The new improved webform is online now! Residents and representatives can access the form online today.

Camden Council (202217163)

Back to Top

 

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202217163

Camden Council

19 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

  1. The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of:
    1. Reports of noise nuisance from a neighbouring property.
    2. The associated complaint

Background

  1. The resident is a secure tenant of the landlord. The resident’s daughter is representing her on this complaint. The resident has stated that she has mental health vulnerabilities, which the landlord is aware of.
  2. On 10 December 2021 and 22 December 2021, the resident contacted the landlord and reported noise nuisance related to walking, banging, and talking.
  3. The resident submitted a complaint to the landlord on 3 November 2022. She stated that her neighbour located in the property above had been causing too much noise for 4 years. She explained that they were constantly making banging noises and hoovering during the night after 11pm.
  4. The landlord provided its stage 1 complaint response to the resident on 2 December 2022. It apologised for the delay in providing its stage 1 complaint response. The landlord referenced actions it took in response to previous reports of noise nuisance in 2018, such as speaking to the resident’s neighbours and confirming that her neighbours had adequate floor covering in place. It also stated that its noise patrol team attended the resident’s property in 2019 to witness the noise and only faint noise was heard. In addition, the landlord also stated that it carried out a noise test in March 2020 and a reasonable level of noise was detected. Furthermore, it also explained that it was aware that the resident had made complaints about noise in December 2021. However, it stated that due to COVID-19 restrictions it was unable to carry out a visit to investigate the reported noise nuisance. The landlord explained that one way they could resolve the issue with the noise nuisance was with mediation if both parties agreed to it.
  5. On 11 January 2023, the resident requested her complaint to be escalated to the next stage of the landlord’s complaints process. She stated that the noise was still ongoing from her neighbour’s property, and nothing had been done.
  6. The landlord provided its stage 2 complaint response to the resident on 15 March 2023. It apologised for the delay in providing its stage 2 complaint response. The landlord stated it had not been able to gather significant evidence showing that the noise was deliberately being made to cause nuisance. It explained that it previously asked the resident to keep a noise diary and consider agreeing to mediation. However, it stated that it had no record that the resident had complied with these options. The landlord also stated the resident’s report of hearing every conversation from her neighbour’s property causes concern that a fault may exist between the properties. Therefore, the landlord stated that it would arrange for an inspection of the floor and ceiling which separates the two floors to be undertaken.
  7. The resident remained dissatisfied with the landlord’s response and submitted her complaint to the Ombudsman. She stated her desired outcome was for sound proofing to be fitted at her property or alternatively, to move property.

Assessment and findings

Reports of noise nuisance from a neighbouring property.

Scope of Investigation

  1. The resident raised as part of her complaint, that she experienced noise nuisance from her neighbour for around 4 years. However, there is no evidence of a formal complaint being raised until November 2022. In addition, the most recent report of noise nuisance prior to the resident submitting a complaint to the landlord was December 2021. In view of the time periods involved in this case and considering the availability and reliability of evidence, this report will consider specific events from around December 2021 onwards. This is because paragraph 42(c) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme (available on our website), explains that this service may not investigate complaints that were not brought to the attention of the landlord as a formal complaint within a reasonable period, normally within 6 months of the matters arising.

Assessment

  1. It is outside the role of the Ombudsman to establish whether someone has committed anti-social behaviour, but rather, this service will assess the landlord’s handling of the resident’s anti-social behaviour reports. We will consider whether the landlord’s response was fair and reasonable in view of all the circumstances and whether it acted in line with its own internal policies, the law and industry best practice.
  2. The landlord’s noise and nuisance policy states that it will try to prevent a report of noise nuisance escalating, take a restorative approach where appropriate and remain aware to the informal and formal remedies available to both parties.
  3. The policy also references a range of measures the landlord can take to assess noise nuisance. The measures include the landlord’s neighbourhood housing officer having conversations with the impacted parties to assess the issue. In addition, the landlord has a residential security patrol team which can attend and witness incidents of nuisance everyday between 4pm and 4am. The policy also includes informal measures such as mediation, noise diary sheets and informal letters.
  4. Furthermore, the landlord’s noise and nuisance policy explains that the landlord can also work with environment health officers when enforcement action is needed. The policy also includes formal measures such as acceptable behaviour agreements, civil injunctions, community protection notices and criminal behaviour orders.
  5. The resident reported noise nuisance to the landlord on 10 December 2021 and 22 December 2021 and initially submitted a complaint to the landlord about the noise nuisance on 3 November 2022. However, the Ombudsman has noted from the landlord’s records for contextual reasons that the resident has previously reported issues with noise nuisance from her neighbour in 2018 and 2020. In response to the historical reports, the landlord visited the resident’s neighbour’s property to inspect the flooring, and it was identified that there was adequate flooring in place. In addition, in March 2020 the landlord’s neighbourhood officer carried out a noise test in the resident’s property and the results from the test were that a reasonable level of noise was detected.
  6. The landlord explained in its stage 2 complaint response that it was unable to investigate the resident’s noise reports she submitted in December 2021 due to COVID-19 restrictions. The Ombudsman recognises that the COVID-19 restrictions would have been outside the landlord’s control, and it is acknowledged that the landlord would not have been able to conduct a visit to investigate the noise nuisance when the COVID-19 restrictions were in place. However, the Ombudsman would have expected the landlord to use other measures to gather evidence regarding the noise nuisance reports.
  7. The landlord’s records indicate that it requested the resident to complete diary sheets to record the noise shortly after she reported the noise nuisance in December 2021. The landlord stated in its stage 2 complaint response that it does not have any record of the resident completing the diary sheets. However, the resident’s representative has informed the Ombudsman that they completed multiple diary sheets and sent them to the landlord. The resident’s representative has provided the service with a copy of one of the diary sheets they completed in August 2022. Based on this it is likely that the diary sheets were completed by the resident and the landlord may have failed to keep a record of the diary sheets and consider the information recorded on the diary sheets.
  8. The landlord could have requested the resident to download a noise application on to her mobile phone to take recordings of any noise nuisance. The noise app is an important tool to understand the type of noise nuisance and also the volume of the noise. This would have been a useful starting point for the landlord to conduct its investigations into the resident’s reports of noise nuisance and could have been offered as an alternative to a visit while Covid-19 restrictions were in place.
  9. The landlord also offered mediation to the resident and her neighbour in its stage 1 complaint response dated 2 December 2022. However, there is no evidence that it was offered to the resident in December 2021 when she reported the noise nuisance to the landlord. The landlord explained in its stage 2 response that there was no record that the resident had agreed to the mediation. The resident’s representative has told the Ombudsman that when the mediation was first offered around 2018, they took part in the mediation. However, it did not resolve the issue, therefore due to this, the resident declined the offer of mediation, which was made in December 2022.
  10. Mediation is optional; therefore, it was entirely the resident’s decision whether she accepted the mediation offer. This service recognises that it was reasonable for the landlord to offer mediation to the resident as mediation can be an effective tool to resolve disputes between neighbours in some cases. However, the Ombudsman would have expected the landlord to offer the resident at an earlier date than it did. The mediation was offered approximately 1 year after the resident had reported the noise nuisance which was unreasonable.
  11. Although the noise nuisance was still ongoing after the COVID-19 restrictions were lifted, the landlord failed to carry out a visit to investigate the reported noise once the restrictions had been lifted. In addition, the landlord stated in its stage 2 complaint response dated 15 March 2023 that it would arrange for an inspection of the floor and ceiling which separate the two floors to be undertaken. However, the landlord has not provided any evidence to confirm that it carried out the inspection. This was unreasonable, particularly because the resident had mental health vulnerabilities which she made the landlord aware when she provided it with a copy of a medical letter in November 2022. The landlord also failed to address the resident’s mental health vulnerabilities in its stage 1 and 2 complaint responses. It would have been appropriate for the landlord to take into consideration the resident’s vulnerabilities as they may have made her more vulnerable to the impact of the noise. The resident’s representative has also confirmed that there are other family members living at the property who have vulnerable health conditions, but there is no record to suggest that the landlord would have been aware of the other vulnerabilities within the household. The landlord can only take health conditions and vulnerabilities into account if it is made aware of them.
  12. Following an inspection of the floor and ceiling between the 2 properties, the landlord would be expected to put right any identified structural defects, but it would not be expected to fit sound insulation as this would be seen as an improvement and the landlord is not required to make improvements to a resident’s property, it is only required to maintain the building and keep it in a good state of repair.
  13. Overall, the landlord failed to adequately investigate the resident’s reports of noise nuisance from December 2021 and did not comply with its noise and nuisance policy. Therefore, there has been maladministration in the landlord’s handling of reports of noise nuisance from a neighbouring property. It would be appropriate for the landlord to pay the resident compensation of £500 to recognise the distress and inconvenience the resident has experienced due to the landlord’s failure to investigate the reported noise nuisance. The Ombudsman’s approach to compensation is set out in our remedies guidance (published on our website). The remedies guidance suggests awards of £100 to £600 where there has been a failure by the landlord which adversely affected the resident, but there was no permanent impact.
  14. In addition, the resident’s representative has confirmed that the noise nuisance is still ongoing. As the landlord failed to previously investigate the reported noise nuisance in line with its procedure, and the resident is still experiencing issues with the noise nuisance, the Ombudsman expects the landlord to create an action plan to investigate the reported noise nuisance going forward.

The associated complaint.

  1. The Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code) sets out the Ombudsman’s expectations for landlords’ complaint handling practices. The Code states that a stage 1 complaint response should be provided within 10 working days of the complaint. It also states that a stage 2 response should be provided within 20 working days.
  2. The landlord’s complaints policy, which was relevant at the time it issued its stage 1 and 2 responses to the resident explained that the landlord would provide a stage 1 response within 10 working days. The policy also explained that the landlord would provide a stage 2 complaint response within 25 working days. The stage 2 response timescale referenced in the landlord’s complaint policy at the time was not compliant with the stage 2 response timescale referenced in the Code. However, a recent check of the landlord’s website shows that the landlord has updated its response timescales in line with the Code.
  3. The resident first submitted her complaint to the landlord on 3 November 2022. Following this, the landlord provided its stage 1 response on 2 December 2022. The response was sent approximately 21 working days after the resident submitted her complaint to the landlord. The response was late and not compliant with the timescales referenced in the Code or the landlord’s complaints policy.
  4. On 11 January 2023, the resident requested her complaint to be escalated to the next stage of the complaints process. It took over 2 months for the landlord to provide its stage 2 response, which was provided on 15 March 2023. The overall delay was not significant, but it would have caused some inconvenience for the resident, as she was delayed in progressing her complaint to the Ombudsman because she needed to wait for the landlord’s final response before contacting our service.
  5. The landlord acknowledged in its stage 1 and 2 responses that there was a delay in providing its complaint responses and apologised for the delay. However, it failed to offer the resident any compensation to recognise the delay and inconvenience caused. Therefore, it would be appropriate for the landlord to pay the resident £100 compensation for the distress and inconvenience caused. This amount is compliant with the Ombudsman’s Remedies Guidance referenced above.

Determination (decision)

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of reports of noise nuisance from a neighbouring property.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was a service failure in the landlord’s handling of the associated complaint.

Orders

  1. The landlord is to pay the resident £500 compensation for its handling of reports of noise nuisance from a neighbouring property.
  2. The landlord is to pay the resident £100 compensation for its complaint handling errors.
  3. The landlord is to provide a written apology to the resident for its handling of reports of noise nuisance from a neighbouring property.
  4. The landlord should contact the resident to arrange a date to install noise equipment at her property to help investigate the reported noise nuisance.
  5. The landlord to create an action plan to investigate the noise nuisance. The action plan should include steps the landlord plans to carry out to investigate the noise with timescales. The action plan should also include a risk assessment and a named point of contact for this issue.
  6. The landlord should comply with the above orders within 4 weeks of the date of this report.
  7. The landlord is to carry out a review into the resident’s case and identify any areas for improvement. There should be a specific focus on how the landlord manages noise complaints and considers residents with vulnerabilities. The landlord should also review the Ombudsman’s spotlight report on noise complaints and carry out a self-assessment against recommendations in the report. The review should be completed by a senior member of staff at director level. The landlord should draft a report on its findings and provide a copy of the report to the Ombudsman and the resident.
  8. The landlord should provide evidence of compliance with the above order within 8 weeks of the date of this report.