Sanctuary Housing Association (202224162)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202224162

Sanctuary Housing Association

23 April 2024

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 landlord’s response to the resident’s request for soundproofing to be installed in her property.

Background

2. The resident lives in a 1-bedroom third floor flat and holds an assured tenancy with the landlord. The flat is on the top floor of the block.
3. On 27 April 2022, the landlord met the resident at her property. She requested for soundproofing to be installed in her property due to noise transference from the flat below.
4. The resident raised a formal complaint with the landlord on 17 May 2022. She was dissatisfied that the landlord decided not to install soundproofing.
5. On 7 November 2022, the landlord issued a stage 1 complaint response. In summary it said:
   1. Soundproofing was declined. A survey on 5 October 2022 concluded there was no disrepair to the property causing noise.
   2. The reports made were possibly antisocial behaviour (ASB) and would be referred to the housing team.
   3. It offered £200 compensation for delays responding at stage 1.
6. The resident requested escalation of her complaint to stage 2 on 6 January 2023. She advised that the noise transference was ongoing. She said that a surveyor recommended sound proofing in her property, and she had seen a quote for insulation to be installed to the floor, ceiling, and wall.
7. On 10 January 2023, the landlord issued a stage 2 final response. In summary it said:
   1. It had not requested a quote for soundproofing.
   2. A repair had been resolved addressing a banging noise from the resident’s pipes.
   3. No recent noise reports had been made over the past 12 months.
   4. The housing officer would drop diary sheets at the resident’s address and meet with her to provide information about the noise app.
8. On 15 April 2024, the resident advised the Ombudsman that she has given the landlord notice to terminate her tenancy.
9. The resident remains dissatisfied with the landlord’s decision not to install soundproofing. She does not think the landlord sufficiently tested her property. To resolve the matter, the resident wants financial compensation and to be offered alternative accommodation by the landlord.

Assessment and findings

Scope of the investigation

10. The Ombudsman has been provided with correspondence relating to reports of historical incidents of noise transference in 2015-2016. Under the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, we may not consider complaints that were not brought to the landlord’s attention as a formal complaint within a reasonable period. This would normally be within 12 months of the matters arising. As the resident made a formal complaint on 17 May 2022, the investigation will not consider the events that occurred in 2015 and 2016 because these did not occur within 12 months of the complaint. However, this assessment will focus on the landlord’s actions in response to the resident’s reports from April 2022 up to the landlord’s final response in January 2023.

The landlord’s response to the resident’s request for soundproofing to be installed in her property.

11. The landlord’s webpage on ASB states that excessive and persistent noise is classed as ASB. When assessing incidents, the landlord will consider the impact, frequency, and context of the reports.
12. The landlord’s ASB policy outlines that incidents not classed as ASB include general living noise including doors banging and footsteps. In these cases, advice should be sought from an area manager and surveyor.
13. The resident raised sporadic concerns about noise transferring to her property from the neighbour below, particularly in relation to everyday living noises. The landlord’s initial response after reports of banging pipes was to open a noise nuisance investigation and agree an action plan with both parties. This was appropriate.
14. However, the landlord labelled the matter as ASB from an early stage and frequently referred to it as this when communicating with the resident. It is not appropriate for all noise cases to be handled as ASB as per the Ombudsman’s Spotlight report. The Ombudsman considers that noise transference would be better addressed through a good neighbourhood policy (distinct to the ASB policy). This ensures low level neighbourhood friction is not inappropriately handled as ASB. As such, the landlord is recommended to consider implementing a good neighbourhood management policy for instances where reported noise is not constituted as ASB.
15. The resident’s main concern was the landlord’s decision not to install soundproofing to her property.
16. In response to this request, the landlord took the following steps:
    1. Discussed the request with the resident during a home visit on 27 April 2022.
    2. Referred the matter to the operations manager.
    3. Completed a survey of the property on 5 October 2022.
17. The Ombudsman is satisfied the landlord took appropriate action within a timely manner to investigate the resident’s concerns. The request for soundproofing was refused on each occasion.
18. The landlord informed the resident that no defects were identified within her property. It clarified that it would not usually carry out soundproofing unless there were defects causing sound transference. This response was reasonable, the landlord was not obligated to complete soundproofing. Further, the reported banging noise had been resolved following a pipe repair.
19. The landlord failed to maintain a copy of the survey (completed on 5 October 2022). Although the outcome was provided to the resident in an email on 1 November 2022, the landlord should have retained a copy of the survey to support its decision making.
20. Nonetheless, it is evident that the landlord considered the issue, visited the property on 2 occasions, and informed the resident that it was unable to install sound proofing. The landlord outlined its reasons within the complaint responses.
21. The resident advised she was of the understanding that soundproofing would be completed as she had seen a quote for this. However, the Ombudsman has not seen evidence confirming this. Records show that the landlord internally checked whether a quote had been requested and clarified it had not. It communicated this to the resident in its stage 2 response. It was positive that the landlord investigated this to ensure its advice to the resident had been consistent.
22. It was appropriate that the landlord referred the noise reports to a housing officer to further investigate. They recommended the resident should complete diary sheets and use the noise app to submit evidence of the noise. Evidence gathering enables a landlord to gain a clearer and more detailed insight into the nature, frequency, and timings of noise. It also provides landlords with a clearer basis behind taking any further action in respect to an issue.
23. It is important to note that there is a reasonable obligation on the resident to report noise and engage with the landlord in its investigation of the matter. The landlord advised the Ombudsman that since providing the resident with diary sheets and the noise app, the resident has not submitted any reports of noise nuisance.
24. Given the level of evidence available, the landlord’s position not to install soundproofing is considered reasonable. It is noted that the resident has a different point of view and believes that the property had a poor building structure. However, the landlord relied on the professional opinions of its staff and investigated the resident’s concerns. In the absence of evidence from the resident, the landlord would not be expected to take further action or reconsider the request for soundproofing.
25. Overall, in the Ombudsman’s opinion the landlord’s response to the resident’s request for soundproofing in her property was reasonable.

Determination

26. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration regarding the landlord’s response to the resident’s request for soundproofing to be installed in her property.

Recommendation

27. The landlord is recommended to use a proactive good neighbourhood management policy, distinct to the ASB policy, with a clear suite of options for maintaining good neighbourhood relationships and a matrix for assessing which option is the most appropriate. This is in line with this Ombudsman’s Spotlight report on noise.