Islington Council (202105550)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202105550

Islington Council

21 March 2022


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 handling of reports of noise disturbance and anti-social behaviour.

Background and summary of events

Background

  1. The resident is an assured tenant of the landlord living in a 1-bedroom second floor flat. He has lived in the property since June 2002.
  2. The landlord confirmed the resident suffers from depression and diabetes.

Summary of events

  1. The resident raised a complaint about the problems he was experiencing on 1 September 2020. He noted his declining mental health due to the noise disturbance from his neighbour and that the landlord had not responded to him as promised regarding the situation despite a lengthy conversation which took place on 28 August 2020. The resident was concerned that his neighbour did not have any carpeting which resulted in noise disturbances through his ceiling. He explained that he had talked to the neighbour and the noise reduced for a short while and then resumed again.
  2. Later in September 2020 the resident contacted the landlord again to report noise from heavy hammering on the ceiling, slamming doors and wardrobes, from his neighbour’s property. The resident also reported that a dog was barking non-stop for 13 hours causing noise nuisance.
  3. The landlord contacted the resident in October 2020. The landlord advised it would check its records to confirm whether the neighbour had permission to have a dog. It also provided the resident with the local crisis team contact details and advised it would speak to his neighbour about the noise reports.
  4. The landlord sent the resident diary sheets to complete and return to it.
  5. On 12 November 2020, the landlord issued its first response regarding the resident’s complaint about noise nuisance from his neighbour. The landlord apologised for the delay in providing its response due to a backlog of cases. It confirmed that the resident had contacted it when his neighbour first moved in, in August 2020 and despite assurances that someone would get back to him, this was not done. The landlord acknowledged that whilst the Housing Officers did contact the resident following multiple reports, no clear action plan had been put in place. The landlord advised that once the diary sheets were received, it would discuss the contents with senior management and establish a way forward. The complaint was partially upheld on the basis that although the resident was contacted, no actions had been taken to resolve the matter.
  6. On 20 November 2020 the resident emailed the landlord expressing his concern that despite speaking with the Housing Officers in October and November, he was not provided with any guidance about any actions that would be taken to assist him. The resident advised that he had done all that the landlord had asked by submitting diary sheets and contacting the ASB team. He also sent the landlord a letter from his doctor regarding his deteriorating mental health. The resident explained that it had been 14 days since he submitted the information and he had heard nothing from the landlord. Despite the renovations which took place to his neighbour’s property in April and May 2020, the resident felt the landlord failed to ensure the wooden flooring was soundproofed or removed in line with the landlord’s own regulations. The resident advised that his neighbour’s footsteps were not the issue, but constant banging at all hours and the rearranging of furniture throughout the day. He requested that the case be considered at a more senior level.
  7. In December 2020, the landlord contacted the resident who advised he was still experiencing issues with noise disturbance. He confirmed that he had submitted the completed diary sheets again. The landlord advised the resident to report any further incidents to the ASB Out of Hours team. The landlord confirmed that a warning letter was sent to the resident’s neighbour on 11 December 2020. It advised the resident not to respond to the noise disturbances, but to contact the out of hours team and advise the landlord.
  8. Following the call, the resident submitted further diary sheets to the landlord. The resident advised the landlord that the situation was making his life a misery and affecting his health as he suffered from anxiety, depression and PTSD. He explained that he did not want to involve the police as he lived alone. During a further conversation in December 2020, the resident informed the landlord that he was unable to use the noise recording equipment, but he had the recordings on a dictaphone.
  9. The landlord’s records indicate that in December 2020 the diary sheets were passed to its ‘intensive care’ team to investigate and take any necessary action.
  10. The resident continued to communicate with landlord in January 2021. He explained that the continuing problems with noise nuisance from his neighbor were having a severe impact on his health. He advised that he put a polite note through his neighbour’s door and the neighbour’s partner came to his door saying he did not want to start a war. The resident advised he did not open his door for fear of his safety. The resident believed his neighbour was being dishonest about her property being carpeted when this was not the case. He was unhappy that the landlord had not provided any solution, with timescales on when the ASB he was experiencing would be dealt with. The landlord contacted the resident back regarding his reports of continued noise nuisance and agreed to contact the resident once a week for a welfare check and to update him on the complaint. The landlord confirmed it would notify its ‘intensive care’ team and managers about the latest reports.
  11. The landlord issued a review of its stage 1 response on 25 January 2021. Following the review, the original decision was amended from partially upheld to upheld and the landlord acknowledged its failure to act more promptly following the resident’s reports of ASB. The landlord noted that whilst the resident was in regular contact with it about the problems experienced in October 2020, no further actions were taken until a first warning letter was sent to the neighbour in December 2020. The landlord confirmed that a priority flag was put on the residents calls with the Out of Hours Team to ensure that he was contacted back quickly should any further reports be made. It was confirmed that the neighbour did have carpet in the property. The landlord apologised for the delay in responding to his formal complaint. In recognition of its failings, the landlord offered the resident £150.
  12. On 9 February 2021, the resident wrote to both the landlord and his neighbor expressing his concerns with regards to the ongoing noise nuisance he was experiencing. He was unhappy that although he had been sending diary records to the landlord up until 7 January 2021, nothing had been done to try and rectify the situation.
  13. The landlord confirmed that the neighbour’s flat was carpeted in August 2020 and the landlord carried out a visit to the neighbour’s property in February 2021 confirming this was still the case. During the visit it was found that there was noise from the floorboards despite the property being carpeted. The landlord reported that during the visit the resident banged on the ceiling whilst the inspection was being carried out in response to the noise being made from the floorboards.
  14. Through February 2021 the landlord remained in contact with the resident who expressed his frustrations at its lack of actions regarding the ongoing ASB. He explained that he had contacted the out of hours ASB team on multiple occasions. The resident was told to contact the local crisis team however he declined this and advised he would be going to his GP regarding the effects the situation was having on his health, including feeling suicidal.
  15. In March 2021, the resident advised the landlord that he was at his wits end with regards to the noise disturbance from his neighbour. He advised that the police visited his neighbour three times over the weekend however it was not the resident who contacted the police. The resident advised that the police told him there was no carpet in his neighbour’s property and that the flooring moved. The resident explained that he was aware the issue was to do with the flooring, and he just wanted the landlord to expedite works rather than wait until after the lock down, due to end in June 2021.
  16. In April 2021, the landlord arranged an appointment to inspect the neighbour’s floor and establish what needed to be done to reduce the noise transference.
  17. The landlord issued its final response on 24 May 2021. The landlord apologised for the delay in providing its second stage response. If offered the resident £50 in recognition of the delay. The landlord acknowledged that the residents first stage complaint and review were also delayed, and the first stage complaint was partially upheld with £150 being offered as compensation. The letter advised that the landlord did not find fault with the way the resident’s complaint about ASB/noise nuisance was handled by the Tenancy Management Team and therefore this aspect of the complaint was not upheld. It confirmed the neighbour’s property was carpeted and that the resident had been offered sound recording equipment in December 2020 however he advised he was unable to use it. It explained that although it did not have any obligations to make home improvements, it sought to reduce the noise by arranging the floorboards to be replaced. The landlord confirmed that the total compensation offered was £200.

Assessment and findings

  1. When investigating complaints about ASB, it is not the role of the Ombudsman to determine whether the ASB exists as alleged, rather, the Ombudsman’s role is to review the evidence that is available and determine whether the landlord acted in line with its duties, obligations and procedure as set out in any relevant policies.
  2. It is noted that there has been a significant amount of correspondence between the resident and the landlord. Whilst the resident’s dissatisfaction with the landlord is duly noted, the report will not be addressing each and every specific issue or incident. Rather, the Ombudsman has carefully considered all the available evidence and this report will take a view on the landlord’s overall handling of the matter.
  3. When a complaint of noise nuisance is made to a landlord by one of its tenants, the landlord should take such steps as are reasonably practicable to investigate the complaint and identify if the problem is one of antisocial behaviour (which it has obligations to address), or of everyday noise (for which a landlord has no meaningful options to resolve). Evidence shows that the landlord acted promptly in contacting the resident back following his reports in line with its ASB policy. Whilst the landlord’s ASB policy does not provide a clear timescale regarding the investigation of reports, as confirmed within its complaint process and from the Ombudsman’s perspective, it is clear that the landlord delayed in reviewing the resident’s ASB reports and taking subsequent actions to attempt to remedy the situation.
  4. The resident first reported his concerns to the landlord about the level of noise from the flat above in August 2020. The resident again raised his concerns about the level of noise in his property and the impact it was having on him every month following this. However, there is no evidence that the landlord took any actions to investigate the noise that the resident reported until December 2020. Whilst it did provide the resident with diary sheets in October 2020, these were returned by the resident shortly after and on more than one occasion, but no evidence indicates that these had been considered until December 2020.
  5. Following this time, evidence has been provided to the Service to show that;
    1. Warning letters were sent to the neighbour in December 2020 and January 2021,
    2. It confirmed that the neighbour’s property was carpeted in August 2020,
    3. The resident was offered sound recording equipment in December 2020 however declined it as he was unable to use it,
    4. In February 2020, an inspection was carried out at the neighbour’s property, confirming that the issue was to do with the floorboards and in April 2020, the landlord made arrangements to inspect and arrange for the neighbour’s floorboards to be replaced.
  6. The landlord also suggested it was going to check whether the neighbour had permission to have a dog in October 2020, but it is unclear whether the outcome was confirmed to the resident. It is noted that following the first reports of dog barking, no further reports about this were made.
  7. The resident has stated that he considers that the ASB and the landlord’s handling of it has exacerbated his medical conditions. However, it is beyond the expertise of this Service to make a determination on whether there was a direct link between these matters and the resident’s health. The resident therefore may wish to seek independent advice on making a personal injury claim if he considers that his health has been affected by any action or lack thereof by the landlord.
  8. In the review of the first response, the landlord acknowledged its failure to respond in a timely manner to the resident’s reports. Given the landlord was aware of the resident’s mental health concerns and the impact the noise was having on him, it was appropriate for the landlord to apologise for its failure to proactively investigate the matter, and for the distress and inconvenience caused by its handling of his case. It was also appropriate for the landlord to offer the resident compensation for its service failure. 
  9. The Ombudsman notes that the final response is unclear as it suggests the first response and the subsequent review confirmed the complaint was partially upheld. This information was not correct as following the review of the original decision, the outcome was changed from partially upheld to fully upheld. In the review, it was found that the landlord did not act as proactively as it should have following the resident’s reports of noise nuisance and whilst it was in contact with the resident, no actions were put in place to try and resolve the situation until December 2020. As a result of the review outcome, the resident was then offered £150. The landlord should ensure that the final response is accurate and concise with regards to its findings.
  10. The Ombudsman also notes that the final report suggests that the landlord is not obliged to make home improvements to the neighbour’s flooring even though it has agreed to make arrangements for the floorboards to be replaced. Under the terms of the tenancy the landlord is obliged to keep in good repair the internal structure and exterior of the building. Whilst the terms are not specific with regards to what it considered the internal structures, it is noted that within the tenant’s responsibilities in the tenancy agreement, it only confirms that floor coverings would be the tenant’s responsibility.
  11. Therefore, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, the information provided was inaccurate as, in line with its tenancy agreement the floorboards would reasonably be considered as part of the internal structure. As the job was to replace floorboards, this indicates that there was a fault with the actual flooring and therefore the landlord would be obliged to repair or replace this. It is also noted that prior to the neighbour’s flat being refurbished, there was no evidence to suggest that the resident had any issues with noise nuisance from the property above.
  12. Although the Ombudsman notes the errors within the final response, the landlord offered compensation that the Ombudsman considers was proportionate to the distress and inconvenience experienced by the resident in relation to the landlord’s failings. 
  13. The landlord acted fairly in acknowledging its mistake and apologising to the resident. Evidence indicates that it made efforts to inspect and repair the flooring in the neighbour’s property however due to the neighbour’s circumstances, appointments had to be moved. The Ombudsman appreciates that the landlord had to take into consideration the neighbour’s circumstances when trying to arrange the floorboard replacements due to the level of disruption this would cause. It offered £150 compensation for the failure to address the resident’s reports in a timely manner and a further £50 for the delay in providing its complaint response and this was reasonable.

Determination (decision)

  1. In accordance with paragraph 55(b) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was reasonable redress by the landlord in respect of its handling of reports of noise disturbance and anti-social behaviour.

Reasons

  1. Whilst it is noted that there were delays in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports, it acknowledged its failings and offered compensation which in the Ombudsman’s opinion is reasonable in line with our remedies guidance. It has also shown that following the recognition of its failures, it made arrangements to remedy the situation by sending warning letters and making arrangements for the floorboards to be replaced.
  2. The landlord also acknowledged its delays in providing its complaint responses and apologised for this, providing a further £50 compensation for this which again, was reasonable in line with our remedies guidance.

Recommendations

  1. The landlord is recommended to pay £200 offered if it has not done so already.
  2. The landlord is recommended to review its ASB policy to include clearer guidelines on the time it will take to investigate reports. Other than the timescale for first contact following a tenant’s initial reports, the policy is not clear on how long it will take to review report submissions or trigger points indicating further actions or steps to be taken.
  3. The landlord is recommended to ensure that its final response clearly details the findings in both the first response and the review of the first response. If it has decided to change the decision at the final stage, the landlord should provide clarity on why it has chosen to overturn the decision.