Richmond Housing Partnership Limited (202014319)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202014319

Richmond Housing Partnership Limited

2 January 2024

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

The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of the resident’s:
1. Reports of noise.
2. Complaints.

Background

The resident is the assured tenant of the property, a two bedroom ground floor flat, from 2005. The landlord is a housing association which owns and manages the building.
The landlord does not have any vulnerabilities recorded but the evidence shows that the resident has told it multiple times that the noise problems are having an impact on the mental and physical health of him and his wife. During the events the resident has been supported by his MP, local councillor and the council’s tenants’ champion service.
The landlord has a responsibility under the Housing Health and Safety Rating System (HHSRS) introduced by the Housing Act 2004 to assess hazards and risks within its rented properties. Noise is a potential hazard covered by the HHSRS and the landlord is required to consider if a noise problem amounts to a hazard that may require remedy.
In October 2022 the Ombudsman published a spotlight report on noise complaints. The events in this case started in 2020 but the noise problems have not been resolved and we have referred to our spotlight report when identifying failings after October 2022 and in considering our orders and recommendations.
Under the Regulator of Social Housing’s neighbourhood and community standard, social housing landlords are required to work in partnership with other agencies to prevent and tackle anti social behaviour (ASB). Landlords are specifically expected to take appropriate action to deal with ASB before it escalates, and tailor preventative measures towards the needs of tenants.
The landlord’s ASB policy says the landlord will investigate all reports of ASB and defines ASB as conduct that is causing nuisance or annoyance to another person or is capable of doing so. The policy says:
1. The landlord will apply a victim and harm centred, problem solving approach and work with partners where appropriate.
2. It may offer mediation, acceptable behaviour contracts and/or tenancy support to prevent ASB and will consider each case on its individual circumstances.
3. It will record all incidents of ASB and will complete an initial reporting form with the resident to identify the risks involved. It will then give help and advice.
4. All the landlord’s tenancy agreements include a clause that residents must not cause nuisance or annoyance to their neighbours.
5. The landlord will close an ASB case when the ASB has stopped or it decides that no further action is needed and will tell residents if it intends to close their case.
The landlord’s ASB toolkit sets out the actions that it can and cannot take for different types of ASB. The toolkit:
1. Says noise nuisance is the most common type of ASB reported and that the landlord recognises that noise affects people differently.
2. Gives examples of noise that the landlord would not consider to be a nuisance including household noise during “reasonable” hours and children playing.
3. Says the landlord can take enforcement action where noise is proven to be a statutory nuisance.
4. Says that the landlord recognises that noise problems can lead to disputes between neighbours but this is not ASB unless being used to harass or intimidate someone.
5. Encourages residents to speak to their neighbours about any issues before contacting the landlord.
The landlord has a separate maintaining and improving neighbourhoods policy which sets out its approach to managing its neighbourhoods. It says that the landlord will consider a suite of options to maintain good neighbourhood relationships and deal with low level issues of “neighbour friction” to ensure they are not “inappropriately handled as ASB”.
The landlord has a two stage complaints process and its policy says that it will respond to stage 1 complaints within 10 working days and stage 2 complaints within 20 working days. It says that complaints may be resolved in several ways including apologising, acknowledging what went wrong, putting things right and/or offering a financial remedy.
It has separate guidelines for compensation and goodwill payments which give examples of payment which may be made. The examples include payments of up to £30 for missed appointments, up to £100 for service failure or more than £250 for serious service failures.

Summary of events

The resident reported noise problems to the landlord in February 2020 and told the landlord that the neighbour in the flat above had removed carpets. The resident reported the problem again in April 2020 and the landlord wrote to the neighbour.
The resident reported noise issues again on 8 February 2021 saying they could hear noises of running and slamming doors which was more than household noise and disturbed them as they were working from home. The landlord opened an ASB case and asked for noise recordings. The landlord’s ASB records say the resident told it that the noise app it had asked him to use did not pick up the noise. He asked if he could complete diary sheets instead but it is not clear whether the landlord agreed to this.
The resident made further reports of noise from arguing and other general noise on 15 February 2021 and 18 March 2021. The landlord advised that it could not resolve household noise but asked him to send diary sheets of the arguing.
On 25 March 2021 the resident emailed the landlord saying the noise from above was “intrusive”. He explained that he could hear noise from the neighbour’s child playing and running, and the neighbour’s conversations throughout the day and night. The resident said he had spoken to the neighbour but things had not improved. He said that it was impacting his own wellbeing and that of his wife as they had difficulty in sleeping and working from home. The resident said that the noise app that the landlord had asked him to use did not pick up the vibrations through his home caused by the noise. He asked for his ceiling to be soundproofed.
The landlord replied on 2 April 2021 saying it would consider his reports from 8 February 2021 due to the break of 8 months since his previous noise report. It acknowledged the noise diary he had sent but asked him to use its template to record future noise. The landlord asked the resident to record the noise another way if the noise app was not able to pick it up.
On 7 April 2021 the resident sent diary sheets showing noise on a daily basis and said he had not been able to record it. He again asked the landlord to consider soundproofing and suggested it visit him to listen to the noise. He also offered to purchase sound recording equipment if the landlord would reimburse him.
The landlord emailed the resident on 2 May 2021 suggesting he record the noise on his phone or other device, and that he contact the Council’s noise team. It said that noise transferred more easily between flats and the landlord could not install soundproofing but it had asked the neighbour to put down carpets.
On 10 May 2021 the resident emailed the landlord saying he had tried to record the noise but the recording had not captured the sounds of talking, running or walking. He said he had suggested previously that the landlord come out to listen and that the noise was affecting his family’s physical and mental health. The resident said there had not been a problem until the flooring had been changed and asked why soundproofing could not be done.
The landlord offered mediation on 9 June 2021 which was accepted by the resident and the neighbour and a referral was made to the landlord’s resolution team on 30 June 2021.
On 29 July 2021 the resident reported that he had just spoken to the neighbour about screaming and running and it had turned into a “heated argument”. He asked why it was so hard for the landlord to go out and assess the flooring.
The resident emailed the landlord on 31 August 2021 saying it had been 3 months since mediation had been agreed but it had not yet been arranged. The landlord said it would chase the request. The resident emailed the landlord on 7 September 2021 saying that the mediation had now been arranged.
On 20 September 2021 the resident emailed the landlord saying he had met with mediators and group mediation was to be arranged. He said there had been an incident the previous day where the neighbour had 11 visitors and the noise was “unbearable”. The resident said he had asked the neighbour to reduce the noise and they had told him that they had asked the landlord to help them with the cost of replacing flooring.
The resident emailed the landlord’s chief executive on 28 September 2021 saying his wife was suffering “severe stress and anxiety” and that he was at his “wits end”. He said that the landlord had not investigated or visited to hear the noise and asked if the landlord would help the neighbour replace their flooring.
The landlord agreed to pay for carpets to be fitted in the neighbour’s flat and communicated with the neighbour and a contractor to arrange quotes and fitting.
On 26 October 2021 the resident emailed the landlord saying he had not been able to sleep as the neighbour had been making noise until 1 a.m. and that further noise had disturbed his work that morning. He asked if the landlord could ask the neighbours to be quiet after 10 p.m. The landlord responded on 8 November 2021 saying it would provide an update on the carpet fitting as soon as it could.
The resident emailed the landlord on 12 November 2021 saying he was disappointed with the lack of progress. He said his wife had called 2 weeks previously and been told that carpets were being fitted on 12 November 2021 but that had not happened. The landlord replied on 15 November 2021 saying that a quote for carpet fitting had been approved but it did not have an installation date yet.
On 18 November 2021 the Ombudsman wrote to the landlord asking it to consider the resident’s email of 28 September 2021 under its formal complaints process and provide a response by 2 December 2021. The landlord replied to us on 23 November 2021 giving the date when carpets would be fitted but did not say whether it had logged the resident’s complaint.
The resident emailed the landlord on 19 November 2021 saying he had not had a response to his earlier email and asking to escalate his complaint. The landlord replied that day saying that carpets were to be fitted throughout the neighbour’s flat which it hoped would reduce the noise levels. It suggested the resident wait for the carpets to be laid before escalating his complaint. On 30 November 2021 the landlord emailed the resident saying that carpets were being fitted in the neighbour’s flat that day.
On 1 December 2021 the resident emailed the landlord saying the noise was continuing despite carpets being fitted in the neighbour’s flat and that he had sent noise app recordings. He said he wanted to raise a complaint at the “highest level”. He said he had asked the landlord to come and assess the noise and said that the landlord’s failure to investigate had caused a breakdown in his relationship with his neighbour.
The landlord provided its stage 1 response to the resident’s complaint on 3 December 2021 in which it said:
1. The noise was not considered ASB and it acknowledged that the structure of the building and neighbour’s laminate flooring had allowed noise to travel easily.
2. It was unable to prevent household noise but had engaged with the neighbour to try to improve the situation and had paid for mediation though this had not taken place.
3. It had replaced the flooring in the flat above and was sorry that its expense had not brought about an improvement.
4. It could not take enforcement action for household noise and did not fit soundproofing.
5. It noted his previous escalation request and asked him to confirm whether this was still what he wanted.
The landlord also closed its ASB case on 3 December 2021.
On 9 December 2021 the resident sent a noise app recording. He chased for an update on 11 January 2022 and sent 2 further noise recordings on 19 January 2022. In his latter email he said he was concerned that the neighbour would be able to hear conversations in his flat as he could clearly hear the neighbour’s conversations. The resident emailed the landlord on 4 February 2022 saying it had not responded to his emails or calls and that ongoing noise was affecting his performance at work.
The landlord emailed the resident on 8 February 2022 apologising for its lack of communication and saying a restructure of its complaints service had led to the delay. It would call him within 48 hours.
On 11 February 2022 the resident emailed the landlord saying that no one had called him and summarising the noise issues he had experienced. He said he had attended mediation but his neighbour had changed their mind and the landlord had not taken sufficient steps to resolve the noise problems. The resident said there were other issues with his flat including inadequate insulation and mould growth that he had previously kept quiet about.
The resident emailed the landlord on 14 February 2022 saying he had spent the weekend being verbally abused by the neighbour after asking them to stop jumping. He said that his sleep was affected by them making noise late in the night and he could not tolerate the situation any longer.
The landlord replied on 16 February 2022 saying it had escalated the noise issue for further investigation and would give a nominated point of contact. It said that his complaint was closed but it assured him that it would continue to monitor the situation. The landlord opened a new ASB case on 17 February 2022.
The resident emailed again on 24 February 2022 asking whether his case was being considered as a stage 2 complaint, when his nominated contact would be in touch, and what they would be able to do to resolve the issue. The landlord replied on 24 February 2022 apologising that no one had been in touch, saying it had escalated the case and that a manager would contact him “urgently”.
The landlord called the resident on 27 February 2022 and apologised for its lack of communication. The landlord called the resident again the following day. The resident explained the noise had been ongoing for over 2 years and that the carpets the landlord fitted had not improved it. He agreed that the landlord could contact the neighbour about his reports.
On 1 March 2022 the landlord completed an incident referral form with the resident but the Ombudsman has not seen the document.
The resident sent a noise recording on 7 March 2022 and reported that noise from the neighbour had been audible to his colleagues on a zoom call. The resident sent 3 noise recordings on 8 March 2022 and chased the landlord for a response on 14 March 2022. The landlord wrote to him on 15 March 2022 saying the recordings were of household noise and it emailed on 21 March 2022 saying it would carry out a home visit.
The landlord visited both flats on 12 May 2022 and assessed the noise by having an officer run and jump around in the neighbour’s flat whilst another officer listened to the noise in the resident’s flat below. The landlord emailed the resident after the visit saying it was arranging for new carpets and underlay to be fitted in the neighbour’s flat.
On 16 May 2022 the resident asked for an update. The landlord replied on 20 May 2022 saying it would give an update on the carpet fitting as soon as it could. The resident chased again on 27 May 2022 saying there had been noise after midnight recently. He chased again on 1 June 2022 and landlord said it would respond the following week.
The landlord emailed the resident on 9 June 2022 saying that 2 surveyors had inspected the carpets in the flat above. They had found them to be of “acceptable quality” and the landlord would not replace them. The landlord said it considered the noise levels to be normal for the type of property and asked the resident to record the noise using the noise app. It said it would write to his neighbour.
On 14 June 2022 the landlord wrote to the resident’s neighbour saying it had received complaints about noise of stamping on the floor and running around their home. It asked them to be more considerate especially during evenings.
The landlord offered mediation again on 22 June 2022.
On 19 July 2022 the landlord wrote to the resident confirming the actions it had taken:
1. It had visited both properties on 12 May 2022 at the same time to witness noise transference but the officer below had been unable to hear her colleague running, stomping and jumping in the flat above. The only noise heard was a window being closed.
2. It had concluded that the noise was household and would not take further action.
3. It encouraged him to continue using the noise app to provide evidence of further noise.
4. It apologised for its miscommunication in “seeming” to agree that the carpets could be replaced. The carpets it had fitted were of sufficient quality and would not be replaced.
5. It would inspect the floorboards in the flat above to see if repairs were needed.
6. It was discussing mediation with the neighbour. It had taken advice from its solicitor which had confirmed mediation was the best solution.
7. It encouraged him to report the noise to the council.
The landlord’s ASB records suggest it contacted the council’s noise team for advice on 3 August 2022.
On 23 August 2022 the landlord’s contractor attended to assess the floorboards in the neighbour’s flat. It found one squeaky board which it said would not impact noise levels below.
The Ombudsman contacted the landlord on 2 September 2022 and 29 September 2022 asking it to contact the resident about his complaint. The landlord emailed the resident on 4 October 2022 asking if he wanted to raise a stage 2 complaint.
The resident emailed the landlord on 11 October 2022 confirming he wanted to escalate his complaint. He said:
1. He had lived in his flat for 14 years and not had any noise issues until the neighbour had fitted laminate flooring.
2. Since then, he was able to hear everything that happened in the flat above and the noise affected his family’s mental and physical health on a daily basis. His family spent time away from home to get peace and quiet, were taking medication, and struggling to work from home.
3. The landlord had fitted carpets but that had not resolved the noise.
4. He had always been willing to work with the landlord and neighbour to resolve the problem amicably.
5. The neighbour had threatened his family on multiple occasions and the landlord had not supported him or dealt with the problems.
6. There were other issues with his flat including lack of insulation and mould growth that he had not previously raised.
7. He wanted the landlord to resolve the noise issues.
The landlord responded the same day confirming it had escalated his complaint and would respond within 20 working days.
On 4 November 2022 the landlord visited both properties and the resident told the officers that he believed his neighbour was now making noise intentionally. The landlord’s ASB records say that the officer in the resident’s flat was not able to hear the neighbour’s tv despite it being loud but “low level movement could be heard from above in all rooms causing slight vibration”. The resident said this was not the same noise as he usually heard from above and gave other examples of the neighbour’s behaviour that had affected them. The landlord suggested it could do unannounced visits to witness the noise and explained its process for taking enforcement action. The resident agreed for sound monitoring equipment to be installed.
The resident emailed the landlord on 7 and 9 November 2022 asking when soundproofing would take place and saying nothing had been explained at the visit on 4 November 2022.
On 9 November 2022 the landlord sent its stage 2 response which listed the reports that the resident had made between 20 April 2020 and 4 November 2022 and the action it had taken. The letter said:
1. Whilst the landlord had acted on the resident’s reports, it had not followed its ASB policy throughout the case.
2. It felt it had taken appropriate steps to support him and was continuing to consider options to reduce the transfer of noise.
3. It acknowledged that its stage 1 response had not addressed the issues adequately and that its communications afterwards had been “poor”.
4. It had failed to escalate his complaint when he asked and had missed opportunities to adequately investigate the noise issues.
5. It had contacted the Council’s noise team on several occasions but it had not responded. It would contact the noise team again.
6. It would contact the neighbour again about mediation.
7. It asked him to continue to report noise issues, keep diary sheets and make recordings and it would discuss any noise which it felt to be unreasonable with the neighbour. He should report any criminal matters including threats to the police.
8. It had consulted its solicitor and told him of the advice given on 19 July 2022.
9. He should contact GP about health issues and pass any medical reports to it if he wanted to move.
10. It had contacted a sound specialist who would visit both homes, if the neighbour agreed, to test for noise transference and make recommendations.
11. It offered £1,100 compensation for its service failures.
An acoustics survey was done at both properties on 28 November 2022.
On 29 November 2022 the resident asked the Ombudsman to investigate. He confirmed that he remained dissatisfied with the landlord’s handling of his noise reports and its failure to resolve the issues. He was also dissatisfied with the amount of compensation offered as he felt it did not sufficiently reflect the inconvenience and distress he had suffered over the prolonged period he had been reporting problems.

Events after the end of the landlord’s complaint process

Between 6 December 2022 and 12 January 2023, the resident chased the landlord for a copy of the acoustics survey report and asked what further steps the landlord intended to take to resolve the noise problems. He also made a further report of excessive noise.
On 9 January 2023 the landlord paid the resident the £1,100 compensation that it had offered in its stage 2 response.
On 13 January 2023 the landlord sent the resident a copy of the acoustics report and said it needed to carry out some work which would be done by its repairs team. The report dated 8 December 2022 noted background noise from road traffic was observed during the tests. It said that the acoustic requirement of the floor between the flats achieved the minimum building regulation standards and recommended that:
1. an inspection be carried out to determine whether any mineral wool was present in the floor cavity, and installed if that was not the case to improve acoustic insulation.
2. A “good” inspection be carried out to identify, and repair, any damaged or worn construction elements that may be contributing to poor sound insulation performance.
3. A gap identified between the master bedroom wardrobes between the flats be inspected and sealed appropriately.
4. It set out the detail of how weak points identified in the inspections could be addressed.
The resident reported a weekend of “horrendous” noise on 23 January 2023 and said the neighbour had threatened to call the police when he went up to speak to them.
Between 26 January 2023 and 7 February 2023, the landlord and resident continued to communicate over the work recommended in the acoustics survey. The landlord arranged for a contractor to give a quote for doing the work and the resident was chasing for progress updates. On 7 February 2023 the landlord issued the resident with an acceptable behaviour agreement which required him to not knock on his neighbour’s door or behave in any way that was anti social, threatening or aggressive.
The resident emailed the landlord on 12 February 2023 and 16 February 2023 expressing “deep dissatisfaction” with its lack of service, the way he had been treated, including the issuing of the acceptable behaviour agreement, and asking for his complaint to be dealt with. The landlord replied on 24 February 2023 saying it had dealt with his dissatisfaction in its stage 2 response and it did not have any records of him having reported being threatened by the neighbour. It would investigate if he could provide details of when it had happened. It was satisfied the reports it had received about his behaviour were a breach of tenancy and it had been reasonable to issue an acceptable behaviour agreement.
Between 25 February 2023 and 4 March 2023 the resident sent the landlord further emails expressing his dissatisfaction and reporting further noise incidents. On 9 March 2023 the landlord emailed saying it would not address his dissatisfaction with its service any further. It said that the quote for soundproofing was £14,040 and it needed evidence of the noise problem to justify the expenditure.
On 13 March 2023 the tenants’ champion service emailed the landlord saying it was concerned about the tone of the landlord’s response of 9 March 2023. It felt that the delays of the landlord had contributed to the escalating tensions between the neighbours. It asked the landlord to clarify whether it intended to do soundproofing work and noted that, although the noise may be considered household, it was still causing disturbance and distress and had not been addressed by the landlord’s actions to date. It asked what the benefit of the resident continuing to record the noise was.
The resident continued to email the landlord asking it to take further action to resolve the noise and chasing for responses to his emails. In its responses, the landlord continued to say that it had dealt with his dissatisfaction and that it needed further evidence to address the noise problems. On 17 March 2023 the landlord offered to install noise monitoring equipment and on 2 June 2023 it said it wanted to offer mediation again. On 20 June 2023 the landlord said that the noise case had been ongoing for so long because the resident had failed to provide the evidence it had asked for.
On 17 August 2023 the tenants’ champion service wrote to the landlord saying it was concerned that the landlord was framing the problem as relating to ASB and statutory noise nuisance and that was not the problem. It was due to neighbours removing the carpets and the landlord’s handling of the case since then. It asked the landlord to review its position.
From 21 August 2023 the resident continued to ask the landlord to take steps to resolve the noise problem. In its responses, the landlord acknowledged the “terrible” impact the noise was having on him but said there was nothing further it could do. It continued to ask him for diary sheets and noise recordings.
On 15 November 2023 the landlord met with the resident, a representative of his MP and the tenants’ champion service. It was agreed that the landlord would survey both flats to check for any disrepair. The landlord visited the resident’s flat on 23 November 2023 but was not able to survey the neighbour’s flat as they had cancelled the appointment.

Assessment and findings

In reaching a decision about the resident’s complaint we consider whether the landlord followed proper procedure and good practice and acted in a reasonable way. Our duty is to determine complaints by what is, in this Service’s opinion, fair in all circumstances of the case.

Handling of the resident’s reports of noise

It is not disputed that noise has been transferring from the neighbour’s flat to the resident’s flat since February 2020. The dispute is whether the landlord has done enough to resolve the problem and support the resident.
The resident was clear from his first report in February 2020 that the noise problems had only started when the neighbour removed the original carpets and installed laminate flooring. The landlord told the resident in an email that it would not authorise wooden flooring in flats. If this were the case, it would have been reasonable for the landlord to have investigated the neighbour’s change of flooring as a potential tenancy breach when it became aware of the issue in 2020. Not doing so meant the landlord missed the opportunity to resolve the problem at an early stage.
The evidence shows that the landlord did ask the neighbour to fit carpets in May 2021 but this was over a year after it was told of the change in flooring. Even then, there is no evidence that the landlord had considered the laminate flooring to be a tenancy breach or followed up with the neighbour to see whether they would fit carpets. It was left to the resident to find out that the neighbour needed financial assistance and ask the landlord to help in his email of 28 September 2021. The landlord’s slow and passive approach were failings which meant it took no proactive steps to resolve the noise problem for over a year.
It was reasonable that the landlord fitted carpets in the neighbour’s flat. However, it did not install them until 30 November 2021 which was over 17 months after the resident had first reported the noise problems. The fact that installing the carpets did not resolve the noise suggests that the carpets fitted by the landlord may not have been of the same quality as those the neighbour had removed. This meant the opportunity to resolve the problem was missed.
It is not clear from the evidence seen whether the landlord had opened an ASB case in 2020 when the resident first reported the noise problem. The landlord did open an ASB case in February 2021 and dealt with the resident’s noise reports under its ASB policy from then. This put the landlord on a track of seeking evidence and assessing the action it could take under its ASB policy from that point onwards.
The landlord’s ASB policy says it recognises that not all noise reports can be classed as ASB. It says that such cases can be dealt with outside of its ASB policy in accordance with its maintaining and improving neighbourhoods policy. We have seen no evidence that the landlord has considered dealing with the resident’s noise reports outside of its ASB policy at any point since February 2021.
Further, the landlord’s maintaining and improvement neighbourhoods policy contains no specific reference to the management of noise reports that do not amount to ASB. The landlord should reconcile this discrepancy between its policies.
Its ASB policy says the landlord will discuss the issues reported with the resident and triage the case. It will then complete an initial reporting form to assess the risks. We have seen no evidence that the landlord completed an initial reporting form when it opened the first ASB case in February 2021. Its records say it completed a form with the resident on 1 March 2022 during the second ASB case but we have not seen a copy. This means that the landlord has not evidenced that it followed its policy in assessing the risks and using its assessment to decide on the interventions it would make.
Under the landlord’s ASB policy and the expectations under the neighbourhood and community standard, the landlord should have worked with partners to prevent the issue escalating. The landlord’s ASB records show it had contacted the council’s noise team on 3 August 2022 but this was more than 2 years after the resident’s first noise report. The landlord should have contacted the noise team sooner. Further, the records show that the landlord was still waiting for a response from the noise team on 2 September 2022 and no evidence has been seen that the landlord had chased a response or escalated the matter. These were further failings by the landlord.
If the landlord had got the council’s noise team involved at an early stage it may have led to the council installing noise monitoring equipment. In the absence of this, the landlord relied solely on the resident to provide evidence of the noise.
The landlord’s persistent requests that the resident provide recordings and diary sheets of the noise were not reasonable. Whilst landlords do need evidence to support enforcement action, the initial noise issues in this case were not tenancy breaches that warranted an enforcement approach. The landlord should have focussed its efforts on resolving the cause of the noise problem. Its constant requests for recordings and diary sheets caused frustration and inconvenience to the resident and were a barrier to the landlord considering other solutions.
When the resident did provide diary sheets and noise recordings the landlord’s typical response was that they did not evidence ASB or statutory noise nuisance, and that the resident needed to give more evidence to enable the landlord to act. This was not reasonable given the landlord understood that the problem was noise transferring due to the neighbour’s change of flooring.
There were occasions when the resident reported noise occurring during unsocial hours which may have qualified as incidents of noise nuisance or ASB under the landlord’s policy. For example, on 28 October 2021 the resident reported that noise had continued until 1 a.m. and on 27 May 2022 he reported noise continuing after midnight. We have seen no evidence that the landlord addressed either of these reports in accordance with its ASB policy.
The landlord offered mediation 3 times (on 9 June 2021, 22 June 2022 and 2 June 2023). Mediation can be a successful tool in resolving issues between neighbours and it may have improved the situation if it had been offered at an early stage in this case. However, by the time the landlord offered mediation on 9 June 2021 the problem had existed for more than a year, the landlord knew the problem had been caused by the neighbour’s change of flooring and it had asked the neighbour to fit carpets. As such it is not clear why the landlord thought that mediation alone could resolve the issues or why it took so long for the process to start on 20 September 2021. The delay caused distress and inconvenience to the resident who continued to be affected by the noise and had to chase the landlord for progress updates.
The mediation attempt failed when the neighbour changed their mind about participating. It is not clear why the landlord went on to offer mediation on 2 further occasions particularly considering the deterioration in the relationship between the resident and his neighbour due to the noise issues continuing.
The landlord’s ASB policy says that it may consider providing tenancy support to prevent ASB. We have seen no evidence that it considered providing tenancy support to either the resident or his neighbour at any point during the events in this case. This means that the landlord has not evidenced that it followed its policy in considering tenancy support as an intervention to prevent the noise problem escalating into ASB.
Nor have we seen evidence that the landlord considered the noise as a potential hazard that it had an obligation to remedy or minimise. It would have been reasonable for the landlord to have done so given its obligations under the HHSRS and its knowledge of how the noise was affecting the physical and mental health of the resident and his wife.
It would also have been reasonable for the landlord to have visited sooner. The resident had asked it to visit multiple times from 7 April 2021 but the landlord did not agree to do so until almost a year later on 21 March 2022 and the visit did not take place until 16 May 2022. This meant the landlord missed the opportunity to assess the noise problem at an early stage and was a further failing.
The evidence shows that the landlord was not proactive in keeping the resident informed of progress. This caused frustration and inconvenience to the resident who has had to chase the landlord for updates throughout the case.
When the landlord did respond to the resident’s reports and contacts it was often slow to do so. For example, the resident chased for progress updates on 18 June 2021, 24 June 2021 and 28 June 2021 and the landlord did not respond until 2 July 2021 when it sent information about the mediation service. It did not explain why it was taking so long for mediation to be arranged.
Similarly, when the resident reported noise incidents and sent recordings on 9 December 2021 and 19 January 2022, the landlord did not respond until 8 February 2022 despite the resident chasing a response several times.
There is also evidence that the landlord failed to respond at all to some of the resident’s requests. For example, on 26 October 2021 the resident had asked if the landlord would ask the neighbour to be quiet after 10 p.m. but the landlord did not address this in its response of 8 November 2021 and no evidence has been seen that it contacted the neighbour. Similarly, the resident had made several contacts to the landlord from 9 December 2021 and no evidence has been seen of any response by the landlord until 8 February 2022. Even then, the landlord failed to meet the commitment it gave to call him within 48 hours.
The resident told the landlord multiple times from 25 March 2021 that the noise issues were affecting the health and wellbeing of him and his wife. For example, on:
1. 25 March 2021 he told the landlord the noise was impacting their wellbeing and affecting their ability to sleep.
2. 28 September 2021 he told the landlord that his wife was suffering severe stress and anxiety and he was at his wits end.
3. 12 November 2021 he told the landlord the noise was affecting their mental health, work and marriage.
4. 11 October 2022 he told the landlord that his family spent time away from home to get peace and quiet, were taking medication, and struggling to work from home.
We have not seen evidence that the landlord has sufficiently taken account of the impact the noise is having on the resident when planning its interventions.
The landlord gave the resident the expectation that it would take action and then changed its position on several occasions. For example, after visiting on 12 May 2022 the landlord said it would replace the carpets in the neighbour’s flat and on 20 May 2022 it said it would provide a fitting date as soon as it could. However, on 9 June 2022 it said the carpets would not be changed as they were of acceptable quality. It is not clear why the landlord came to this conclusion given the carpets had been fitted to resolve the noise problem and had not been successful in doing so. Its change of position was unreasonable and caused frustration to the resident.
Similarly, at its visit on 4 November 2022 the landlord had suggested it could do unannounced visits to witness the noise and offered to install sound monitoring equipment. It is not clear why the landlord did not offer these options sooner and no evidence has been seen that the landlord did either of these things following its visit.
Our spotlight report of October 2022 highlighted a common theme of noise problems arising from installation of hard flooring, particularly in flats. The landlord’s stated approach of not allowing residents of flats to fit hard flooring is reasonable. It is noted that the landlord’s website gives information to residents wanting to alter their homes. However, the advice does not refer to the installation of hard floorings as an alteration that a resident would need permission for. Nor does it state that the landlord does not allow hard flooring in flats. The landlord should make its policy position regarding hard flooring clear to residents and consider adding a relevant clause in new tenancy agreements to increase its ability to take effective action.
Our spotlight report also highlighted that ASB policies are an inadequate framework for managing noise complaints that are not ASB or statutory nuisance.
Since the end of the landlord’s complaint process on 9 November 2022 it has continued to deal with the resident’s noise reports under its ASB policy. We have seen correspondence between the resident and landlord which shows that the landlord is continuing the cycle of asking the resident to evidence the noise and then saying there is nothing it can do to resolve it. In an email dated 20 June 2023 the landlord told the resident that the reason his noise case had been going on for so long was because he had failed to provide the evidence it had asked for. It was not reasonable for the landlord have continued to take an enforcement approach rather than focus on other solutions. Nor was it reasonable to blame the resident for its inability to take enforcement action.
The landlord continuing to deal with the noise reports through its ASB policy was a failing. Aside from the recommendations in our spotlight report, the landlord’s ASB toolkit recognises that noise problems can lead to disputes between neighbours. Its maintaining and improving neighbourhoods policy recognises that it is inappropriate to handle neighbour “friction” as ASB. The landlord should have focussed its efforts on resolving the noise and restoring the relationship between the resident and his neighbour.
The landlord’s failure to resolve noise meant it missed the opportunity to prevent the situation escalating and prevent the relationship between the neighbours from deteriorating. As well as the resident’s noise complaint, the neighbour has complained about noise from the resident’s flat and both have made reports of ASB against the other. This means that the landlord has had to do additional work, which it may have otherwise avoided, to investigate the reports made and consider the interventions it would make. The landlord may have avoided issuing an acceptable behaviour agreement to the resident if it had handled his noise reports appropriately.
The landlord offered noise monitoring equipment again on 17 March 2023 and told the resident it had not previously been available. It is not clear from the evidence exactly when the equipment became available to the landlord and whether there was any delay in it offering installation to the resident. However, the landlord did not actively pursue installation as it did not ask the resident about it again until 2 June 2023. It would have been reasonable for the landlord to have done so sooner given the frequency of correspondence between it and the resident over this period. We have not seen any evidence that monitoring equipment has been installed at any point.
It was reasonable that the landlord commissioned an acoustics survey and sent a copy to the resident. However, the survey was not done until 28 November 2022 by which time the resident had endured the noise for over 2 and a half years. The landlord should have commissioned the survey much sooner.
The landlord’s email of 13 January 2023 gave the resident the expectation that it would do the work recommended by the acoustics expert. This was reinforced in subsequent correspondence and by it arranging a quote for the work. However, the landlord changed its position after receiving the quote saying it needed further evidence of the problem to justify the expenditure. This was not reasonable, given the survey had confirmed the noise transfer between the properties and that the landlord was aware of the significant impact the noise was having on the resident and his wife. The landlord’s change in position caused further distress and frustration to the resident.
The resident had also reported inadequate insulation and mould growth in his flat in his emails to the landlord on 11 February 2022 and 11 October 2022. We have not seen any evidence that the landlord responded to those issues and an order has been made below for the landlord to do so.
The landlord’s inadequate handling of the resident’s noise reports meant that the noise problem remains unresolved after more than three and a half years. The significant impact this has had on the resident amounts to severe maladministration.
In relation to the failures identified, the Ombudsman’s role is to consider whether the redress offered by the landlord has put things right and resolved the resident’s complaint satisfactorily in the circumstances. In considering this the Ombudsman considers whether the landlord’s offer of redress was in line with the Ombudsman’s Dispute Resolution Principles: Be Fair, Put Things Right and Learn from Outcomes as well as our own guidance on remedies.
We cannot assess the extent to which a landlord’s failings have contributed to a resident’s physical and mental health. Nor can we directly quantify this. However, our awards should recognise that a resident’s circumstances affect the impact that a landlord’s failings have on them. In this case, we have considered the impact of the enduring noise on the health and wellbeing of the resident when making our orders.
The landlord paid £1,100 compensation to the resident in acknowledgement of its failings to follow its ASB policy and respond to his complaint. The Ombudsman does not consider this to be sufficient redress given that the noise problem has not been resolved and is continuing to affect the resident’s health, home life and work.
Orders have been made below for the landlord to apologise to the resident and pay the resident £1,900 compensation for its failings in handling his noise reports since February 2020. This amount is in addition to the £1,100 that the landlord has already paid. Orders have also been made for the landlord to reconsider its decisions and address the other issues raised by the resident.

Handling of the resident’s complaints

The resident’s email to the chief executive of 28 September 2021 was a clear expression of dissatisfaction and the landlord should have recognised it as a formal complaint. The landlord missed a further opportunity to recognise the resident’s complaint from his email of 12 November 2021.The landlord did not log a formal complaint until 2 December 2021 after the Ombudsman had asked it to do so and after the resident had asked the landlord to escalate his complaint.
The landlord’s failure to recognise the complaint was contrary to the Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code) and its own policy. It meant that the landlord’s stage 1 response of 3 December 2021 was given 9 weeks after the resident had made a complaint.
It would have been reasonable for the landlord’s response to have explained why it had taken so long to respond to the resident’s reports about the neighbour’s flooring, for it to fit carpets in the neighbour’s flat, and why it had not visited the resident. That it did not do so meant it missed the opportunity to review the actions it had taken and consider other actions it could take. Nor did its response address why it had taken so long to log the resident’s complaint.
As with its handling of the noise issue, the evidence suggests a reactive approach in the landlord’s complaint handling which caused a delay in it escalating the complaint to stage 2. The resident had already asked for his complaint to be escalated on 19 November 2021, before the landlord had given its stage 1 response. Although the landlord asked him to confirm whether this was still his wish in its stage 1 response, it did not take any proactive steps to clarify this with the resident. It would have been reasonable for it to have done so given the resident was emailing regularly expressing his dissatisfaction about its communication with him and lack of progress.
There were specific occasions where the landlord missed opportunities to escalate the resident’s complaint. For example, when the resident emailed on 24 February 2022 asking if his complaint was being considered at stage 2. Although the landlord contacted him on 27 February 2022 and apologised for its lack of communication, it did not address his question of where his complaint was up to.
It again took the Ombudsman’s intervention for the landlord to contact the resident to see if he still wanted to escalate his complaint. The landlord gave its stage 2 response 21 working days after the resident had confirmed his escalation request on 11 October 2022. However, its failings in managing the escalation meant its response of 9 November 2022 was given 11 months after its stage 1 response.
The landlord’s stage 2 response did acknowledge failings in its handling of his noise reports and complaint and offered compensation. However, the failings identified by the landlord did not include its failure to recognise his complaint prior to 2 December 2021.
On 12 February 2023 and 16 February 2023, the resident had emailed the landlord to express further dissatisfaction about the service he had received and the landlord issuing him with an acceptable behaviour agreement. The landlord should have logged a new complaint but we have seen no evidence that it did so. An order has been made below for the landlord to consider the resident’s emails as a new complaint.
The landlord’s complaint handling was inadequate and contrary to the Code and its complaints policy. Overall, the landlord took over 18 months (from 28 September 2021 to 9 November 2022) to complete its complaint process and missed opportunities to adequately address the matters being complained about.
This amounts to maladministration and orders have been made below for the landlord to apologise to the resident and pay £500 compensation. Orders have been made for the landlord to consider the resident’s emails of 12 February 2023 and 16 February 2023 under its complaints process and to provide training for its staff to ensure they recognise complaints and escalation requests when they are received.

Review of policies and practices

The policies and practices that the landlord applied in this case have the potential to create unfairness in its handling of noise reports. Specifically, the Ombudsman is concerned that the landlord’s:
1. Use of its ASB policy to manage reports of noise that are not ASB or statutory nuisance is a barrier to it resolving issues at an early stage and preventing problems from escalating.
2. Stated approach of not allowing residents of flats to install laminate flooring is not reflected in the information it provides to residents. Nor is there clear information for residents about what the landlord will do if such flooring is installed without its permission. This means there is potential for other residents to install wooden flooring and inadvertently cause noise problems for others.
We have issued a wider order below under paragraph 54(f) of the Scheme. This is for the landlord to review its policies and practices in relation to the failings identified in this investigation which may give rise to future complaints about similar issues.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was severe maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of noise.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint.

Reasons

The landlord failed to take proactive and timely action to deal with the cause of the noise problem. It did not follow the requirements of its ASB policy and has not resolved the noise problem which continues to impact the resident’s health and wellbeing. The landlord did not respond adequately to the resident’s reports and contacts which meant he had to chase for responses throughout the case.
The landlord’s failure to recognise the resident’s complaint and escalation requests meant it took over 18 months to complete its complaint process.

Orders

Within 4 weeks of the date of this report, the landlord must provide evidence that it has complied with the following orders:
1. The Chief Executive must write to the resident to apologise for the failings identified in this report and acknowledge the impact its handling of the noise issues has had on the resident and his wife. The landlord must provide us with a copy of its letter.
2. Pay the resident total compensation of £2,400. The compensation must be paid directly to the resident and not offset against any arrears and is comprised of:
  1. £1,900 for the distress and inconvenience caused by its handling of the resident’s noise reports.
  2. £500 for the distress and inconvenience caused by its handling of the resident’s complaint.
3. Review our findings in this case and reconsider its decision about replacing the carpets in the neighbours flat, with a type sufficient to reduce the transfer of noise or fitting sound insulation. The landlord should consider its costs in continuing to manage the noise and ASB reports from the resident and his neighbour and the impact of the noise on the resident’s health and wellbeing when making its decision. The landlord must write to the resident to explain its decision and set out any further action it intends to take and must provide us with a copy of its letter.
4. Consider the resident’s emails of 12 February 2023 and 16 February 2023 as a formal complaint under its complaints policy. The landlord must provide evidence that it has logged the resident’s complaint and given a stage 1 response.
Within 6 weeks of the date of this report the landlord must:
1. Survey the neighbour’s flat to establish if there is any disrepair which may be contributing to the noise transferring between the flats. The landlord should also consider the findings of the acoustic survey in relation to the noise transference. The landlord must do any repairs that are needed and provide us with evidence of the outcome of the survey and details of repairs it intends to carry out including timescales.
2. Survey the resident’s flat to check the thermal insulation and assess the mould growth reported by the resident. The landlord must do any repairs that are needed and provide us with evidence of the outcome of the survey and details of repairs it intends to carry out including timescales.
Within 12 weeks of the date of this report the landlord must provide relevant staff members with training to ensure they can:
1. Recognise when an expression of dissatisfaction should be treated as a formal complaint.
2. Recognise when a complaint should be escalated.
3. Correctly route complaints and escalations through the landlord’s process.
Within 12 weeks of the date of this report the landlord must have done a comprehensive review of its policies and practices in dealing with reports of noise not considered to be ASB. The review must be led by a senior manager and must include:
1. Consideration of the findings and recommendations in our spotlight report on noise.
2. Identification of other noise reports that the landlord has received over the last 12 months which it does not consider to be ASB or statutory noise nuisance.
3. Consideration of the interventions it has made in those cases and how effective they have been in resolving the issues reported. The landlord should consider alternative solutions for cases it has not resolved.
4. Consideration of developing a policy and procedure to deal with noise complaints separately from ASB reports.
5. Consideration of its policy position regarding installations or alterations made by residents which may result in noise transference.
6. Consideration of the steps it needs to take to ensure its policy position on installations or alterations made by residents is made clear to new and existing residents and relevant staff.
7. Consideration of the steps it needs to take to ensure it responds appropriately to unauthorised installations or alterations which have the potential to result in noise complaints.
Within 16 weeks of the date of this report the landlord must provide us with a report which sets out:
1. Its findings and learning from each part of the review set out in paragraph 130 above.
2. Its plan for changes to its policies and practices in response to the findings it has made to prevent similar complaints in the future. The plan should include specific actions it will take and the timescales for completing them.