Clarion Housing Association Limited (202009298)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202009298

Clarion Housing Association Limited

9 November 2021


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. This complaint is about the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of antisocial behaviour (ASB) noise nuisance.

Background and summary of events

  1. The resident is a tenant of the landlord. The property is within a block of flats. The resident’s neighbour’s live in the flat above.
  2. The resident made two ASB reports, on 10 August 2020 and 18 August 2020 regarding noise from the property above. She stated her neighbour constantly shouted, made banging noises, kept running up the stairs and banging the kitchen cupboards. She said this has been occurring for over 18 years.
  3. The landlord spoke to the resident on 25 August 2020. She said the local authority (LA) had been to the property twice in the past few weeks to listen to the noise, but the noise reduced on both of visits upon their arrival. She told the landlord she was interested in mediation with the neighbours, so that she could explain to them the impact the noise had on her.
  4. The landlord called the resident on 2 September 2020 to discuss the ASB case. The landlord noted her explanations about the type of noise she was hearing, and that it “interferes with her health, she becomes stress unable to concentrate, it disturbs her sleep.” The resident explained that she had a number of health and family concerns. The landlord acknowledged the resident’s openness to mediation to resolve the ASB, but explained it was unable to find evidence of noise nuisance, and the noise she had described was classified as household noise (as opposed to ASB). The landlord said it would request a noise machine to be fitted by the LA, asked the resident to complete diary sheets, and said it would speak to a surveyor to enquire about a solution for the noise from the neighbour’s kitchen cupboards. The resident informed the landlord that she was bidding on the LA’s website to move to a bungalow.
  5. On 22 October 2020, the landlord emailed the LA’s environmental health team to request a noise machine to be installed once Covid restrictions had been lifted. It also asked its surveyor to request soft closers to be installed on the cupboards to soften their noise. 
  6. On 27 October, the landlord assessed the resident’s diary sheets. She had noted slamming doors, screaming, noisy children and banging on the walls. She had referenced two of her friends as witnesses.
  7. On 1 December 2020, the landlord spoke to the LA environmental health team, which explained that the resident had also reported noise disturbance to them; however, they had concluded the reports were household noise, and they would be advising the resident to “take her own action” and that the resident should contact the LA to report any future noise issue at the time it was occurring. 
  8. On 1 December 2020, the landlord conducted a case review. It noted that the LA had concluded the reports to be household noise and was taking no action. It further noted that “in the last 18 months there has been numerous calls to Clarion Housing regarding noise complaints from neighbours properties. There are no surrounding properties that we can confer regarding collocating supporting evidence. NRO did not complete home visit due to lockdown and visit was not classed an urgent visit (it is not entirely clear what type of officer an NRO is). Regarding request for door closure this has been declined as it is not a repair (this appears to relate to the cupboard soft closers). Will seek advice for closing the case” The landlord rang the resident the same day to explain the outcome of its review. She was advised to call the council at the time of any further noise reports. The landlord agreed to complete a referral to an occupational therapist for an assessment to support her application to move to a bungalow. The landlord noted that the resident:

“Said she did not refuse to complete diary sheets. I explained that I had read her sheets back in Sep 20 and they are on the system. I explained that we have not been able to corroborate the incidents that she had reported, the witness provided were her friends. I informed [resident] that the noise she is reporting would be classed as household noise and we would not be able to take any action. I explained to [resident] if she hears her neighbours banging on her walls for a period of time to contact the council when it’s occurring and not after. I explained that we cancelled the appointment to see her neighbour. This was due to COIVD. I advised that I would not normally arrange to [visit] the alleged person unless we have obtained evidence. I went onto say that due to her numerous complaints about noise from her neighbour’s property. I would like to get to the bottom and prevent any further calls as it’s affecting our services. I explained that I would seek from Guidance and call her back before closing the case. [Resident] said that she was not happy with me closing the case, as her issue had not been resolved.”

  1. On 9 December 2020, the resident called the landlord to say the noise sheets it had sent had been posted through the neighbour’s door rather than hers. She said this had caused embarrassment and concern as the neighbour had now been alerted to the issue. It is not apparent from the note of the call whether this was an address error by the landlord, or a mistake by the post office.
  2. The resident contacted this service on 10 December 2020 and 14 December 2020 as she was unhappy with how the ASB case had been handled. Following an email from us, the landlord logged a formal stage one complaint (prior to this the resident had only made ASB reports). We explained that she was complaining about the landlord’s handling of the ASB reports, and about its delay responding to her complaint.
  3. The landlord called the neighbour to discuss the case on 17 December 2020. The neighbour said that her toilet door was faulty and causing additional noise when used. She said she had reported this to the repairs team. She said she had also installed thicker undelay in attempt to lessen the noise, unsuccessfully, and that she acknowledged her stairs were also noisy when used. The landlord arranged to visit.
  4. Home visits to the resident and the neighbour had been scheduled by the landlord for 11 January 2021.However, they had to be cancelled as a result of the national covid-19 lockdown. Both parties were informed of this on 12 January 2021. The landlord apologised for not informing them earlier, and said it would suspend the ASB case until visits could resume. Its note states that it rang both parties, and wrote to them.
  5. On 15 January 2021 the landlord reviewed the case again. As it was unable to carry out a noise test, due to the lockdown, the case was closed until 4 February 2021 when restrictions would be assessed to see if the noise test could then be done. This was communicated to the resident in a phone call. The landlord noted that the resident had been offered support from relevant services (such as victim support), and that the case would be reviewed again in early February. It noted that it had called the resident who:

“asked why the noise test had not been carried out before when she originally made the complaint. I explained that we require evidence. I had looked at the diary sheets which showed that the noise were predominately household noises, Clarion were not able to obtain corroborate your complaints by an independent person. I explained that we don’t investigate household noise however you has stated that it’s excessive noise. I stated that the witness you gave was your friend that visits. I explained when the noise is occurring to contact the council obtain the person that you have spoken with and let me know. I said that I had spoken with the Council before the lockdown and they said that they had sent you an advice letter and asking you to contact them when the noise was occurring. I explained to [resident] that her neighbour had been reasonable and is willing for us to complete the noise test. Neighbour believes that the noise disturbance is due to stairs/floor installation.”

  1. On 25 January 2021 the landlord sent its response to the resident’s complaint. It explained that:
    1. Neither the landlord nor the LA’s environmental health team could find evidence to suggest the noise reported exceeded levels expected for a household. Nonetheless, it acknowledged that elements of the resident’s reports could be classed as ASB, such as banging on walls and screaming, and this should be reported at the time of occurrence to the LA.
    2. It had contacted the neighbour but could not complete a home visit until lockdown restrictions had been lifted.
    3. It had identified “a service failure in the lack of communication from the Neighbourhoods team in keeping you updated through your ASB case.” It apologised, and offered £50 compensation (which it said it had already discussed with the resident who had said she was satisfied with it). The landlord explained how the resident could escalate her complaint if she remained dissatisfied.
  2. On 24 March 2021, the resident contacted this Service again to say the noise levels had improved and she could now only hear doors and people using the stairs.
  3. Following further contact from the resident, this Service contacted the landlord on 23 April 2021. We explained the resident had said she wanted to escalate her complaint as she was dissatisfied with the complaint one response (she gave no specific grounds). She also said she had not yet received the promised compensation, and had not been made aware that her complaint had been closed.
  4. The landlord spoke to the resident on 29 April 2021. Its notes of the discussion state “Resident remains dissatisfied with our response as noise from neighbour is still continuing. She advised that this had been ongoing for years and she has discussed with several of her Neighbourhood Officer. Most recently we advised that when the pandemic is over, we will attend to discuss this with her and listen to the noise. She states that we have also advised her that we would look into mediation, but this is yet to happen. She also advised that the Council’s Environmental Health Services had visited regarding the noise and informed her to report this to her Landlord as they would not investigate household noise”.
  5. The landlord sent its final complaint response on 21 May 2021. It went into detail about the actions it had taken in response to the resident’s reports. Amongst other things, it explained that:
    1. It had not found any independent evidence to corroborate the resident’s noise nuisance reports.
    2. It had previously agreed an action plan with the resident, which had included the resident completing diary sheets and providing further noise nuisance reports to the LA’s environmental health team and the landlord. It had not received recent, completed diary sheets from the resident.
    3. The only evidence it had received from the resident was of household noise. Nonetheless, a noise transference test would be done when lockdown restrictions were lifted.
    4. Mediation had not been raised in relation the resident’s most recent conversations with the landlord. It said it would arrange for its specialist team to discuss the option with her.
    5. It believed that the relevant polices and investigation procedure had been followed, within the limitations of the pandemic restrictions. However, it acknowledged that it could have done more to update the resident on its investigations, particularly about the potential timing of the noise test. It said that it believed its original complaint response had been sound but offered the resident a further £100 compensation. It explained that the complaints process was now finished, and how the resident could approach this Service if she remained dissatisfied.
  6. On 27 May 2021 the landlord attended the property to carry out a noise test. It concluded that it wasn’t enough to be classed as ASB. The resident was offered mediation but declined. The resident later told the landlord that she did not believe it had properly investigated, that the officer conducting the test had visited for only five minutes, and that the noise was continuing.
  7. The landlord sent a case closure letter to the resident on 1 June 2021.

Assessment and findings

  1. The landlord has a two-step complaints procedure, a stage one complaint, followed by a peer review in the second stage.
  2. Within the complaints handling procedure, the compensation policy outlines it will pay £50-£250 for instances of service failure.
  3. The landlord outlines in its ASB policy that everyday household noise, which is not intentionally causing nuisance, is not classified as ASB.
  4. Before investigating noise complaints, its ASB policy requires the landlord to receive reports of three separate incidents over seven days, or five incidents over 28 days. The landlord will start investigating noise ASB cases within 5 working days.
  5. If a resident is dissatisfied with the landlord’s handling of an ASB case, they can make a complaint through its complaint’s procedure.
  6. It is evident, and understandable that this situation has been distressing for the resident. There remains a dispute between the resident and the landlord regarding whether the landlord responded appropriately to her reports of ASB.
  7. The landlord followed several avenues to investigate the resident’s reports. It asked the resident to complete diaries, carried out a noise test, discussed the issue with the neighbour and considered mediation. Also, in line with the landlord’s ASB policy, it offered support services, and collaborated with other agencies, including the LA’s environmental health team. The resident expressed a desire to move properties and the landlord offered support and assistance in doing so. 
  8. There were delays in the landlord’s noise test. However, this was primarily due to the covid-19 national lockdown, so was therefore outside the landlord’s control. The landlord closed the case on 15 January 2021 as a result of this (effectively a suspension rather than a closure), until the noise test could take place, as at this point the investigation process had been exhausted without evidence of ASB. When restrictions were removed, the landlord attended the property on 27 May 2021 to monitor the noise. While the resident was dissatisfied with the amount of time the landlord’s officer spent at her home, the outcome supported the earlier conclusions about the nature of the noise she had been reporting i.e. that it was household noise and not ASB.
  9. The resident reported to the landlord that some noise diary sheets it had sent had been received by the neighbour. She was understandably concerned that the neighbour had been alerted to the fact that the resident was making noise reports. The resident included this matter in her complaint to this Service, but it does not appear to have been raised as part of her complaint to the landlord. No evidence has been provided of any further enquiries of the mistake by the landlord, so it is not possible to determine anything about what actually happened. Nonetheless, it would not really have been possible for the landlord to have investigated the resident’s noise reports without the neighbour becoming aware. There is also nothing suggesting that any personal information was inappropriately shared. It is therefore difficult to see a significant impact from the matter.
  10. In some instances, the landlord appears to have failed to update the resident on the outcome of enquiries it had made. On 2 September 2020, the landlord told the resident it had requested noise monitoring equipment to be put in the property; however, whilst this request was sent to environmental health on 22 October 2020, it is unclear what the response was, and this was not communicated to the resident. The landlord also told the resident it would look at the possibility of having soft closers installed on the neighbour’s cupboards. This also requested on 22 October 2020, and an internal note on 1 December 2020 shows the request was rejected by the relevant team as it was not classed as a repair; the resident does not appear to have been updated with this information. It is a reasonable expectation for the resident to be updated on these enquiries, as the possibility had been discussed with her previously.
  11. The landlord acknowledged in its complaint investigation that it had not always updated the resident about its ASB enquiries as well as it could have. It apologised and offered a token £50 compensation in recognition of the frustration caused to the resident. In its second complaint response it explained that it was offering a “further” £100 compensation. The implication being that in total it had offered £150.
  12. The landlord’s compensation offer was in line with its compensation guide, which states that awards of £50-£250 are for when the landlord fails to meet service standards but does not cause significant impact to the complaint outcome. The compensation amount was therefore reasonable in comparison to the scale of the landlord’s service failure, and the frustration likely have been caused to the resident. Combined with its handling of her complaint, its acknowledgement of its shortcomings, and its apologies, this was a reasonable remedy.
  13. In regard to the substantive issue of the noise experienced by the resident. The landlord took reasonable steps to investigate and assess her reports. Its conclusions that the noise was not ASB is supported by the evidence, and the actions it took to support the resident in light of her circumstances demonstrated good customer focus, and a positive approach to the well being of its tenants.
  14. The resident advised this Service that she continues to experience noise. Any further noise issues should be reported to the landlord and LA using the relevant processes for each of them. However, both organisations’ assessments of the resident’s earlier reports show that she will continue to experience some level of noise transference from her neighbour, and that is not something the landlord can meaningfully assist with any more than it already has.

Determination (decision)

  1. In accordance with paragraph 55 (b) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the landlord has made an offer of redress prior to investigation which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, resolves the complaint satisfactorily.

Reasons

  1. The landlord followed appropriate avenues to investigate the reports of ASB and coordinated its response with the relevant agencies. There were some shortcomings in its updates and communication with the resident. The landlord acknowledged these in its complaint investigations and remedied them appropriately.