Cross Keys Homes Limited (202103985)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202103985

Cross Keys Homes Limited

16 April 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 reports of noise nuisance from a neighbour.

Background

2. The resident is an assured tenant of the landlord, living in a flat within a block of flats.
3. The landlord opened an anti-social behaviour (ASB) case on 13 December 2019, following the resident’s reports of noise nuisance from the flat above. He reported several types of noise, including talking, arguing, music and noise from household appliances. The landlord visited the resident’s neighbour in January 2020 and reminded them to be mindful of their noise. It also liaised with the police, regarding an incident in May 2020, which resulted in the resident and his neighbour signing a community resolution agreement. The ASB case was closed in October 2020, as the landlord had reviewed the resident’s submissions using a noise app and found the noise would not be classified as noise nuisance. The resident continued to submit regular noise complaints and the landlord emailed him on 20 January 2021 advising him that his submissions did not meet the criteria for noise nuisance and it asked whether he would consider moving to another property as a means of resolving the issues he was experiencing.
4.  The resident disputed the landlord’s findings regarding the noise nuisance and asked to raise a formal complaint. The landlord issued its stage one complaint response on 10 February 2021. It said the ASB case had been closed following the landlord’s intervention and that the further reports made by the resident using the noise app had not demonstrated noise nuisance, so it could not take tenancy action against his neighbour. It also encouraged the resident to consider rehousing.
5. The resident escalated the complaint on 10 February 2021, as he said the noise was ongoing and it was impacting his ability to sleep and his mental health. He stated the landlord’s initial response to the noise reports was slow due to his inability to access the noise app. He added that other neighbours had also experienced the noise and that he might consider rehousing at a later date. A complaint panel meeting took place on 15 March 2021, and the landlord sent its stage two response following this meeting, on 24 March 2021. It said there was no evidence that the resident’s neighbour had broken their tenancy agreement, so it was unable to take further action against them It said it would discuss the issue with the other residents in the building to assess whether they were also experiencing noise nuisance and it would support the resident to identify a suitable property to move to. It said it would advise him on the type of noise that constitutes as ASB and advised him to report further instances of verbal abuse to the police.
6. In his complaint to this Service, the resident said he felt the landlord’s handling of the ASB case had not adhered to its policies, and he disputed the effectiveness of the noise monitoring app. He informed us that the noise was impacting on his health. He wanted the landlord to take tenancy action against his neighbour or compensate him for the expenses of moving to another property.
7. In March 2022, the landlord advised the Ombudsman that the resident has moved to another property.

Assessment and findings

8. While this service acknowledges the distress the reported noise nuisance has caused the resident, the Ombudsman’s role is to consider whether the landlord responded appropriately to his reports, in line with its relevant policies and procedures, rather than assess whether or not noise nuisance was occurring.
9. The resident has also referenced how the reported noise nuisance has impacted his health. The Ombudsman notes the resident’s comments, but it is outside the remit of our service to draw conclusions on the causation of, or liability for, impacts on health and wellbeing. This would be more appropriately dealt with as a personal injury claim through the courts or the landlord’s liability insurer. Nonetheless, consideration has been given to the general distress and inconvenience which any errors by the landlord may have caused the resident.
10. Landlords are expected to follow an evidenced based approach to ASB, 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 with appropriate action. The landlord’s ASB policy states that it will use a range of investigative methods to obtain evidence of ASB, including interviews, diary sheets, phone calls and noise monitoring equipment. While the landlord utilised several of these methods, the majority of evidence submitted by the resident was through a noise monitoring app. The landlord acted reasonably by reviewing the evidence, and having done so, it concluded that the noise was not deemed as excessive, or as ASB. Although the resident has disputed the effectiveness of the noise monitoring app, it was reasonable for the landlord to utilise the tool, as it is in line with its policy. There is no evidence to suggest that the resident raised this issue with the landlord through the complaints procedure, so it was reasonable that the landlord did not consider other methods of noise monitoring at this stage.
11. As the landlord deemed the reported noise was not classified as noise nuisance, and it explained its findings to the resident, it was reasonable that it closed the ASB case. Following further noise submissions from the resident, it was appropriate for the landlord to explain to the resident the type of noise that would be considered noise nuisance, and state that it could only consider taking tenancy action against his neighbour if noise nuisance was evident. This was reasonable as several examples of the noise reported by the resident would not be classed as ASB under the landlord’s policy, including the washing machine, footsteps, and TV audio, as this is expected household noise. Although the landlord was limited in the actions it could take, it did take steps to support the resident. It discussed the issue with the resident’s neighbour and asked them to be mindful of the noise, liaised with the police, and offered the resident a property move. The landlord’s ASB policy states that it will consider a house move in serious cases of ASB; as the landlord was unable to obtain evidence of ASB, it exceeded its obligations by offering to facilitate a move for the resident. While the landlord’s ASB policy outlines further intervention methods, it states that they can only be implemented with evidence of the alleged behaviour, so in this case it was reasonable it did not take further action.
12. Overall, the landlord acted in line with its ASB policy to investigate the reported noise nuisance, and support the resident. However, as it assessed the evidence and determined the noise was not excessive, it was reasonable that it closed the ASB case. The landlord also considered the distress caused to the resident and offered assistance in facilitating a house move.
13. The landlord is not directly responsible for the neighbour’s actions and therefore the landlord is not responsible for any noise caused by the neighbour. The landlord was obliged to investigate the noise, in line with its ASB policy and it would be expected to take action against the neighbour if the noise was proven to be a nuisance. However, in the absence of such evidence, the landlord could not reasonably take action against the neighbour to reduce the noise. In view of this, the landlord would not be expected to contribute towards the resident’s moving costs if he decides to move to another property as he would not be moving due to any fault by the landlord.

Determination

14. 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.