Hounslow Council (202001964)

Back to Top

 

 

 

 

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202001964

Hounslow Council

25 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 about the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of noise nuisance.

Background and summary of events

Background

  1. The resident is a tenant of the landlord and occupies a ground-floor studio flat located in a block of flats.
  2. The landlord’s antisocial behaviour (ASB) procedure states that reports of noise should be investigated by the landlord if it cannot be resolved informally by the resident. If the dispute arises from lifestyle differences and no tenancy breach is found, then it shall offer mediation. This procedure also states that if the noise levels are likely to constitute statutory nuisance, a referral should be made to the local authority’s enforcement team.
  3. The landlord’s corporate complaints policy provides for a two-stage complaints process, with timescales for a response of 15 working days at stage one and 20 working days at the final stage. This also states that if there are no grounds for a Stage 2 it will write to the resident to explain why.

Summary of events

  1. The resident first reported noise from music/TV disturbance to the landlord on 24 July 2019. It provided log sheets to the resident and gave details to its noise team on 30 July 2019. Numerous emails were exchanged and multiple visits to the property were carried by the landlord between 31 July 2019 and 10 March 2020.
  2. On 9 September 2019 the landlord noted that it had spoken to the neighbour about the noise concerns and again on 21 January 2020 when it noted it had discussed with her how she could minimise any noise generated.
  3. The resident raised a stage one complaint with the landlord on 10 March 2020 in which he said he had raised numerous concerns with the landlord about the “excessive loud TV” which he believed originated from the flat above his own. He stated that he had no choice but to allow the upstairs neighbour to enter his property on its visit to him to assess the noise level. The resident advised that, since then, the level of noise from the television continued and it had kept him awake into the early hours which was having an impact on his work and mental health. He expressed frustration with the landlord’s response and felt that “nothing [was being] done”.
  4. The landlord responded to the resident on 13 March 2020 to advise that it had not raised a complaint at stage one of its complaints procedure but had referred the matter to a staff member to attempt to resolve matters. It stated that it would provide an update by 24 March 2020.
  5. The resident replied to the landlord later that day to express his concern that the neighbour was increasing the level of noise in retaliation to its intervention and that his only recourse was to seek alternative accommodation.
  6. The landlord noted the resident’s dissatisfaction in its email to him on 24 March 2020 and confirmed that it would escalate the complaint to stage one of its process.
  7. The landlord issued its stage one complaint response to the resident on 16 April 2020 in which it detailed 24 visits it had made to the building between 28 August 2019 and 12 March 2020 to observe the noise level. None of these visits recorded any evidence to prompt enforcement action. The landlord noted that, on 21 November 2019, it had provided incident log sheets and an out‑of‑hours number to the resident. It also advised him of the importance of it witnessing the reported noise to be able to take further action.
  8. The landlord noted that, on its visit to the property on 24 February 2020, the resident had agreed for it to bring the upstairs neighbour to his property to observe the noise generated by her television downstairs. As no significant noise was heard, they agreed to exchange telephone numbers to communicate about any future noise concerns. The landlord stated that it had checked its own records and spoken to other residents to ascertain if any corroborating noise reports could be found. This had not highlighted any noise concerns.
  9. As the landlord found no actionable evidence of noise issues, it stated that mediation was the best option to resolve matters. It asserted that it had appropriately arranged for the resident to meet with his neighbour to discuss the issue. The landlord concluded that it had investigated his reports of noise fully and had taken appropriate action.
  10. The resident emailed the landlord later on 16 April 2020 to convey his dissatisfaction with its response, highlighting that the wording implied he had “an agenda” or that he was “making up this complaint”. While he agreed with mediation as a way forward, he contended that this should have been agreed in advance and not on the day of the visit. The resident asserted that the noise persisted, and the landlord had not offered a solution to the issue; therefore, he requested that it escalate the complaint.
  11. The landlord emailed the resident on 21 April 2020 to acknowledge his request to escalate the complaint and replied to his points as follows:
    1. It disagreed that its response implied that the resident’s complaint was malicious; it asserted that it had found no fault with its approach to this case.
    2. It accepted that mediation between the resident and the neighbour should have been agreed in advance and advised that this feedback would be passed on.
    3. It explained that the complaint process was not a means for “punishing residents” and it approached complaints impartially, based on the available evidence.
    4. It advised that, as there was no evidence of noise nuisance, it could not take any further action. However, it asked him to report any further incidents in the usual way and it would continue to investigate.
  12. The landlord advised that it saw insufficient grounds to escalate the complaint to the final stage as there was no further investigation that could be carried out and escalation was unlikely to achieve a different outcome.
  13. After the resident made further reports of noise on 18 and 19 May 2020, the landlord enquired about installation of noise recording equipment but was informed that, due to the ongoing corona virus pandemic, the noise team were not entering properties.
  14. Between 18 May and 19 November 2020, the landlord made 22 visits to the property to assess noise in response to 50 reports of noise made by the resident.

Assessment and findings

  1. The Ombudsman’s role is not to establish whether particular events occurred; for example, it is not our role to assess whether antisocial behaviour happened. Rather, the Ombudsman seeks to establish whether a landlord has responded reasonably to reports made to it that are its responsibility to address and whether it acted in accordance with its relevant policies and procedures.
  2. For action to be taken in response to noise nuisance the landlord must first satisfy itself that there is evidence of this. It is noted that it made 24 visits to the property between 28 August 2019 and 12 March 2020. It is evident that the landlord made 22 further visits after the conclusion of the resident’s complaint between 18 May and 19 November 2020. These were reasonable efforts made by it to witness the noise reports he made.
  3. Furthermore, the landlord spoke to the resident’s neighbour in September 2019 and January 2020, and it arranged mediation between the two parties on 24 February 2020. While it acknowledged in its response on 21 April 2020 that it should have given him notice of the mediation meeting, it was appropriate, and in accordance with its ASB policy, above at point 2, for it to take this action to resolve the issue in the absence of evidence to support the noise reports. It is noted that the landlord enquired about the installation of noise monitoring equipment on 19 May 2020. 
  4. In conclusion, the landlord made, and continued to make, reasonable efforts to evidence the noise reports made by the resident and took reasonable action to resolve the matter by initiating mediation between the parties. As such, there was no maladministration in the way the landlord responded to the resident’s reports of noise nuisance.

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.

Reasons

The landlord made reasonable efforts to substantiate the resident’s reports of noise and acted appropriately by initiating mediation in accordance with its policy.

Recommendations

It is recommended that the landlord arranges for the installation of noise recording equipment in the resident’s property to confirm and identify the noise reported and take appropriate follow-on actions.