Sheffield City Council (202304208)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202304208

Sheffield City Council

31 July 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. This complaint is about the landlord’s handling of the resident’s noise nuisance reports.

Background and summary of events

  1. The resident is a tenant of the landlord. He started his tenancy in October 2022. The landlord in this complaint is also a local council. The Ombudsman has jurisdiction for complaints about a council’s housing activities, but not its other roles and responsibilities. The council, and its environmental health department took some of the actions referred to in this report. However, reference to them are for explanation and background only. This investigation centres on the council’s housing department, and refers to it as ‘the landlord’.
  2. The landlord’s records show that the resident started reporting to the landlord in November 2022 that he was hearing excessive noise from a neighbour’s property on a regular basis, which was waking him up and causing distress. He described the noise as usually consisting of banging doors and cupboards, smashing sounds, and sometimes loud music, starting early in the morning and sometimes continuing for large parts of the day.
  3. The landlord has explained that it opened an antisocial behaviour case for the resident and did a risk assessment for him. The assessment noted his health conditions which were contributing to the impact of the noise on him. Its records show that in November and December 2022 it visited the resident several times. It also visited the alleged perpetrator to discuss the issues, who denied causing unreasonable levels of noise. It attempted unsuccessfully to witness the noise itself several times. The landlord gave the resident diary forms to log any noise incidents, and explained how it investigated such reports and the evidence it would need to take formal action.
  4. In December 2022 the landlord spoke with other neighbours to determine if they had been experiencing excessive noise. The resident asked the landlord to review its handling of his reports via the local council’s community trigger process.
  5. The resident’s reports, and the landlord’s attempts to witness the noise continued into January 2023. It also arranged with the local council to install noise recording in the resident’s home, and the council undertook a community trigger review. It concluded appropriate steps had been taken by the landlord.
  6. The resident complained to the landlord in February 2023 about its handling of his reports and the ongoing noise nuisance he was experiencing.
  7. The landlord sent its complaint response in March 2023. It explained in detail the steps it had taken in response to his reports, the outcome of the community trigger and the action plan it had created, and the action taken by the council’s environmental health team. It explained that no evidence of statutory noise nuisance had been witnessed or other relevant evidence found. It said it would continue its efforts and explained the next steps it would take.
  8. The resident asked the landlord to escalate his complaint. He did not give any specific grounds.
  9. The landlord sent its final complaint response in April 2023. It summarised its previous actions in response to the resident’s noise reports, and explained the outcome of the further steps it had said it would take. These included writing to residents asking them to report any noise nuisance they had experienced. It explained that none of its efforts had provided evidence of statutory noise nuisance on which it could take formal action. It referred the resident to the Ombudsman if he remained dissatisfied.
  10. The resident brought his complaint to the Ombudsman and explained he believed the landlord had taken only minimal action. The noise was continuing, and as an outcome he believed the landlord should reprimand the neighbour, and then take formal legal action if necessary. He has subsequently explained that the neighbour passed away, and the noise problem has stopped.


Assessment and findings

Investigation scope

  1. The resident continued to experience and report noise incidents to the landlord in the period following its final complaint response. He provided evidence of these further reports to the Ombudsman.
  2. The Ombudsman can usually only investigate complaints after the landlord has already responded to them. In this case the landlord sent its final complaint response in March 2023. Because of that, this investigation centres on events up to March of that year. If the resident has concerns about the landlord’s handling of his reports after that point it is open to him to make a new complaint to it. After that, it will be open to him to ask the Ombudsman to conduct a new investigation.

The resident’s noise nuisance reports

  1. The landlord has an ASB policy. It provides examples of what behaviour can constitute ASB, and what issues would not usually be considered ASB. Loud music and verbal abuse is given as an example of the former. Household noise, such as opening or closing doors, is given as an example of the latter.
  2. The policy explains that when the landlord receives an ASB report it assesses it to determine the appropriate course of action. When investigating, it seeks to hear both sides of the story where necessary, use the full range of tools and powers available, decide the most appropriate action based on factors such as the evidence available, the impact on the victim and the best way to achieve a lasting solution.
  3. The policy sets out that the action taken will be proportionate to the behaviour exhibited and circumstances of the case, and that the landlord aims to use ‘informal’ interventions before escalating action. It also notes there will be times where the landlord is not the most appropriate lead agency, and in those cases it works in partnership with other organisations and local council teams.
  4. The evidence shows that immediately on receiving the resident’s first reports of noise the landlord visited him to discuss his concerns, and explain how it would deal with them and discuss the allegations with the neighbour. It explained that resolving such situations can sometimes take time, said it would make random visits to try and witness any noise, and that it would consider using noise recording equipment if necessary. It explained what information it would need if it was to take formal action, and asked the resident to keep a diary of noise incidents. No noise was witnessed, and the neighbour denied making excessive noise. The landlord’s initial response was robust and in line with basic good practice and the landlord’s policy.
  5. The landlord continued investigating the resident’s reports through the rest of November and December. This included regularly visiting or contacting the resident to check in on him and provide updates, visiting the neighbour again, visiting the property unannounced multiple times to try to witness the noise, and approaching the council to request noise recording equipment. In support of its request the landlord emphasised the need for speedy action because of the impact the issue was having on the resident’s physical and mental wellbeing. 
  6. By the time of the resident’s first complaint to the landlord in February 2023 the landlord had taken further steps to arrange noise recording equipment, cooperated with a community trigger review in which it worked alongside the police and the environmental health team, and written to residents asking them to report any noise nuisance they had experienced. The review concluded that the landlord was taking appropriate steps, no exceptional noise was recorded, and the landlord explained it had no response to its letters.
  7. Given that the noise problem had not been reported or witnessed by other tenants or officers, the actions taken in the approximately 3 month period since the first report were extensive and thorough. They demonstrated that the landlord appreciated the impact on the resident and took appropriate steps in line with its policy and good practice to investigate his concerns using a wide range of tools and techniques.
  8. In response to the resident’s complaint the landlord explained in detail the steps it had taken, the reasons for them, and their outcomes. After an inconclusive 3 month investigation it would not usually be unreasonable for a landlord to close a noise nuisance or ASB case, citing a lack of evidence. However, in its complaint response the landlord explained the further steps it would take to continue investigating his reports.
  9. The resident gave no indication in his escalated complaint of disputing or challenging the landlord’s explanations. In response the landlord explained again the actions it had taken, or were about to take, and the outcome of its efforts. These included minor repairs and adjustments to fixtures in the neighbour’s home which might be noise sources, further unannounced visits to witness noise problems, and speaking to different neighbours about their experiences. The landlord offered to support mediation between the two households – something which the neighbour had suggested – but this was declined by the resident. The evidence provided for this investigation supports the landlord’s explanations of its actions and conclusions.
  10. It is important to note that the landlord did not conclude there was no evidence of noise at all. The recording equipment, and the discussions with the two other neighbours confirmed some level of noise, at least partly of a nature reported by the resident. However, there is no evidence of the landlord receiving evidence which its officers believed was of a level that could be considered statutory nuisance or ASB, or which it could use to support formal enforcement.
  11. In later correspondence the resident explained that he had been informed the neighbour had been alerted to the landlord installing the noise recording equipment, and therefore the exercise had been pointless. No evidence has been seen of the landlord telling the neighbour of the dates the equipment would be installed. In any case, that was one element of the wide range of steps the landlord had taken to investigate the problem, none of which had provided the evidence needed for it to consider formal enforcement action.
  12. The resident complained that he had had to chase and push the landlord to install the noise recording equipment. The equipment did not belong to the landlord specifically, and it had to request its use from the environmental health team. The records are not detailed enough to clearly show who originally suggested using it, but they do show it was raised as an option in the landlord’s fist visit to the resident, and that the landlord requested it soon afterwards. It was then installed by the environmental health team in January 2023. There are no indications in the evidence that the landlord delayed or resisted using or arranging the equipment.
  13. In late 2022 the Ombudsman published a special report on noise complaints. One of its conclusions was that landlords often treated noise reports in the same way as ASB reports. In reality the two were not always the same and sometimes called for different approaches. The report recommended that landlords have both an ASB policy and a ‘Good neighbourhood management’ policy, and assess noise reports early to decide which is more relevant. In this case the landlord treated the resident’s reports in line with its ASB policy, as it did not have any other option.
  14. Nonetheless, many of the actions and approaches recommended in the special report were taken by the landlord in this case anyway. These included prompt intervention, suggesting mediation, information sharing, robustly engaging with the different parties involved, and avoiding the use of typical ASB language in its records. 
  15. In his complaint to the Ombudsman the resident explained he was aware of the relevance of statutory nuisance as a guide to what action the landlord could take. However, he explained that his continued dissatisfaction was largely because of the personal impact on him of the noise, regardless of whether it was of a statutory level or not. He said his state of health was a factor in his experience, and did not feel the landlord had appreciated that. His concern is wholly valid and relevant, and of significance in a case where the problem appears to be less about ASB and more about transference of household noise of a noticeable, but not statutory level.
  16. The resident did not specifically explain his concern in his complaint to the landlord. If he had, it may have been able explore with him how to provide additional support, or adapt its actions and communication to better meet his needs, while also balancing its role and obligations to all of the parties involved. Nonetheless, from the perspective of this investigation, the evidence shows the landlord was aware of the greater impact on the resident than might otherwise be the case, and its actions demonstrated it wanting to resolve the situation as fairly and speedily as it could. The resident’s continued experience of the noise was not due to any apparent lack of action by the landlord.

Determination (decision)

  1. In line with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration by the landlord in respect of the complaint.

Reasons

  1. The landlord responded to the resident’s noise reports, and his complaints, reasonably. It acted in line with its policy, general good practice, and its awareness of the personal circumstances of the parties involved.