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

Southern Housing Group Limited (202203771)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202203771

Southern Housing Group Limited

25 November 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 disturbance from the flat above.

Background

  1. The resident is a secure tenant of the landlord, a housing association. She has resided at the property, a first floor flat within a communal block, since 2017.
  2. The resident initially contacted the landlord to report noise from the flat above on 8 June 2021. The landlord sent a letter to the resident’s neighbour regarding the noise and asked the resident to record any noise using a noise app. The resident made further noise reports relating to the sound of footsteps, a washing machine, and children running around. The landlord offered mediation, a surveyor attended, and it said it would assess installing a carpet with acoustic underlay. The landlord subsequently advised the resident a grant application to pay for new carpet in the neighbour’s property had been rejected.
  3. The resident raised a complaint on 29 March 2022 as she stated she had been reporting noise from the flat above for over a year. She asked what measures the landlord would take to resolve the issue, why the carpet had been removed from the property while it was void, and for the landlord to confirm the tenancy conditions regarding flooring. She also asked why the carpet grant was rejected. In her complaint escalation, she asked for timeframes for the landlord’s actions.
  4. In its final complaint response on 5 May 2022, the landlord said the installation of carpet and acoustic underlay in the neighbour’s flat had been approved and it would update the resident once an appointment had been scheduled. It advised there was no reference to appropriate flooring coverings in the tenancy agreement, but it had provided feedback regarding this internally and intended to include this in future agreements. It apologised for the time taken to arrange the carpet installation in the neighbour’s property and offered a £50 goodwill gesture due to the inconvenience caused by the noise.
  5. When referring her complaint to this Service, the resident said she remained dissatisfied as the neighbour’s property still had unsuitable flooring in the hallway and back bedroom, so the noise issue was ongoing. She disputed the landlord’s claim that the noise would be considered household noise. She wanted the landlord to ensure carpet was installed in all rooms within the neighbour’s property and requested additional compensation due to the length of time the issue had been ongoing.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

  1. In her complaint to this Service, the resident raised additional concerns regarding the landlord’s communication following the completion of its complaints process. In the interest of fairness, the scope of this investigation is limited to the issues raised during the resident’s formal complaint. This is because the landlord needs to be given a fair opportunity to investigate and respond to any reported dissatisfaction with its actions prior to the involvement of this Service. Any new issues that have not been subject to a formal complaint can be addressed directly with the landlord and progressed as a new formal complaint if required.
  2. The resident has also raised concerns that the reported noise issues have affected her health. The Ombudsman does not have the expertise to make a determination on whether there is any causal link between the landlord’s actions or inactions and any reported health conditions. The resident may therefore wish to seek independent advice regarding this if she has not already done so.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of noise disturbance

  1. The landlord’s anti-social behaviour (ASB) policy states that unreasonable noise is considered to be ASB, but it outlines that normal household noise, such as children playing inside, is not considered to be ASB. Therefore, upon receiving the resident’s reports of noise disturbance, the landlord is expected to investigate the noise to establish how to categorise and manage it. Records show the resident initially reported noise from the flat above on 8 June 2021. The landlord promptly responded and took appropriate steps by asking the resident to use the noise app to record instances of noise. After the resident also reported that she could hear walking and the washing machine in the flat above, the landlord subsequently visited the neighbour’s property. This was a reasonable step for it to take. Having carried out a visit, the landlord ascertained that the neighbour had installed laminate flooring, but noted there were rugs in the lounge, where the resident reported the highest noise levels.
  2. In response to the resident’s report that she could hear her neighbour’s washing machine, the landlord responded appropriately by agreeing to supply the neighbour with acoustic matting to try and reduce noise transference. This was installed on 1 September 2021. It also discussed the resident’s reports with then neighbour and advised him to ensure he was not overloading the washing machine, to prevent avoidable noise. These were reasonable actions for it to take and showed it took the resident’s concerns seriously. Although it took three months for the landlord to install the matting, this was not necessarily an unreasonable delay as it would have taken time to investigate the issue, obtain quotes for the acoustic matting and wait for it to be delivered and installed.
  3. The resident subsequently reported on 20 September 2021 that she could still hear the washing machine. It may not always be possible for the landlord to completely eradicate the noise, but it was appropriate that it had taken steps to reduce it. In this case the landlord would not necessarily be expected to take additional action as there was no evidence to suggest the resident reported hearing the washing machine during unsociable hours. The landlord had also reasonably managed the resident’s expectations as it advised some element of the noise transference may have been caused by the structure of the building, which it may not be able to improve.
  4. The resident made a further report of noise on 21 November 2021, including children running around, heavy footing and bouncing balls. The landlord subsequently visited the resident on 7 December 2021 and also discussed the reported issues with the neighbour on 15 December 2021, reminding him to be mindful of the noise. Ultimately it determined the noise was general household noise, rather than ASB, but there was additional noise transference as the resident’s neighbour had installed laminate flooring.
  5. We have not been provided with a copy of the neighbour’s tenancy agreement, but the landlord advised the resident there was no provision that prevented the installation of laminate flooring. However, due to the clear impact on the resident, it was reasonable for the landlord to advise him on 7 December 2021 that it would assess options to install carpet in the neighbour’s property. The landlord subsequently attempted to gain funding for the cost of installing a carpet via a grant. This was an appropriate action for it to take and showed it considered further options to mitigate the noise, and potential cost of installing a carpet to the neighbour and landlord. The landlord would not have control over the time taken to assess the neighbour’s application, so the time taken for a decision to be made on the application was not an unreasonable delay. Unfortunately, the application was declined on 29 March 2022. Given the distress caused to the resident, it was reasonable that the landlord ultimately agreed to pay for the carpet installation itself, which it authorised on 28 April 2022 and then installed on 17 June 2022.
  6. It is important to note the landlord would not be expected to take formal action against a resident over everyday living noise. Therefore, while it was awaiting the outcome of the grant application and assessing options for the carpet installation, there were limited further actions it could take. However, it demonstrated it had considered alternative actions to support the resident. The landlord offered mediation, which was appropriate as to some extent the noise transference was due to a difference in lifestyle although this was rejected by the resident as she did not consider it would help and she was within her rights to decline the suggestion. The landlord also discussed property move options with the resident, as she had indicated this was an option for a desired outcome in her complaint.
  7. This Service’s spotlight report on noise complaints (“Time to be Heard”, published in October 2022) found that landlords generally remove carpets during the voids process, so that they are not liable for replacing it if it becomes damaged. The landlord advised the resident it was its policy to remove carpet during the void period, unless it was in a really good condition. Although it is acknowledged that the Ombudsman’s spotlight report was published after this case occurred, the landlord should review the recommendations it made and consider updating its voids standard, so carpets are not routinely removed, unless in poor condition. This will help to prevent, or reduce, further issues of noise transference in the case of bare floorboards, or laminate flooring being installed. As it advised the resident it would do, the landlord should also consider updating its future tenancy agreements to prevent the installation of laminate flooring in flats, if it is likely to cause noise disturbance to other residents in flats below.
  8. In the resident’s complaint to this Service, she stated she remained dissatisfied that the landlord had not installed carpet in all the neighbour’s rooms, and she was still experiencing noise disturbance. As the resident only requested for carpet to be installed in the lounge within her complaint and had specifically reported noise from the neighbour’s children, it was appropriate for the landlord to carpet these areas, rather than the whole property. Social landlords have limited budgets and are expected to allocate funding appropriately to provide the best service to all residents. Therefore, it was reasonable for the landlord to only install carpet in the areas reported as causing high noise disturbance by the resident.
  9. However, this was not made clear in the landlord’s stage two response as it did not explicitly state only certain rooms would have carpet installed. The landlord should have made this clear in its response, in order to more appropriately manage the resident’s expectations. However, the Ombudsman does not consider this to be evidence of service failure as the landlord has taken reasonable steps to resolve the noise reported by the resident. The landlord should contact the resident to discuss her outstanding concerns and confirm its position regarding whether it intends to install additional carpet.
  10. Overall, the landlord acted appropriately by taking steps to investigate and resolve the noise disturbance reported by the resident. It is important to note that it is not always possible to eradicate all noise transference between properties, therefore the landlord cannot always resolve the issue entirely. It was appropriate that the landlord used its discretion to offer £50 compensation to the resident, considering the distress that had been caused by the ongoing noise issue.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration by the landlord in respect of its handling of the resident’s reports of noise disturbance from the flat above.

Recommendations

  1. It is recommended that the landlord reviews the Housing Ombudsman’s spotlight report on noise complaints (https://www.housing-ombudsman.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2022/10/Spotlight-Noise-complaints-final-report-October-2022.pdf) and shares the findings and recommendations made with relevant staff who deal with reports of noise nuisance and noise related ASB.
  2. The landlord should consider reviewing its voids process and consider leaving carpets in place, unless they are in particularly poor condition.
  3. It is also recommended that the landlord reviews future tenancy agreements, to include a clause preventing residents in flats from installing laminate flooring, unless there are provisions to prevent noise transference.