Moat Homes Limited (202115124)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202115124

Moat Homes Limited

7 November 2023

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 noise nuisance from his neighbour’s property.

Background

2. The resident is a shared owner with the landlord in a semi-detached house. He has physical disabilities. The neighbour lives next door to the resident.
3. On 12 June 2021, the resident complained to the landlord about major works being carried out at his neighbour’s property. He said that the works were causing him physical harm and distress and that the landlord was complicit in it. The landlord responded to this complaint in stage 1 of its complaints process on 24 June 2021. In summary, it said that his neighbour was installing new windows and doors within permitted daytime hours, and it did not consider this to be antisocial. In addition, it asked the resident to provide it with any recordings or reports of antisocial behaviour (ASB).
4. At the beginning of July and throughout August 2021, the resident reported that he was being disturbed by the noise of machinery coming from his neighbour’s property. He stated that the noise was happening late at night and throughout the early hours of the morning. On 29 July 2021, the landlord conducted an inspection of the neighbour’s property and found no machinery that related to the noise nuisance reported. It subsequently confirmed its findings in writing to the resident and asked him for permission to share his reports with the local authority Environmental Health (EH) team so that it could request the installation of noise monitoring equipment.
5. On 4 October 2021, following contact from the resident, the Ombudsman asked the landlord to respond to the resident’s complaint at stage 2 of its complaints process. The resident stated that he was unhappy about the landlord’s response to his reports of noise nuisance and ASB. He added that he was unable to sleep due to the noise and that he felt ignored by the landlord. Throughout October 2021, he continued to report the noise of loud machinery coming from his neighbour’s property.
6. On 9 November 2021, the landlord issued its final response. In summary, it said:
   1. The ASB case remained open and continued to be investigated.
   2. Since 9 August 2021, the resident had written to it over 100 times regarding noise nuisance with respect to machines and vibrations and his neighbour continued to deny the allegations and had also made counter-allegations against him.
   3. It wrote to the resident on 17 August 2021, requesting permission for it to contact EH on his behalf with the purpose of requesting the installation of noise monitoring equipment.
   4. The resident refused this offer, and it subsequently advised him that it could not take any further action until the noise nuisance was independently verified.
   5. On 14 October 2021, the resident agreed to have noise monitoring equipment installed and advised he would need to contact EH to arrange this.
   6. It would expect any allegation to be reported to the relevant statutory authority in accordance with its ASB policy and procedure.
7. On 10 November 2021, the landlord arranged an appointment with the resident for 12 November 2021 to have noise monitoring equipment installed in his property. The next day, the resident cancelled this appointment.
8. In the resident’s complaint to the Ombudsman, he disputed that he had refused the landlord’s offer to contact EH on his behalf. He was unhappy that the landlord had implied that he was excessively reporting the issue and stated that the landlord was allowing the ASB to continue. He added that the landlord was lying and cheating and that he felt discriminated against. As a resolution, the resident wanted staff members to be dismissed for lying and for the landlord to contact EH on his behalf.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

9. Within his complaint to the Ombudsman, the resident asserted that he felt discriminated against. This Service cannot determine whether discrimination has taken place in a legal sense in terms of alleged breaches of the Equality Act, as this is better suited for a court to decide. However, we can look at whether the landlord responded fairly and appropriately to the resident’s reports of noise nuisance, including whether there is any evidence that the resident was treated less favourably than others in the same situation.

The resident’s reports of noise nuisance from his neighbour’s property

10. When investigating a complaint, the Ombudsman applies its Dispute Resolution Principles. This is good practice guidance developed from the Ombudsman’s experience of resolving disputes, for use by everyone involved in the complaints process. There are three principles driving effective dispute resolution:

a.         Be fair – treat people fairly and follow fair processes; 

b.         Put things right, and; 

c.         Learn from outcomes. 

11. The Ombudsman must first consider whether a failing on the part of the landlord occurred, and if so, whether this led to any adverse effect or detriment to the resident. If it is found that a failing did lead to an adverse effect, the investigation will then consider whether the landlord has taken enough action to ‘put things right’ and ‘learn from outcomes’.
12. When assessing complaints about the landlord’s handling of reports of noise nuisance or ASB, the Ombudsman’s role is to assess whether the landlord has adequately investigated the reported issues and taken appropriate and proportionate action in line with its policies and procedures and that it has acted fairly and reasonably in all the circumstances.
13. On 6 July 2021, the resident reported that loud machinery coming from his neighbour’s property was disturbing him. In response, the landlord inspected the neighbour’s property on 29 July 2021. The landlord acted appropriately in carrying out an inspection of the neighbour’s property from the and it did not find anything in this property that would be likely to cause the reported noise. Further, the landlord acted fairly by confirming its findings in writing to the resident within a reasonable timescale.
14. On 17 August 2021, following continued reports from the resident of loud machinery, the landlord asked the resident if it could share his reports with the local authority EH team, with the purpose of requesting noise monitoring equipment. This was to establish if the noise was unreasonable or causing a statutory nuisance. The landlord also advised the resident that he could submit weekly logs and provided him with diary sheets to do so. Again, this was a reasonable response from the landlord, and it acted in accordance with its ASB policy which states that it will work with stakeholders to achieve the best possible outcome.
15. In the resident’s complaint to the Ombudsman, he disputed that he had refused this offer. However, his email to the landlord on 20 August 2021 stated that he was legally advised to ‘fully reject’ the landlord’s 17 August 2021 letter. Further, he stated that the landlord’s solutions were too little too late. It was, therefore, reasonable for the landlord to conclude that the resident did not want his noise reports to be shared with EH.
16. Following the resident’s email and continued reports of loud machinery, the landlord wrote to him again on 31 August 2021 and repeated its need to work with EH in this case. Further, it reiterated its findings from the inspection of the neighbour’s property and informed the resident that in the absence of evidence, it was unable to take any action against the neighbour. Having investigated the issue and made reasonable attempts to progress the case with EH, it was appropriate for the landlord to advise that it would be unable to take this matter further. The landlord also acted in accordance with its ASB policy in this respect which states that it will be realistic about actions and steps that it is able to take, particularly where it believes there is insufficient evidence.
17. On 12 October 2021, the resident reported that an independent engineer had witnessed the sound of machinery coming from the neighbour’s property and they had confirmed that the noise was ‘excessively intrusive’. The next day, the landlord carried out a visit with the Police to the resident’s property. The landlord concluded that there was no evidence of any noise or vibration. Subsequently, it requested the details of the engineer who had witnessed the noise and asked the resident if he would consent to noise recording equipment being installed in his property. The resident refused to provide the engineer’s details but agreed to the noise monitoring equipment. Overall, the landlord’s response was reasonable. It was appropriate for the landlord to request the engineer’s details as this may have helped substantiate the resident’s reports. Further, as the resident continued to report the noise on a frequent basis, the landlord acted fairly by re-visiting its previous offers of noise equipment.
18. Following this visit, the landlord participated in a multi-agency meeting with the Police and EH. The landlord subsequently secured noise equipment for the resident and wrote to him on 29 October 2021, asking him to contact it to arrange a convenient date for installation. While there was no evidence that the resident contacted the landlord to arrange an appointment, its offer of noise equipment was fair in the circumstances. Moreover, it demonstrated that the landlord was taking his concerns seriously and was making reasonable efforts to try and substantiate his reports. Additionally, the landlord demonstrated good practice by consulting with other agencies that could help to resolve the matter.
19. The landlord’s final response stated that the resident would need to contact EH to arrange the installation of noise equipment. Given that the landlord had taken reasonable steps to secure and install noise equipment, it was fair in the circumstances for it to put the onus onto the resident by signposting him to EH. It also acted in line with its ASB policy in this respect, which states it will signpost residents to the most appropriate stakeholder.
20. In the resident’s complaint to the Ombudsman, he stated that the landlord’s final response implied that he was reporting the issue excessively in stating that he had written to it over 100 times since 9 August 2021. The landlord’s records show that this was a broadly accurate statement, and it was reasonable for it to set out the background to this case. Furthermore, the landlord would not be expected to respond to each report individually, rather it should take proportionate action to investigate the resident’s concerns. In the circumstances, it was appropriate for the landlord to highlight that his neighbour had denied the allegations and that it would be unable to take any action without further independent evidence.
21. The Ombudsman does not underestimate the distress this situation would have caused the resident. However, based on the evidence available to this Service, the landlord has appropriately sought to resolve the reported noise nuisance using the tools available to it. There was also no evidence that the landlord lied to the resident or that he was treated less favourably due to his disabilities. Overall, the landlord took reasonable actions in response to the resident’s reports of noise nuisance, which were proportionate and timely in the circumstances. It should also be noted as good practice that the landlord consistently managed the resident’s expectations throughout.
22. The resident has recently asserted that the noise nuisance is still ongoing and that he has been subjected to ASB from his neighbour. In view of this, a recommendation is made below.

Determination

23. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration in the landlord’s handling of reports of noise nuisance from his neighbour’s property.

Recommendation

24. It is recommended that the landlord contact the resident and respond to any new reports of ASB in line with its ASB policy. It should also consider what support agencies it may be able to signpost the resident to and write to him accordingly.