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

South Cheshire Housing Society Limited (201909783)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 201909783

South Cheshire Housing Society Limited

12 May 2021


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 response to the resident’s reports of anti-social behaviour (ASB) noise nuisance.

Background and summary of events

Background

  1. The resident has been a leaseholder of the property of the landlord since 17 May 1988. The landlord is a registered provider of social housing.
  2. The property is a ground floor flat with other flats located above and to the sides.
  3. The landlord operates a two stage complaints policy.
  4. The landlord operates an ASB policy. The policy notes that the landlord will work with external agencies such as the police and local authority when necessary. The policy also notes that ASB cases may be closed where there is no evidence to support the report and where no further action is possible.

Summary of events

  1. On or around 30 October 2019, the resident reported a number of complaints to the landlord, which included reports of ASB by a visitor to her neighbour. It is evident that the landlord subsequently arranged for a face-to-face meeting along with the police on 2 December 2019, and on 5 December 2019 the landlord wrote to the resident and noted that the reports of ASB were now subject to a police investigation. It also referred to noise from the resident’s neighbour and noted it had been “agreed that as there has been no recurrence for a number of years, no action will be taken.”
  2. It is evident that on or before 21 May 2020, the resident began to report further instances of noise from her neighbour and also provided the landlord with a recording. The landlord replied on the same date and advised it could not hear any noise in the recording and requested more detail.
  3. Following the resident’s initial reports, she has provided frequent further reports to the landlord and this service reiterating her initial complaint that she can detect vibrations and buzzing noises from her neighbour’s property. The landlord has advised this service that she has also provided it with 100 recordings, from which the landlord has been unable to detect any noise. The landlord has provided this service with multiple correspondences to the resident advising that it is unable to detect any noise in the recordings.
  4. On 28 May 2020, the resident advised this service that she suspected the noise was being caused by a washing machine or fan, and that she was concerned the excessive noise was exacerbating her husband’s health conditions. She also advised that the landlord had offered to attend her property to witness the noise, but that she had declined as it had attended previously but claimed not to be able to hear anything.
  5. On 29 May 2020, the landlord advised the resident that it had nevertheless attended the building on 27 May 2020 and that it was unable to detect any noise. It further advised it had made enquiries with her neighbour and confirmed they did not have any motorised fan. The landlord further queried if the noises had become louder. On 3 June 2020, the landlord reiterated that the resident’s neighbour did not have any device that could be responsible for the humming the resident reported.
  6. On 15 June 2020, the resident reported that a wasp’s nest may be contributing to the noise she was hearing. On 16 June 2020, the landlord agreed to remove the wasp’s nest. It also advised it had received a report from the resident’s neighbour that she had texted them at 3:28am. It subsequently reminded her that she had previously agreed to cease texting her neighbours.
  7. Following ongoing reports from the resident regarding noise, it is evident that the landlord arranged for the local authority’s environmental health team to assess the property. On 3 July 2020, the landlord advised that following the environmental health team’s assessment, it had agreed to reseal the windows at the property to prevent any external noise entering the property. It is not disputed that the windows were subsequently sealed. On 6 July 2020, the landlord also requested that the resident no longer send written letters to her neighbour.
  8. Following correspondence from this service, on 7 July 2020 the landlord agreed to open a formal ASB noise complaint, and subsequently sent correspondence to the resident’s neighbour regarding excessive noise. This service has not been provided with a copy of this correspondence. It also requested that the resident keep a noise diary, however, it is not evident that this was undertaken by the resident. The landlord further advised that it could arrange for the environmental health team to install noise monitoring equipment if the issue persisted.
  9. Following ongoing reports from the resident, the landlord confirmed on 14 July 2020 that it had requested for the environmental health team to install noise monitoring equipment. It is not disputed that the noise monitoring equipment was subsequently installed on 13 August 2020. The landlord has also advised this service that on the same date, following the resident’s continued letters to her neighbours, it reported the issue to the police.
  10. On 24 August 2020, the landlord advised that the results of the noise monitoring equipment would take three weeks to assess. It also advised the resident that her neighbour was open to mediation and it further noted that the resident was attending an ear specialist to determine if there was a medical cause for the noise issues she was experiencing.
  11. It is evident that, around this time, the resident was referred to the local authority’s safeguarding team. On 27 August 2020, the resident advised the safeguarding team that she would not be attending mediation as she had initially understood the mediation to have been conducted by an independent third party, but now understood it to be taking place at the police station. This service has not been provided with evidence relating to the offer of mediation or the location.
  12. On 9 September 2020, the environmental health team reported to the landlord that it had informed the resident that based on the recordings from the noise monitoring equipment it “cannot establish a noise nuisance” and that the predominant noise heard was road traffic. As such, it advised it had closed the complaint.
  13. Following continued reports from the resident that she suspected fans in neighbour’s property to be causing the vibration noise, on 11 September 2020, the landlord provided her with its electrician’s report that the ceiling fans at the property had been disconnected. The landlord further advised that it had again inspected the property and they remain disconnected. It also reiterated its request that the resident cease sending letters to her neighbour.
  14. On 9 October 2020, the landlord provided its stage one response. It set out the steps it had made in its investigation, which included inspecting the neighbouring flats to the resident for any devices that could be the source of the noise she had reported. It advised that it had not discovered any such devices, and that it had not observed any noise during its visits, however, it noted the resident had declined its offer to attend her property in the evening. It reiterated it was unable to detect any noise on the recordings submitted by the resident, and that the environmental health team’s investigation had also not detected any nuisance noise. On this basis, it advised “there are no further actions that I can reasonably be expected to undertake, and the matter is now regarded as closed.” It further advised that “if you are able to provide concrete evidence to the contrary, which is not simply a repeat of the above, the matter will be investigated.”
  15. On 3 November 2020, the resident reported that she continued to hear vibrations. On 4 November 2020, the landlord replied and queried if these were the same ones as before. The resident advised she could feel vibrations in all rooms of her flat, and that she could still hear the neighbour’s ceiling fans. The landlord subsequently confirmed that it had made further inquiries with her neighbour, but that the ceiling fans remain disconnected.
  16. Following the resident’s neighbour’s reports to the police regarding the behaviour of the resident, the police advised the landlord that on 23 December 2020, the resident had been cautioned not to contact her neighbour. On 2 February 2021, the police advised the landlord that the resident had breached the conditions of her caution and that as a result the local authority’s safeguarding team were arranging a multi-party meeting to help the resident. The landlord has advised this service that the meeting subsequently took place on 15 February 2021.

Assessment and findings

  1. ASB case management is a crucial aspect of a landlord’s service delivery. Effective use of a robust ASB procedure enables the landlord to identify appropriate steps to resolve potential areas of conflict, improve landlord/tenant relationships, and improve the experience of tenants residing in their homes. Retaining accurate records also provides transparency to the decision-making process and an audit trail after the event.
  2. Cases where there is a history of ASB reports over an extended period, such as this, are often the most challenging for a landlord to manage. In practice, the options available to a landlord to resolve a case do not extend to the resident’s preferred outcome and it therefore becomes difficult to manage a resident’s expectations. In such instances, closely following the ASB procedure ensures that the landlord can progress the case to a resolution, even if that resolution is not the outcome requested by the resident.
  3. It is evident from the landlord’s communication dated 5 December 2019 that the resident had previously reported noise issues, but that in the absence of further reports, the landlord considered the matter closed. Following the resident’s subsequent reports of further noise, as well as the recordings she provided, it was appropriate that the landlord continued to investigate the issue and that it responded to her recordings with its findings, and a request for more detail. It was also appropriate that despite the volume of recordings provided by the resident over the course of her complaint, the landlord continued to respond to her with its findings.
  4. Following the further detail provided by the resident, i.e. that she suspected the cause of the sound to be from domestic appliances in her neighbour’s property, the landlord appropriately investigated and again advised the resident of its findings. It was also appropriate that it took immediate action regarding the wasp’s nest reported by the resident.
  5. As per the landlord’s ASB policy, the landlord appropriately involved the local authority’s environmental health team to assist with its investigation, and it appropriately actioned the environmental health team’s recommendation that improvements to the property be carried out, i.e. that the windows be sealed.
  6. Given that the resident’s reports were ongoing, it was appropriate that the landlord opened a formal ASB noise complaint, and as such sent formal correspondence to the neighbours regarding excessive noise. The Ombudsman also considers it best practice for landlords to request residents keep a noise diary during such complaints, and so it was appropriate that the landlord did so. It was also appropriate that the landlord advised the resident at this point of what further steps it could take if the noise persisted, i.e. install noise monitoring equipment. Similarly, given that the resident’s reports continued, it was appropriate that the landlord arranged for the noise monitoring equipment to be installed, and that it kept the resident informed of the timeframe to produce results.
  7. While not the subject of the complaint, it is evident that the resident has had ongoing issues with her neighbours, and so it was appropriate for the landlord to attempt to manage the situation by warning the resident not to contact her neighbour during its investigation. It was also appropriate for it to attempt to arrange mediation to resolve any ongoing issues between the parties.
  8. Given the ongoing distress caused to the resident due to the noise she was experiencing, it was appropriate that the landlord made a referral to the local authority’s safeguarding team to provide further assistance, which was again in line with its ASB policy.
  9. It was also appropriate that the landlord provided the resident with its electrician’s report regarding the disconnection of the ceiling fans at her neighbour’s property in an attempt to reassure her they could not be the cause of the noise she was experiencing. Additionally, following the report of the environmental health team, it was appropriate that the landlord provided its formal response detailing all the actions it had taken and the outcomes of the investigations. Given that no evidence could be found for the noise, and that the resident had declined the landlord’s offer to attend her property in the evening, it was both reasonable and in line with its ASB policy that the landlord advised it could take no further action and was closing its complaint. It was appropriate, however, that it advised the resident it would reopen its investigation if she had any additional evidence, further to what she had previously provided. While the landlord operates a two stage complaints policy, given that the landlord had made its position clear on multiple occasions, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, it was reasonable for it to limit its internal complaints procedure to a single formal response in this case.
  10. Given that the resident continued to report issues with vibration noise, it was appropriate that the landlord reinvestigated and confirmed the resident’s neighbour’s ceiling fans were disconnected. Given its concerns that the resident’s welfare was an ongoing issue, as well as its concerns regarding the resident’s behaviour towards her neighbours, it was commendable that the landlord continued to work with external agencies to provide the resident with the appropriate assistance following the completion of its internal complaints procedure.

Determination (decision)

  1. In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was no maladministration by the landlord in respect of the complaints regarding its response to the resident’s reports of ASB noise nuisance.

Reasons

  1. The landlord carried out an appropriate investigation into the resident’s reports of ASB noise, in line with what the Ombudsman would expect, and with its ASB policy.
  2. The landlord appropriately offered to attend the resident’s property to witness the noise and it appropriately inspected the neighbour’s property for any cause of the noise. It further appropriately reported its findings to the resident and arranged for the local authority’s environmental health team to inspect the property, following which it enacted the improvement works it recommended.
  3. The landlord also appropriately responded to the resident’s submissions of recordings and arranged for noise monitoring equipment to be installed. Given the lack of evidence, it was reasonable that the landlord closed the case, and explained its reasoning for doing so.
  4. Additionally, the landlord appropriately took steps to manage the relationship of the parties, including requesting the resident cease from contacting her neighbour, and arranging for mediation. It also took appropriate steps to include the relevant safeguarding teams following its concern for the resident’s welfare.