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

Waltham Forest Council (202111705)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202111705

Waltham Forest Council

28 March 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 the landlord’s handling of the resident’s noise reports.

Background

  1. The resident is a secure tenant of the landlord in a one-bedroom flat.
  2. The resident initially reported a banging noise from the flat above on 6 April 2021 and he later said he thought the noise was originating from the pipes. The landlord advised him to use a noise app and diary entries to document the noise and it visited the property twice on 7 May 2021, but was unable to identify any noise. He said that he wanted to move out of the property, and had already tried the methods suggested by the landlord, so asked for a referral to a hostel.
  3. The resident raised a complaint on 18 May 2021 as the noise was still ongoing. In the landlord’s stage one response, it said as it had not been able to identify the noise during its visits, and the resident had not provided further evidence, in line with its ASB (anti-social behaviour) policy it had been unable to take further action. It advised him to provide evidence of any further incidents, and said it would consider mediation if it was able to identify the source of the noise. The resident escalated the complaint as the noise was still ongoing after three months. In its stage two response, the landlord reiterated that as it had not received evidence of the noise it had been unable to open an ASB case, but it would discuss the issue with his neighbours. It had arranged for a surveyor to attend on 16 July 2021 to assess the pipes in an attempt to identify the source of the noise, but had not been granted access to the property, so the appointment had been rescheduled to 19 August 2021. The landlord said it had made a safeguarding referral. 
  4. In his complaint to this Service, the resident said the noise issue still remained unresolved and the landlord’s visit only lasted around five minutes.

Assessment and findings

  1. The resident first reported hearing banging noises on 6 April 2021 and there is no evidence to suggest the landlord contacted the resident until 16 April 2021 when it emailed him to ask whether the noise was still ongoing, which he confirmed it was. The resident then explained that the noise occurred every five to ten minutes and was impacting his mental health. It was therefore appropriate at this stage for the landlord to investigate the issue. As the landlord’s ASB policy states it will investigate reports of noise nuisance if the resident reports six incidents within a 40-day period, it was not unreasonable that the landlord did not immediately investigate the issue, as there was no evidence of any further reports being made between 6 April 2021 and 16 April 2021.
  2. Landlords are expected to follow an evidenced based approach, to ensure their services are fair and an efficient use of resources. Therefore it was reasonable for the landlord to require evidence of the reported noise in order for it to proceed and with any action. In this case, the landlord used multiple approaches in an attempt to gather evidence in support of the reports. It initially asked the resident to clarify the type of noise being reported and asked him to complete diary sheets to document the noise. It also managed his expectations by explaining that if the noise was due to lack of insulation between the properties it would not have been able to take further action unless it was a building defect. This was reasonable as the property above was a leaseholder, and adding insulation is beyond the landlord’s obligations (unless there is a repair issue). It then advised for the resident to use a noise app, and sent further diary entry sheets. There is no evidence to suggest that the resident sent the requested evidence to the landlord. The landlord visited the resident’s property twice on 7 May 2021, but was unable to identify any noise nuisance. The resident criticised the length of the landlord’s visit, however as two different staff members visited at separate times, it made adequate attempts to witness the noise.
  3. As the landlord did not have sufficient evidence of the noise, it was limited in the actions it could take. It said it would discuss the issues with the resident’s neighbour and would consider mediation if the resident provided sufficient evidence of the noise. The landlord also arranged for a surveyor to attend in order to assess whether the noise had a structural cause, as the resident reported he thought the noise was caused by the pipes. The landlord discussed the resident’s options regarding moving properties and made a safeguarding referral for him, in light of some of the comments he made regarding the impact the noise had on his mental health.
  4. Overall, the landlord acted appropriately to attempt to identify the noise, however it was unable to obtain the relevant evidence. Despite this, it still took steps to support the resident’s wellbeing, and to assess whether the noise had a structural cause.

Determination

  1. 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 noise reports.