Harrow Council (202002402)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202002402

Harrow Council

30 January 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 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 regarding:
1. The landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of noise nuisance.
2. The landlord’s complaint handling.

Background and summary of events

Background

The resident is a leaseholder, leasing a property from a Local Authority. The resident’s property is a one bedroom flat, located on the first floor of a two storey block. The resident’s property is adjacent to, and shares a wall with, another flat in the other half of the block (the ‘neighbour’). It is from this property that the resident has claimed that there is noise disturbance.
Some of the complaint involves the response from the landlord’s Environmental Health department. While these will be referred to in the report, it is not in this Service’s jurisdiction to investigate and respond to the resident’s complaints about that service as this would fall under the remit of the Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman.
While different departments operating under one organization would usually be referred to collectively as ‘the landlord’, at certain points in this report it will be necessary to specify which department took certain actions for the sake of clarity. I will therefore on occasions refer to the Environmental Health department and at other times to ‘the landlord’. This distinction is relevant because the Housing Ombudsman Scheme (‘The Scheme’) limits an Ombudsman investigation to consideration of a Local Authority landlord’s actions from a housing management perspective.
The landlord has an Anti-Social Behaviour (ASB) Procedure and an Anti-Social Behaviour Policy which advise that the landlord should work in partnership with colleagues across its services and external agencies.

The ASB procedure is described as ‘victim-centred’ and that the landlord will ‘consider the impact the anti-social behaviour has on the victim rather than solely focusing on the behaviour itself.’ It also lists some issues which it does not usually consider to be ASB, including ‘noise transference due to poor sound insulation’ and states that ‘all residents should expect to hear some noise from their neighbours. This is a normal consequence of living in a densely populated urban area. Domestic noise nuisance may be investigated in partnership with Environmental Health Services.’

Once the landlord receives a report of ASB, the procedure advises that:
1. ‘the investigating officer will contact the victim to establish the basic facts of the complaint, explain the investigation procedure and confirm the categorization. When possible, a risk-assessment is completed.’
2. ‘A victim risk-assessment is recorded on the victim’s housing file’.
3. ‘Where it (ASB) is a recurring problem, the investigating officer may provide incident log sheets (diary sheets)…so that (the victim) can keep an accurate record of any further incidents which may assist in progressing a case’.
4. ‘Where appropriate the Investigating Officer will arrange a meeting with the victim to follow up details of the complaint. This will help identify levels of support and signposting required’.
Regarding the progression of a case once a report of ASB has been received, the Procedure states that the investigating officer will usually follow a number of listed steps, although not all will be appropriate or necessary in all cases:
1. Contacting and updating the victim and witnesses
2. Preparing an action plan with the victim.
3. Contacting and agreeing outcomes with the perpetrator, where appropriate.
4. Identifying levels of risk to the victim.
5. Identifying levels of support required by the victim or perpetrator.
6. Contacting and working with other internal and external partners to achieve a solution.
The Procedure notes the ‘(landlord)’s Complaints procedure may be followed where a victim is dissatisfied with how their case has been managed.’
The landlord has a two-step Corporate Complaints Policy. The policy states:
1. ‘Where possible, prior to implementing the formal two-stage process…every attempt should be made to deal with complaints quickly and informally’.
2. That complaints should be acknowledged within 3 working days and a full, written reply sent within 15 working days. For Stage 2 complaints, a full, written reply should be sent within 20 working days.
3. The landlord defines a complaint as ‘anyone dissatisfied…with the service, actions or lack of action from (the landlord) – or someone acting on their behalf or with their permission’.
4. If a complaint covers more than one service area, ‘a co-ordinated single response will be sent to the customer’.
The landlord’s lease agreement states that the ‘Lessee shall have the quiet enjoyment of the demised premises without any unlawful interruption from the Council and any persons claiming title through them’.

Summary of Events

On 16 April 2020 the resident advised the landlord’s Environmental Health team that he has been disturbed by noise from a neighbouring property for four consecutive days. The resident indicated he wished to compile a noise diary and requested diary sheets. The landlord provided these the following day.
On 2 May 2020 the resident submitted two completed diary sheets to the landlord’s Environmental Health team. The diary sheets contained reports of alleged noise disturbance on 3 April 2020 and on 4, 10, 13, 15 16, 17 (two instances), 18, 19 (two instances), 24 and 25 April 2020. The disturbances were recorded at various times of the day. The landlord responded on 4 May 2020, indicating that the noise nuisance reports were being treated as a complaint and that the matter had been referred to the landlord’s Housing department to respond to. Landlord records show email correspondence that day between the respective departments in which the Environmental Health department noted that there was ‘history’ behind the complaints. It is not clear why, at this stage, the landlord progressed the reports to its internal complaint procedure, rather than handling them through its Anti-Social behaviour procedure. Landlord records state that it contacted the neighbour who had acknowledged they were ‘playing music but only until 10pm’. The landlord also spoke to other neighbours in the vicinity who did not report being disturbed. In email correspondence the landlord noted that ‘our tenant is aware of the noise rules and abides by them’. The Environmental Health team provided further advice on the matter:

‘I note that the tenant has stated (the neighbour) was playing music until 22:00hrs. I also note that you spoke to other residents and they stated that they were not disturbed. Please be aware that statutory nuisance can be anytime of day or night and it is a misnomer for tenants to believe they can play loud music etc. until 23:00hrs. Also it could be down to the building construction and or configuration why other residents are not affected by the noise. There is history to these tenants and therefore may require further investigation.’

Landlord records show it noted that it did not have any record of previous noise complaints.

The landlord issued a Stage 1 response to the resident the same day, 4 May 2020. In its stage 1 response, the landlord advised the resident that it had spoken to his neighbour regarding ‘music on Saturday night’, with the actual date unspecified. The landlord noted ‘your neighbour confirmed that they were playing music on Saturday night between 8-10pm, which may have been a bit loud, and is sorry to have disturbed you’. It also noted that ‘your neighbour has asked if the music is too loud, would you knock on his door to alert them’. The landlord provided advice on the complaint escalation process.
On 14 May 2020 the resident emailed the landlord requesting that the Stage 1 response be reviewed and his complaint escalated, raising the following issues:
1. The Stage 1 response was short and did not address the dates and times referred to in the noise diary sheets.
2. Whether the landlord had considered the noise diary sheets, particularly the ‘Effect the noise had on you’ section.
3. The landlord’s advice to knock on the neighbour’s door, noting that he does not live in the same block, and raising concerns over his personal safety.
4. That he had been forced to leave his flat more often than advised by the Government during the coronavirus lockdown to avoid the noise and that the situation was placing ‘undue stress on my mental wellbeing and health’.
5. Clarification regarding a leaflet issued by the landlord on decibel levels and what is deemed acceptable or legal.
On 1 June 2020 the resident submitted a further complaint via the landlord’s website, directed to the Environmental Health department, regarding the fact that an acknowledgement of his Stage 2 escalation request had not been received. The landlord apologized for the delay, advising that complaint responses were delayed due to staff being redeployed during the landlord’s Covid-19 response. The Stage 2 request was acknowledged the same day and the resident was advised a formal response would be issued within 20 working days. In an email reply, the resident stated he believed the 20 working day response time should be calculated from 14 May 2020, the day he initially requested the escalation.
Separate to this, on 1 June 2020, a member of staff from the landlord’s Environmental Health department emailed the resident to query why a complaint had been made against that department and advise that any further queries should be directed to Housing. There followed back and forth emails over several weeks (1, 2, 9, 12, 13, 24, 29, 30 June 2020 and 1 July 2020) between the resident and a member of staff from the Environmental Health department. In these, the resident:
1. Chased the Stage 2 response.
2. Complained that no-one from the landlord’s Housing department had contacted him.
3. Complained about the online complaints form and requested clarification on how to direct complaints to the correct department via dropdown menus.
Not all of these emails were responded to, and when they were, the resident was consistently advised that he had already been responded to and should contact the Housing department regarding his concerns.
A further email was sent to the resident on 2 June 2020, acknowledging the complaint escalation request and offering a Stage 2 response target date of 23 June 2020. The landlord also advised that the initial delay in replying to the resident’s escalation request was due to ‘an oversight’.
Also on 2 June 2020, the landlord wrote to the resident (letter received on 12 June 2020) and advised that it had investigated the reported noise disturbances. The letter advised that work had been undertaken to resolve the ASB and that the landlord had made recommendations to the neighbour in the hope of reducing the noise disturbances. These included:
1. Additional soundproofing of the flat.
2. Reduction in volume.
3. A reduction in the times music is played.
4. The re-organisation of their furniture so the speakers are not on any adjoining walls.
On 12 June 2020 the resident contacted his local MP as he had not received a Stage 2 response. There is no record of any response from the MP’s office.
Landlord records details internal correspondence relating to the resident’s email of 13 June 2020 (referred to in point 15 above). On 16 June 2020 the landlord requested assistance from the Environmental Health department regarding the case, particularly regarding:
1. The resident’s query regarding acceptable decibel levels;
2. The installation of sound recording equipment (DATs) at the neighbour’s property.
Advice was given to suggest the resident make audio recordings via his mobile phone, ‘you can then make a more informed decision on what action to take’. No further advice was given regarding acceptable or legal decibel levels.
The landlord contacted the neighbour by email on 16 June 2020 advising that it was still receiving complaints about their music, particularly ‘around the times you are playing (music) and the level of volume’. The landlord asked for clarity on the following points:
1. the position of the speakers and which wall they back on to;
2. what times they played music ‘this weekend’ (taken to be 12-14 June 2020);
3. whether other neighbours have asked them to turn the volume down;
4. whether they would agree to having recording equipment installed.
The neighbour responded on 24 June 2020 and listed several steps they had taken to reduce the noise coming from their flat. They advised that they only played music for two hours between 8 and 10pm on June 12 and June 2020 and at all other times they listened to music through headphones. The neighbour stated that they had downloaded a phone app which indicated that noise from their speakers was akin to an alarm clock. They expressed a willingness to allow the landlord to install recording equipment in their property.
On 24 June 2020 the resident contacted this Service seeking advice as he was yet to receive a Stage 2 response.
On 2 July 2020 the landlord sent a further letter to the resident. This was identical to the letter sent on 2 June 2020 apart from one of the listed actions (‘a reduction in the times this (the music) is played’) having the additional caveat added: ‘two hours per day’.
Also on 2 July 2020, the landlord issued its Stage 2 response to the resident. It noted that there was a delay in responding to the review request and apologized for this, stating this was due to an administrative oversight. The landlord also apologized for its Stage 2 response being issued outside of target time. Although a deadline of 30 June 2020 is referred to, the resident had previously been promised a reply by 23 June 2020 so the response was 7 days outside of the target response time. The landlord further apologized for not advising that the response would be delayed.
The Stage 2 response noted that the landlord had responded to the resident on the same day it had received the noise complaint, 4 May 2020, and stated that the resident’s diary sheets would have been reviewed ‘to understand the disturbance you were experiencing so that (we) could then discuss the matter with your neighbour’. The landlord added that ‘it would not be necessary to discuss each event with your neighbour’ and it should not be expected that discussions with the neighbour would be relayed to the resident. It was ‘sufficient to bring matters to (the neighbour’s) attention’ as it was the first time that it had had cause to discuss the issue with them and was ‘not necessary to obtain an admission of responsibility for all the occurrences you listed’. The landlord then noted that the resident had in fact raised previous noise complaints about the neighbour in 2017.
The landlord advised it did not agree that it was inappropriate to suggest that the resident speaks to the neighbour about the issue and provided a link from Citizens Advice Scotland regarding neighbour disputes which stated ‘if you feel comfortable, you should approach your neighbour to discuss the problem.’ Although the link in the response was specific to Scotland, the advice for England is similar: ‘Only talk to your neighbour if you feel safe and comfortable’ (https://www.citizensadvice.org.uk/housing/problems-where-you-live/complaining-about-your-neighbour/).
The landlord acknowledged that the resident had reported further noise disturbance since the initial complaint but advised that it had ‘continued to deal with your subsequent reports’, that the neighbour had been written and spoken to on ‘several occasions’ and that it was ‘still dealing with matters’. The landlord further advised that it was ‘not aware that other neighbours have reported noise…so it has been difficult for us to objectively assess the disturbances you have reported’.
The landlord also advised that due to the Covid-19 lockdown it was not possible to carry out home visits and install sound monitoring equipment which ‘may be able to verify the complaints and establish whether a statutory noise nuisance had occurred’. The resident was advised he could send audio recordings to the landlord so it could ‘judge the level of noise you are experiencing’. Any recordings would also enable the Environmental Health department to ‘assess whether a warning of action by them would be appropriate. Additionally it would assist (the landlord to) consider any appropriate action.’
Regarding the request for clarity about acceptable decibel levels, the landlord advised that it was unclear who had sent the leaflet to the resident. The response advised that any explanation was ‘outside (its) remit’ and that the Environmental Health department would be asked if it could respond to this question. There is no indication that any response to this matter was later issued.
Further to point 15 above, on 1 July 2020 the resident again emailed the Environmental Health department requesting the contact details of a manager. On 3 July 2020 a manager replied and advised that the reported issue with dropdown boxes on the website had been referred to the landlord’s web team.
On 7 July 2020 the resident emailed the landlord in response to the letter sent on 2 July 2020 (point 22 above). Although the landlord had already issued its final response at Stage 2, the resident further queried how some the actions referred to in the letter, including the neighbour installing soundproofing and reducing the music volume, had been verified by the landlord while home visits were not taking place. The resident also queried the new caveat that music could be played ‘two hours per day’ and again asked for clarification regarding the level of decibels acceptable under the landlord’s policies and the law.

Assessment and Findings

In reaching a decision, we consider whether the landlord has kept to the law, followed proper procedure and good practice, and acted in a reasonable way. Our duty is to determine complaints by reference to what is, in this Service’s opinion, fair in all the circumstances of the case. The Ombudsman has a very specific role in considering whether the landlord has met its obligations to a resident and taken reasonable steps to resolve the complaint.
It is not disputed that the resident and his neighbour would have a duty to behave responsibly under the terms of their respective tenancy agreements, including a requirement that they refrain from actions that may result in a nuisance to others. The landlord is required to take appropriate action in response to any reports of alleged ASB it receives and that its ASB procedure provides a range of actions that it can take to manage ASB cases. It is not this Service’s role to establish whether the noise reports made by the resident are accurate or if there has been statutory noise nuisance.
The resident’s communication with the landlord’s Environmental Health department is included for context as it is relevant to the summary of events. However, as noted above, the Housing Ombudsman Scheme limits our investigation to consideration of the landlord’s actions from a housing management perspective. This Service cannot therefore make any assessment or findings regarding that department’s correspondence with the resident.

Landlord’s response to the resident’s noise complaints

According to the landlord’s ASB procedure, following receipt of the resident’s report of alleged noise nuisance, the resident should have been contacted to discuss the issue and, in most cases, a risk assessment should have been completed and action plan agreed. There is no indication in the information available that these actions were considered by the landlord. However, the landlord had provided the noise diary sheets in a timely manner and, once the completed diary sheets were submitted by the resident, the landlord promptly made enquiries with the neighbour and other residents before responding to the resident the same day. Having established that other residents were not being affected by the reported noise disturbances it would be reasonable for the landlord to consider that they were low-level and did not require further action at that time. While the landlord did not appear to follow its own procedure regarding ASB reports, its actions were proportionate.
Having treated the noise reports as a complaint, the landlord contacted the neighbour, and other neighbours in the block, to discuss the matter. At this stage this appears to be the full extent of the landlord’s enquiries before issuing its Stage 1 response. This is despite the Environmental Health department noting on two separate occasions that there may be history behind the complaints which could require further investigation. It is also noted that the landlord commented that ‘our tenant (the neighbour) is aware of the noise rules and abides by them’ although the Environmental Health department cautioned that statutory nuisance could occur at any time of the day. However, it is not clear what evidence the landlord relied on in reaching this conclusion, other than the neighbour’s own responses to the landlord.
In its Stage 1 response, while the resident listed 14 separate instances of alleged noise disturbance in his noise diary, the landlord referred to only one undated incident when the neighbour acknowledged that music ‘may have been a bit loud’ between 8 and 10pm. The landlord did address this in its Stage 2 response and stated that it was unnecessary for it to detail whether each individual date and alleged incident was addressed with the neighbour and whether it was necessary for it to do so. This is not unreasonable. However, while the Stage 2 response advised that ‘the noise diaries would have been considered’, from the information available there is not sufficient evidence to show that the landlord fully considered the resident’s reports, and that a reasonable and proportionate investigation had taken place. The landlord also noted that as it was the first time it had spoken to the neighbour regarding any noise issues, it was ‘sufficient to bring matters to their attention’. However, the landlord then acknowledged that the resident had in fact raised previous noise complaints about the neighbour in 2017.
In its Stage 1 response, the landlord suggested that the resident could knock on his neighbour’s door if loud music or other noise was disturbing them. The resident was unhappy with this advice, citing concerns over his personal safety and the fact that he did not live in the same block as his neighbour. In its Stage 2 response, the landlord did not uphold this part of the complaint, citing advice issued by the Citizens Advice Bureau (CAB). This was reasonable and the landlord’s advice was in accordance with standard guidance on noise disturbance issues. While the landlord did not directly respond to the resident’s concerns regarding the potential risk to his safety if he knocked on the neighbour’s door, the CAB advice it linked to does note that people should only approach their neighbour if they feel comfortable doing so. It was therefore reasonable for the landlord to make this suggestion and the resident was free to not to take this course of action.
Following its Stage 1 response, landlord records show it contacted the neighbour via email and letter to address the noise complaints. The neighbour responded on 24 June 2020, advising via email of adjustments that had been made and that they had reduced both the volume of the music and the number of times they played music each week. The neighbour stated they were happy for sound recording equipment to be installed. However, their version of events, and description of the times they played music in the property, is markedly different to the alleged noise disturbances raised by the resident. There is no information available to evidence that the landlord considered these discrepancies or investigated further. The resident was not contacted to discuss the neighbour’s response, other than via letters dated 2 June 2020 and 2 July 2020 in which the landlord stated it hoped the situation had been resolved.
With regards to an information leaflet issued by the landlord about decibel levels, it is not apparent from the information available when this was issued or who by. The resident had requested clarification on what acceptable levels were and how they related to the leaflet, however the landlord did not provide any answer.
It is appreciated that the Covid-19 lockdown has either restricted, or entirely prevented, the landlord’s ability to conduct home visits on public safety grounds. Therefore, some of the usual investigative options available to the landlord to assess the noise complaints were not deemed possible. This might also have included mediation services between the parties. It is noted that the landlord had considered the use of noise monitoring equipment and discussed this with the neighbour, although it was not possible to install it at the time. The landlord also subsequently advised the resident that he could submit noise recordings to allow it to continue to monitor the situation. It was also reasonable for the landlord to have spoken to other neighbours and it is noted that they did not raise similar complaints. However, although landlord information shows that it discussed whether a structural issue could be responsible for the resident experiencing noise disturbances that other neighbours did not, no further enquires appear to have been made regarding this.

Landlord’s complaint handling

It is not disputed that a noise report was made by the resident in April 2020 to the landlord’s Environmental Health team and a noise diary was submitted in May 2020. However, the report was treated as a complaint under the landlord’s Corporate Complaints Policy rather than a noise complaint that required investigation under the landlord’s ASB procedures. There is no indication given in the information received as to why the resident’s reports did not trigger an investigation in accordance with the landlord’s ASB procedure and why it was instead treated as a complaint under its complaints policy. The resident’s initial contact with the landlord was clearly regarding noise disturbance from his neighbour and not a complaint about the landlord or its service so did not meet the landlord’s definition of a complaint under its Corporate Complaints Policy.
The resident was asking for the landlord’s assistance to investigate the alleged noise disturbances, rather than investigate its handling of any reports of noise disturbance and anti-social behaviour. This indicates that there was confusion on the landlord’s part regarding how to address the resident’s initial report. This was not appropriate and not in accordance with the landlord’s own policies. The error has not been identified by the landlord in any of its responses to date. However, having proceeded to treat the matter as a complaint, the landlord’s overall response to the ASB reports were reasonable, as outlined above.
There was a delay in the landlord acknowledging the resident’s request to escalate his complaint made on 14 May 2020. This led the landlord to make a further complaint on 1 June 2020. This was acknowledged by the landlord and an apology was issued to the resident on 2 June 2020. This was an appropriate response. However, although the reason given to the resident for the delay was understaffing due to staff redeployment, the landlord later advised that the delay was instead due to an unspecified administrative error. This is inconsistent, suggesting a potential record keeping issue.
Regarding the Stage 2 response issued on 2 July 2020, the landlord acknowledges that it was issued outside of the target time and thus not in accordance with its Complaint policy. It apologized for this and for not updating the resident with the new time frame. This was a reasonable response, given that the delay was not excessive. However, it is also noted that the landlord stated it had been asked to respond by 30 June 2020, which was 5 working days later than the previously agreed response date of 23 June 2020. This is also inconsistent and suggests a potential record keeping issue.
In the resident’s escalation request, he took issue with the fact that the investigating officer did not respond to an email sent on 4 May 2020. However, the complaint itself had already been acknowledged and as the Stage 1 response was issued to the resident on the same date and received on 7 May 2020, the landlord had responded to the resident promptly. This was a reasonable timeframe in the circumstances.
In the complaint escalation request, the resident also asked if the landlord had discussed the information provided in the ‘Effect the noise has on you’ section of the diary sheets with the neighbour. The landlord’s Stage 2 response states that it would not be necessary for the investigating officer to have outlined all its discussion with the neighbour in its Stage 1 response. While the landlord could have provided more detail regarding its enquiries, it was reasonable for it to not address each individual date specifically within its responses.
The resident also requested clarity on what acceptable decibel levels are, made both in his Stage 1 escalation request and subsequent emails, the Stage 2 response advised that the query will be forwarded to the landlord’s Environmental Health team to respond to. This was not appropriate. The resident had already had his query passed from one department to another and told to await a response. This information could have been obtained and included within the Stage 2 response rather than the resident again being referred elsewhere. The landlord’s complaints policy states that if a complaint covers more than one service, ‘a co-ordinated single response will be sent to the customer’. This would have been an appropriate action for the landlord to take and the landlord therefore did not follow its own policy.
Despite any service failure noted above, it is acknowledged that it is yet to be established whether any statutory noise nuisance has occurred. It is noted that the landlord has not received any further noise nuisance reports from other residents in the vicinity. This being the case, it is both reasonable and appropriate that the landlord has not taken any formal action against the neighbour.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration by the landlord in its response to the resident’s reports of noise nuisance.
In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure by the landlord in the handling of the resident’s complaint.

Reasons

The landlord responded to the resident’s initial reports through its complaints process, rather than through its ASB procedure. As such, there is a concern about the landlord’s understanding of the difference between a report of ASB (noise disturbance in this instance) and a formal complaint about the landlord’s handling of such a report. Progressing the case straight to its formal complaints process meant that the landlord’s ASB procedure was not followed, with no evidence of an action plan having been established upon the receipt of the resident’s initial report.
Despite this service failure, the landlord’s overall response, from a noise distrurbance perspective, was reasonable and proportionate. It contacted the neighbour on multiple occasions to gather an understanding of the issue and to discuss options for alleviating the impact of the neighbour’s actions on the resident, it also contacted other residents and offered noise monitoring equipment. Having not identified sufficient evidence to warrant taking formal action against the neighbour, it was appropriate that it took no further action. In reaching this decision, the Ombudsman is mindful of the impact of the ongoing pandemic on the landlord’s ability to provide its customary response to the issues raised by the resident.
In addition to the landlord’s inappropriate decision to progress the case straight to its complaints process, it also delayed in escalating the case and in its responding at the second stage of the process. Whilst this delay was not excessive, there are also concerns about the thoroughness of the landlord’s complaint investigation.

Orders and Recommendations

Orders

The landlord to pay compensation of £75 to the resident within 4 weeks of the date of this report in recognition of the service failures identified with its complaint handling.

Recommendations

The landlord to contact the resident to provide a response to his query regarding acceptable decibel levels.
The landlord to provide guidance and training to relevant staff members so that they can clearly identify the difference between a report of ASB or noise disturbance and a formal complaint about how such a report has been handled, including then separate processes to be followed in each circumstance.