Network Homes Limited (202007379)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202007379

Network Homes Limited

25 March 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 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 concerns the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of noise coming from neighbouring properties.

Background and summary of events

2. On 3 August 2018 the resident raised a formal complaint to the landlord due to its lack of communication following her reports of noise disturbances. In its stage one complaint response the landlord explained that on 13 June 2018 it had visited her property to investigate her concerns. It could not detect the noise that she had described, and neither could her neighbours. It explained that the noise monitoring machine it had used could not “pick up low frequency noises” so would not be installed in her property. Then, in its stage two complaint response, it said that it “would be appropriate to trial” its noise machine. Noise recording equipment was then installed in the resident’s property on 16 November 2018 and removed on 20 November 2018. According to the landlord’s correspondence, the machine did not pick up any noise.
3. On 30 April 2020 the resident raised a complaint to the landlord. She said that she had been experiencing noise during the early hours of the night for a long time. She said that although the noise had at times been “more bearable”, it had never gone away. She said that she had been woken up in the night by “vibration noise[s] that lasts all night and reverberates throughout the [property]”.  She said that this been occurring since 25 April and it was undermining her physical and mental health.
4. The landlord advised the resident on 4 May 2020 that its complaint policy did not deal with noise nuisances as this would be an “ASB [anti-social behaviour] issue”.
5. On 6 May 2020 the landlord asked the resident several questions in response to her report of a noise disturbance. For example, it asked whether she knew which property the noise came from and if there was anything else she could hear. Following the resident’s comment about her wellbeing, it signposted to internal and external agencies that she could contact and speak to. The resident confirmed on the same day that she did not know where the noise was coming from.
6. On 11 May 2020 the landlord called the resident. Following this conversation, the landlord sent a text message to the other neighbours in the building on 12 May 2020 and asked them to be mindful of the noise coming from their properties.
7. The resident reported a noise disturbance on 23 May 2020. She said that the noise had not changed since 30 April 2020 and that she wanted to make another complaint.
8. On 28 May 2020 the landlord responded to the resident’s report. It advised that her ASB case was in progress and that she was due to be contacted.
9. On 4 June 2020 the resident reported a noise disturbance. She said that she wanted to know what she could do in this situation and how long it would take for the landlord to take action.
10. In an email to the resident on 8 June 2020, the landlord suggested that she contacted the local authority’s Environmental Health department (Environmental Health) to report the noise nuisance.
11. The resident raised a formal complaint on 18 June 2020. She said that despite her emails to the landlord regarding the noise disturbances, she had not been contacted by it and the issue was “being ignored”.
12. The landlord issued its stage one complaint response on 29 June 2020. It explained the instances when the resident had contacted it and how it had responded. It concluded that her emails had not been ignored as they were “responded to within a reasonable timescale”.
13. It said that it could not take any action concerning the noise disturbances until it was presented with evidence of where it was coming from. It said that when it had visited her neighbour’s properties it was not apparent where the noises were coming from. It advised her to re-consider phoning the noise team of the local authority. It explained that she would then download an application on her phone which would measure the noise. It also suggested that the resident considered rehousing options as she had made similar complaints in the past, but it had been unable to substantiate her reports of a noise nuisance.
14. The landlord advised the resident that she could escalate the complaint to stage two of the complaints process if she was not satisfied with this outcome.
15. The resident escalated her complaint on 14 July 2020. She said that on 11 May 2020 the telephone conversation that she had with the landlord had been rushed. She then asked the landlord for a call back, but it had said that it could not. The resident said that she would have preferred her neighbours to have been contacted by a letter rather than a text message as she did not think all the neighbours had access to a mobile phone.
16. She explained how the properties in the building were arranged which therefore made it difficult for her “to ascertain where the noise [was] coming from”. She also explained that the noise happened “two or three times” a week during the night. She said that due to the situation she was suffering from “constant tiredness, anxiety and lack of concentration”. She said that the checks the landlord had conducted had not been thorough enough and that it had failed to support her. She said that its suggestion of rehousing was not viable as she did not have the financial resources. 
17. The landlord issued its stage two complaint response on 11 August 2020. It apologised that it had not called the resident back following the conversation on 11 May 2020 and that it should have done so to discuss the ongoing matter. It said that it had discussed this aspect of the complaint with its team to ensure that “lessons are learnt following this”. It also offered her £50 compensation for the distress and inconvenience that the missed call back had caused.
18. It said that it would continue to monitor the situation concerning noise disturbances and asked her to complete incident reports. It said that it could not take any direct action until it knew exactly where the noise was coming from. It said that it would not be “viable” for someone to attend the property to locate and identify the noise as it occurred late at night. It said that it would send her neighbours a letter to make them mindful of the noise and that it would attempt to discuss with them the concerns she had raised.
19. The landlord concluded by explaining how the resident could approach this Service if she remained dissatisfied.             
20. On 12 August 2020 the landlord sent a letter to the neighbours. It asked them to contact it if they were also experiencing a low frequency vibration noise.
21. On 17 November 2020 the landlord reopened the resident’s ASB case after she had sent in her incident diary. After correspondence between the resident and landlord, on 14 January 2021 the landlord said that it would send a plumber to the resident’s property in order to investigate. It said that the noises described by the resident appeared to be “air tight noises within the plumbing works”. It said that even though this might not have been the source, it wanted to “explore every possible option”.

Assessment and findings

22. It is evident that this situation has been distressing for the resident. There remains a dispute between the resident and the landlord regarding whether the landlord responded appropriately to her reports of noise disturbances. The role of the Ombudsman is not to establish whether the noise reported was occurring or not or the cause of the noise. Our role is to establish whether the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports was in line with its legal and policy obligations and whether its response was fair in all the circumstances of the case.
23. When the resident first reported a noise disturbance on 30 April 2020, she described it as being “an up and down vibration noise”. In response to her reports, the landlord took steps to address her concerns and offered her appropriate advice. For example, it encouraged her to keep incident logs to document the frequency of disturbances. According to its ASB policy, it needs to be provided with at least two weeks’ worth of incident log sheets before it will investigate the issue. Therefore, the landlord’s response that she should document the disturbances was appropriate and in line with its policy.
24.  It also encouraged the resident on 8 June 2020 to contact Environmental Health and report the nuisances to them. Environmental Health can arrange for expert witnesses to attend the property in certain circumstances. Then, if a noise is confirmed as constituting statutory noise nuisance, both a landlord and Environmental Health may be able to warn and take formal action against the perpetrator. However, in this circumstance the resident did not know where exactly the noise came from or who the perpetrator was. Therefore, the landlord was restricted with any reasonable action it could have taken to alleviate the noise nuisance for the resident. Nevertheless, it contacted the other residents in the buildings on two occasions. Firstly, it sent them a text message asking them to be mindful of the noise coming from their properties. Then, in August 2020, it sent them a letter asking whether they were also experiencing similar disturbances. This demonstrates that the landlord took reasonable steps to resolve the resident’s complaint and seek evidence to support her claims. Since the resident did not know which neighbour was causing the disturbances, it was reasonable for the landlord to have made contact with all of them and make them aware of the resident’s concerns.
25. The landlord explained to the resident that it would not be viable to send its staff to the resident’s property and investigate the disturbances as they only occurred during the night. This was a reasonable response from the landlord as it would not have been expected to have staff readily available to listen to noises at these hours. Also, given that the resident said that the disturbances happened “two or three times” a week, it could not be guaranteed that the landlord would have been present on the relevant nights.
26. The landlord later advised the resident that it would arrange for a plumber to attend the resident’s property in order to further investigate the noise disturbances. Even though it did not know for certain whether the noises were due to issues within the plumbing, it was a reasonable response from the landlord. It demonstrated that it was taking steps to investigate all possible reasons for her complaint and find a resolution. Following this investigation, the landlord would be expected to take any follow up action if the plumber had identified that there was an issue concerning the plumbing. This is because according the tenancy agreement, the landlord is responsible for keeping in good repair and working order any installations, provided by the landlord, that supply water, gas or electricity. 
27. Furthermore, the landlord apologised to the resident and offered her £50 compensation for the distress and inconvenience caused from not having called her back following the conversation on 11 May 2020. It acted fairly by acknowledging its shortcomings and offered redress in light of this. This was a reasonable offer from the landlord and was more than what this Service would consider fair given the circumstance.
28. Ultimately, no evidence has been provided for this investigation to indicate that the landlord could have taken any further action in response to the resident’s reports of a noise disturbance. Once the landlord had been provided with corroborative evidence to support the resident’s claims, it would then be expected to take appropriate action but until then its actions and responses to the resident were reasonable.  

Determination (decision)

29. In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration by the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of noise coming from neighbouring properties.

Reasons

30. Given that the resident could not provide any specific information about the source of the noise, the landlord was limited with what reasonable action it could have taken in order to resolve the issue for her. Nevertheless, it still offered her appropriate advice and managed her expectations by explaining that it needed evidence to substantiate her claims. 

Recommendation

31. It is recommended that the landlord undertakes any repairs that may have been identified following the plumber’s inspection in line with the timescales listed in its repairs policy.