Trafford Housing Trust Limited (202106917)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202106917

Trafford Housing Trust Limited

24 June 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

The complaint is regarding the landlord’s handling of the resident’s:
1. Reports of anti-social behaviour (ASB) and noise transference from her neighbour’s property.
2. Concerns over noise transference between properties.
3. Transfer application.

Background and summary of events

Background

The resident is a tenant of the landlord, a Housing Association. The property is described as a 1-bedroom, ground floor “cottage flat” in a low-rise block. The resident has lived at the property since 2018.
The landlord operates a two-stage complaint procedure and states it aims to provide a response to Stage One complaints within 10 working days and to Stage Two complaints within 20 working days.
The property directly above the resident’s, which is the subject of the noise and ASB complaints, is leased from the landlord. It is noted that the leaseholder does not reside at the address and lets the property out privately. However, for clarity, in this report the leaseholder of the flat above will be referred to as “the neighbour” and, where relevant, tenants of the address will be referred to as “the neighbour’s tenants”.

Scope of Investigation

For clarity, it is noted that within the information provided to this Service, some complaint correspondence between the resident and landlord refers to a further complaint she made in early 2020. This was about how the landlord responded to concerns the resident raised over refurbishments carried out in the neighbour’s property. The landlord responded to this in March 2020 and this Service has not seen evidence of a request for the complaint to be escalated. The resident’s subsequent complaint, lodged in September 2020, did not refer to the refurbishment issues and solely addressed reported ASB and noise transference.
While there is some crossover between the issues, particularly regarding laminate flooring that the resident states was installed by the neighbour during the refurbishments, this Service is satisfied that the two complaints are separate and regarding distinct issues. The landlord appears to have already responded to the concerns raised about the refurbishment in its earlier complaint response and the resident had the opportunity to escalate this if she wished to do so. The resident’s more recent complaint, which has been referred to this Service for the purposes of this investigation, related to the issues listed in the complaint definition above and as such, this investigation will not consider how the landlord responded to the resident’s concerns regarding the refurbishment of the neighbour’s property here.

Summary of Events

Landlord records show that, on 22 April 2020, the resident emailed it to raise concerns over noise disturbance from the neighbour’s property, which was located above hers. She stated that, since a recent refurbishment, the flat was “laminated (and) wall to wall wood”. As a result, she stated that her sleep was being disturbed by the neighbour’s tenants who “sound like they’re having a house party every night until the early hours”. She also reported that another neighbour had raised similar concerns to her and claimed to be disturbed by “screaming and shouting” from the neighbour’s tenants.
Records show the landlord responded to the resident two days later and completed an Action and Support Plan over the phone. As part of the agreed actions, the landlord advised it would contact the resident’s neighbour, which records show that it later did. Information available to this investigation shows the resident submitted several further reports to the landlord via email and via diary sheets from May to July 2020. While some of the reports referenced disturbances being caused late at night or in the early hours, many referred to instances of items being “dropped”, the tenants’ footsteps or the “drone of voices”. On 10 June 2020, the landlord contacted the resident to propose closing the ASB case as the reports it had received so far did not indicate ongoing ASB, but rather a “technical issue” relating to noise transference. However, the case remained open.
Records show that, on 28 July 2020, as part of its enquiries into the reported noise transference, the landlord received the results of a sound insulation test it had arranged at the neighbour’s flat and which took place on 10 July 2020. The report outlined that “the separating walls…and floors” between the neighbour’s and resident’s properties were tested for “airborne sound insulation” and both the walls and floors were found to “satisfy the Building Regulations Approved Document E test value requirements (for) purpose-built flats”. The landlord provided the resident with a copy of the report on 13 August 2020.
The resident submitted further reports in August 2020, including one on 21 August 2020 regarding “noise until 4am” from the neighbour’s tenants. The landlord responded the same day and advised it would speak to the neighbour.
On 11 September 2020, the landlord wrote to the resident to advise it had closed the ASB case. It clarified it had done this as the neighbour’s tenants had now moved out and there was therefore no further action that could be taken. It advised it would open a new case if there were any similar issues with new tenants. It also reiterated its position regarding the resident’s request to make the neighbour fit carpets, advising it had no means of compelling him to do so.
On 25 September 2020, the resident emailed the landlord to raise a complaint. The complaint was lengthy but in summary the resident advised she felt the landlord had failed to “support (her) and (her) tenancy”, that she felt “trapped in a poorly insulated and soundproofed” property and was “aggrieved” the landlord had taken no action after her upstairs neighbour had laid laminate flooring in their property. She advised that the noise-related ASB issues had occurred between 23 March and 30 August 2020 and, while she acknowledged the landlord had carried out sound-testing at the property, she further outlined that:
1. She considered the landlord had provided her with “misinformation” with regards to it taking action over the installation of laminate flooring in the flat above and ASB carried out by the neighbour’s tenants.
2. She requested a clear explanation as to how the landlord came to reach the decision to take no further action regarding the ASB and flooring issues.
3. She wanted the landlord to advise what action it would propose to “improve the poor standard of (sound) insulation and soundproofing” in her property and to “provide a solution” to the noise issues, which she stated had impacted her health and wellbeing to the extent that she had had to wear ear plugs at night and had developed an ear infection due to wearing headphones during the day. She further stated she had been forced to risk her health by attending work during the Covid-19 pandemic as the noise issues meant she was unable to work from home.
4. She should not have to consider the “disturbance” of moving to a new property to escape the noise issues which the landlord had failed to resolve.
The landlord issued its Stage One complaint response in November 2020, although the exact date is not included on the copy of the letter seen by this Service. In its response, the landlord noted the resident had, “made reports since (the neighbour’s tenants) moved in…based around noise”. It noted the reports had been regarding “loud arguments and occasional music” and “the transfer of noise from the flat above that you state is heightened because they live in a flat with laminate flooring”. It began by outlining how it investigated noise complaints and ASB reports before outlining the following findings:
1. Regarding reports it received regarding a party allegedly taking place in the neighbour’s property on 2 May 2020, it noted the actions it had taken, which including contacting the Police and speaking with both another neighbour the resident had put forward as a witness and the resident’s neighbour to request that he speak with the tenants. It acknowledged further noise reports from the resident submitted between May and July 2020 but noted it had advised the resident that most of these “would not meet the threshold for anti-social behaviour”. While one further incident recorded on 16 August 2020 would have “been sufficient for a written warning” to be issued, the landlord noted the neighbour’s tenants moved out the following day and, as such, it would not be in a position to continue with the ASB case. It also advised that, while under usual circumstances, it would have agreed to install noise monitoring equipment in the resident’s property, it had been unable to do so as a result of Covid-19 lockdown restrictions. It acknowledged some delays in contacting the resident and witnesses but did not uphold the complaint.
2. Regarding reports of noise disturbance via “footfall” and items being dropped on the floor of the neighbour’s property, the landlord explained it had to establish that noise was “excessive or unreasonable” before it could take enforcement action and, due to its inability to install noise monitoring equipment, and the resident being unable to send in her own recordings, it had not been able to acquire any evidence which would have enabled it to take further action against the neighbour and/or their tenants. It clarified that it had, however, spoken to the neighbour and their tenants who had agreed “to make adjustments to lessen any noise transfer”. It also noted it had commissioned a report which established the properties were “compliant with the necessary regulations in terms of noise transfer”.
3. Regarding the resident’s request that the landlord make the neighbour change the laminate flooring he had fitted, the landlord clarified that, as a leaseholder, it had a different relationship with the neighbour, and it was bound by the terms of the lease. It clarified that, contrary to the resident’s belief, it had not granted permission for the neighbour to install laminate flooring in the property. However, it noted that the neighbour had not needed to ask it about any changes to the flooring, as the lease only required them to seek permission for structural improvements. It advised that, following the resident’s reports, it had asked the neighbour to consider altering the flooring, but they had declined, and it was therefore unable to take any further action.
4. The landlord did not uphold the resident’s complaint but acknowledged it had not acted “as quickly as we would have liked on some occasions” and offered the resident £150 as a goodwill gesture.
Following contact from this Service, the landlord emailed the resident on 29 Match 2021 to advise it was escalating her complaint to Stage Two of its complaints process as she had not yet exhausted its complaint procedure. It noted the resident’s original complaint was in relation to ASB carried out by the neighbour’s tenants, who had since moved out, and its Stage Two response would therefore go on to consider her dissatisfaction regarding its “decision not to provide soundproofing in (her) home”. In response, the resident advised that she was “dissatisfied with my entire housing allocation overall” and was unhappy that the only housing options available to her were to move or to install soundproofing at her own cost, both of which she stated would come “at great financial cost” to her personally. She also clarified that she was not “adverse to moving entirely” but she would only be willing to bid for bungalows so that the soundproofing issue did not reoccur in any future property.
The landlord issued its Stage Two complaint response on 26 April 2021 via email. In its response, it advised it had completed a review of both the original complaint and its Stage One response and acknowledged the resident had advised that her housing situation had had an impact on her mental and physical health. It made the following findings:
1. It had considered the resident’s concerns that it had not acted on the information she provided regarding ASB in its Stage One response and it had acknowledged areas in which it “perhaps got things wrong” and awarded £150 compensation for “any stress and inconvenience caused”.
2. Since the original complaint, the tenants above had moved out and she was “therefore no longer experiencing anti-social behaviour”, although it noted the resident’s fear that noise issues may reoccur in the future due to the poor soundproofing between the two properties. It also noted her request that the leaseholder of the flat above remove the laminate flooring and install carpet.
3. It reiterated its position that it was “unable to request the leaseholder change the flooring” but that its Asset Management Team had carried out a property survey, which established the building met “the necessary regulations in terms of noise transfer” and there we “no structural defects which may affect noise transfer”.
4. It acknowledged a quote obtained by the resident to carry out soundproofing privately was a “considerable amount of money” which may not be affordable, and it had suggested “the option of re-housing”, but that the resident had advised she would only consider a bungalow. It clarified that its property stock was limited, and it may be some time before she was able to move but noted that she had registered for re-housing and was bidding on properties.
5. In relation to the resident’s request to move properties, the landlord advised that its records showed its Independent Living Team had contacted her in March 2021 regarding sheltered housing schemes but acknowledged there may have been some confusion over whether the resident needed to contact the schemes herself. It clarified that the pause in letting properties, which it had done “in line with government advice” during the Covid-19 restrictions, had now been lifted. It advised that, if the resident remained interested in moving, it would arrange for a member of staff to contact her and discuss her “requirements and any support that may be available”.
6. It did not uphold the resident’s complaint and was “satisfied that the appropriate response has been given” at Stage One.
The resident replied to the landlord’s Stage Two response on 7 May 2021, stating that she remained disappointed the landlord “will not help sustain my tenancy”. She restated many of the concerns raised and stated her belief that the noise test organised by the landlord was inadequate to assess the situation of someone with a medical condition “living day to day night to night underneath laminate flooring covering”, which she again stated the landlord had given the neighbour permission for. She was unhappy at not being consulted during the refurbishment of the flat above and that, due to the landlord’s actions, she now faced having to again bid via its housing register if she wished to move to a new property.
On 18 June 2021, the resident contacted this Service as she advised she had received a final complaint response from the landlord but remained dissatisfied. In her email, concerns the resident outlined included:
1. Issues with the refurbishment of the neighbour’s flat, which the landlord addressed in a previous complaint response.
2. The landlord had only offered £150 compensation in respect of its “failings” regarding the laminate flooring installed in the neighbour’s property. She advised the neighbour had let the property to “a couple of 20-year old tenants who had parties every night during lockdown” and the noise from this was exacerbated by the laminate flooring. She stated the landlord had “refused to acknowledge” the problems the laminate flooring caused her and other neighbours, had advised her it had no power to make the neighbour install carpets and that she would have to spend her own money if she wanted soundproofing installed as the landlord would not pay for it.
3. The landlord was now “torturing” her with “issues surrounding moving” to a new property as she had complained. It had not moved her to a new property while the neighbour carried our refurbishment works in the property above and had not helped her to “sustain her tenancy” by installing soundproofing. She advised she had obtained a quote for soundproofing works (that would cost her £5,500) but she was now being “forced out” of her property.
4. She stated she wanted the landlord to “compensate (her) for the great personal distress” she had been caused by having to live underneath laminate flooring. She also wanted the landlord to “provide conditions where I can sustain (her) current tenancy…by sound proofing…my ceiling” to prevent further stress, which the landlord had caused by allocating her the property.

Assessment and findings

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of ASB

In this case, it is not disputed that the resident was experiencing noise transference and records show the landlord acknowledged this. Whilst this Service cannot, based on the evidence available, establish whether this constituted ASB, this Service will consider how the landlord responded to the reports it received and seek to establish whether it acted reasonably appropriately, and whether it treated the resident fairly.
Records show that, on receiving a noise disturbance report from the resident in April 2020, the landlord responded promptly by opening an ASB case, contacting her within two days and completing an interview and Action Plan with her over the phone. From the information seen by this investigation, the landlord continued to communicate regularly with the resident throughout the time the ASB case was open, responding to the further reports she sent in and seeking further information where necessary.
While the effect the noise disturbance was having on the resident is clear, as is her belief that the landlord did appear to care about her situation, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, while it was not able to provide the resolutions she was seeking, the landlord’s communication with the resident (particularly from its Tenancy Enforcement Officer) was empathetic and sought to assure her that it was taking her reports seriously. In terms of its ASB investigation, the steps it took to investigate the resident’s noise reports were reasonable and in line with what the Ombudsman would expect to see in similar cases. These included speaking to another neighbour the resident put forward as a witness, contacting the Police following the resident’s original reports of a party in April 2020, speaking with the resident’s neighbour and entering into communication with the neighbour’s tenants. It is noted that the landlord acknowledged its investigations would usually have involved extra steps such as site visits or installing noise monitoring equipment in the resident’s property, but it had not been able to do these due to the Covid-19 restrictions in place at the time. It was appropriate that it explained these limitations to the resident, partly to manage her expectations.
While records show the resident sometimes had to chase the landlord for updates, its communication with her remained regular and it was open with her about the steps it had taken and where there were limitations regarding further enforcement action. It also acknowledged there had been some delays in providing responses in its Stage One complaint response and offered £150 compensation for this. This was a reasonable measure for the landlord to take and showed it was aiming to “put things right” in accordance with the Housing Ombudsman’s Dispute Resolution Principles.
From the evidence available to this Service, the landlord’s position that the noise disturbances reported by the resident largely did not constitute ASB and was more due to noise transference issues in the building was reasonable. It was reasonable that it discussed closing the case with the resident in June 2020 and advised her of its position but also appropriate that it kept the case open and continued to consider her further reports. However, once the neighbour’s tenants moved out of the property at the end of August/beginning of September 2020, its decision to finally close the case was justifiable. Overall, the way the landlord handled the ASB case was reasonable, and this investigation has not identified any service failure.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s concerns over noise transference from her neighbour’s property

Having determined that the noise reports submitted by the resident were mainly not ASB related, the landlord reasonably advised that it believed the disturbances were being caused by the “technical issues” regarding noise transfer between properties in its block.
From the information available, the impact of the noise disturbance on the resident is very evident and the Ombudsman acknowledged the distress this has caused her. However, from the records and correspondence seen by this investigation, the landlord does appear to have made efforts to investigate what steps it could take to try and ameliorate the situation both for the resident and other neighbours (it is noted that the transference issues appear to have affected both another neighbour and the neighbour’s tenants prior to them vacating the property).
Steps taken by the landlord included assessing the reports submitted by the resident and discussing the situation with other affected parties to gather more information. Records show it was in regular contact with the resident’s neighbour and made several requests for them to make alterations to his flooring, including laying carpet. However, he declined to do so and the landlord advised the resident that, despite her request, it was unable to compel him to do so.
Having considered the resident’s request to install additional soundproofing measures within her flat, the landlord also commissioned a specialist report to assess noise transference within the building between affected flats. The report concluded that the building met regulations regarding noise transference. While the report’s author suggested three separate steps the landlord could consider to reduce noise transference, the landlord’s repairs service indicated that it would not fund the installation of any additional soundproofing, such as a suspended ceiling, as there was no “structural fault” in the property and any works would be considered an ”improvement”. While this was undoubtedly very disappointing for the resident, the landlord was ultimately entitled to make the decision to refuse any further improvements to the property and records show it had acted reasonably by seeking further specialist advice regarding the matter and considering quotes put forward by the resident that she had obtained independently.
While the resident has maintained in correspondence that the landlord gave the neighbour permission to install laminate flooring, this Service has not seen evidence that this is the case, although It is clear that a significant amount of refurbishment work took place, which prompted the resident’s previous complaint referred to in the Scope of Investigation section. It is also not disputed by the resident’s neighbour or the landlord that new flooring was laid.
However, the landlord’s position that it was not able to compel the neighbour to either remove the laminate flooring or make changes such as laying carpet was not unreasonable. This Service has seen the terms of the neighbour’s lease and, while further details will not be shared due to third party data concerns, the landlord was entitled to take the position that the neighbour was not obliged to seek permission to install laminate flooring as it was not a “structural” change to the property.
After determining that it did not have any grounds to force the neighbour to make changes to the flooring, the landlord took reasonable steps by making the request that he laid carpets in the property, or considered other changes to try and improve the reported noise transfer between his property and the resident’s. It was appropriate that it considered the resident’s requests and put these to the neighbour on several occasions but, as he declined to make further changes, it was reasonable that the landlord advised it was unable to take further action.
It was also reasonable that it considered other ways it could investigate the issue, and subsequently commissioned a specialist to check for noise transfer between properties in the resident and neighbour’s block. After the specialist report concluded that noise transfer levels were within an acceptable level and in line with building regulations, the landlord was entitled to reach its position that any further works would be considered an improvement, rather than a repair or dealing with any “structural fault”.
It is noted that both the specialist and the resident’s neighbour suggested to the landlord that it could consider installing additional soundproofing in the resident’s property and went as far as giving various options it could consider. Internal correspondence seen by this Service shows that the landlord considered the options presented, including a further quote obtained by the resident herself, before its repairs service ultimately decided that they would not provide funding for any additional works. While the landlord could have exercised its discretion to carry out some of the suggested improvement works, that it chose not to do so was not a service failure. As a provider of social housing, the landlord has limited resources and needs to manage these responsibly. It is also noted that the landlord was consistent in outlining its position to the resident, both during correspondence with her and its complaint responses.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s transfer application

It is noted that while the resident’s original complaint did not raise concerns about a transfer application, in her request to escalate her complaint to Stage Two, it appears the resident’s main concern was that she feels forced to move by the landlord’s refusal to make sound proofing alterations to her current property. Based on the information seen by this investigation, the landlord appears to have acted reasonably by registering the resident for an internal transfer, and subsequently re-registering her application in June 2021. Although it is noted the resident has advised she does not recall submitting an application form, and this Service has not seen a copy of the original application submitted, records show she has been registered for a 1-bedroom, ground floor property and has been able to bid for properties, although unfortunately she has so far not been successful.
It is noted that, within the documents provided to this investigation, information regarding the transfer application process is limited. This is not ideal and means that this Service is not able to fully establish whether the landlord processed any application it received appropriately. However, while it is noted that the resident has queried when the transfer application was submitted, she has not raised concerns about the size, or type of the property she has been registered for and there has been no obvious detriment caused to her by the landlord re-registering her for a transfer after a 12-month review in June 2021.
While the landlord’s Stage Two response did not address the concerns raised by the resident with regards to moving at length, it did provide reasonable advice regarding registering for mutual exchanges, although it could have provided more information regarding how to go about registering for this scheme. It also offered to have a member of staff contact her regarding her housing options. These were reasonable steps for it to take and, as the resident’s complaint about the transfer application appeared to be more to do with the fact she felt forced to move due to the landlord’s refusal to install additional soundproofing in her current property, it is noted the landlord had already addressed this earlier in the complaint responses. While this Service acknowledges the frustration felt by the resident, and that her preference is to remain at the property rather than moving, in terms of how the landlord has responded to requests to move to a new, more suitable property, it appears to have acted reasonably. From the information available there have not been any identified failings regarding how it has handled any transfer request and the resident is able to continue to apply for new properties via its housing list, if she chooses to do so.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with Paragraph 55 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was no maladministration regarding the landlord’s:
1. Handling of the resident’s reports of ASB.
2. Response to the resident’s concerns over noise transference from her neighbour’s property.
3. Handling of the resident’s transfer application.

Reasons

The landlord opened an ASB case promptly after receiving the resident’s first noise report and thereafter took reasonable steps to investigate the matter, taking actions in line with what the Ombudsman would expect to see as part of a coherent ASB investigation. It communicated regularly with the resident and updated her on the actions it was taking and when it was closing the case. It demonstrated that it gave proper consideration to further reports she submitted and its position that many of the reports did not constitute ASB was reasonable. Its decision to close the case when the neighbour’s tenants moved out was also reasonable.
Having determined that the majority of noise reports submitted by the resident were not down to ASB but rather related to issues of noise transference between the properties in the block, the landlord took reasonable steps to investigate the matter. While it was unable to install noise equipment in the resident’s property at the time, it encouraged her to send in her own recordings, consulted with other residents in the block and commissioned a sound insulation test by a specialist contractor. The results indicated that noise transference levels were within the levels expected in properties of this type and the building met current regulations, and while the landlord could have exercised its discretion to carry out suggested soundproofing works in her property, it was ultimately entitled to decide that it would not do so, having considered the likely cost involved and having determined that the works would be an “improvement” as no structural issues in the building were found.
There is no evidence of any delays or mishandling of the resident’s transfer application. Information available shows that it gave the resident fair advice in its complaint responses and that it registered and re-registered her on its housing list for appropriate properties which she was able to bid for. While it is noted that it did not provide a lengthy response to her concerns in its Stage Two complaint response, this was reasonable as the resident’s main issue was with feeling that she had to move at all, due to the landlord not installing soundproofing at her current property, and it had addressed this matter earlier in its responses.

Recommendations

The landlord should consider contacting the resident to:
1. Further discuss her current housing options.
2. Ensure that her transfer application is up to date and reflects her current requirements:
3. Explore whether there is any further support it can offer her at present to sustain her tenancy should she remain in her current property.