Lambeth Council (201912623)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 201912623

Lambeth Council

23 December 2020

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 anti-social behaviour by a neighbour.

Background and summary of events

The resident is a leaseholder. She has raised reports about noise nuisance and other anti-social behaviour from her neighbour, a tenant who lives in the property above her.
Between July 2017 and December 2018 the resident made some reports of loud noise stemming from her neighbour’s property. During this period the issue was discussed with the landlord’s staff and mediation arranged between the two parties which was ultimately declined by the resident. A warning letter was sent to the neighbour, and the landlord provided the resident with diary sheets to record specific instances of noise nuisance. A risk assessment carried out by the landlord categorised the ASB as “low risk”. In early 2018 the neighbour put down rugs at the landlord’s instruction which the resident reported as having improved but not completely resolved the noise issue.
On 19 December 2018 the resident wrote to the landlord noting that the problem was ongoing and requesting that she be called as soon as possible. She stated that the neighbour was “banging and crashing at all hours” and that the wooden floors and lack of carpet were exacerbating the problem.
On 14 January 2019 the resident called the landlord to report that the neighbour was not adhering to the instructions to lay carpet down as the noise from the laminate flooring was “unbearable”. She stated her belief that the neighbour had ripped up the carpets in their property. On the same day the landlord attempted unsuccessfully to return the resident’s call. The landlord also wrote to the neighbour warning her not to breach the terms of her tenancy.
On 18 January 2019 the landlord spoke to the resident on the telephone. Following this on the same day it wrote to the resident enclosing diary sheets for her use. It stated that she must record any further incidents of nuisance giving specific details, as this would enable it to speak to the neighbour with sufficient detail to pinpoint the particular incidents. It was hopeful that the nuisance would cease but it relied on the resident to let it know what was happening. It asked that she provide the sheets within two weeks’ time if any further nuisance occurred, and if she didn’t it would assume the problem had ended and close the case. It set out the following additional points:
1. Living in close proximity to others meant a certain level of noise is to be expected, but it would work with both parties to try and reduce the level to one that is less of a nuisance.
2. The best way to resolve such situations is to attend mediation to come to an agreed resolution. It included a leaflet on the process and asked her to contact it if she was willing to take up this offer.
3. It was going to send a warning letter to the neighbours about the noise nuisance such as slamming of doors and the lack of adequate flooring/carpets in the property. It would also book an appointment to visit the neighbours to inspect the flooring before deciding on the next level of action to take. It stated it would do everything possible to resolve the problem as quickly as possible.
On 29 January 2019 the resident wrote to the landlord reporting noise again and noting that the neighbour had “form” for this sort of behaviour and that she had been warned about the noise of stereos, and also requested that the flooring issue be rectified as soon as possible.
On 5 February 2019 the resident wrote to the landlord to report noise nuisance including loud music and friends drinking. The following day, 6 February 2019, the landlord called the resident to offer her mediation but the resident did not wish to undertake this.
On 7 March 2019 the landlord’s internal emails noted that a number of actions had been taken to resolve the problem, including warning letters, offers of mediation which the resident had failed to engage with, acceptable behaviour agreements and home visits. The allocated officer was on leave but would return on 18 March 2019. The landlord had spoken to the resident and agreed that the allocated officer would contact her on his return to book an appointment to install a noise recording machine in her flat. The tenancy enforcement officer would conduct further inspection of the neighbour’s flooring prior to this, and as soon as possible. The resident had agreed to attend mediation once it was confirmed that the neighbour’s flat was fully carpeted.
On 18 March 2019 the landlord called the resident to report on the visit it had made to the neighbour, where it was noted that:
1. There was no adequate flooring in the neighbour’s flat. The neighbour was warned that this was a breach of her tenancy conditions and that the floor should be covered up with carpets and underlay.
2. The neighbour raised valid points that she had ripped out the carpets for some vital repairs to be carried out. The landlord was unable to provide the resident with much information as to the nature of the works for privacy reasons.
3. It did inform the resident that the carpets on the stairways had been ripped off and the lounge did not have adequate flooring, so it was working with the neighbour and repairs team to get the issues resolved as soon as possible.
4. The landlord would have to liaise with the neighbour and the repairs team, to resolve the matter as soon as possible and would provide further details once it received a report from the repairs team. The resident would be kept informed during this process and once the works were completed, the neighbour would be given a deadline to put down carpets.
On 26 March 2019 the landlord wrote to the resident to confirm the points discussed on the telephone on 18 March 2019.
On 8 May 2019 the landlord’s internal emails noted that a review of the case had indicated that the noise was largely day to day household noise, and that there was little evidence of more serious allegations. No statutory nuisance had been noted by either the Public Protection or Housing teams, though the Public Protection team did issue a Community Protection Notice following noise being witnessed on 9 March 2018. It had taken the following actions:
1. Carried out a risk assessment with the outcome being low risk.
2. Made a referral to the mediation service, but the resident did not engage with this in spite of agreeing to do so prior to the referral.
3. Sent strong warning letters to the neighbour advising her to lay carpet failing which further action would be taken. The neighbour was also warned about general breaches of tenancy. The request was adhered to, with evidence provided to the landlord in the form of photos, so no further action was taken. The landlord’s Tenancy Enforcement Manager had confirmed that the complaints had subsided following this.
It stated that there was no evidence to support the resident’s claims of parties, drug dealing etc. but that this might change based on police feedback. It confirmed that checks had been made and there appeared to be no complaints made from other neighbours of the resident.
The landlord advised a particular team of staff to carry out works to re-lay the carpet, increase the underlay and consider what additional noise insulation could be installed. It instructed a separate team to decant the neighbour for the period of the work and that consideration be given for this to be made permanent. It also noted that following allegations of nuisance over the weekend and the previous night, it was following this up with the Public Protection team.
On 9 May 2019 the resident called the landlord’s out of hours service to report noise from the neighbour’s property. The landlord’s staff attended and were of the opinion that the noise was at a low level, though the neighbour lowered it further following the attendance.
On the same day, 9 May 2019, there is evidence that the landlord liaised with the police about the matter.
On 15 May 2019 the resident wrote to the landlord noting that the police had that day visited the neighbour to warn her about the noise. The landlord responded to the resident on the same day acknowledging the length of time it was taking to solve the matter, and offered availabilities for a meeting with the landlord’s representatives, case worker, public protection team and the local councillor to discuss what should be done moving forward. It also attached diary sheets for the resident to record any further incidents so that it could have accurate records of the extent of the noise.
On the same day, 15 May 2019, the police wrote to the landlord noting that it did not have any formal records of noise or ASB complaints about the property and that it therefore had minimal evidence on which to consider commencing formal procedures like a closing notice. The landlord installed a noise machine in the resident’s property on the same day until 29 May 2019, with the records mainly demonstrating what the landlord classified as “household noises” like talking, laughing, walking and doors closing.
On 16 May 2019 the landlord responded to the police requesting more information about the information it had on file. It noted that it would shortly be meeting with the resident and other members of staff to review the evidence it had and determine the best course of action it was able to undertake.
On 30 May 2019 the landlord wrote to the resident noting that its Public Protection Team had reported that the resident had raised 21 reports for noise nuisance and two for antisocial behaviour from February 2018. It asked the resident for information about the identities of the witnesses she asserted had also made complaints against the neighbour. It sought the resident’s availability for a meeting the following week to discuss the issues.
On 31 May 2019 the resident reported to the landlord that the neighbour had been making noise screaming and shouting through the night. The landlord wrote to the resident on the same day noting it had asked its staff to carry out further checks with reference to reports of noise nuisance. It requested a meeting go ahead with the resident to discuss a potential course of action to be taken.
On 24 June 2019 another resident provided a supporting statement via email that the neighbour had undertaken ASB on a number of occasions making loud noise through the night until morning.
On 28 June 2019 a meeting was attended by the resident, the public protection team, a councillor and the tenancy enforcement team. An action plan was agreed and emailed around to each of the parties including the resident, consisting of the following points:
1. Thick underlay was to be installed as soon as possible in the neighbour’s property, and thick carpet to also be laid as soon as possible, specifically by September 2019 at the latest but with a commitment in the meeting made that this would be done much sooner. An estimate was to be obtained as soon as possible for when works in the neighbour’s flat would be completed. The neighbour was to be decanted while the works were underway as soon as a void property was available.
2. The tenancy enforcement team was close to having enough evidence to pursue a closure order.
3. The resident was to send the contact details of her neighbour who was acting as a witness to the landlord and ask if they are prepared to go to court.
4. The tenancy enforcement team was to contact neighbours to obtain witness statements. It was investigating suspicion that the neighbour had another property. Noise recording equipment was to be installed again for another week.
5. The property was noted to now be a priority with the Public Protection team, with staff to clarify if the resident could contact it outside regular hours of Thursday, Friday and Saturday nights.
6. It stressed the resident’s safety was a top priority while the actions were being taken. It was agreed that her name would not be mentioned and if there were any threats that she was to report these to the police and also let the landlord know.
On 5 July 2019 the resident’s other neighbour made a witness statement in support of the resident’s account of the reports of ASB.
In July 2019 the landlord carried out works at the neighbour’s property to fully carpet the property with thick underlay.
On 4 August 2019 the resident emailed the landlord to report noise having occurred through the previous evening. She noted having called the noise nuisance team, but by the time she had been called back the noise had abated. The landlord responded on the same day and stated that it would arrange for the noise machine to be installed the next day for two weeks if she was happy to undertake this, however the resident stated that she was unavailable due to work.
On 15 August 2019 the resident reported to the landlord noise coming from the neighbour with music continuing well past midnight. On 19 August 2019 the landlord responded, asking the resident whether she had contacted the public protection team and if so, to advise whether they had attended or not. It noted that as previously discussed it was prepared to install a noise recording machine in the property for two weeks. It was still gathering evidence in order to make an informed decision on the enforcement action to take. It noted:
“The best evidence is for the noise team to witness the nuisance first–hand. They could serve an Abatement notice if they witness statutory nuisance. The other tool is the noise recording machine being installed in [the] property.”
On 9 September 2019 the landlord chased a response to their email of 19 August 2019. It noted the resident should call the public protection team to report noise when it happens, and that it will investigate such reports.
On 30 December 2019 the resident reported noise nuisance and did so again on 2 January 2020. On 3 January 2020 the landlord provided a response to the resident, noting the follow-up it had undertaken following the action plan that was agreed on 28 June 2019:
1. Its surveyor had laid thick underlay with carpet in the neighbour’s property
2. The neighbour had not been decanted as they refused the offer to move out
3. It had offered to install a noise machine in the resident’s property on numerous occasions but the resident had turned down this offer.
4. The resident had been advised to call the public protection team so that if loud music was witnessed it would have more evidence to support its application for a closure order. The public protection team had not received any recent information with regards to a call out by the resident.
5. It had also not received any further nuisance complaints since the carpets and underlay were laid.
6. It received “a couple” of unsigned witness statements from residents.
7. The neighbour’s property had been refurbished and the flooring done to reduce the impact of the noise emanating from the property.
It stated that with the resident’s consent it would book an appointment for the recording machine to be installed. It would also be requesting a police disclosure to determine what action, if any, could be taken at that point in time.
On 13 January 2020 following the resident’s agreement, the landlord installed a noise recording machine at the resident’s property for three weeks, noting that its usual procedure was to install it for only one week. Only one noise was recorded.
On the same day the landlord submitted a request for information and response to the police regarding the criminal history of the neighbour with the stated goal of obtaining supporting evidence to prevent ASB and crime. The police replied that there was no information on its systems regarding incidences of crime, ASB, assaults, arrests or any other information on its system.
On 14 January 2020 the landlord wrote to the local councillor noting that the content of the police disclosure request would determine what enforcement action it would be able to take against the neighbour. The email noted that the resident had not contacted the noise nuisance team as the landlord had advised her to when noise was occurring, and that she needed to do this so that it could witness the loud music and other noise which would in turn lead to service of an abatement nuisance and later a possible possession order.
In approximately January or February 2020, the resident raised a formal complaint with the landlord. She alleged that the neighbour had been breaching her lease by having inadequate flooring leading to noise for the resident, was committing ASB by playing music and making other loud noise, as well as abusing alcohol and other drugs and abusing the resident.
On 25 February 2020 the landlord’s internal emails stated that “there has never been any third party collaboration from either the police nor the public protection team to substantiate [the resident’s] claim.”
On the same day, 25 February 2020, the landlord provided its stage one complaint response to the resident. In this response, it set out the points previously sent to the resident in the email of 3 January 2020, being the steps taken in response to the reports of noise and recounting the actions of the resident and neighbour in response to these.
On 2 March 2020 the resident requested that the complaint be escalated. She set out the following in her complaint escalation request:
1. The landlord had failed to act decisively or promptly in accordance with its policy to address the ASB, and had ignored suggestions made by the police to resolve the situation. The landlord had made several promises of action including noise abatement orders, court proceedings and a closure order.
2. The landlord had ignored the serious impact the ASB had had on the resident’s mental health.
3. Only one of the breaches of tenancy by the neighbour had been addressed, and it had taken 4 years to get carpeting/underlay fixed.
4. The resident stated that she had never refused offers to install noise-recording equipment.
On 6 April 2020 the landlord provided its final complaint response. It set out its findings that:
1. While it was sorry to hear about the level of noise disturbance an ASB that the resident had been experiencing, there had not been any third-party corroboration from either the police nor the Public Protection Team to substantiate statutory nuisance or threatening and aggressive behaviour to allow it to pursue a closure order.
2. It had taken a number of actions to try and resolve the problem which included:
  1. Verbal warnings
  2. Warning letters
  3. Acceptable behaviour agreement
  4. Home visits
  5. Mediation (though noting the resident was reluctant to engage in this, so the case was closed)
3. On the basis of the evidence it had reviewed, it was likely that the problem was a lack of sound proofing in the property which makes sound transmit easily between the two properties. To address this, it had installed carpets with underlay as part of the works carried out in the neighbour’s property to minimise the noise emanating from the property.
4. It had offered to install noise recording equipment in the resident’s home on 27 July 2019, and the resident had noted that the noise had largely abated for a while leading up to this date, and that she wanted to wait for a period of sustained nuisance before allowing the equipment to be installed. When the equipment was eventually installed on 13 January 2020 for 3 weeks, only one recording of audible music being played by the neighbour was established.
5. It was unable to take enforcement action regarding breaches of social distancing and advised her to continue to contact the police as necessary if this recurred.
6. If she continued to be affected by noise or ASB it advised her to call the Public Protection Team so that the loud music could be witnessed and there would therefore be more evidence to support the application for a closure order.
On 7 April 2020 the local councillor asked staff for an update on the case, noting that previously it had stated it was close to having enough evidence to do something about the neighbour and that this position appeared to have changed.
On 9 April 2020 the landlord’s internal emails noted that it did not have substantiated evidence from PPRS, the noise team, and was thus unable to instigate legal proceedings against the neighbour. Despite having installed the noise recording machine at the resident’s property, it had only recorded one notable noise over the course of three weeks. It noted the resident had the right to take her own legal action against the neighbour under section 82 of the Environmental Protection Act 1990, if she was not happy with the way the landlord had dealt with her noise nuisance complaints.
On 30 April 2020 the landlord wrote to the resident noting that it had received a disclosure from the police regarding the neighbour. The landlord advised it had just sent a warning letter to the neighbour on the basis that there had been “no strong action” taken by the police against the neighbour. It advised her again to contact police if there was danger or criminal activity.

Policies and Procedures

The landlord’s Anti-Social Behaviour Policy document sets out:
1. A risk rating is applied to each reported case of ASB or Neighbour Nuisance, denoting the urgency of the case and how quickly an initial visit or contact should be carried out by a member of the landlord’s staff:
  1. Low risk cases, five to ten working days response time for cases of minor neighbour disputes, minor breaches of tenancy, boundary and land issues.
  2. Medium risk cases, two to five working days for allegations of criminal activity, drug dealing, verbal abuse, youth nuisance, noise nuisance.
  3. High risk cases, twenty four hours to 1 working day for cases of threats of physical assault, serious intimidation or harassment, racial incidents, domestic violence, serious damage to council property, insecure or abandoned premises.
2. Cases can be closed if the reporting person is satisfied the issue has been resolved, or if the nuisance has ceased and no further complaints have been received. It can also be closed it the case has been resolved to the satisfaction of the landlord but not necessarily to the satisfaction of the reporting person e.g. where all reasonable actions have been taken, or if the complaint has been investigated but cannot be substantiated.
3. If a tenant has been approached by a Tenancy Enforcement Officer regarding ASB on two or more occasions, and the behaviour has not improved, then an application for a demotion order will be considered as the next course of action alongside all other available powers. In considering the appropriate course of action, it will consider the number of incidents reported, the seriousness of the incidents, the actions taken to resolve the issues and the evidence available to support the reports/complaints.
The landlord operates a noise responsive service between:
1. Monday-Friday 9am to 5pm
2. Thursday 8pm to 4am
3. Friday and Saturday 9pm to 5am
Residents can call the noise response team during the above hours if they experience noise nuisance from neighbours, and the landlord will send staff to investigate the report at the time and collect evidence.
The landlord’s guide to reporting noise nuisance document from 2016 sets out that it will take action where:
1. Three or more complaints, from three different households are made about a residential premises within a month.

Assessment and findings

The Housing Ombudsman’s role is not to establish whether or not ASB has taken place. Instead we rely on the evidence provided by parties, which includes records of ASB, to establish what was communicated to a landlord in terms of both the reporting of ASB and the complaint, before then considering the steps taken by the landlord to address and resolve the issue. As set out in the landlord’s communications with the various parties and particularly its final complaint response, it has undertaken various steps with this goal in mind.
Evidence has been provided of ASB reports by the neighbour varying in frequency over the course of approximately two and a half years prior to the formal complaint being raised. There were consistent reports of noise nuisance between February 2018 and 30 May 2019, with the landlord’s records indicating that the resident had called the responsive noise nuisance service on 23 occasions within this period. The frequency of the reports by the resident required the landlord to undertake steps to investigate and resolve the problem. In response to this, the landlord took steps to address the situations by liaising with its own teams, the resident, the neighbour and police. Various staff members met with the resident and the neighbour in an attempt to investigate the extent of the noise nuisance so as to have proper documented records of it.
In the early stages of the documented reports, the landlord attempted to engage both parties in mediation as per its policy which notes that issues of ASB can sometimes be resolved by communication where one resident lets another know that the behaviour is having a detrimental impact on them. Ultimately however the resident elected against the course of action and the case was closed in accordance with the landlord’s policy.
The landlord requires evidence of an alleged anti-social behaviour to take action, as set out in its Anti-Social Behaviour Policy. While the landlord has acknowledged the resident’s frustration that the noise nuisance has taken place over an extended period of time, there have also been intervals where there have not been any reports. During such periods the landlord would not be expected to act if it had established the nuisance had abated and no further reports of noise nuisance had been received. This has been set out by the landlord at various points in response to the complaint.
To this end, it followed its policy and procedure in attempting to gather evidence in support of the resident’s reports by directing her to contact its particular “noise responsive service” as part of the Public Protection Team, which responds to reports of noise by attending the premises and documenting evidence of this. It explained to the resident that this team was specially set up to respond to reports of noise nuisance outside of regular business hours. On a number of occasions, the landlord was unable to substantiate the reports of the resident because she had emailed it the next day rather than contacting the particular out of hours service. On other occasions, the landlord’s staff attended the property and considered the noise to be “low” while still advising the neighbour to turn the volume of music down.
Furthermore it sent the resident diary sheets with the aim of being able to “pinpoint” particular incidents of noise nuisance. It explained the purpose of these and the necessity of a thorough record of the allegations to allow it to consider more thorough action against the neighbour. It also offered on multiple occasions to provide the resident with noise recording equipment, which it installed on approximately three separate occasions with the resident’s consent. The landlord followed its procedure by doing this in an attempt to gather evidence in support of the resident’s reports. During one period of three weeks, the machine only recorded one instance of notable noise, and on another occasion of two weeks the noise was reported as largely been regular household noise.
As documented in its internal records, the landlord followed its anti-social behaviour and noise nuisance policies by attempting to substantiate the resident’s reports with its own investigation by seeking specific figures of reports from its noise nuisance team. The landlord repeatedly contacted the police with disclosure requests regarding any reports made regarding the neighbour. These attempts to gather evidence from the police demonstrated that it was seeking to escalate its response to the reports, and its internal communications as well as emails to the resident and Councilor showed that it was attempting to gather enough evidence to decide if it could take enforcement action against the neighbour.
It also attempted to manage the resident’s expectations by explaining why particular processes needed to be followed, such as the reporting of noise to the specific public protection team so that the reports could be verified and evidence gather. Based on the evidence available, the landlord generally replied promptly to the resident’s reports via either telephone or email in an attempt to gather more information about the alleged report and provide the resident with advice on what it needed from her and updates about the next steps it would take. It explained to the resident that some level of noise was to be expected for neighbours living in close proximity to each other. It undertook investigations as to whether there were particular issues of disrepair regarding the neighbour’s property that were contributing to the noise nuisance being experienced by the resident. In particular it responded to the reports that the neighbour did not have carpeting laid on the floors by carrying out an inspection, talking to the neighbour, and ultimately instructing the latter to lay down carpeting.
It provided an update to the resident on 18 March 2019 about the condition of the neighbour’s property and the inadequate flooring that was contributing to the noise nuisance. Its investigation was a reasonable step to take given it was able to ascertain why the neighbour had ripped up the carpets to allow for repairs which the landlord was responsible for, and it was noted that it was attempting to progress these repairs promptly which would then allow proper insulation to be put in place. It also conveyed to the neighbour that she could reinstall the carpet as various sections of the flooring were fixed, so that the problem of the noise could be managed without waiting for all of the repair work to be undertaken.
Following the work by the landlord in July 2019, the evidence indicates that the repairs had gone some way to resolving the situation, given there was a period of approximately four months during which there were no further reports of noise nuisance by the resident. The frequency of the noise nuisance reports has notably decreased since this date having reviewed the evidence of reporting leading into the early months of 2020.
The landlord met with the resident on 28 June 2019 and agreed upon an action plan to be taken by the various parties with an intended goal of providing final resolution to the issue. The agreed action plan was comprehensive and demonstrated an intention by the landlord to take a number of practical steps to move the issue along, largely based around ensuring the repair work was undertaken promptly as well as prioritizing the gathering of evidence to support enforcement action against the neighbour. To this end it adapted its policies for the hours that the resident could contact the noise nuisance team and sought evidence from neighbours to back up the resident’s allegation, emphasising that a longer term solution could only be imposed if the claims of noise nuisance could be properly substantiated. It also sought to gather witness statements from other residents at the property so as to fulfil the requirements of its noise nuisance policy which requires reports to come from more than one household to be substantiated. It had minimal success with this goal as it only received some unsigned witness statements from other residents on the block that were not substantiated by recordings or diary sheets.
The landlord has a responsibility to act fairly towards all parties in an attempt to resolve the dispute, given it has obligations to both its leaseholders and tenants. As part of this, its policy requires that it contact the neighbour to lay out the allegations made against them. It has demonstrated taking a proactive approach with the issues of ASB by attempting to address the issues directly with the neighbour. On multiple occasions during the process it conveyed the concerns of the resident to the neighbour and set in place steps that needed to be taken for the neighbour to avoid enforcement action, including the installing of carpeting after the landlord had carried out the necessary repair works identified at its inspection. It attempted to decant the neighbour during this period of works as an interim solution to the noise issue in the interests of both the resident and neighbour, but the latter refused this offer.
It visited the neighbour in response to noise complaints, considering the evidence it observed of noise at those times and documented this thoroughly in its records. Its internal emails of 8 May 2019 following a review of the case demonstrated its findings that the noise it had been able to substantiate was largely household noise and that there was little evidence of more serious allegations. Nevertheless, its warning letters to the neighbour were adhered to, carpeting was put down as well as the landlord carrying out broader repair works, and the reports dropped in frequency following this.
While the landlord has undertaken these steps, it is clear that the issue is ongoing to some extent and that the resident has continued to make reports. Based on the landlord’s policies, it has largely acted reasonably in taking steps in an attempt to address the resident’s concerns while noting that it requires compelling evidence to allow it to undertake more stringent action against the neighbour. Its internal emails indicate that upon review of the evidence available to it, including some diary sheets, noise recordings with minimal evidence of unacceptable noise nuisance, recorded observations of staff following call-outs for the Public Protection Team and minimal records of reports from the police, it did not have enough substantiated evidence to consider legal enforcement action against the neighbour. It conveyed this message to the resident and a Councillor, while advising both that it would continue to investigate potential options against the neighbour, if the resident was able to report noise nuisance as it occurred via its noise nuisance team.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there has been no maladministration by the landlord.

Reasons

The landlord took steps in response to the resident’s reports of ASB in an attempt to properly document and formulate clear records of the extent, content and frequency of the noise nuisance being experienced by the resident. It attempted to arrange mediation between the parties, organised a meeting with the relevant members of its staff and the resident to establish an action plan, sought information from witnesses and the police, discussed the reports with the neighbour and carried out repairs on the latter’s property which went a long way towards resolving the noise nuisance issue. While the problem has not been resolved to the complete satisfaction of the resident, the landlord has largely responded promptly to reports by the former and sought to resolve the issue by gathering evidence in support of potential future action.