Newham Council (202017405)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202017405

Newham Council

4 February 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 a neighbouring property.

Background and summary of events

  1. The resident is a tenant of the landlord. His property is a flat. The resident’s neighbour referred to in this report is also a tenant of the landlord’s, and lives in a flat situated above the resident’s property.
  2. In October 2013 the landlord gave the resident’s neighbour written permission to lay laminated flooring in their flat. It set out conditions, including that the work was carried out competently and that high quality acoustic underlay was used to improve sound insulation between floors and adjoining properties. The landlord confirmed it reserved the right to withdraw the permission if concerns arose because of noise nuisance affecting the peace and enjoyment of other residents in the building.
  3. The landlord’s records state that the resident first reported noise from the neighbouring property in mid-2020, shortly after the first national lockdown to prevent the spread of the coronavirus. He made several further reports of noise and the landlord assessed the noise described to be of a domestic nature rather than a noise nuisance. The landlord advised the resident that the properties may suffer from poor sound insulation between them, which was common among similar properties in the area.
  4. On 15 October 2020, the landlord spoke with the resident and the resident advised that banging noises were continuing. The landlord reiterated that it could not take action against the neighbour for domestic noise.

Following more recent complaints, the landlord sent the resident a letter on 16 March 2021 explaining its position on domestic noise.

  1. The resident completed the landlord’s complaints form on 30 March 2021. He confirmed he had reported noise from the neighbour’s property and complained that he was not happy with the landlord’s response to this. The resident explained that he expected the landlord to investigate the poor soundproofing or visit the neighbour’s property to enquire if they had underlay for their laminate flooring. He said he did not consider what he was hearing to be normal everyday noise and he had recordings to demonstrate this. Finally, the resident described the distress he experienced because of the noise; and complained that a member of the landlord’s staff told him they lived in a flat and heard noise from neighbours, and the resident would have to put up with the noise.
  2. On 16 April 2021 the landlord responded to the complaint, apologised for any inconvenience caused and advised that it was unable to uphold the complaint. It confirmed that the resident submitted 21 noise reports since May 2020, shortly after the first national lockdown and during this time it witnessed an increase in the volume of noise complaints due to people working from home and compelled to remain indoors. Considering that the resident and neighbour resided in their homes for several years and May 2020 was the first the resident reported any noise disturbances, the landlord concluded that the noise disturbances initiated following the lockdown as either one or both parties were now spending much more time indoors.
  3. The landlord confirmed that, given the nature of the complaints reported, the bulk of reports related to domestic or general household noise except for a few complaints of loud music. It confirmed the actions taken prior to March 2021 and that it understood that the resident spoke with a staff member, who informed the ASB team that he stated he could hear everything from the neighbour’s property including which rooms they walked into. The landlord said this was a clear indication that the properties suffered from poor sound insulation which exacerbated the volume of noise travelling between the properties.
  4. Moving forward, the landlord advised the resident that if he wished to pursue action against his neighbour, the Environmental Protection Act 1990 offered residents the platform to gather evidence and act. It confirmed that its antisocial behaviour team could provide the resident a guidance pack to assist him with this option. The landlord advised the resident to contact his housing officer regarding his request that it visit the property and inspect the flooring.
  5. The resident asked to escalate his complaint on 20 April 2021. He disagreed that the noise he experienced was normal domestic noise and expressed his dissatisfaction that the landlord had not attended to investigate the noise or check whether the neighbour had suitable flooring underlay.
  6. In the landlord’s final complaint response, dated 17 May 2021, it confirmed it had commenced an investigation into the matter of the neighbour’s laminate flooring and would check if the neighbour asked for permission to install it. It said that if the neighbour had not got permission for the flooring, then the landlord may either instruct the neighbour to remove it or cover the laminate with carpet. The landlord confirmed it would contact the resident with an update and apologised that it did not investigate this matter sooner in response to the resident’s concerns.
  7. The landlord apologised if a member of staff asked the resident to put up with the noise. It advised it was unable investigate this aspect of the complaint, as the resident did not provide the name of the staff member. It asked the resident to provide the staff member’s name, if he still wanted the landlord to investigate this matter, so their manager could address it with them.
  8. On 9 June 2021 the landlord instructed the resident’s neighbour to remove the laminate flooring or cover it with a soft flooring such as lino or carpet by 9 July 2021. After this date, it would arrange a post-inspection to confirm the neighbour complied with the instructions. The resident asked the landlord for an update on the same day, and the landlord advised of the letter it sent to the neighbour.
  9. When referring his complaint to this Service, the resident referred to still experiencing the noise and said the neighbour had not complied with the landlord’s instructions, and the landlord had not updated him regarding the flooring.
  10. The landlord informed this Service that the neighbour was unable to take immediate action in July 2021 in relation to their flooring due to their circumstances, and so on 22 November 2021 it asked the neighbour to complete the actions again.
  11. As of December 2021, the landlord informed this Service that action was still ongoing which would lead to removal of the laminate flooring or appropriate covering to reduce the level of noise. It confirmed that the resident had not made further reports of noise disturbance in recent months, and it would continue to monitor the situation. The landlord advised this Service that it had informed the resident of the current situation and the landlord’s ongoing actions.

Assessment and findings

The landlord’s obligations

  1. The landlord’s website sets out what it considers to be noise nuisance and antisocial behaviour (ASB), and the actions the landlord takes when receiving reports of ASB and noise nuisance. It confirms the landlord can investigate a variety of noise complaints, including loud music and parties and persistently noisy neighbours. However, it says it cannot do anything about ordinary domestic noise including talking, walking about, babies crying and doors slamming because these noises are classed as being part of everyday life and the courts do not accept this as a nuisance. 
  2. On receiving a noise incident report, the landlord is likely to request additional information and may require diary sheets to be completed, detailing the days, times, nature and impact on the resident of the noise nuisance. Actions which the landlord could take includes going directly to the person causing the problem and asking them to reduce the level of noise, sending the person an advisory (warning) letter, and legal action.

Assessment

  1. The resident has explained that he is experiencing noise disturbance from the neighbour’s property. The resident believes the noise is due to the flooring that is laid in the neighbour’s property and inadequate sound insulation between the properties.
  2. The resident has referred to the impact that the noise had on his health and wellbeing. Whilst we have not disregarded the resident’s concerns about his health, it is outside the the Ombudsman’s remit to draw conclusions on the causation of, or liability for, impacts on health and wellbeing. This would be more appropriately dealt with as a personal injury claim through the courts or the landlord’s liability insurance policy (if it has one). Nonetheless, consideration has been given to the general distress and inconvenience which the situation affecting his property may have caused the resident.
  3. In his complaint to this Service, the resident has also suggested that the landlord install adequate soundproofing or move him to another property. The Ombudsman has not seen any evidence of the resident suggesting that the landlord move him, and this Service can only investigate matters that have been raised as part of a formal complaint through the landlord’s internal complaints process. If he has not done so already, the resident may wish to discuss his request to move with the landlord. If he is unhappy with the landlord’s response to his request, he could raise this as a new complaint through the landlord’s complaints procedure. He may be able to refer the new complaint to the Ombudsman if he remains dissatisfied once this complaint has exhausted the landlord’s internal complaints process.
  4. In line with the tenancy agreement, the landlord is only required to maintain the property and it is not required to make improvements to it. Soundproofing would be regarded as an improvement and therefore the landlord would not be required to install it although it is acknowledged that it may be helpful in reducing noise transference between the neighbour’s property and the resident’s.
  5. The Environmental Protection Act 1990 states that noise emitted from premises to be prejudicial to health or a nuisance constitutes as a statutory nuisance. It states that where a report of a statutory nuisance is made to the landlord, it is to take such steps as are reasonably practicable to investigate the complaint.  Landlords cannot reasonably be expected to take formal action against tenants for noise that is considered everyday household noise; however, if a noise is confirmed as constituting statutory noise nuisance, then both a landlord and the local authority’s environmental health service may be able to warn and take formal action against the perpetrator. 
  6. Each case is different and certain measures and actions for one case may not be relevant in another but in this case, it is evident that the resident’s main concern is the general level of noise he can hear from his neighbour’s property. The landlord’s advice that most of the noises reported would be considered everyday household noise was in line with the information included on its website, and common industry practice. The landlord also provided the resident with the appropriate advice that he may wish to pursue action against his neighbour under the Environmental Protection Act 1990 and offered to assist him with this.
  7. While the landlord has now instructed the neighbour to remove or cover their laminate flooring, there was a delay in it contacting the neighbour about the matter which was unreasonable given the circumstances (the flooring that the neighbour had and that the neighbour lived in a flat situated above another property). The landlord has also not provided evidence to show that it managed the resident’s expectations on this matter, prior to its update to the resident in July 2021.
  8. It would have been appropriate for the landlord to have offered financial compensation for any distress and inconvenience which the resident experienced as a result of delays in the landlord’s response to his concerns about the neighbour’s flooring. This is in line with this Service’s remedies guidance (published on our website). The remedies guidance suggests that the Ombudsman may award between £50 to £250 in cases where we recognise that there has been service failure by the landlord which had an impact on the resident but was of short duration and may not have significantly affected the overall outcome for the complainant. Examples include failure to meet service standards for actions and responses but where the failure had no significant impact. In this case, there was an unreasonable delay in the landlord investigating the resident’s concerns about his neighbour’s flooring but this did not affect the overall outcome of the complaint as the landlord has now investigated this issue and taken reasonable action to address it.

 

 

Determination (decision)

  1. In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Scheme, there was service failure in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of noise nuisance from a neighbouring property.

Reasons

  1. While the landlord has provided the resident with reasonable advice surrounding domestic noise and has now instructed the neighbour to remove or cover their laminate flooring, there was a delay in it considering the impact that the neighbour’s flooring may have had on the level of nose that the resident experienced. The landlord should have offered the resident compensation for the time and trouble he went to in asking it to inspect the neighbour’s flooring. The landlord should now offer the resident £100 compensation in view of this.

Orders

  1. The landlord is ordered to pay the resident £100 for the time and trouble he went to in pursuing his request that the landlord inspect the neighbour’s flooring. This should be paid within four weeks of the date of this decision.
  2. The landlord should provide the resident with an update concerning the flooring in his neighbour’s property, unless the landlord has already confirmed to the resident that the flooring has been covered or removed.