The Guinness Partnership Limited (202014535)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202014535

The Guinness Partnership Limited

27 October 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

The complaint refers to:
1. The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of noise nuisance from his neighbour’s property.

Background and summary of events

The resident was a tenant of the landlord at the time the complaint was raised. A stock transfer took place on 8 March 2021 in which the resident’s tenancy was transferred to a different housing association. For clarity, this report will refer to the landlord at the time of the complaint as ‘the landlord’. The property is a flat. The resident’s neighbour lives in the flat above his.
The landlord’s records show that the resident initially reported noise from his upstairs neighbour’s property on 4 March 2020. He advised that his neighbour had placed laminate flooring in December 2019 and he was being awoken from the noise transference into his property. He did not believe that the neighbour had installed adequate underlay and did not think that they had gained permission from the landlord in line with the tenancy agreement.
The resident contacted the landlord again on 9 March 2020 as he had not received a response and added that living below his neighbour was causing a great deal of stress and inconvenience due to the noise. On 13 March 2020, the landlord said that it would speak to the resident’s neighbour regarding the noise.
The landlord’s records show that it attempted to call the resident on several occasions following this and left messages. The resident also called back on several occasions but the relevant member of staff was not available.
The landlord’s records show that it wrote to the resident’s neighbour on 29 April 2020 regarding the flooring and asked them to make contact to discuss the matter further. The landlord called the resident on 5 May 2020 to explain the steps it had taken to resolve the issue and advised that it would keep the resident informed. The resident explained that he had been away from the property for a few weeks but was back now and the noise was ongoing.
On 15 May 2020, the landlord contacted the resident’s neighbour who admitted that they had wooden flooring which had been in place for two years. They said that they had taken the flooring up and put soundproofing down. They also advised that they had rugs in the property.
On 18 May 2020, the resident reported that the issues with his neighbour were escalating and his neighbour had threatened him. He said that he was keeping a note of all the incidents. The landlord spoke to the resident again on 22 May 2020. He said that another incident had occurred and his car tyres had been slashed. He said that he had contacted the police and had a crime reference number. The resident said that he told the police that he did not want to take any further action.
The resident emailed the landlord on 25 May 2020 and provided an outline of the issues he was experiencing. He advised that he had initially spoken to his neighbour about the increased noise levels in January 2020 and the neighbour said that they would install underlay. He had received confirmation that this work had been completed but noted that there was no difference in the noise transference. It was then agreed that the neighbour would place carpeting but this was not done. He said that communication had deteriorated in March 2020 and he believed that his neighbour had no intention of rectifying the matter. The resident claimed that the noise issues were affecting all areas of his life and did not believe that his neighbour had gained permission to install laminate. He detailed several incidents where his neighbour had threatened violence and asked the landlord to resolve the noise issues.
The landlord spoke to the resident on 29 May 2020, explained that it would visit the property when it was able to and advised the resident to keep notes and contact the police if any further threats were made. The landlord spoke to the neighbour on the same day and asked for there to be no contact between the neighbours that would aggravate the situation. The resident continued to report that he was struggling with the noise and the landlord confirmed on 5 June 2020 that it would visit the property as soon as it was able to.
The landlord’s records suggest that a visit took place to the resident’s property on 18 June 2020. The landlord did not hear any noise that would constitute a noise nuisance at this stage. A further visit took place on 24 June 2020 at which point the landlord confirmed that it would visit the neighbour to discuss the resident’s concerns. The resident continued to submit diary sheets to the landlord during this period.
The landlord visited the neighbour on 9 July 2020 and followed this up with an email to the resident. It explained that it had asked the neighbour to place rugs throughout the property as a short-term solution. It confirmed that the long-term solution would be to put carpeting down if this did not resolve matters. A letter was sent to the neighbour on 10 July 2020 asking that rugs were placed to prevent the noise transference between properties. Following this, the resident continued to submit diary sheets and advised that the noise had not improved.
The landlord wrote to the neighbour again on 14 August 2020 and advised that the placement of rugs had not reduced the noise level. It asked the neighbour to remove the wooden flooring and put carpets down. It confirmed that in line with the tenancy agreement, wooden flooring was not permitted in flats due to the noise implications. It asked for the change to be made within 28 days. The landlord contacted the resident on the same day to advise of its actions. It apologised for the length of time the matter had taken to resolve due to the impact of Covid-19.
The landlord contacted the resident on 17 September 2020. It acknowledged that carpet had not yet been placed and the noise was unlikely to have improved. It said it would arrange to visit the neighbour and discuss the next steps. A visit took place on 1 October 2020, the landlord’s records show that Environmental Health was also in attendance and had installed noise monitoring equipment in the resident’s property. The landlord advised that it would speak to the neighbour again.
The resident raised a formal complaint with the landlord on 8 October 2020 about the noise from his neighbour’s property caused by their laminate flooring. He said that the issue had been ongoing since December 2019 and whilst the landlord had asked the neighbour to change the laminate this had not been done. He was dissatisfied with the lack of action and wanted the neighbour to remove the laminate and install carpets instead.
The landlord contacted the resident on 20 October 2020 and advised that the neighbour had agreed to place carpets in the lounge and hallway with rugs in the bedroom. The resident did not believe that this would be sufficient as it had not in the past. The landlord sent a further letter to the neighbour on the same date and asked for these actions to take place by 6 November 2020 otherwise it may begin tenancy enforcement action.
Environmental Health contacted the landlord on 3 November 2020 and confirmed that the noise monitoring equipment was still installed at the resident’s property. It noted that due to the lockdown restrictions in place as a result of Covid-19, it did not know when it would be able to collect the equipment to listen to the recordings.
Following contact from the resident, his local MP contacted the landlord on 6 November 2020 and asked for an update on the landlord’s progress regarding the resident’s concerns. They noted the impact the noise was having on the resident’s wellbeing and health.
The landlord spoke to the resident’s neighbour on 9 November 2021 and they explained that underlay and carpets were being fitted in the lounge and hallway. It was agreed that a rug would be placed in the bedroom to cover the majority of the flooring. They were asked to send a photo of the carpeting once this was completed.
The landlord’s records show that its stage one complaint response was delivered verbally to the resident on 9 November 2020. The landlord also responded to the MP’s enquiry on 19 November 2020, detailing the actions that had been taken.
At the resident’s request, the landlord issued its stage one complaint response in writing to the resident on 25 November 2020 and explained the following:
1. The landlord acknowledged that the neighbour had changed the flooring in their property in December 2019, however, it had not received any contact from the resident until March 2020 when he raised concerns about the noise.
2. It detailed the actions it had taken, including writing to the neighbour and discussing the issues with them in person. It explained that it was limited in the action it could take between March 2020 and June 2020 due to the lockdown restrictions in place as a result of Covid-19. During this time, it was not able to visit the property and could not take tenancy enforcement action as it would not be considered appropriate. It noted that the resident had then approached Environmental Health for further support and noise monitoring equipment was installed to gather further evidence.
3. It was satisfied that it had been reasonable with all parties and believed that taking enforcement action against the neighbour would not be reasonable as the court would be unlikely to agree to an eviction in this case. It acknowledged that some of the early contact with the resident’s neighbour could have been done sooner, but it was satisfied that it had handled the matter professionally. It added that antisocial behaviour cases related to noise were usually timely and required the involvement of external agencies to find a resolution.
4. It explained that at this stage, there was no further action it could take and said that it was waiting for the outcome of the noise monitoring equipment evidence to determine the next steps. It confirmed that the resident could escalate the complaint to stage two of its complaints procedure if he remained dissatisfied with its response.
The landlord emailed the resident on 27 November 2020 following multiple emails back and forth regarding the ongoing noise issues. It confirmed that Environmental health were currently reviewing the noise recordings and it had seen photographic evidence that the neighbour had installed carpet as agreed. It said that if the noise recordings confirmed that there was excessive noise into his property then it would look to take further action. It was not reasonable for it to do so at this stage without additional evidence being supplied.
On 18 December 2020, the landlord emailed the resident and acknowledged that he felt that the noise continued to have an impact on his health. It offered to refer the resident to its support team who could see if there were additional support services the resident could contact in his area. The landlord also offered its mediation service. It acknowledged that the resident had not previously wanted to explore this option but confirmed that the offer remained open if the resident changed his mind. The resident continued to submit diary sheets to the landlord until January 2021 where he advised that he would be seeking legal advice on this matter.
The landlord’s records show that the resident asked for his complaint to be escalated on 23 February 2021, the details of which have not been supplied to this Service for review.
The landlord issued its stage two complaint response to the resident on 11 March 2021. It identified that there had been some delays in its investigation for which it apologised. However, it did not feel that the delays impacted the overall outcome of the investigation. It confirmed that it had been in regular communication with the resident’s neighbour and worked with Environmental Health to achieve a reasonable outcome. It confirmed that Environmental Health’s noise monitoring equipment did not detect noise levels that would be consistent with a statutory noise nuisance. As such, it was not realistic for it to take tenancy enforcement action against the neighbour as the noise was generated as a result of lifestyle and considered to be within reasonable levels. It had also offered mediation between the resident and his neighbour but noted that the resident had refused this. It confirmed that whilst it had not been able to visit the property due to lockdown restrictions, it had now received photographic evidence showing that the neighbour had installed rugs and carpets to help reduce the noise transference. It was satisfied that it had found a reasonable outcome and did not uphold the resident’s complaint.
The resident referred his complaint to this Service and explained that he remained dissatisfied as he was still experiencing noise disturbance from the property above. He added that despite the landlord saying that the neighbour had placed carpet, he did not believe this to be the case. He did not feel that the landlord had properly investigated his complaint.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

The resident has said he considers that the noise issues have impacted his health and has provided supporting medical evidence. The Ombudsman does not doubt the resident’s comments. However, it is beyond the expertise of this Service to decide on whether there was a direct link between the noise experienced and the resident’s health. The resident therefore may wish to seek independent advice on making a personal injury claim if he considers that his health has been affected by any action or lack thereof by the landlord. Whilst we cannot consider the effect on health, consideration has been given to any general distress and inconvenience which the resident experienced because of any errors by the landlord. We have also considered the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports that the noise was affecting his health and whether this response was reasonable in view of all the circumstances.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of noise nuisance from his neighbours property.

It is outside the Ombudsman’s remit to determine whether residents were subjected to ASB or noise nuisance. Instead, the Ombudsman’s role is to consider the appropriateness and adequacy of the actions taken by the landlord to investigate and respond to the resident’s reports of noise and ASB from a neighbouring property. The Ombudsman considers whether the landlord has acted reasonably, proportionately and in line with its policies and procedures.
In this case, the resident initially raised concern about the noise experienced from his neighbour’s property in March 2020. In line with its antisocial behaviour policy, the landlord has an obligation to investigate reports of noise nuisance and respond appropriately. As such, the landlord would have been expected to investigate and take reasonable steps to resolve the noise issues.
A landlord should generally only consider taking formal action if informal attempts have not successfully resolved the issues. For a landlord to take formal action regarding noise, such as written warnings, injunctions etc, the landlord would require extensive evidence of the alleged noise. 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 the landlord and the local authority’s Environmental Health service may be able to warn and take formal action against the perpetrator.
Between March 2020 and June 2020, there were limited steps the landlord could take to investigate the resident’s concerns as it was not able to visit the property due to the lockdown restrictions in place as a result of Covid-19, which was outside of its control. However, it took reasonable steps to communicate with both the resident and his neighbour during this period and sent letters to the neighbour in April and May 2020 warning them of noise nuisance.
Following a visit to the property June 2020, the landlord was able to check the flooring in the neighbouring property and take additional steps to resolve the matter. It was not disputed that laminate flooring was not allowed without permission in line with the tenancy agreement, however, this breach of tenancy would not mean that the landlord was obliged to take tenancy enforcement action against the neighbour. Furthermore, the landlord would not have been expected to remove and replace the flooring in the neighbouring property itself.
The landlord took reasonable steps to work with the neighbour and the resident by initially requesting that the neighbour placed rugs in their lounge, hallway and bedroom to prevent noise transference. Once it became apparent that this had not resolved the issue, the landlord acted appropriately by asking the neighbour to change the laminate to carpet. This was not completed following its initial letter on 14 August 2020 and the landlord took appropriate steps to enforce this by writing to the neighbour again and warning them that tenancy enforcement action may be taken if they did not complete the agreed actions by 6 November 2020.
It is noted that the landlord was not able to visit the neighbouring property in person to check whether the flooring had been changed due to Covid-19. However, it had received photographic evidence that the neighbour had complied with its request. As the resident continued to report that the noise was ongoing following this action, it was reasonable for the landlord to await the findings of Environmental Health before taking any further action. There was some delay as the landlord had to wait for Environmental Health to provide its findings, but this was outside of the landlord’s control.
Ultimately, the landlord had been provided with photographic evidence of the carpet in place at the neighbouring property which confirmed that the neighbour had complied with its requests. It is clear that the resident had concerns about the type and quality of the carpet installed by the neighbour, however, Environmental Health found that the noise the resident experienced would not be considered a statutory noise nuisance and it was therefore reasonable that the landlord did not take any further action against the neighbour.
In view of the resident’s claim that the situation was affecting his health and the relationship between he and his neighbour had broken down. It was reasonable for the landlord to offer both its support services and mediation. It is noted that the resident refused the offer of mediation, which he was entitled to do. However, it was reasonable for the landlord to offer this as mediation can be useful in resolving neighbour disputes.
In summary, the landlord took proportionate and reasonable actions in response to the resident’s reports of noise nuisance from his neighbour’s laminate flooring. It was reasonable that the landlord did not take any further action against the neighbour as the noise the resident was experiencing was not found to be a statutory noise nuisance. If the resident still has concerns about the quality of the carpeting used by his neighbour and is still experiencing issues with noise transference, he may wish to raise this with his new landlord for further investigation now that lockdown restrictions have eased.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there has been no maladministration by the landlord regarding its handling of the resident’s reports of noise nuisance from his neighbour.

Reasons

The landlord took reasonable and proportionate steps to investigate the resident’s reports of noise nuisance and work with the neighbour to resolve the matter. There was some delay in its initial investigation due to the impact of Covid-19, but this was outside of the landlord’s control. The landlord was entitled to rely on the findings from Environmental Health, which did not consider the noise experienced by the resident to be considered a statutory noise nuisance. It was therefore reasonable that the landlord took no further action against the resident’s neighbour.