One Housing Group Limited (202110606)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202110606

One Housing Group Limited

29 July 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 his neighbour’s property.

Background

2. The resident is a tenant of the landlord and lives in a flat.
3. The resident sent the landlord diaries of noise nuisance from a neighbouring property above him, in March 2021.
4. The landlord contacted the resident on 17th March 2021 to discuss the issue further. It noted that the resident said he had experienced noise from his neighbour since she had moved in, and that he described the noise as sounding like “small hammers being dropped onto a kitchen surface” in addition to drilling sounds. The resident believed that the neighbour used “tools” daily in her property and said the issue was having a significant impact on him. The landlord wrote to the resident the same day and confirmed it had opened an antisocial behaviour (ASB) case. It agreed to make further investigations by speaking with the neighbour and other tenants.
5. The landlord carried out a “subjective noise test” at both parties’ homes on 28 April 2021. It noted that it was unable to determine the source of the alleged noise nuisance (it attributed the noise it did hear to everyday household items). The landlord visited both parties separately, in attendance with the police on 27 May 2021 to discuss the matter. It noted that it explained to the resident that itself, the police and local council “considered the noise as everyday living noise”. It made enquiries into the neighbour’s routine but it did not discover anything that accounted for her using a drill or hammer. As a result, the landlord made a referral for both parties to attend mediation.
6. The resident continued to report noise nuisance from his neighbour until June 2021. He also made reports to the local council’s noise and pollution team, whom visited him in his home in August 2021 (in addition to previous visits they made outside the property in April and March 2021). After enquires made by this Service on the resident’s behalf, the landlord contacted the resident on 21 September 2021 to discuss and record a complaint he wished to make. It understood the resident’s complaint to concern his dissatisfaction with its handling of his reports of noise nuisance (he reported that the noise continued), his dissatisfaction with its handling of counter allegations made by the neighbour, and the behaviour of one its staff members on an occasion they visited his home. 
7. On 4 October 2021 the landlord issued it stage one response. It explained that it did not have sufficient evidence to show that statutory noise nuisance had occurred, and therefore it determined that it would not be proportionate to take enforcement action against the neighbour. It said it believed it acted reasonably in informing the resident of any allegations made against him, and said it had tried to resolve the issue via mediation. It asked the resident to reconsider engaging in this. It apologised that the resident felt its staff member had come across as rude and dismissive when visiting his home. It agreed that its officer and a “professional witness” would visit the resident’s home the following day, in attempt to establish the source of the noise. If it was unable to determine this it would “consider the use of the noise recording device as a way of gathering the evidence.” This visit was carried out as agreed, but the operatives reported that they did not witness any noise.
8. The resident escalated his complaint on 28 November 2021 as he believed that the landlord had not taken enough action to resolve the situation, and felt that its complaint response had not fully addressed his concerns. His particular concern was that the landlord had not installed noise recording equipment at its home. He believed that this would be the best way to determine the source of the noise. The landlord issued its stage two response on 8 December 2021. It said that recording equipment was usually installed when it has established that noise experience could constitute a statutory nuisance. It said following the council’s report and closure of its noise team’s investigation on 17 November 2021, that threshold had not been met, and so it would not install the equipment. It confirmed that it had closed the resident’s ASB case, and that its complaints process had been completed.
9. The resident referred his complaint to this Service as he remained dissatisfied with the landlords handling of the matter. To resolve the situation, he wanted the landlord to act to stop his neighbour from making the noise.

Assessment and findings

10. The resident advised this service in April 2022 that his neighbour had left her property, but there was still someone inside who continued to do work and make noise. Following this, he said “I now have the same person squatting illegally”. It was unclear who the resident was referring to. Nonetheless, this issue was not part of the resident’s complaint to the landlord because it had not occurred at the time. This Service is only able to consider matters that have first been considered by a landlord under its complaint’s procedure. Therefore, the resident should consider raising a new complaint with the landlord if he still believes there is an issue with noise nuisance caused by an illegal tenant.
11. The landlord’s ASB policy outlines “early intervention tools” it uses to deal with reports of ASB, which include mediation, warnings, and referrals to partner agencies. It also outlines instances of noise it does not consider to be ASB, such as “living or domestic noises e.g., ordinary conversation heard through walls or floors, neighbours walking around their home, domestic activities such as vacuuming or using washing machines or closing doors and windows”.
12. In this case, it is apparent that the landlord took appropriate actions when responding to the resident’s reports about noise nuisance, in line with its ASB policy. The landlord wrote to the resident’s neighbor and spoke with her about the noise reports. It spoke with other tenants in the block and issued letters asking its tenants to be mindful of noise, and encouraging any witnesses of ASB to report the issues. The landlord visited the resident’s and neighbour’s homes, made another visit in attendance with the police, and signposted the resident to the local council’s noise and pollution team. This was an appropriate recommendation as such agencies can investigate if statutory noise nuisance has likely occurred, and landlords are then able to take more robust tenancy action in relation to their findings. These actions by the landlord were in accordance with its ASB policy and with what is considered basic good practice in cases where there has been lack of evidence at the time to show that ASB had occurred.
13. The landlord and the local council’s noise and pollution team made numerous visits to the resident’s building, home and neighbour, between April and October 2021. In addition to previous visits, the local council reported that it undertook nine further visits to the resident’s home (on seven successive days) throughout October 2021. It said each visit was carried out for a period sufficient enough to witness the problem, and at times it would likely witness the noise, in line with the resident diary entries and call logs. It reported that during the visits, officers noted noises such as “creaking floors, lights being switched on and off, light impact noise, footfall, low level voices, and other general household noise”, but none that it considered a statutory nuisance under section 90 of the environmental protection act. In addition, it said it had liaised with the landlord and engaged with the neighbour regarding the noise allegations. The council concluded in November 2021 that it was not satisfied that a statutory nuisance existed, or was likely to occur and it wrote to the resident and informed him it would not progress the matter any further. Nothing in the evidence shows that any of the visits by the landlord or the agencies it worked in partnership with, determined that any noise that was heard amounted to statutory nuisance or which was not attributed to everyday domestic living, thus the landlord was limited in the actions it could take to resolve the situation.
14. The evidence also shows that nothing was witnessed in the neighbour’s property that accounted for her property being used as a “workshop”, despite the landlord’s investigations into this. The landlord demonstrated it was considerate of the impact that the resident reported the situation was having on his health, as it offered to liaise with his GP, make a safeguarding referral, and signposted the customer to victim support. The landlord also made internal enquires into whether there were any known repair issues in the block that may have caused the noise. Whilst it was unclear what the outcome of this enquiry was, nothing in the evidence shows that the noise was attributed to any repair issues in the building or that the resident reported such issues. Considering the above, the landlord demonstrated it took the situation seriously and was resolution focused in its approach.
15. Given that the landlord had already considered noise recordings submitted by the resident, and that it and the local council had conducted multiple visits, it was reasonable that the landlord ultimately changed its mind about using noise recording equipment. It would have been good customer service to update the resident at earlier stage in order to manage his expectations sooner, nonetheless, it used its complaints process to inform him of its position, and the decision had no bearing on the overall outcome of the complaint. Whilst it is clear that the situation has been difficult for the resident, and distress he may have suffered as a result is therefore understandable, this Service has not seen any evidence which suggests that, in the circumstances, there was any further action the landlord could reasonably be expected to take in response to the resident’s noise reports.

Determination

16. In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Scheme, there was no maladministration by the landlord in respect of the complaint.