Newham Council (202012229)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202012229

Newham Council

28 January 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 noise nuisance from his upstairs neighbour. 

Background and summary of events

  1. The resident is a tenant of the landlord which is a local authority. The property is a flat within a block of flats.
  2. According to the landlord’s records the resident reported noise nuisance from his upstairs neighbour to the antisocial behaviour (ASB) team on 16, 17 April 2020 and 22 May 2020. The reports detailed his neighbour playing loud music from 10am and banging on the floor.
  3. The resident raised a formal complaint regarding noise nuisance on 20 November 2020. He reported hearing constant banging, heavy objects dropping, and furniture being dragged across the floor from his neighbour above. He also reported doors slamming and a “buzzing noise” which shook his property. He said the noise nuisance had been ongoing since February 2019 and he believed it was deliberate.
  4. The resident said his neighbour had wooden floors, which he believed was a breach of tenancy and contributed to the noise transference. He said nothing had been done about his requests for help and he believed he had been failed by the landlord, who had neglected his reports. He asked that the landlord have the neighbour’s wooden floors removed, issue the neighbour a warning, and to be kept informed about the steps it took to resolve the issues.
  5. On 24 November 2020 the landlord acknowledged the resident’s complaint.
  6. On 14 December 2020, in what appears to be its complaint response, the landlord emailed the resident and explained that it had only received three noise reports from him in 2020, in: January, April and November. However, each had a lengthy gap between them, and so they did not warrant any further action as the “element of persistence” in the noise was absent. The landlord advised that if the source of the noise was from general domestic activity, but the noise was exacerbated due to wooden flooring, then it would be unable to enforce ASB action and its housing team would need to consider the issue of the floors. It explained that “this [had] been passed on to the Client Relations team to look into.” It is not apparent from the landlord’s response if the dates it said the resident reported noise correlate with the three dates showing in its records (for April and May 2020).
  7. The landlord advised the resident that; as the outcome of his complaint was sent on 14 December 2020, he should log a new complaint and mention that he would like to escalate the matter. This email was not dated and so it is unclear when the email was sent.
  8. On 24 January 2021 the resident contacted this Service about his complaint. We emailed the landlord that day, summarising the resident’s complaint about noise nuisance and ASB. We asked it to contact him to resolve matters through its complaint procedure.
  9. The resident emailed the landlord on 23 February 2021. He referred to the “tenancy agreement of no wooden flooring” stating the noise was exacerbated due to the floors. He said the neighbour should be evicted and he believed they had not been issued a warning.
  10. On 25 March 2021 the resident emailed this Service a number of emails he had sent to the landlord ranging from 23 February 2021 to 24 March 2021. The emails detailed hearing banging, dragging and dropping of objects from his neighbour, which he confirmed were still ongoing. He said he had no response from the landlord. We contacted the landlord again on 14 April 2021 and asked it to respond to the resident and explain to him how to escalate his complaint, or provide him with a final response explaining his options to escalate to the Ombudsman if he remained dissatisfied.
  11. On 6 June 2021 the resident emailed this Service again with an update. He said that around the 12 April 2021 the landlord visited his home to witness the noise. He explained the landlord advised him to make recordings and report any noise nuisance to it through email and to allow 28-30 days for change, which he agreed to.
  12. The landlord issued its final complaint response on 17 June 2021. The landlord apologised for him having to contact the Ombudsman due to its failure to provide a formal complaint response, for the delay investigating his reports, and for the inconvenience caused. It explained the three ASB reports (16,17 April and 22 May 2020) from the resident concerning loud music from the flat above him. The landlord advised that when it attended his property on 17 April 2020, no noise nuisance was identified from the neighbour’s property. The landlord stated it would contact him to discuss further if he experienced any ASB. It advised the resident that his neighbour had agreed to put a rug down to eliminate noise. The landlord also acknowledged its service failures in how it handled the resident’s complaint. It offered £250 compensation for any distress and inconvenience experienced as a result of its delay in providing a formal response. It explained how the resident could escalate his complaint to the Ombudsman if he remained dissatisfied.
  13. On 17 June 2021 the resident responded to the landlord saying he wanted to clarify that his complaint was about the constant banging, dragging and dropping objects and not loud music. He said that once the landlord agreed, changed and documented this, he would accept the offer.
  14. On 27 August 2021 the landlord acknowledged the resident’s reports were in relation to noise caused by banging and other similar noise from the property above him and not in relation to loud music. The landlord also advised him that a newly formed housing neighbourhood response team would investigate any ongoing noise issues, take appropriate action, and monitor going forward.

Assessment and findings

  1. The landlord’s tenancy agreement sets out the responsibilities of the resident and landlord. The tenancy agreement states noise nuisance, annoyance and stress include: making any unreasonable loud noise by slamming doors, playing loud music, or anything done which affects the well-being of any person living in the area etc. It states residents must not cause or behave in a way that is likely to cause nuisance, annoyance or distress.
  2. The landlord’s ASB and noise nuisance policy advises it can investigate a variety of noise complaints including persistently noisy neighbours or loud music. The policy advises that the landlord will assess all reports of ASB, and will attempt to resolve the issue using local interventions; and if the ASB persists, it would make use of the tools and powers it has available, which may lead to legal action against the perpetrators. Action could include asking the person causing the problem to reduce the noise level, sending advisory/warning letters, giving noise-abatement notices, and legal action.
  3. The landlord has a three-stage complaints procedure. The landlord’s complaints process sets out a timescale of ten working days from receipt of a complaint to provide a stage one decision. It sets 25 working days to provide its stage two response which can be extended to 65 days if it requires more time to investigate. It states if a resident is dissatisfied they can request a stage three investigation, where a panel reviews the investigation carried out under stage two and decide if the investigation and results were fair.

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

  1. The resident explained to the landlord that he had been reporting noise since February 2019. His complaint about the matter was in November 2020. The Housing Ombudsman Scheme sets out that the Ombudsman will only investigate complaints raised formally with a landlord within a reasonable period of the events being complained about, usually six months. Given that a formal complaint was raised in November 2020, this investigation centres on issues in 2020 and 2021, and does not consider events from 2019. Also, any new noise issues the resident has experienced since the landlord concluded its complaint process, in June 2021, need to be raised as new formal complaints with the landlord. They will not be considered in this investigation.
  2. In accordance with the landlord’s ASB and noise nuisance policy, when the landlord receives reports of noise nuisance it should assess the report and attempt to resolve the issue using local interventions; and if the noise nuisance persists, it should make use of the tools and powers, which may lead to legal action against the perpetrators.
  3. The landlord’s records show that the resident reported noise nuisance on 14,17 April and 22 May 2020. The landlord visited the resident on 17 April 2020; however, no noise was detected and so it asked him to make recordings and report any further noise nuisance to it. This was reasonable and in line with its ASB and noise nuisance policy; in which it may request additional information, require diary sheets detailing times and impact on the resident in order to gather corroborative evidence of the alleged behaviour, to support formal action. It was appropriate for the landlord to visit the property, and to advise him to make recordings as this would have allowed the capture of evidence.
  4. The resident said that his neighbour had wooden floors which he believed contributed to the nose transference. The landlord advised the resident that, if the source of the noise was from general domestic activity but the noise was exacerbated due to wooden flooring then it would be unable to act. This was a reasonable response as, in accordance with its noise nuisance procedures, the landlord is unable to investigate domestic household noise including noise from footsteps, vacuuming and furniture being moved. As such, it was reasonable for the landlord to remind him of its policy. In the absence of any structural or repair issues allowing noise transference, landlords cannot usually take formal action against residents for noise that is considered everyday household noise, regardless of how much it may disturb other residents.
  5. In the landlord’s complaint response it confirmed that his neighbour agreed to put a rug down to eliminate noise transference. The landlord also advised him that a newly formed housing neighbourhood response team would investigate and take appropriate action of any ongoing noise issues going forward. In this case, it was evident that the landlord took reasonable steps to investigate and seek corroborative evidence in line with its obligations. Although there was no evidence of the noise nuisance identified by the landlord, it is evident that the neighbour was made aware of the reports, as they did agree to put a rug down to eliminate noise. 
  6. Ultimately, there was no clear evidence of noise nuisance, despite the landlord’s investigations into the matter and therefore it was reasonable that the landlord did not take further action against the neighbour. The landlord’s efforts to form a new housing neighbourhood response team was an appropriate and constructive action to investigate any further noise nuisance reports.

Determination (decision)

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

Reasons

  1. The landlord acted in line with its ASB and noise nuisance policy by investigating the noise nuisance reports and visiting his property to witness the noise. Although it was unable to act due to the lack of evidence, it was reasonable for it advise the resident to report any further noise and to have the neighbour put a rug down to try and eliminate noise.