The new improved webform is online now! Residents and representatives can access the form online today.

Karbon Homes Limited (202115388)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202115388

Karbon Homes Limited

1 July 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 the resident’s reports of antisocial behaviour (ASB) and noise nuisance from his neighbours.

Background

  1. The resident is a tenant of the landlord, which is a housing association. The property is a flat within a block of flats. The resident has reported noise nuisance from his neighbours from 2020 onwards. Whilst the historical incidents provide contextual background to the current complaint, this assessment focuses on events from April 2021 onward, which is six months prior to the formal complaint being made to the landlord. This is in line with the Housing Ombudsman Scheme which sets out the rules which govern our service. Paragraph 39 (e) states that the Ombudsman will not consider complaints which were not brought to the attention of the member as a formal complaint within a reasonable period which would normally be within six months of the matters arising.
  2. The landlord’s records showed that the resident reported noise nuisance coming from his neighbour’s property in April 2021. He wrote to the landlord in late May 2021 stating he had overheard his neighbour say she would wake him followed by loud music, slamming of doors and thumping. The landlord passed the resident’s report to an eye witness officer who attended the block of flats shortly after, the officer reported that he could not hear any noise and was unable to corroborate the report of noise nuisance. The resident submitted noise recordings from a phone app between April and October 2021 detailing slamming of doors and cupboards, thumping and vacuuming both at normal and unsociable hours. He said that the noises constantly woke him and he believed that his neighbour was being malicious towards him and causing noise deliberately. In April 2021 the landlord issued the neighbour a warning letter advising them to cease using the vacuum during unsociable hours i.e. not after 11pm or before 7am. The landlord’s records showed that in June 2021 it carried out a survey to the block of flats, and visited the resident’s neighbour on 1 July 2021 as it was unable to gain access to their property, a further visit was arranged for August 2021.
  3. The resident continued submitting noise recordings to the landlord and in September 2021, he reported noise from his upstairs neighbour, which he believed was deliberate and intended to cause him harm. He detailed a “horrendous noise” that woke him, he disputed the landlord’s classification of everyday noise. The landlord explained the factors it considered when determining noise nuisance including; the type of noise, time of day, the cause of noise and how loud it was. It said that general everyday living noise such as footsteps, banging doors, etc was not something it would act on, and advised it could not corroborate that his neighbour’s actions were malicious. T
  4. The resident raised a formal complaint on 6 October 2021 he explained that he had mental health issues and that the behaviour of his neighbour negatively affected him. He explained that he had moved into the property with assistance from victim support and had been assured by the landlord that there were no issues, but he now believed that was untrue. He said he had reported his neighbour to the police who advised that they could not do anything, and that the landlord had advised it would carry out noise surveys and visit other neighbours but it did not occur. The landlord’s records showed that on 20 October 2021, the resident was provided diary sheets to complete along with the noise monitoring equipment installed in his property for a two-week period. The noise monitoring equipment report captured doors opening and closing, a washing machine running, chopping, faint bangs and movement. The landlord noted on 27 October 2021, that “none of the noise made by the perpetrator was excessive and would be classed as everyday living noise”.
  5. The landlord issued its stage one complaint response on 12 November 2021.It noted that some of its updates were inconsistent and there were occasions where the resident chased it before receiving a response, it apologised and explained that its officer had been away which caused its response to be delayed. The landlord advised that it was maintaining regular contact with the resident, and that steps had been implemented to monitor cases and ensure that it dd not reoccur. The landlord said a survey had been completed but that it did not provide any information. It explained that it had spoken to other neighbours, gathered information and had arranged for noise monitoring equipment to be installed in the resident’s property to capture evidence of noise nuisance, and would inform him accordingly. It noted that it was taking the appropriate action to determine the cause of the noise nuisance and the perpetrator. The landlord explained that found no evidence to support that the previous occupant of his flat had moved due to noise nuisance, and that the reason for the previous tenant’s move was unrelated.
  6. The landlord wrote to the resident’s neighbour in December 2021 and arranged for another visit in relation to the resident’s noise reports. It also wrote to the resident in December 2021 explaining that it had reviewed the noise recording equipment but had not found evidence that would enable it to act. The resident asked for his complaint to be escalated on 14 December 2021 as he was dissatisfied with the landlord’s response. He explained that his neighbour continued making noise at unacceptable times, and stated that the noise had become worse and his mental health had deteriorated as a result. In early January 2022 the resident wrote to the landlord and questioned why “more serious action” had not been taken against the neighbour.
  7. The landlord issued its final complaint response on 12 January 2022. It explained similar points as in its stage one complaint response regarding updates from its officer, and again apologised for delays in its responses. It recalled the different methods it advised the resident to use to report and record instances of noise nuisance, and the steps taken to investigate the resident’s reports, including reviewing the noise recordings. The landlord said that it had surveyed the block of flats to establish if other residents encountered noise nuisance, but that it had not received any further complaints of noise nuisance. It noted that all residents were advised on how to report ASB and reminded of their conditions of tenancy and responsibilities in relation to noise nuisance. The landlord advised that it had liaised with the local authority’s Environmental Health team (Environmental Health) to seek independent advice regarding noise nuisance. It said that it was satisfied it had taken the appropriate steps and that its actions were in line with its policy and procedure. The landlord recalled that it had previously discussed alternative accommodation with the resident and explained it would support him with this if he wanted to move.
  8. The resident passed his complaint to this Service on 13 January 2021 as he was dissatisfied with the landlord’s complaint responses, and that action had not been taken. 

Assessment and findings

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of noise nuisance from his neighbours

  1. The resident has explained the impact the noise nuisance has had on his physical and mental health. The Ombudsman does not doubt his comments. However, the Ombudsman cannot draw conclusions on the causation of, or liability for, impacts on health and wellbeing. Therefore we cannot investigate the effect which the landlord’s actions or inaction had on the resident’s health. Nonetheless, consideration has been given to the general distress and inconvenience which any errors by the landlord may have caused the resident.
  2. When a complaint of a statutory noise nuisance is made to a landlord by one of its residents, the landlord should take such steps as are reasonably practicable to investigate the reports. The resident reported noise from his neighbour’s property including slamming of doors, thumping and banging. The landlord’s ASB policy states that it has a range of tools to facilitate the prevention of ASB, and that it will use available tools and powers to resolve ASB. In this case, the landlord has taken reasonable steps to investigate the resident’s reports of ASB and noise nuisance. It carried out welfare checks, a survey to obtain information on noise from other residents in the building, and it visited and issued warning letters to the neighbour concerning the noise reports. It appropriately advised the resident to complete diary sheets and audio recordings of the noises, and liaised with relevant third parties such as Environmental Health both in response to his reports made, and relating to his wellbeing, to provide support to the resident. The landlord’s actions were therefore proportionate and in line with its ASB policy.
  3. It is acknowledged that the resident has said other residents had reported noise nuisance to the landlord but the landlord failed to respond to these reports. As an independent and impartial arbiter, the Ombudsman can only base our assessments on the evidence available. We have not disregarded the resident’s comments about other residents, but the landlord has denied receiving reports of noise nuisance from other residents in the building and the Ombudsman has not seen any evidence to confirm that other residents had reported noise nuisance.
  4. The resident reported that the landlord was vacuuming at unsociable hours. The tenancy agreement states that the use of vacuums at a reasonable time of day would not be classed as ASB. As such, it was reasonable for the landlord to issue a warning letter to the neighbour about the use of the vacuum cleaner at unsociable hours. This was in line with its ASB policy that states the landlord may consider non-legal remedies and/or legal proceedings to resolve ASB including visits and warning letters. For a landlord to take formal action in respect of ASB it requires strong corroborative evidence that the behaviour is persistent and severe. Therefore, it was reasonable for the landlord to request the resident to keep diary entries and audio recordings of any noise nuisance or instances of ASB as a means of gathering evidence to support any formal action in the future.
  5.  The landlord explained that general everyday living noise was not something it would act on, and it could not corroborate that his neighbour’s actions were malicious. This was a reasonable response, as in accordance with the tenancy agreement, the landlord does not classify noises caused by residents including footsteps, chairs scraping or dropped items on the floor as ASB. The resident said that the landlord assured him that the property had no issues before moving in. The Ombudsman has not seen evidence to suggest that the previous tenant of the resident’s property reported any noise issues or ASB to the landlord Therefore, there is no evidence that the landlord would have been able to predict or would have reasonably known before the resident moved in, that there would be issues with ASB or noise nuisance.
  6. The landlord recalled that it had previously discussed alternative accommodation with the resident and explained that if he was in considering the option it would support him in the process. Whilst it is understandable that the resident may not want to leave his property, it was reasonable for the landlord to suggest this as an option as moving to another property can help resolve ASB and/or noise nuisance in some cases.
  7. Ultimately, despite the landlord’s investigations into the matter, and installation of the noise monitoring equipment, it was unable to find any evidence of unreasonable or antisocial noise. Therefore, there was no basis for the landlord to pursue further action against the neighbour. Overall, the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of noise nuisance was reasonable and proportionate in the circumstances.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration by the landlord in respect of its handling of the resident’s reports of noise nuisance.