide a response to her within five working days. There was then no contact from the landlord to the resident about her complaint until 5 October 2021 when it sent a holding response to her. The final complaint response was eventually issued on 18 October 2021, 188 calendar days after the Ombudsman requested the landlord escalate the complaint. This was significantly in excess of the 28-calendar day timeframe specified in its corporate complaints policy above.
  3. The landlord acknowledged, in its final response to the resident that it had delayed in providing its final response and offered £75 compensation for this. The Ombudsman’s remedies guidance above provides for compensation awards of £250 to £700 for “failure over a considerable period of time to act in accordance with policy” and “significant failures to follow complaint procedure”. Therefore, the landlord should pay the resident an additional £175 compensation for its excessive delay in providing its final stage complaint response to recognise its failure to act in accordance with its policy.

Determination (decision)

  1. In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord in:
    1. Its response to the residents reports of noise nuisance.
    2. Its handling of the associated complaint.

Reasons

  1. The landlord made irregular and infrequent contact with the resident during the progress of her ASB complaint which necessitated an excessive effort on her part to seek updates from it over a prolonged period of time.
  2. The landlord delayed excessively in providing its final stage complaint response.

Orders

  1. Within 28 days, the landlord should pay the total sum of £450 in compensation to the resident as follows:
    1. £275 for its failures in its response to her ASB reports, including the £25 it previously offered her.
    2. £175 for its excessive delay in addressing her complaint at the final stage, including the £75 it previously offered her.

Recommendations

  1. If the resident continues to report further incidents, the landlord should strongly consider drafting an action plan, mutually agreed with her, to enable it to properly investigate and act as appropriate.