Clarion Housing Association Limited (202110940)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202110940

Clarion Housing Association Limited

29 October 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. The complaint is about the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of noise from a neighbour.

Background and summary of events

  1. The resident holds an assured shorthold tenancy.
  2. The resident has repeatedly reported noise coming from his neighbour and began his own monitoring and recording of the noise in November 2020. The noise is described as loud bass in music being played.
  3. The resident says he suffers from depression and the noise is making his condition worse.
  4. On 8 January 2021, the resident reported stamping noise coming from the upstairs flat and agreed to monitor this following advice from the landlord.
  5. On 24 January 2021, the resident reported loud bass music from his neighbour. He was given advice by phone on 26 January 2021. The advice was that there was a limit to the actions the landlord could take in the absence of further evidence and that if he wanted to pursue the matter further, he would need to contact the local authority.
  6. The landlord knocked on doors and spoke to other local residents about the alleged noise in the period from January to March 2021. No corroborating evidence was found. The resident said that his other neighbours were unlikely to give information to the landlord as they were friends with the alleged perpetrators.
  7. On 5 March 2021, the resident again reported noise to the landlord. The landlord gave advice to the resident, diary notes were issued for monitoring purposes and the resident was asked to continue using a noise monitoring app. The landlord sent a general warning letter at the end of March to the resident’s neighbour. The resident was unhappy with the outcome of the warning letter since he wanted to remain anonymous.
  8. By the end of April 2021, the local authority reported to the landlord that they had found some evidence of noise during the day but did not consider it sufficient to serve an abatement notice or consider it noise nuisance. The resident was not satisfied with the outcome saying the local authority staff had not been able to attend when he wanted them to witness the noise. These issues would need to be considered via the complaints process of the local authority rather than by the landlord.
  9. The resident made a complaint to the landlord on 4 May 2021 stating he was not happy with how his case had been handled and the case officer responsible. 
  10. The landlord responded to the complaint at stage 1 on 2 June 2021. The resident was contacted by phone and letter. The landlord explained that the local authority had statutory powers to tackle noise nuisance. The landlord said they would need more evidence from the local authority before taking further action. The stage 1 complaint response outlined the steps already taken such as door knocking, monitoring and issuing a warning letter.
  11. The resident escalated their complaint on 3 June to stage 2. The resident said that the evidence they had gathered had not been considered. The resident also reported a possible tenancy breach for building work by his neighbour and that a member of their household had sworn at him.
  12. On 25 June 2021 the landlord sent a letter requesting an inspection of the property where the alleged noise originated although the landlord was not given access.
  13. The stage 2 complaint response was sent to the resident on 16 July 2021. The landlord provided £50 compensation in recognition of the delays in responding to both stages of the complaint.
  14. The landlord offered to look at further evidence from the resident but no further enforcement was taken. The landlord said they were unable to provide details of the warning letter due to data protection rules. The landlord also indicated that they could not provide complete information regarding how the local authority had determined the resident’s noise case. The position of the landlord that no enforcement action against the perpetrator could be taken remained the same.
  15. In August 2021, the resident again reported noise to the landlord. The landlord requested an update from the local authority and received information that the resident was waiting for noise monitoring equipment which had been delayed due to Coronavirus restrictions. The landlord sent a letter at the end of August informing the resident’s neighbour of a forthcoming inspection. The resident said the tone of some of the text messages he had received from the landlord were inappropriate.

Assessment and findings

  1. The Housing Ombudsman will not determine whether or not there is a noise nuisance being caused by the neighbour in question. Similarly, the actions taken by the local authority in response are not in the scope of this investigation and are usually investigated by the Local Government Ombudsman. This investigation will rather assess how the landlord responded to the reports of noise and the resulting complaints.
  2. The reports of noise were initially handled by the local estates team and the complaints process was only triggered when the resident later expressed dissatisfaction with that process. This is in line with both the Anti-Social Behaviour (ASB) policy and the complaints policy of the landlord.
  3. The evidence shows that the Landlord took the following actions after receiving the reports of noise:
  • Liaised with the Environmental Health Service at the local authority
  • Knocked on doors and spoke to other local residents about the issue
  • Listened to the recordings on the noise application provided to the resident
  • Issued a general warning letter to the address in question
  • Discussed the matter with the household said to be the source of the noise
  • Provided advice to the resident regarding next steps if he wanted to pursue the matter further
  • Triggered the complaints process when the resident expressed dissatisfaction
  1. These steps were taken within a reasonable timeframe given the circumstances and are in line with the landlords Anti-Social Behaviour (ASB) policy which states in 5.1 that “We will initially encourage customers to try and resolve noise nuisance from neighbours between themselves and advise customer to report excessive noise to their local council’s environmental health team. We will try to work with the local environmental health service that have statutory powers to tackle noise nuisance and serve abatement notices on those responsible for the noise.”
  2.  Although the landlord failed to respond at both stages of the complaint within its own target timescales it has provided £50 compensation for the delay and this is an appropriate remedy in accordance with its compensation policy.
  3. In the absence of corroborating evidence from other local residents or further evidence from the local authority, the landlord’s position that no further enforcement action could be taken against the alleged perpetrator of the noise was appropriate.
  4. There is some evidence that more informal practical steps have been considered such as gaining access to the neighbour’s home which is what was initially suggested by the resident. However, these attempts have been unsuccessful as the landlord has not been able to gain access. Attempts at a more practical resolution or mediation could have been pursued earlier and more pro-actively by the landlord but there is no evidence to show that this would have been effective. A recommendation has been made in this regard below.   
  5. The ASB policy in paragraph 1.1 says that the landlord ‘will not raise expectations that we can take action where we cannot do so or where primary responsibility and powers lie elsewhere.’ The landlord has made it clear in its complaint responses that it can only take further enforcement action if an abatement notice has been breached after first being issued by the local authority. Appropriate advice has therefore been given to the resident regarding the process involved.

Determination (decision)

  1. In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration by the landlord regarding its response to reports of noise nuisance.

Reasons

  1. The landlord has taken various steps in accordance with its ASB policy to investigate the resident’s reports of noise but lacked the necessary evidence to support taking further action.

Orders and recommendations

  1. It is recommended that the landlord considers mediation as an option as per section 4.1 of its ASB policy.
  2. It is recommended the landlord checks the suitability of any text messages it has sent to the resident.