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

Southern Housing Group Limited (202114639)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202114639

Southern Housing Group Limited

21 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:
    1. response to the resident’s reports of antisocial behaviour (ASB) noise nuisance from her neighbour;
    2. response to the resident’s reports of noise caused by the building vibrating;
    3. complaint handling.

Background

  1. The resident has been an assured tenant at the property of the landlord since 2 July 2021. The landlord is a registered provider of social housing. The property is a flat within a block of flats.
  2. On 8 June 2021, the resident reported noise coming from her upstairs neighbour’s property. She reported hearing children running, banging, crying, and screaming. She also explained that the noise was affecting her mental health as well as her and her son’s sleep. She asked that the landlord take steps to reduce the noise or fit carpet in the neighbour’s property rather than laminate floors.
  3. In or around August 2021, the resident also reported a “humming sound” (vibration) which she believed was coming from the lift. She advised that other neighbours had also reported they could hear the noise. The landlord asked that the resident download and use its ‘noise app’ so that it could review the recordings.
  4. In early September 2021, the resident advised that she had been recording the noise but was unsure if the noise app was technical enough to pick up the sounds. She queried when the vibration would be addressed and if an engineer had inspected the lift. The resident suggested that the vibration could be emitting from either the boiler room or electrical cupboard. The resident also noted she had been removed from the landlord’s decant list. The landlord apologised that she had been experiencing noise issues and advised that its transfer list was closed. It also explained how she could register for a mutual exchange or apply through the local authority.
  5. It is evident that the landlord opened an ASB investigation. On 13 September 2021, the landlord advised that it considered the majority of her recordings to be daily living noise. It also noted that the instances of noise were within sociable hours. On the same date, the landlord issued the neighbour a letter which informed them of the noise reports and requested that noise levels be kept to a minimum.
  6. The landlord has provided this service with its internal communications from the period of the complaint. An internal email showed that its contractor attended the site on 7 October 2021 to inspect for noise. The contractor reported no noise emitting from the boiler room or unusual noise from the neighbour’s property, and that the only noise from the lift was the bell when it stopped at a floor.
  7. The resident provided additional recordings in October 2021. The landlord noted hearing running and loud voices, and subsequently sent a further warning letter to the neighbour on 13 October 2021.
  8. The neighbour later denied that the noise was coming from them. They confirmed they had laminate floors but that there were rugs on the floor. The landlord then visited the neighbour’s property on 19 October 2021 to inspect the flooring. It contacted the resident in late October 2021 and advised that it had listened to the recordings and had deemed the noises to be general household noise.
  9. The resident raised a formal complaint on 21 October 2021. She advised that there was constant noise from her neighbour above, and that she continued to hear running and children playing. The resident also advised that the lift, boiler room, and/or the electrical storage area was creating a low-pitched vibration that travelled through the walls. She said that a surveyor had attended and agreed it may be the boiler room, but that she had not been updated since. She referred to the landlord’s website stating that residents should have permission to have laminate floors. The resident questioned what actions would be taken about the issues she raised. She suggested only allowing one or two people to reside in the neighbour’s property; that carpets should be installed, and that noise insulation should be installed. She also suggested changing the boiler room equipment to a quieter system. She further advised that if the noise could not be addressed she wanted to be relocated, and highlighting that there was a vacant property elsewhere in the building.
  10. On 28 October 2021, the landlord advised that it was closing its ASB investigation. It advised that all her recordings had been listened to and would continue to be monitored. The landlord advised that it had requested for the neighbour to reduce noise levels and that it had inspected their floors. It also advised that it considered the floor coverings at the neighbour’s property to be adequate. It noted that of the 65 recordings received, it had identified excessive noise on only three occasions. It advised that overall it considered the noise to be daily living noise, and so it was unable to treat it as ASB. The landlord described what it defined as daily living noise, which included children playing inside and crying, and that this was not deemed to be ASB.
  11. The landlord also advised that its surveyor had investigated the boiler room for vibration noise, but had not detected any issues. It advised that it had not received any reports from other residents in the building regarding this issue. It also enclosed a copy of the resident’s rehousing options.
  12. The landlord provided its stage one complaint response on 4 November 2021 and reiterated that the noises were daily living noises and not ASB. It advised that it was unable to progress the matter further. Regarding her transfer request, the landlord explained that it did not have nomination rights to offer vacant properties.
  13. The resident requested an escalation on 22 November 2021. On 11 January 2022, the resident contacted this service and advised she had not received a response from the landlord regarding her escalation request. This service then contacted the landlord to request it provide a stage two response.
  14. On 20 January 2022, the landlord discussed the complaint with the resident on the telephone. It reiterated it was unable to take action regarding the noise without evidence of ASB. The resident advised she did not believe the noise app had picked up the noise accurately, and that she was dissatisfied with the landlord’s decision. The landlord reiterated that it had inspected the neighbour’s property and found the carpeting to be adequate. It also reiterated it had sent warning letters to the neighbour. The landlord suggested that the resident complete noise diary sheets to record any ongoing noise.
  15. The landlord provided its stage two response on 25 January 2022. Regarding the resident’s concerns about the building vibration noise and her request for sound proofing, the landlord advised it would not consider this based on the current evidence.
  16. The landlord issued its final complaint response on 25 January 2022. It recalled that the resident had said that the building contributed partially to the noise and suggested sound proofing to minimise the sound levels in her home, it advised that that was not an option it would consider based on the current situation. It noted that the resident did not believe her noise app had correctly recorded the building vibration sound and so advised her to speak with her ‘Homes Officer’ to reattempt to use sound monitoring equipment.
  17. Regarding the noise from her neighbours, the landlord reiterated that it considered the noise to be daily living noise and not ASB. It reiterated that the resident should record further incidents on diary sheets for it to consider.
  18. Following further submissions through the noise app on 26 January 2022, the landlord advised that it had listened to the new recordings, but that it considered these to also be daily living noise. It subsequently offered to arrange for mediation between the resident and her neighbour. It is not evident that this has been pursued by the resident.

Assessment and findings

  1. The resident has advised that the noise has affected her mental health as well as her and her son’s sleep. The Ombudsman does not doubt the resident’s comments regarding her medical conditions. However, it is beyond the expertise of the Ombudsman to draw conclusions on the causation of, or liability for, impacts on health and wellbeing. This is an accordance with paragraph 39(i) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme which says the Ombudsman will not investigate complaints which concern matters where the Ombudsman considers it quicker, fairer, more reasonable or more effective to seek a remedy through the courts, a designated person, other tribunal or procedure. The resident should seek further legal advice should she wish to pursue a claim on this basis.
  2. Nevertheless, consideration has been given to the general distress and inconvenience which the situation may have caused the resident.

ASB noise nuisance

  1. The landlord operates an ASB policy. The policy notes it will take a robust approach when tackling ASB. This may include informal actions such as providing advice, interviewing the perpetrator, verbal and written warnings, referrals for support and mediation.
  2. In this case, following the resident’s reports, the landlord appropriately opened an ASB investigation. It appropriately signposted her to its noise app in order for her to obtain evidence, and it appropriately reviewed the recordings she submitted. It also took measures as per its ASB policy such as sending warning letters to the neighbour to remind them of their responsibilities regarding noise.
  3. The landlord’s ASB policy notes that normal household noise, such as children playing inside or children crying, would not be treated as instances of ASB. Based on the recordings provided through the noise app, the landlord appropriately advised that it considered the noises to be normal household noise, and it is not evident that these noises were consistently occurring at unsociable hours. While there were a small amount of instances where the landlord considered the noise to have been excessive, aside from the letters sent to the neighbour warning about noise, it would not be proportionate for the landlord to consider stricter enforcement action.
  4. The landlord appropriately provided this position in both its formal responses, and also appropriately committed to review further recordings should the issue persist. Given that the resident was concerned about the ability for the noise app to, it was also appropriate that the landlord requested that the resident keep noise diary sheets so it could consider if further action was required. The landlord also appropriately suggested mediation between the resident and neighbour, which is in line with the remedies in its ASB policy.
  5. Given that the resident continued to report noise following the landlord’s warning letters, and following its stage two response, it would have been appropriate to signpost the resident to the local authority’s Environmental Health service, who could assess for statutory noise nuisance. The landlord could also have made a referral itself. A recommendation has been made below that the landlord contact the resident to determine whether the issue is persisting, and make such a referral, or otherwise discuss this option if so.
  6. As part of her complaint, the resident raised concerns about the neighbour having hard floors, which was contrary to the conditions of their tenancy agreement. While contrary to the tenancy agreement, it was reasonable for the landlord not to have directly commented on the circumstances that led to hard floors being installed, as there may have been data protection considerations preventing this. Nevertheless, having been alerted to the fact it was causing a sound transference issue, the Ombudsman would expect a landlord to carry out a reasonable investigation and determine if there were steps that could be taken to mitigate sound transference, such as the installation of carpet underlay.
  7. While the landlord appropriately inspected the neighbour’s property and observed that they had laid rugs, given that the resident continued to report issues with sound transference, the Ombudsman would expect a landlord to have arranged for a technical expert or surveyor to assess the flooring. While the landlord arranged for its Home Officer to inspect the neighbour’s property, it is not evident that a technical inspection has taken place. It may be the case that the rugs prove to have an equivalent effect as carpeting and underlay, however, the landlord has failed to demonstrate this.
  8. While in its stage two response the landlord suggested talking to the Home Officer to arrange for sound monitoring equipment to further test for noise was appropriate, its failure to carry out a reasonable inspection of the flooring, to provide its position on whether underlay was appropriate, or to justify why the neighbour’s rugs were sufficient represent maladministration in the circumstances.
  9. The landlord’s failure to carry out a reasonable investigation would have left the resident frustrated that her complaint had not been correctly addressed, and compensation is appropriate to reflect the distress this would have caused. In the circumstances, an amount of £250 is appropriate. Additionally, an order has been made below that the landlord to arrange for a technical expert/surveyor to inspect the neighbour’s property and determine the efficacy of the rugs/provide an opinion on whether additional measures could be taken to reduce sound transference.

Building vibration noise

  1. As with above, the Ombudsman would expect the landlord to carry out a reasonable investigation of reports of building vibration noise, and to provide a position on steps that could be taken to mitigate such issues.
  2. While the landlord arranged for its contractor to attend the building and assess for vibration noise, it is not evident what qualified this contractor to make such an assessment, i.e. it is not evident they were a technical expert or surveyor. Once again, it may be the case that the building vibrations are not sufficient to constitute action, however, the landlord failed to demonstrate it had reached this conclusion reasonably.
  3. In the circumstances, this also amounts to maladministration as the landlord failed to carry out a reasonable inspection, given the resident’s repeated reports of the issue. An additional order for £250 compensation is appropriate to reflect the distress caused to the resident, as well as an order for the landlord to arrange for a technical inspection in the same manner as above.

Complaints handling

  1. The landlord operates a two stage complaints policy. The policy notes that a landlord will provide a stage one response within 10 working days of a complaint, and a stage two response within 20 working days of an escalation.
  2. While the landlord initially provided its stage one response in line with its complaints policy, its stage two response was delayed until after intervention from this service. In certain circumstances, there are occasions where it would be reasonable for a landlord to delay providing a complaint response. However, in accordance with its complaints procedure the landlord should have kept the resident informed of any delays, rather than having to chase for a response.
  3. As the landlord failed to provide stage two response in line with its complaint policy, this amounted to service failure in the circumstances. An amount of £100 compensation has been ordered to reflect the distress and inconvenience caused to the resident, as well as the time and trouble she expended in chasing the response.

Determination (decision)

  1. In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was maladministration by the landlord in respect of the complaints regarding its response to the resident’s reports of:
    1. ASB noise nuisance from her neighbour;
    2. noise caused by the building vibrating.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was service failure by the landlord in respect of its complaints handling.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

  1. The Ombudsman orders the landlord to pay compensation of £600, comprising:
    1. £250 for any distress and inconvenience caused to the resident by its failure to carry out a reasonable investigation of her neighbour’s flooring;
    2. £250 for any distress and inconvenience caused to the resident by its failure to carry out a reasonable investigation of vibrations within the building;
    3. £100 for its ineffective complaints handling.
  2. This amount must be paid within four weeks of the date of this determination.
  3. The landlord to also arrange for a technical expert/surveyor to:
    1. inspect the neighbour’s flooring to determine the efficacy of the rugs/provide an opinion on whether additional measures could be taken to reduce sound transference;
    2. inspect the lift, boiler room, and/or the electrical storage area for vibration noise and provide an opinion on whether additional measures could be taken to reduce sound transference.
  4. The landlord to write to the resident with the outcome of these inspections within four weeks of the date of this determination.

 

Recommendations

  1. The landlord to write to the resident within four weeks of the date of this determination and enquire as to whether the noise from her neighbour is persistent, and if so, make a referral or otherwise signpost the resident to the local authority’s environmental health team.