Canterbury City Council (202303492)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202303492

Canterbury City Council

22 March 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 reports of noise nuisance.
The Ombudsman has decided to consider:
1. The landlord’s complaint handling.
2. The landlord’s record keeping.

Background

The resident lives in a 1-bedroom flat within a block of 4 flats. His property is on the ground floor. The resident advised that his above neighbour’s property is privately owned.
The resident’s social worker contacted the landlord in October 2022 to advise that the resident had been diagnosed with autism. They reported that people were passing his window and using a gate at the rear of his property as a cut through. The noise from this was causing him distress.
Following this, the resident made frequent reports of noise nuisance from his upstairs neighbour’s property. This included loud floorboards when the neighbour walked around and the neighbour’s washing machine causing his property to vibrate when in use. He was concerned that the ceiling would fall through and requested to be moved to alternative accommodation.
On 16 February 2023 the resident contacted the landlord to advise he would raise a complaint about the ongoing noise as he did not feel like he was being listened to. The Ombudsman was not provided with a copy of this complaint.
The resident continued raising noise reports over the following months. On 9 May 2023 he reported that his above neighbours were deliberately causing noise. He said they played loud music early in the morning.
On 16 May 2023 the landlord issued a stage 2 complaint response. In summary it said:
1. The building was compliant with building regulation at the time and a certain level of noise would be expected when living in flats.
2. It had spoken to the neighbour and asked them to consider the noise they made when using appliances. It was unable to take any formal or legal actions.
3. It looked into relocating the rear gate away from the resident’s flat. This was not feasible as it would cause a land ownership problem. The gate was locked but it was causing issues for dog walkers to access the field behind.
4. The resident had been housed appropriately and it was not possible to relocate him. Housing priority was managed through its housing register.
The resident referred his complaint to the Ombudsman on 24 January 2024. He remains dissatisfied that the noise issue has been ongoing for a long time and the landlord has not taken sufficient actions. He is concerned about the condition of the flooring between his and his neighbour’s property and believes it is damaged. To resolve the complaint, he wants to be moved to alternative accommodation, or for the flooring to be repaired to stop the noise transference into his property.

Assessment and findings

Scope of the investigation

Within its stage 2 response, the landlord addressed the resident’s request to be rehoused through its housing register. The Housing Ombudsman cannot consider complaints which relate to an application for rehousing made to a local authority. Complaints about the assessment of such applications, the award of points or banding fall within the jurisdiction of the Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman (LGSCO). The resident is advised to contact the LGSCO if he wishes to pursue this aspect of the complaint.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of noise nuisance.

It is important to note that it is not the purpose of this report to investigate any of the alleged noise nuisance itself, to apportion blame, or to assess the credibility of the reports made by the resident. The Ombudsman’s role is to consider whether the landlord responded appropriately to the resident’s reports by adhering to its policies, procedures, and any agreements with the resident. And that the landlord behaved reasonably, taking account of what is fair in all the circumstances of the case. In this case, the relevant landlord information is its antisocial behaviour (ASB) and noise nuisance policy, and its webpage on noise nuisance.
The landlord’s ASB and noise nuisance policy outlines that noises from household appliances or noise transference due to poor sound insulation will not be dealt with as ASB. It continues that if a complaint does not constitute ASB or falls outside of its remit, it will contact the complainant to explain this.
In cases where there is a housing related dispute, a housing officer will determine whether a referral to an independent mediation scheme would be appropriate. The landlord uses the following early intervention methods: written or verbal warnings, joint visits, acceptable behaviour agreements, and partnership working.
The landlord’s webpage on noise nuisance outlines that after a complaint is made, the landlord will send a letter to the resident and ask them to keep diary sheets with dates and times for 3 weeks. Following this, the landlord will decide if further evidence is required before taking any action. It adds that if the diary sheets are not returned within the stipulated period, the landlord will close the case.
If the landlord decides that further investigations are required, it will visit the property or ask the resident to phone the landlord when the noise is happening. It will also write to the address complained about.
The landlord can consider actions such as installing noise recording equipment for a week. If there is no evidence of a problem, the case will be closed, and the resident informed of the outcome.
The resident contacted the landlord in December 2022 to raise concerns about noise nuisance from his upstairs neighbours. In accordance with the landlord’s ASB policy, the initial reports would not have constituted ASB. As such, the landlord should have informed the resident of this at an early stage and created an action plan outlining how it would respond to his noise reports. The landlord failed to set the resident’s expectations and he was left in limbo not knowing how the matter was being progressed. The landlord’s initial response fell short.
This Service’s Spotlight report on noise (available at: Spotlight on: Noise Complaints -October 2022 (housing-ombudsman.org.uk)) states that, “landlords should have a proactive good neighbourhood management policy, distinct to the ASB policy, with a clear suite of options for maintaining good neighbourhood relationships”. This ensures low level issues of neighbour friction are not inappropriately handled as potential ASB. It continues that this provides clarity to the resident early in the process about possible outcomes of their report. As such, the landlord is recommended to consider implementing a good neighbourhood management policy for instances where reported noise does not constitute ASB.
Throughout the duration of the complaint, the landlord did not set the resident’s expectations. For example, it failed to inform him how it would address the noise nuisance given the neighbour’s property was not the landlord’s tenant. The landlord would have faced limitations with the actions it could take against the neighbour. In such cases, transparency with residents is of paramount importance.
The landlord was aware that the resident had autism but did not carry out a vulnerability or risk assessment. It should have assessed the likely impact of the noise on the resident and if necessary signposted him to support services. It was unsatisfactory that the landlord did not do this.
Although the landlord said a multiagency meeting was held to discuss the resident’s case, records from the time of the meeting were not maintained. It is unclear what was discussed or what the outcome was. The landlord was unable to evidence that it considered the resident’s vulnerabilities when addressing his noise reports.
To investigate the reported noise, the landlord sent diary sheets to the resident on 14 December 2022. These were returned and reviewed in March 2023. This was appropriate as it allowed the landlord to ascertain the nature, frequency, and impact of the reported noise. However, records do not suggest the landlord retained copies of the diary sheets. It was insufficient for the landlord to only record that the “contents was mainly about the upstairs neighbour”.
As the resident continued making noise reports, the landlord contacted the neighbour in April 2023. The landlord advised them that it had received a complaint originating from their washing machine. It asked the neighbour to review the appliance to see whether the noise could be reduced. This was a proportionate response.
Records suggest that the landlord did not take any action to investigate or respond to the resident’s concerns about the noise from the floorboards in the neighbour’s property. This was insufficient given the frequency of the reports and the resident’s claim that the flooring was damaged. The landlord should have visited the property or requested to listen to the noise via phone as per its policy. The resident said that he sent noise recordings to the landlord but never received a response. The landlord’s lack of action was unreasonable and would have caused the resident distress.
As noise reports were made over a protracted period, the Ombudsman would expect the landlord to use all available options to it. The landlord’s policy outlined it could use noise monitoring equipment which would have been appropriate in this case. There were no records to suggest that this was considered. Although the landlord informed the Ombudsman that it offered the resident mediation and discussed soundproofing, there are no records to corroborate this. Further, the resident did not confirm this.
In response to the resident’s reports of the rear gate causing noise when used, the landlord advised in its stage 2 complaint response that it had locked the gate. The resident informed the Ombudsman that he remained dissatisfied at the time taken for the landlord to rectify this. The landlord did not retain records to evidence what actions it took and when. As such the Ombudsman is unable to draw a conclusion as to whether this matter was handled appropriately. However, its stage 2 complaint response suggested that it locked the gate to address the noise nuisance in a timely manner.
Without clear and detailed records, the Ombudsman is unable to confirm that the landlord sufficiently investigated or considered all appropriate options when responding to the noise reports. The Ombudsman’s Spotlight report on noise (available at: Spotlight on: Noise Complaints – October 2022 (housing-ombudsman.org.uk)) says, “if information is absent, this disenfranchises future case handlers from knowing the full history and creates the potential for contradictory handling and mismanaged expectations”. This was evident in this case.
It is noted that the landlord offered support and advice to the resident about alternative housing options following his request to be moved. For example, its stage 2 response included details of the mutual exchange process. It also advised that an occupational health assessment could be carried out if he felt his accommodation was unsuitable. This was reasonable.
Overall, the landlord failed to set the resident’s expectations, appropriately investigate, or take sufficient action to respond to the reported noise. Although the landlord took some steps to address aspects of the noise complaints, these were limited. If further actions were taken, the landlord should have maintained clear records to reflect this. The Ombudsman has identified maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the noise nuisance. To put things right, the landlord is ordered to compensate the resident £500 for the distress and inconvenience caused by the landlord’s handling of the noise reports.
As the resident advised that the noise nuisance is ongoing, the landlord is ordered to complete a review of its handling of the resident’s noise reports and meet with the resident to agree an action plan to address the ongoing noise.

The landlord’s record keeping

Poor record keeping has been a consistent theme throughout the landlord’s handling of this case. As part of this investigation, the landlord was requested to provide relevant information that would reasonably be recorded and retained by the landlord. The documentation provided was extremely limited. The landlord submitted a timeline which outlined actions it took. However, very few records from the time of the complaint were maintained.
In addition, the landlord failed to provide a copy of the resident’s original complaint, his escalation request, or the stage 1 complaint response. When the Ombudsman requested these documents, the landlord provided a stage 1 response dated 17 May 2022. However, this appears to relate to a separate complaint. In addition, the landlord sent the Ombudsman a complaint from the resident which post-dated the final response. This was not the original complaint which was requested. It is concerning that the landlord did not retain these documents.
The Ombudsman contacted the landlord on 3 occasions to request information. However, evidence was repeatedly not provided. This leads the Ombudsman to conclude that the records were not available. It was unsatisfactory that the landlord did not maintain key records.
Clear record-keeping is a core function of a housing service, not only so that a landlord can provide information to the Ombudsman when requested, but also because this assists the landlord in fulfilling its obligations. The Ombudsman’s Spotlight report on Knowledge and Information Management says that, “failings to create and record information accurately results in landlords not taking appropriate and timely action, missing opportunities to identify that actions were wrong or inadequate, and contributing to inadequate communication and redress.” These failings were evident in this case.
It is noted that the landlord advised that it was unable to access some historic data due to a change in system. However, the landlord said this was for information relating to the resident’s housing register application which did not form part of this complaint.
Given the above, there was maladministration in respect of the landlord’s record keeping. It failed to demonstrate that it had recorded its actions in dealing with the noise nuisance.

The landlord’s complaint handling

The landlord’s complaints procedure says that after a complaint is logged it will provide a stage 1 complaint response within 14 days. The resident advised that he did not recall receiving a stage 1 response. Further, as the landlord did not provide the Ombudsman with a copy of this, we can only conclude that it failed to issue a stage 1 response. This was unreasonable and not in line with its complaints policy.
The landlord’s stage 2 response did not address all aspects of the noise nuisance. For example, the landlord did not provide a sufficient response to the resident’s concerns about the noise caused from the above neighbour’s flooring (aside from the washing machine), and his concerns that the floor was damaged.
The landlord did not acknowledge or apologise for its complaint handling failings in its stage 2 response which would have exacerbated the matter for the resident.
Due to the landlord’s failure to follow its complaints process and inability to evidence it appropriately handled the complaint, there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the complaint. The landlord is therefore ordered to compensate the resident £200 to put things right.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was:
1. maladministration regarding the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of noise nuisance.
2. maladministration regarding the landlord’s complaint handling.
3. maladministration regarding the landlord’s record keeping.

Orders

A senior member of the landlord is to apologise to the resident for the failings identified in this report.
The landlord is ordered to compensate the resident a total of £700 comprised of:
1. £500 for the distress and inconvenience caused to the resident by the landlord’s failure to appropriately investigate or respond to the resident’s noise reports.
2. £200 for the landlord’s poor complaint handling.
The landlord should provide the Ombudsman with compliance with the above orders within the next 4 weeks.
The landlord is ordered to carry out a full review of its procedures and systems in relation to record keeping. In doing so, the landlord should have regard to the Ombudsman’s Spotlight report of Knowledge and Information Management. The landlord should share its findings with this service.
The landlord is ordered to complete a review of its handling of the resident’s noise reports. As part of this, the landlord must investigate the resident’s reports of damaged flooring between his and his neighbour’s property. Following this, the landlord must endeavour to meet with the resident to agree an action plan for responding to the noise reports. The landlord should update the Ombudsman on the outcome of this.
The landlord should provide the Ombudsman with evidence of compliance with the above orders within the next 8 weeks.

Recommendation

The landlord is recommended to have a proactive good neighbourhood management policy, distinct to the ASB policy, with a clear suite of options for maintaining good neighbourhood relationships and a matrix for assessing which option is the most appropriate. This is in line with this Ombudsman’s Spotlight report on noise.