Barking and Dagenham Council (201900890)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 201900890

Barking and Dagenham Council

4 January 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

The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of noise emanating from her neighbour’s property.
The Ombudsman has also considered the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint.

Background and summary of events

Background

The resident has been a secure tenant, in respect of the property, since February 2007.
The property is a one-bedroom flat.

Scope

The resident has suggested that as a result of the landlord’s failure to eradicate the noise at her property, or to offer the assistance she required, both her mental and physical health deteriorated. While this could be a possibility, it is beyond the expertise of this Service to reasonably determine a causal link between the landlord’s actions (or lack of) and the deterioration of the resident’s health. The Ombudsman has therefore made no comments in relation to this. Should the resident wish to pursue this matter, legal advice will need to be sought.
What’s more, the Ombudsman notes that along with the landlord’s handling of the resident’s noise reports, the resident also expressed dissatisfaction with its management of several other matters. This included:
1. The presence of “unsavoury” characters in the block and the steps taken by the landlord to deal with the alleged criminals and drug users.
2. The landlord’s alleged poor workmanship and response to damp and mould in the property.
3. The level of noise emitted from the buzzer and frequent use by uninvited visitors who sought to gain access to the building.
4. The landlord’s decision to decline the resident’s request for a management move and to require her to bid via the housing register.
While these issues were raised during the same period and for some of the above, a stage one response had been provided, it is unclear whether these matters exhausted the landlord’s complaints process and/or whether the resident sought to pursue this further. Moreover, the above concerns did not form part of this complaint. The Ombudsman has therefore been unable to consider these issues within this investigation.
In line with paragraph 39(a) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the Ombudsman will not investigate complaints which are brought to this Service prior to having exhausted a member’s complaints procedure, unless there is evidence of a complaint handling failure, and the Ombudsman is satisfied that the member has not taken action within a reasonable timescale. Therefore, should the resident wish to have these matters investigated, she will need to first exhaust the landlord’s internal complaints process before referring it to this Service.

Summary of events

The resident has explained that reports of noise had been made to the landlord as early as May 2018. The Ombudsman has been unable to identify the resident’s first report.
Records show that on several occasions in September and October 2018, however, reports of noise were raised with the landlord (along with recordings captured by the resident). The resident explained that the noise – which she described as DIY type noises perpetrated by her neighbour in the flat below – started in the late evening and finished in the early hours of the morning.
The landlord’s notes suggest that it subsequently wrote to the alleged perpetrator about the noise on 17 October 2018. The Ombudsman has not had sight of this letter.
With this, the landlord also undertook an unannounced visit to the resident’s neighbour’s property to witness the alleged noise. It documented that no noise was heard at this time and no evidence was found of DIY being undertaken.
Following a further visit the landlord explained to the resident that her neighbour was disabled and therefore had an adapted bathroom. It noted that the plumbing could be the cause of the noises she had been reporting.
Further reports and recordings were shared with the landlord throughout November 2018. The landlord confirmed hearing intrusive, washing machine-like, noises from the resident’s recordings.
On 1 December 2018 the resident asserted that the noise was being emitted from some form of machinery. On or around this time she requested that the landlord visit her property to witness noise for itself. As well as what could be deemed faulty plumbing, she asserted that her neighbour continuously slammed his doors, frequently pulled a noisy light cord, and relentlessly opened and closed his taps. The landlord subsequently visited the resident’s property on 13 December 2018.
In an internal post-visit email, the landlord explained that the source of the noise disturbing the resident was quickly discovered. This was caused by the Whale pump situated in a small enclosure and mounted on an external wall in the shower room. This also matched the resident’s recordings. It noted that even when the shower was switched off, the noise continued for a short period of time.
The resident made further reports of noise nuisance on 14 December 2018 and 6 January 2019. She expressed that she was not convinced that the noise was being made solely by the shower, but rather that these were deliberate. She sought to establish what the landlord was doing to rectify the problem and detailed the impact this was allegedly having on her health.
The Ombudsman can see that several further reports (and recordings) were made by the resident throughout January and February 2019. She asserted that machinery was still being used, light cords pulled, taps opened and shut, and doors slammed. The resident expressed clear dissatisfaction that the landlord had not supported her in resolving the issue or made clear how it intended to approach the matter.
It appears that the landlord arranged for works to be undertaken later in February 2019 to reduce the level of noise coming from the neighbour’s property.
On 4 March 2019 the resident contacted the landlord’s Out of Hours (OOH) noise nuisance service. She reported that her neighbour had deliberately been making noise since 13 December 2018 and that he needed to be evicted. She requested that the landlord do something about this as soon as possible.
On the same day, the landlord explained to the resident that works (an acoustic access panel to the shower pump and an anti-vibrating / rubber mat) had been undertaken to improve the noisy water pump at the neighbour’s property. It subsequently arranged a further visit to assess whether this had resolved the issue.
The resident responded on 7 March 2019. She explained to the landlord:
1. While the urgent issue was the noise being caused by the plumbing, her neighbour also needed to be stopped from deliberately pulling the light cord between 21:00 and 03:00 and slamming doors. She stated that between 00:13 and 02:38 her sleep had been disturbed by the gushing sound of taps being left to run and a light cord being pulled, followed by a door being slammed repeatedly.
2. As a result of the sleep deprivation, increased anxiety, and worsening health, she now needed to take medication to stay awake during the day, and to help her sleep during the evening. She stated that her neighbour was fully aware of what he was doing.
3. She believed that even if the plumbing issue was fixed, her neighbour’s “campaign” would continue via use of the light cords and slamming doors. She stated that this had been an ongoing issue for 10 months.
The landlord undertook a joint visit to the resident’s property on 27 March 2019. On 2 April 2019 it advised its Housing Repair Team:
1. Upon visiting the resident’s property, the rhythmic gurgling noise previously heard was still noticeable, although there was a considerable improvement. It was explained to the resident that it was unlikely that further works would be undertaken.
2. The cold tap, by comparison, was somewhat intrusive when turned on and there was no way for the resident to escape this noise. Something therefore need to be done to improve this.
3. The light cord was very intrusive and “may as well be inside… [the resident’s] … apartment”. This could be relatively easy to remedy by inserting a dampening gasket between the fitting and the ceiling or using a much quieter fitting.
4. By the neighbours own admission, he needed to use the bathroom more at night and this was directly below the resident’s bedroom.
5. This did appear to be having an impact on the resident and was relatively inexpensive to remedy.
With no update provided to the resident, however, she chased the landlord on 8 and 12 April 2019. She expressed dissatisfaction that she had received no communication and that while she had been informed on 27 March 2019 that arrangements would be made with the Housing Repair Team, there had been no confirmation of this. She reminded the landlord that it had experienced the noise first-hand and so knew how intrusive this could be.
The resident subsequently made contact with this Service on or around 17 April 2019.
The landlord shared its email (dated 2 April 2019 to the Housing Repairs Team) with the resident on 23 April 2019 to demonstrate that a solution was being discussed.
In response, on the following day, the resident challenged that the works undertaken had improved the noise. She requested that the landlord undertake a further visit without first notifying her neighbour. She insisted that the landlord take immediate action to rectify the situation.
The landlord wrote to the resident on 26 April 2019. It accepted that while its opinion was based on two snapshot visits, and there appeared to be less noise during the second visit, this was subjective. Noise measuring equipment would therefore be installed, and the recordings would be analysed to provide an objective appraisal. If measurements indicated that the sound levels were above the standards recommended for a reasonable nights’ sleep (above 30dB), a recommendation would be made for further remedial works to the water pump. The resident would be advised when this equipment became available and was encouraged to make her own recordings of any other noise she believed was occurring.
On 20 May 2019 this Service advised the landlord to provide the resident with a stage one response by 10 June 2019, if it had not already begun considering her concerns under its complaints process.
The landlord subsequently provided a stage one response on 6 June 2019. It explained that its noise monitoring equipment would become available once data had been downloaded from it (from another resident) and advised the resident to contact the Noise Team to make arrangements.
The resident expressed dissatisfaction on the same day that she had to chase the landlord for the noise monitoring equipment. She questioned why the landlord would not make the effort to contact her, once it became available.
On 11 June 2019 the landlord advised the resident that the noise recording equipment had now become available. It sought to obtain dates in which this could be installed. In response, however, the resident requested to know why further recordings needed to be captured by the device (as opposed to the recordings she had made via her mobile phone). She requested details of what would be done once the noise was again confirmed.
The landlord re–advised the resident that in the event that the noise was considered to be above the recommended level for a good nights’ sleep, remedial works would be sought. In further correspondence (on 12 June 2019), however, the resident expressed dissatisfaction with the ambiguity surrounding the steps that would be taken.
On 21 June 2019 this Service advised the landlord that the resident wished to escalate her complaint to stage two of its complaints process.
On 22 July 2019 the landlord wrote to the resident noting that a date had not been provided for the installation of the noise monitoring equipment. It explained that it would not be able to progress her complaint to stage two of its complaints process until the equipment had been installed, in order to ascertain the subsequent action needed.
On 6 August 2019 the resident advised the landlord that the noise monitoring equipment could be installed on 30 August 2019. It does not appear that this was done, however. The resident highlighted in October 2019 that no valid reason had been given for the landlord’s failure to provide this equipment.
The resident shared diary entries with the landlord in November and December 2019, suggesting that her neighbour was still intentionally harassing her through the use of his “faulty” facilities.
On 20 December 2019 the landlord attempted to undertake an unannounced inspection of the resident’s neighbour’s property, however he was not in. It explained to the resident that it would try again in the following week.
On 1 and 5 January 2020 the resident put forward further complaints. She expressed that the level of noise heard was severe and that while these had been witnessed by two members of the landlord’s staff, and evidence provided, nothing had been done. She asserted that the neighbour was still opening and closing his taps, pulling the light cord, and slamming his doors. She questioned whether she needed to kill herself before the landlord resolved the problem. Notes suggest that a safeguarding alert was raised around this time.
The Ombudsman can see that there was back and forth correspondence with the landlord in January 2020 and that the resident provided the landlord with further recordings. On 28 January 2020, a joint visit was undertaken by the landlord to assess the alleged noise nuisance.
Notes suggest that while there was no evidence of noise purposefully perpetrated by the neighbour, noise was witnessed when the tap / shower was being used. A request was therefore made to the Housing Repair Team for further investigation which was undertaken by the landlord’s operatives on 24 February 2020.
Prompted by the resident’s request for an update, the landlord advised on 26 February 2020 that its operatives had attended the neighbour’s property and found no issue with the pipes. It was noted that the sound was coming from the shower pump, and this was described as normal and not excessive. No further works were subsequently required. The resident was advised to make recordings of any further noise which it advised it would escalate.
On the same day the resident expressed that she was shocked by the landlord’s response, particularly as the noise had been heard by two members of staff during the visit in January 2020, and by two previous members of staff in March 2019. She maintained that she had been a victim of targeted abuse from her neighbour and advised that she would be taking matters further.
Further allegations of targeted noise nuisance perpetrator by her neighbour were made by the resident in March 2020.
The landlord responded to the resident on 6 April 2020 asserting that while it understood the resident’s frustrations, the matter had been investigated. It stated that except for the slightly loud water pressure, which had been reported to the repairs team, it believed it had addressed all other noise issues raised. The neighbour had been contacted and asked to be more considerate despite the resident’s reports of what it considered to be “everyday living” noises. It explained that due to the age of the building, noise proofing could not be fitted.
Further recordings were provided by the resident on 20 May 2020. She questioned why repairs had not been undertaken to fix the faults in the neighbours property and whether she or the neighbour could be moved.
With further contact from the resident, this Service encouraged the landlord to engage with her to resolve her complaint on 16 June 2020. The landlord was advised to offer the resident a stage one response within 15 working days.
On 6 July 2020 the landlord provided the resident with a (second) stage one response. It stated, following its visit on 28 January 2020 and attendance by its operatives on 24 February 2020:
1. On 26 June 2020 two of its operatives identified that the valve on the wash basin was not opened fully. While this had now been resolved, the operative did not feel that this was the cause of the noise. It subsequently wished to attend both addresses on the same day to try to locate the source of the problem. It proposed to do so on 21 July 2020.
2. It could confirm that the pull cord reported would be replaced with a light switch to reduce the noise. Slow door closures would also be installed to prevent the door from slamming shut.
3. The neighbour had been spoken to and had agreed to take steps to avoid flushing the toilet at night or switching lights on until there was a permanent solution.

The landlord explained that it was unable to confirm the date in which the works would take place, due to the pandemic and backlog of works, however would contact the resident once a date had been agreed.

On 10 July 2020 the resident made a further report of intrusive and deliberate noise disturbances from her neighbour below.
A further plumbing inspection was undertaken of the neighbour’s property on 21 July 2020 identifying no “out of the ordinary water noise”.
In August 2020 the resident made several reports, asserting that her neighbour had now taken to banging on the ceiling whenever he could hear her moving around. She asserted that he had been using the faults in his property to bully her. The resident was provided with diary sheets on 14 August 2020.
The Ombudsman can see that there was back and forth conversation between the landlord and resident in September 2020 in relation to other tenants in the estate. The resident added within this correspondence that her neighbour continued to negatively impact her life.
On 7 October 2020 following correspondence from the resident in which she requested that the landlord fix the plumbing faults at the neighbour’s property and put a stop to the deliberate disturbances, the landlord advised that it had chased up the works. It appears that works to the light cord were subsequently completed on 30 October 2020 and that the landlord’s operative returned in the days following to install a soft door closer.
On 3 November 2020 the resident advised the landlord that her neighbour was now banging whenever she turned her tv or radio on. She asserted that there was likely damage to the neighbour’s ceiling. She added that she was constantly disturbed by drilling, use of taps, light cords, and the slamming of doors. A further threat of suicide was made.
The landlord subsequently attempted to call the resident on 3 November 2020. As it was unable to get through, it advised via email that a safeguarding alert had been raised and also shared details for several support services.
The landlord advised the resident on 11 November 2020 that a multi-department approach would be taken to address the noise reports, looking at the plumbing, light switches, and other issues at the neighbours flat. It advised that it would keep the resident updated.
The Ombudsman can see from the landlord’s internal notes that it approached the resident’s neighbour on 25 November 2020 who confirmed that a drill-like noise did come from the shower pump when used. He explained that he had actively tried to reduce the use of this, and to run his taps less, to accommodate the resident. Counter allegations of noise were also made.
On 26 November 2020 the resident wrote to the landlord to request an update. A further email was sent on 8 December 2020 in which she questioned why there had been no warnings sent to the neighbour who was listening to her “every move with the aim of continuing his hate campaign”. She expressed that the landlord had not fulfilled its duty of care to her.
It appears that the landlord attempted to call the resident on 8 December 2020 (which it alerted the resident of via email). The resident responded to this on the following day explaining that while she had not seen the call, she would not be accepting any further calls. She wished for the landlord to outline via email what actions it would be taking to resolve the matter. She shared further recordings over the next few days and asserted that she suspected that another individual was living in her neighbour’s property.
The landlord noted internally that an inspection was undertaken on 16 December 2020 in order to check who was occupying the neighbour’s property; establish whether any further pull cords needed replacing; and to assess the soft door closer. It noted:
1. There were two other light cords in the property but when tested, these made little noise.
2. The door closer had been appropriately installed.
3. There was no damage to the ceiling to suggest constant banging, and no evidence of DIY.
4. There was still a whooshing noise coming from the disabled shower, but nothing could be done about this.
It noted that housing options had been discussed with the resident as well as the services to support her mental health.
Several reports were made by the resident throughout December 2020. The resident also sought to establish when the noise recording equipment would be installed.
On 24 / 25 December 2020 the resident asserted that she considered her neighbour’s behaviour to be physical assault as the impact of the banging was directly damaging her body and had resulted in an involuntary twitch. A diary of activity was shared with the landlord and on 28 December 2020. A report of banging had also been made to the police.
A further diary was produced on 5 January 2021 capturing the neighbours alleged activity from 28 December 2020 up until 5 January 2021. The resident reported frequent movement, the use of facilities, the dragging of tables and chairs, doors slamming, chatter, and banging at unacceptable hours. Reports of this kind continued throughout January 2021.
On 26 January 2021 the landlord reminded the resident that the neighbours plumbing had been checked twice by its plumbers and no “out of the ordinary” noises had been found. The only noise was from the whale pump for the disabled shower, but this was normal. The landlord suggested that it would recommend that the resident’s plumbing was also checked to rule this out.
The resident was advised on 28 January 2021 that due to the COVID-19 pandemic, internal property inspections and the installation of noise monitoring equipment had been put on hold. As soon as the situation had changed, the noise service would take steps to install the equipment.
The resident expressed that this was not good enough and that the landlord could still take steps to reduce the noise in the meantime. She was displeased that nothing further was being done. She insisted that the landlord write to the neighbour at the least to warn him about his behaviour.
On 17 February 2021 the landlord wrote to the resident with its stage two response. It recognised:
1. Upon visiting the resident’s property on 13 December 2018, officers failed to identify a statutory nuisance. A job was raised to inspect the shower pump nonetheless, as the noise heard was considered to be excessive. Operatives attended and made some adjustments to reduce the noise in February 2019.
2. Following further reports of noise, officers returned on 27 March 2019 to witness this. A rhythmic gurgling noise could still be heard from the water pump but was noticeably quieter. The noises made when the tap was opened or the light cord was pulled were considered intrusive, however. On 2 April 2019 Landlord Services were asked to arrange a replacement light, to determine whether the water pressure could be reduced, and to look at options to lessen the noise.
3. Noise monitoring equipment was agreed on 26 April 2019. No follow up enquiries were made about replacing the light cord or to establish whether any attention had been given to ways to reduce the noise from the pipes, however. It acknowledged that more could have been done at this time.
4. Following the complaint raised on 21 May 2019 about the delays in action, a response was provided. It was noted, however, that no date was provided for when the noise monitoring equipment would be installed, and still no comments were made on the status of the light replacement / options to lessen the noise.
5. Following contact from the resident that the issue remained outstanding, the stage one complaint was re-opened to allow for follow up action to be taken. Officers should have written to the resident by 1 August 2019 but did not. While a request was made for the noise monitoring equipment to be installed on 30 August 2019, this also was not done. A new complaint was subsequently raised by the resident in November and December 2019.
6. The information / recordings shared by the resident from October 2019 onwards was not linked to the original case and the complaint was not escalated to stage two of the complaints process as it should have been. Instead, a new stage one complaint was raised in January 2020. As there were concerns for the resident’s wellbeing, a visit was undertaken on 28 January 2020 in which noise was heard. A request was made to revisit the pipes.
7. As noise officers had already determined in March 2019 that the sounds from the pipes and pull cord were intrusive, this information should have been passed on to the operatives ahead of the appointment on 24 February 2020. While the operatives heard nothing “out of the ordinary” during their visit, they were not given any instructions or context, and no consideration was given to whether the water pressure could be reduced or whether any other measures could be taken. The purpose of the visit was to act on the recommendations, and this was not done.
8. It was prompted by this Service in June 2020 to provide a stage one response. It subsequently confirmed for the resident on 9 July 2020 that the pull cord would be replaced, and soft door closures installed to prevent slamming. Due to the backlog created by the pandemic, however, this was not completed until October 2020.
9. The resident was advised that the pipework had also been re-inspected in June 2020, in which the valve on the handbasin tap was adjusted. No further consideration was given to ways to reduce the noise as had been promised, however. The landlord therefore accepted that there were several missed opportunities.
10. In November 2020 it received reports that the neighbour had started to bang on the ceiling. It confirmed that the recordings supplied captured a thudding noise which was different to that previously heard. On 16 December 2020 officers visited the neighbour to address the allegations and to examine the ceiling. No damage was found to the ceiling.
11. The landlord noted that in December 2020, following the resident’s report to the police, it (the police) warned the neighbour to refrain from any such activity. It remained unclear whether this was caused by occupants of the property or the plumbing. It was confirmed, nonetheless, that the resident was on the waiting list for noise monitoring equipment.
In conclusion, the landlord recognised that the resident’s reports had not been managed appropriately and it had not done enough to consider ways to reduce the noise. It noted that the resident was not told why the noise recording equipment had not been installed in 2019 and that there had been a delay in completing a risk assessment / action plan which formed part of its Anti-Social Behaviour (ASB) / nuisance process. This was not produced until January 2021. It accepted that its communication had been poor at times, and the resident was left uncertain about how the case was being managed. It further noted that the complaints should have been linked together.
A compensation award of £300 was therefore made. The Ombudsman can see from the landlords internal notes that this had been broken down as:
1. £75 for “the time taken to act on the recommendations raised by the Noise Team in 2019 – this was passed to the Landlord Services to progress in March 2019, but the work was not completed until October 2020”.
2. £75 for “the failure to explain…why it was no longer appropriate to install noise monitoring equipment in 2019 (after writing to confirm that the resident was on the list)”
3. £75 for “the delay in producing an action plan / risk assessment – This should have been created in 2020. It was not produced in Jan 2021”.
4. £75 for “the errors made in complaint handling”.
The landlord also advised that an action plan had now been put in place and would be monitored. It understood that a repair had been undertaken to the neighbours boiler and would assess whether this had reduced the noise somewhat. It advised that if the noise was still found to be excessive, officers would explore alternative ways to minimise this. It would also determine whether funds could be made available to replace other pull cords in the neighbour’s property and soft closures on other doors.
The Ombudsman can see that the resident accepted the landlord’s offer of compensation on 18 February 2021 in resolution of her complaint. She additionally requested that the landlord assist her in moving home to support her mental health.
The Ombudsman can see that the landlord set out the resident’s housing options for her on 2 March 2021. The noise recording equipment was also installed at the resident’s property in May 2021.

Assessment and findings

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of noise emanating from her neighbour’s property.

The Ombudsman has considered the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of noise and in the Ombudsman’s opinion, while the landlord’s final complaint response was both comprehensive and recognised many of its oversights, it failed to fairly and fully reflect all of the circumstances of this case in its offer of compensation. The Ombudsman has therefore found that the landlord did not do enough to put things right.
The Ombudsman has been unable to establish whether any reports of noise were indeed made prior to September 2018. In any case, it is clear that upon receiving reports of noise from September 2018 onwards, the landlord did take some steps to respond to the reports of noise.
Between September and December 2018, it was reasonable that the landlord undertook visits to both the resident and her neighbour’s property to investigate the reports of noise. Along with its consideration of the recordings provided, this enabled the landlord to verify that no machinery / DIY was being undertaken, and to identify, as it noted, the existence of an intrusive noise being emitted from the Whale pump in the neighbour’s shower room.
As the resident had also reported, however, that she believed that her neighbour had deliberately been slamming his doors, pulling his noisy light cord and opening and closing his taps, it would have been reasonable for the landlord to have explained whether it intended to simultaneously approach the matter under its ASB process (as noise nuisance) and the steps it would take. With consideration of the frequency in which the resident made allegations against her neighbour of deliberate noise, this would have been appropriate and would have allowed the landlord to better manage the resident’s expectations.
Moreover, as the resident sought the eviction of her neighbour, the landlord should have advised the resident on the level of evidence it required to take any such enforcement action, and the likelihood of this happening for the kind of noise being reported. Despite the resident raising matters with the landlord’s Noise Nuisance team, and reinforcing on 7 March 2019 that she did not believe that the plumbing alone was the cause of the noise, it does not appear that an ASB service was offered at this time.
Given that the landlord was able to witness for itself that the shower / cold tap / light cord was the cause of substantial noise, and as it was provided with no evidence at this time to indicate that the noise / use of facilities by the neighbour was intended to cause disruption, it was not unreasonable that it sought to resolve the matter by proposing repairs. In the Ombudsman’s opinion, the resident would have benefited from the landlord setting out its approach, however.
It was reasonable that the landlord undertook works in February 2019 to address the neighbour’s shower. It was also reasonable that following the inspection in March 2019, the landlord advised its Housing Repair team that something needed to be done to improve the noise generated by the cold tap and the light cord.
It is unclear, however, why the landlord failed to action these recommendations, despite these issues being at the forefront of the resident’s complaints, until more than a year and a half later. The Ombudsman can see that the resident chased an update on several occasions to establish what was being done about these issues (as well as door closers, to resolve the alleged slamming of doors), but it does not appear that a plan of action was shared. The resident subsequently had to pursue the replacement of the light cord / soft door closer until the job was completed in October / November 2020. This was inappropriate. In respect of the cold tap, while the landlord had adjusted the handbasin in June 2020, it remained unclear (as this had not rectified the noise) whether it continued to consider other ways to improve the disturbance.
The Ombudsman accepts that within the landlord’s final response, it acknowledged that the time taken to act on the recommendations made in April 2019 was unacceptable. It therefore made an offer of compensation in recognition. In the Ombudsman’s view, however, its offer of £75 failed to adequately reflect the extent of the resident’s experience. With consideration of the length of time that passed and the prolonged adverse effect that the intrusive, as the landlord confirmed, noise would have had, this fell short in satisfactorily recognising this element of the complaint.
In respect of the noise recording equipment, as the landlord was unable to objectively determine that the works in February 2019 had reduced the noise for the resident, it was reasonable that it offered to install this. As it explained, this would have enabled it to identify whether an excessive level of noise was being emitted, which would reasonably prevent a good night’s sleep. This was agreed as early as April 2019.
The Ombudsman appreciates that due to the demand for the equipment, it was not available for installation until July 2019. It is also noted that the resident had not provided details of her availability for the installation to take place, until August 2019.
Upon doing so, however, it is unclear why the landlord delayed in arranging the installation. The Ombudsman cannot see that any explanation was given at this time or that any attempts were made to follow this up until December 2020 / January 2021 – following prompts from the resident. This was unacceptable. As well as missing the opportunity to objectively assess the level of noise experienced, this further delayed the resident in progressing her case and meant that she was returned to the waiting list before being provided with the equipment. The Ombudsman has noted that the equipment was not installed (although partly delayed by the pandemic) until May 2021.
Throughout this time, the resident had sent several recordings to evidence the noise she was experiencing. In the absence of noise recording equipment, it might have been reasonable for the landlord to have used these recordings to determine whether the noise was likely to prevent a good night’s sleep. It does not appear that this was not done, however. The Ombudsman accepts that with personal recordings it can be difficult to verify the level of noise, the location in which it took place, and / or the time / date it was recorded, and that this may deter a landlord from solely relying on recordings. If this was the case, however, it would have been reasonable for the landlord to have explained this to the resident. The Ombudsman can see that the resident questioned on several occasions why her recordings were not deemed sufficient, but no clear explanation was offered.
This was worsened by the absence of a clear action plan and the landlord’s failure to provide consistent updates. The Ombudsman can see that subsequently, the resident continuously sought answers from the landlord regarding how it proposed to resolve the matter, and this was never clearly set out. As the landlord acknowledged, a risk assessment and an action plan should have been put together at an earlier time. In the Ombudsman’s view, this should have been in January 2020 upon meeting with the resident and where there were concerns for both the situation reported and the resident’s health. Records show, however, that this was not done until January 2021. This was inappropriate, particularly given the content of the resident’s emails.
The Ombudsman does note that the landlord did arrange for several inspections to take place of the neighbour’s shower / pipework / plumbing. Therefore, while the resident was unclear of the landlord’s intended approach, the landlord did demonstrate that the resident’s reports were being taken seriously. As the landlord later explained, however, while its operatives had not deemed the noises to be “out of the ordinary”, no consideration was given to how these noises could be reduced. This subsequently defeated the purpose of the frequent inspections.
The Ombudsman appreciates that within the landlord’s final response, this was recognised. It commented on its failure to explain the decision not to install the noise monitoring equipment and to put together an action plan, as its procedure suggests it should. The landlord’s offer of compensation (£75 for each issue), however, again failed to reflect the impact that these omissions had on the resident. This Service is therefore not satisfied that the landlord put right this element of the complaint.
Finally, the Ombudsman notes that under the landlord’s ASB guidance, it is suggested that where a case of noise nuisance is being assessed, it will consider whether the noise is a result of a resident’s unreasonable behaviour or from normal (everyday) living. It is unclear whether the landlord did this in early (March) 2019.
Upon receiving several reports of deliberate noise in November / December 2019, however, the Ombudsman can see that the landlord did take steps to witness the noise for itself on 28 January 2020 (following a failed attempt on 20 December 2019) and no evidence of targeted noise nuisance was found. It was therefore able to confirm for itself that the noise was the result of everyday living. The Ombudsman can see that the landlord explained this to the resident in April 2020 as well as advising that it had approached the neighbour and encouraged him to be more considerate of the noises being made in his property. Given that the landlord had also raised the underlying issues for repair, this was reasonable and proportionate.
Following the resident’s reports of a drill-like noise and of excessive banging of the ceiling, the landlord also made further contact with the neighbour to put the allegations to him in November 2020. In December 2020 it inspected the neighbour’s property finding no suggestion that he had been banging the ceiling or of DIY. This was reasonable.
In the Ombudsman’s opinion, in the months between July and November 2020 in which the resident made several allegations of her neighbour using his facilities as a form of bullying, the landlord could have done more to clarify whether an ASB approach was being undertaken. Its failure to do so resulted in further upset for the resident as it did not appear that the landlord was supporting her, and a lack of clarity around why no enforcement action had been taken. In this respect, the landlord’s approach failed to manage the resident’s expectations. While it was reasonable to conclude that the noises heard were not the made with malicious intention, the Ombudsman is not satisfied that the landlord made its position clear to the resident.
The Ombudsman has taken into account the steps that the landlord agreed to take within its final response and in the Ombudsman’s view, this was appropriate. The landlord demonstrated its commitment to exploring how the noise could be reduced while also maintaining an action plan which would be monitored. As the Ombudsman has explained above, however, the compensation offered fell short in putting things right. The Ombudsman has therefore made an order of redress below which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, satisfactorily reflects all circumstances of this case.
This service understands that the resident’s desired outcome is to be moved. While the Ombudsman appreciates that this could bring about resolution for the resident, it is beyond the capability of this Service to order the landlord to re-house the resident. The Ombudsman has seen, nonetheless, that the landlord agreed to discuss the options available to the resident and did so in March 2021. In the Ombudsman’s view, its willingness to support the resident in her pursuit for another property was reasonable.
For completeness, it was appropriate that with concerns for the resident’s mental health and with threats of suicide, the landlord raised safeguarding alerts and made contact with / provided the resident with the contacts for support services. The Ombudsman is satisfied that the landlord observed its safeguarding duties.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint.

In assessing the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint, the Ombudsman has identified a clear failure to act in accordance with internal guidance and with good practice.
As early as January / February 2019, the resident expressed dissatisfaction with the steps taken by the landlord to address her noise reports. While the Ombudsman can see that the landlord responded to this by arranging works in February 2019, the resident’s dissatisfaction with the landlord’s service should have also been considered under its complaints process.
While the resident made several expressions of dissatisfaction about the landlord’s approach in the months that followed, she was provided with no indication that her frustration with the landlord would be acknowledged and responded to formally. This subsequently resulted in the resident reaching out to this Service to prompt a complaint response.
While the landlord did provide its stage one response soon after contact from this Service, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, it failed to demonstrate consideration for the resident’s complaint concerns and to set out how it aimed to resolve matters. The Ombudsman can see that the landlord only explained that noise monitoring equipment would be provided once it became available. This was contrary to the Housing Ombudsman Service’s own Complaint Handling Code which encourages landlord’s to address all aspects of a complaint. No acknowledgement was given to the way in which the noise reports had been handled to date.
On 21 June 2019 this Service advised the landlord that the resident wished to escalate matters to stage two of its complaints process. As per the landlord’s complaints procedure, the resident’s complaint subsequently should have been reviewed within 30 days of becoming aware of this. Despite encouragement from this Service, however, this was not done.
Contrary to good complaint handling practice, the Ombudsman notes that the resident was advised on 22 July 2019 that her complaint could not be progressed until the noise equipment had been installed. This unreasonably prevented her from moving her complaint to the next stage of the complaints process and in obtaining a clear, final response from the landlord within good time. With a failure to ensure that this equipment was installed for a significant length of time, the resident’s request for a stage two response was subsequently overlooked.
The Ombudsman can see that several complaints were made in the months that followed. Due to the amount of time that passed, it was unclear to this Service what stage the resident’s complaint had been at. This Service subsequently advised the landlord to provide the resident with a stage one response, in June 2020.
In the Ombudsman’s view, however, the landlord’s complaint records should have demonstrated that it had already provided the resident with a stage one response, and that its stage two review was still outstanding. Its failure to recognise this meant that the resident was provided with a further stage one response, adding an extra stage to the landlord’s process, and additionally delaying the resident in exhausting the landlord’s procedure. This obstructed the resident in bringing her complaint to this Service for investigation at an earlier time.
Although the Ombudsman cannot see that the resident categorically requested that the landlord escalate her complaint to its review stage after the landlord’s second stage one response, she demonstrated through several further complaints that she remained dissatisfied. The landlord therefore should have provided its final response sooner. This was not provided until February 2021 – approximately two years after the resident had first expressed dissatisfaction with the landlord’s service.
The Ombudsman has seen that in the landlord’s final response, it explained that it had failed to link the resident’s correspondence from October 2019 onwards to her original case as it should have. It explained that it therefore treated the resident’s complaint as a new matter, which it recognised it should not have. While the landlord’s admission was appropriate, this only formed part of its poor complaint handling and did not demonstrate full recognition for the impact this had. Its subsequent offer of compensation (£75) was insufficient in putting things right.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was:
1. A service failure in respect of the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of noise emanating from her neighbour’s property.
2. A service failure in respect of the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint.

Reasons

The Ombudsman has arrived at the above determinations as:
1. While the landlord took some steps to address the noise being reported by the resident, and had acknowledge many of its shortcomings with an offer of compensation, in the Ombudsman’s opinion it failed to satisfactorily resolve the complaint.

The landlord’s response fell short in recognising its failure to consider alternative ways to reduce the noise experienced by the resident; to act promptly in undertaking the fixes it had proposed; to assess the level of noise that the resident had alleged she was experiencing (and to explain why); to make clear its approach; and to consider the impact that this all had on the resident.

There was also no consideration for the landlord’s ASB approach. Contrary to good practice, the landlord had failed to set out how it aimed to address the resident’s reports of ASB, to enable it to manage the resident’s expectations. It was unclear to the resident why the landlord had not taken enforcement action against her neighbour, and this resulted in the resident assuming that her reports were not being taken seriously. In the absence of an action plan, it was unclear what the landlord proposed to do about her reports of ASB and the level of enforcement action that could be taken. More also should have been done to emphasize and explain why it considered the noise to be everyday noise. The resident could have been given some direction on the sort of evidence she needed to accrue, in order to prove that the noise was targeted.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint was unacceptable. While failing to recognise the resident’s complaint at the earliest opportunity, the landlord also allowed an excessive amount of time to pass before offering its complaint responses. This was contrary to its complaints policy and resulted in the resident reaching out to this Service on a number of occasions for intervention. The landlord failed to follow its complaints procedure and subsequently, the resident was provided with two stage one responses further delaying her in exhausting the landlord’s complaints process. The landlord also failed to manage its complaint response (at stage one), in accordance with best practice guidance.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

In recognition of the service failure, in respect of the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of noise emanating from her neighbour’s property, the Ombudsman orders the landlord to award the resident £600. This has been calculated as:
1. An increase from £75 to £150 in respect of the time taken to act on the recommendations raised in April 2019.
2. An increase from £75 to £150 in respect of the handling of the noise monitoring equipment, and its failure to assess the impact on the resident’s ability to have a reasonable night’s sleep, as it said it would.
3. An increase from £75 to £150 in respect of the landlord’s failure to manage the resident’s expectations, to implement a clear action plan and to undertake a risk assessment, in accordance with its process.
4. £150 in acknowledgement of the ambiguity in the landlord’s approach, where reports of ASB were concerned, and the inconvenience this caused.
In recognition of the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint, the Ombudsman also orders the landlord to increase the compensation award from £75 to £250.
The above payments should be made to the resident within four weeks of receiving this determination. If the £300 originally offered to the resident has already been paid, this should be deducted from the (£850) total.

Recommendations

The landlord should continue to support the resident in finding a new home.
The landlord should also continue, as it suggested it would in its final response, to investigate any ongoing noise issues reported by the resident. If there is evidence of noise exceeding 30dB (and therefore impacting the resident’s ability to achieve a reasonable night’s sleep), a practical solution should be sought. In this instance, the landlord should share its intended approach with the resident.