The new improved webform is online now! Residents and representatives can access the form online today.

Sandwell Metropolitan Borough Council (202014265)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202014265

Sandwell Metropolitan Borough Council

18 May 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 concerns:
    1. the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of an issue with the upstairs neighbour’s floorboards and associated noise nuisance.

Background and summary of events

  1. The resident is a secure tenant. The landlord is a Council. The tenancy started on 19 November 2018.The property is the ground floor converted flat of a semi-detached property.
  2. The upstairs neighbour is a tenant of the landlord. The landlord has confirmed that the property building has traditional timber suspended floors with floorboards and plasterboard and skim below. 
  3. During the two years prior to the resident raising her formal complaint with the landlord in February 2021, the resident reported to the landlord various incidents of antisocial behaviour from the upstairs neighbour. This included noise nuisance, criminal damage caused to her vehicle as well as hate crimes which were also reported to police. The landlord received counter-allegations of ASB from the resident’s neighbour during the same timeframe. Whilst in the landlord’s final complaint response to the resident dated 25 March 2021, it referenced ASB reports, the resident confirmed to this service that her complaint specifically concerned the landlord’s response to her reports about the floorboards in the property above and associated noise transference. The resident said her solicitor was handling the matter of ASB from her neighbour separately. As such this investigation will only consider the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of an issue with the upstairs’ neighbour’s floorboards and associated noise transference.
  4. Between April 2020 and the landlord’s final response in March 2021, the resident reported multiple instances of noise nuisance from the upstairs neighbour’s flat submitting more than one hundred noise recordings of alleged noise nuisance caused by her upstairs neighbour. This included: “constant” and “continuous” walking often in the early hours of the morning, heavy objects being dropped, “heavy footsteps” and “squeaking” floorboards.
  5. On 2 July 2020, in accordance with the landlord’s previous requests, the resident’s upstairs’ neighbour told the landlord that they had replaced laminate flooring with carpet throughout the property.
  6. On 18 February 2021, the resident contacted the landlord asking it to log a complaint about cracks caused to her ceiling which she said was due to repairs needed to the floorboards in the upstairs’ flat. She provided photos of the cracks in her ceiling. The landlord’s internal notes referenced that the resident had reported that the floorboards were loose and sunken and had caused the cracking to her ceiling. Further, that she had reported that the floorboards were very squeaky and noisy every time her neighbour walked around the flat and when they turned over in bed at night. The notes also stated that the resident said the floorboard shapes were visible through her ceiling and that she was concerned about the floorboards eventually giving way.
  7. The resident referenced that the Housing Officer had previously asked her neighbour to remove the laminate flooring and replace it with carpet in accordance with the tenancy agreement.  The resident advised that whilst her neighbour may have fitted a carpet, this was placed on top of the laminate flooring which had not resolved the noise transference issue. The resident said she first reported this to the landlord in 2019 but nothing had been done.
  8. The landlord’s notes also included a comment that it had looked at its repairs system and no repair had been reported to the repairs team for either the resident’s property or the flat above during the past two years or to raise any inspections. Further the landlord’s internal communications refer to the type of noise reported “being a common problem in these types of flats across the borough” however that laminate flooring would enhance noise levels.
  9. In its stage one response dated 24 February 2021, the landlord said that following the resident’s report about her ceiling potentially being unsafe, it contacted its repair team who arranged for an operative to attend urgently on 23 February 2021 to ensure that there was no danger to her or her neighbour. It was confirmed that her ceiling was not falling in and was safe. It noted that her ceilings were wall papered and the paper was still intact. Further, that there was nothing to make safe however a non-urgent inspection would be arranged once Covid-19 restrictions were lifted.
  10. It referred to a call it had had with the resident that day when it explained that as the inspection was non-urgent an appointment for the inspection of her neighbour’s property could not be arranged at that time and its operatives would begin working through the backlog of non-urgent repairs when lockdown measures were relaxed. Regarding her suggestion that an inspection could have taken place last year when lockdown measures were relaxed, it said it explained that at that time, its operatives were only carrying out urgent repairs.
  11. The landlord’s internal communications dated 22 March 2021 note that the resident had called to complain about why nothing had been done to rectify her upstairs’ neighbours flooring. She was not happy that an inspection of her neighbour’s flooring had not been carried out. She was unhappy that during a call with its officer on 9 March 2021 that she kept asking her if she wanted to move rather than resolve the problem. The flooring needed to be looked at. She requested a stage two written response from the landlord as she was dissatisfied with the call from the landlord on 9 March 2021.
  12. The landlord provided a stage two final response on 25 March 2021. In its response it acknowledged her complaint that nothing had been done to resolve the noise from the floorboards or the nuisance caused by this. The landlord advised that the floorboards in the flat above had been covered by carpets. Repair operatives had made phone contact and visited on 9 March 2021 confirming the specific floorboards were covered with carpet. The Inspector had also visited her on the same day and confirmed that the cracks in the ceiling were where the plasterboard joins. It said that all the ceilings in the property were wall papered, and there were no visible signs the cracks had split the paper. The floating floors to the above flat had been covered by carpet and to date there was no long-term fix for the noisy floorboards and noise transference.

Post final response

  1. On 3 June 2021, the resident’s MP’s office wrote to the landlord on the resident’s behalf reiterating that the occupant above had laminate flooring and whilst she was told to replace it with carpet, this was placed over the laminate flooring. Underneath the laminate flooring was plywood and laying carpet over the top had not resolved the noise causing by the flooring itself and the noise transference. They asked noise equipment to be fitted and for two officers to inspect, one to walk on the floor of the flat above and one to witness the noise caused in her property.
  2. In its response to the resident’s MP dated 6 June 2021, the landlord advised the ceiling/floor had been inspected and there was no evidence of any danger to the occupants of the property. It acknowledged that the resident may hear sounds of a person walking across the floor above, but there is no resolution for this. The property is more than seventy years old. The floors are traditional timber suspended floors and foam fill was not an option for this type of floor. Sound transference is evident in some older properties. Her neighbour had confirmed that the laminate flooring had been removed prior to the carpet being fitted. The noise recording equipment would not be suitable in this case as the noise recordings provided by the resident had already shown she could hear her neighbour walking on the floor above.
  3. In response to this service’s information request, the landlord confirmed an operative attended on 23 February 2021 to ensure the ceiling was safe however the landlord did not confirm or evidence any inspections of the upstairs’ flat.

Assessment and findings

  1. The tenancy agreement states that alterations to properties must not be made without permission, this includes laminate flooring. Further, it will class installing furnishings and fittings including laminate flooring as antisocial behaviour if it disturbs other people because of the noise. The tenancy handbook states that the landlord is responsible to maintain the structure of the building including floorboards and joists.
  2. It is not always possible to eradicate noise transference between different floors of a property including those which have traditional timber suspended floors with floorboards above and plasterboard and skim below, as in this case. However, steps may be taken to mitigate the level of noise transferred. Therefore, it is reasonable to expect landlords to investigate any such reports to identify if there is any damage and to consider if measures such as underlay/ carpet or insulation are likely to assist with reducing the level of noise.
  3. In response to the resident reporting noise nuisance coming from the upstairs’ flat through the floorboards, the landlord asked the upstairs’ neighbour in June 2020 to take up her laminate flooring and replace with carpet. This step taken by the landlord was appropriate as it was to minimise the possibility of noise transferring to the resident’s property through the floorboards.
  4.  The neighbour verbally told the landlord that this had been done in July 2020, however the resident continued to provide further recordings of the noise transference experienced which indicated that any carpeting had not helped diminish the sound of the footsteps and squeaking of the floor. In this circumstance, it is reasonable to expect the landlord to have arranged for a technical expert or surveyor to inspect the floorboards and to check that the laminate flooring had been removed and replaced with carpets and to assess if there was damage to floorboards that needed repairing. There is no evidence of the landlord visiting the upstairs’ neighbour’s flat to investigate these issues.
  5. Following the resident raising a formal complaint on 18 February 2021 regarding cracks in her ceiling which she advised were due to damage to the floorboards above, the landlord arranged for an operative to urgently attend the property on 23 February 2021. This action taken by the landlord to assess if the condition of the ceiling posed a risk to health and safety, was appropriate.
  6. In its stage one response it referenced this action and confirmed that its operative had visited the property and deemed the ceiling to be safe.  The landlord also advised that it would raise a non-urgent inspection once Covid-19 restrictions were lifted, suggesting it had not been able to inspect the upstairs flat since her formal complaint. Its internal notes made at the time of the resident’s complaint mentioned that the noise transference issue was “a common problem in these types of flats across the borough” but commented that laminate flooring would enhance the issue.
  7. An inspection to check if the laminate flooring had been removed and replaced with carpet and also to assess if any repairs were required to the floorboards was an appropriate and proportionate step for the landlord to take in the circumstances.  Nonetheless, as the country was in lockdown, on balance the landlord’s advice in its complaint response that it would inspect the upstairs flat once Covid-19 restrictions had been lifted, was reasonable. It was also reasonable to expect the landlord to have followed up on this once Covid-19 restrictions were lifted.
  8. Despite the landlord indicating in its final response that a visit had taken place on 9 March 2021, in response to a request made by this service, the landlord did not provide any evidence to confirm this. As there is a lack of evidence to demonstrate that the landlord inspected the upstairs’ neighbour’s flat at any time either prior to the resident’s formal complaint or since, overall the landlord did not take sufficient steps to assess either if there were repairs needed to the floorboards or if there was any action it could take to improve the noise transference issue. This constitutes evidence of a failure in the service provided. In the circumstance, an appropriate order has been included below.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord when responding to the resident’s reports of an issue with the upstairs neighbour’s floorboards and associated noise nuisance.

 

 

Reasons

  1. The landlord appropriately asked the resident’s upstairs’ neighbour to replace laminate flooring with carpet to minimise noise transference, in accordance with the tenancy agreement. However, as the landlord is responsible for the maintenance of the structure of the property building including floorboards and joists, it was reasonable to expect it to arrange a technical inspection or survey of the floorboards when the resident’s continued to report noise transference issues after it told her the laminate flooring had been removed. There is no evidence of it doing so during the period up to the formal complaint and it has not provided evidence of the inspection it said was carried out on 9 March 2021.

Orders and recommendations

  1. The Ombudsman orders that the landlord:
    1. Arrange for a technical expert/surveyor to inspect the upstairs’ flat:
      1. to check if the laminate flooring has been removed and replaced with carpet and;
      2. to assess if any repairs are needed to the floorboards or if any further steps can be taken to improve the noise transference issue.
    2. Write to the resident advising her of the findings of its inspection.
    3. Pay the resident £250 in compensation for not taking sufficient steps to improve the noise transference issue including carrying out a technical inspection or survey of the upstairs flat floorboards.
    4. Comply with the above orders within four weeks.