Read our damp and mould report focusing on Awaab's Law

Kirklees Metropolitan Borough Council (202346122)

Back to Top

 

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202346122

Kirklees Metropolitan Borough Council

31 July 2025

 

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 handling of the residents’ reports of noise nuisance from their neighbour.

Background

  1. The residents were assured tenants of the landlord at the property in question from June 2023. The property is a 2 bedroom flat. The residents live with their children and the landlord is aware that one of the residents has additional needs.
  2. From 13 July 2023 the residents began to make regular reports of noise nuisance coming from the flat above. They reported heavy footfalls, loud voices and the use of the washing machine past 11pm and late into the night. They said that as a result of the noise nuisance they were being kept up at night. They also said the neighbour’s dog would bark constantly when she was not home.
  3. The residents raised their complaint on 3 May 2024. They said they had been experiencing ongoing noise nuisance from their neighbour for a year and the landlord had failed to take action to stop them. They said the noise was impacting their physical and mental health.
  4. The landlord issued its stage 1 response on 17 May 2024. It said that it had responded to the residents each time they raised concerns about the noise from their neighbour’s property. However, the noise logs and recordings they had submitted since July 2023 did not identify any instances of statutory noise nuisance. It confirmed that enforcement action, including evicting perpetrators of anti-social behaviour (ASB), could only be taken where a completed investigation provided the evidence to justify such action.
  5. The resident’s escalated their complaint on 28 May 2024. They said that they felt the landlord was not listening to their concerns or taking them seriously. They said that each time they complained to the landlord it would just tell them there was nothing it could do as it could not contact the neighbour for fear of being accused of harassment. They said this attitude made them feel helpless and allowed the neighbour to continue making noise nuisance. They also said that their children had missed 4 days of school due to lack of sleep caused by the noise made by the neighbour at night.
  6. The landlord issued its stage 2 response on 1 July 2024. It said the residents’ noise nuisance complaints were still under investigation. It said the recordings they had provided of the neighbour’s dog barking were not loud enough to be considered as statutory noise nuisance. Although it acknowledged that the recordings may not give a true reflection of the noise the residents were experiencing. It said it was confident that the correct process for the investigation of statutory noise nuisance had been followed but acknowledged that it should have offered mediation sooner.
  7. The residents confirmed that they wanted this Service to investigate the complaint on 12 August 2024. They said they were moved into the property because of their disabilities and health but these had worsened due to the landlord not taking steps to resolve the noise from the neighbour. They also said their children had missed 5 days of school due to being kept awake by the neighbour. They said the landlord did not seem able to deal with the neighbour and so to resolve the complaint they wanted it to move them to another property.
  8. The Ombudsman is aware that since bringing the complaint to us the resident has sourced and moved to a new home themselves.

Assessment and findings

Scope of this investigation

  1. It is not the Ombudsman’s role to decide whether noise reported by a resident amounts to antisocial behaviour or statutory noise nuisance. The Ombudsman’s role in these types of complaints is to consider the evidence available to determine whether the landlord acted reasonably in the circumstances of the case.
  2. It is important to reiterate at the outset that it is not for the Ombudsman to determine if the behaviour evidenced here constituted ASB, as that was a judgement which fell to the landlord to determine. It must also be recognised that responsibility for ASB lies with the perpetrator, not the landlord. The landlord, however, has a responsibility to ensure that it takes appropriate and proportionate action to address and seek to resolve reported nuisance or ASB.
  3. The landlord’s ASB procedure allowed for the prioritisation of reports and provided a number of measures that the landlord could take either in isolation or in conjunction, depending on the severity and urgency of the reports. The Ombudsman must therefore consider whether the landlord followed its own procedures in response to the reported ASB and whether its actions were appropriate and proportionate.
  4. Within their complaint the residents said the landlord’s handling of the reported ASB had a significant effect on their physical and mental health. The Ombudsman is unable to draw conclusions on the causation of, or liability for, any effect on health and wellbeing. Personal injury claims must, ultimately, be decided by the courts, as they can consider medical evidence and make legally binding findings. However, the Ombudsman can consider the general distress and inconvenience the situation may have caused the residents.
  5. The Ombudsman cannot investigate complaints which have not gone through the landlord’s complaints process. We cannot usually consider events after the landlord’s stage 2 response was issued but may reference them for contextual purposes. This includes the noise abatement orders first issued to the neighbour on 17 October 2024 and what steps, if any, the landlord took after the neighbour allegedly breached this order.

Noise nuisance

  1. This service has not seen a distinct noise policy or good neighbourhood management strategy for the period considered by this investigation. However, the landlord’s ASB policy says it will look to protect and support tenants and residents by seeking to resolve cases of ASB urgently by using early intervention to stop situations. It says it will help victims by making it clear how ASB can be reported, by offering a range of interventions and giving timely feedback on the case.
  2. The policy also gives a list of early intervention and prevention tools available to the landlord, for example:
    1. Mediation.
    2. Acceptable behaviour contracts.
    3. Community resolution.
  3. When receiving reports of antisocial behaviour or noise nuisance landlords must carry out an investigation into the reports. This may include speaking to both parties to gather their version of events, speaking to any witnesses, reviewing diary logs or noise recordings and liaising with the police or other agencies where appropriate. After reviewing the evidence gathered, the landlord would then determine the most appropriate action on a case-by-case basis. In practice, the options available to a landlord to resolve a case of noise nuisance or antisocial behaviour can be extremely limited and may not extend to the resident’s preferred outcome. It is therefore important to consider whether the landlord has acted in line with its policies and good industry practice.
  4. Between 13 and 20 July 2023 the residents made 4 reports of excessive noise coming from their neighbours property. They namely referred to the dog barking and the use of the washing machine late at night. In response the landlord wrote to the neighbour regarding the reports of excessive noise on 21 July 2023. It told the neighbour that it had received reports that she was using the washing machine passed 11pm and her dog barks constantly when she was not there. It asked the neighbour to be mindful of the noise levels and confirmed its noise pollution team would be investigating further. The landlord also referred the residents reports to environmental health on 21 July 2023. It updated the residents on 28 July 2023 and provided them with logsheets to report any further instances of excessive noise. It was reasonable and appropriate for the landlord to have acted on the residents’ reports of excessive noise by contacting the neighbour and asking them to be mindful. It also sent this letter within a reasonable timeframe.
  5. The residents made 4 reports of excessive noise between 6 August and 13 September 2023. They said they were being kept awake at night by the noise that was coming from their neighbours property. The landlord’s records show that on 5 September 2023 it referred the residents’ reports to its noise team. It then wrote a second letter to the neighbour regarding the noise reports it had received on 14 September 2023. It said that as it had continued to receive reports of excessive noise since its letter dated July 2023, it was going to carry out a formal investigation and the steps it would be taking to do so. It was reasonable for the landlord to issue a second warning letter to the neighbour following the resident’s ongoing reports. However, the landlord told the neighbour in July 2023 it would investigate the matter. Despite this the Ombudsman has not seen evidence of what, if any, investigation the landlord carried out during that period other than reviewing reports and logsheets from the residents. Without such evidence the Ombudsman can only conclude that the landlord did not start investigating until at least 2 months after it first wrote to the neighbour. This was not in line with its ASB policy which says it will try to resolve ASB complaints as soon as possible using the range of interventions available to it. This was unreasonable and caused an avoidable delay to its investigation into the matter and the possibility of finding a solution.
  6. Despite the second warning letter the residents continued to make reports of excessive noise from the neighbour’s property keeping them up at night. The landlord installed noise detectors in the residents’ property for 2 weeks from 17 to 31 October 2023. The landlord wrote to the resident on 27 December 2023 and confirmed that it had listened to the over 100 recordings made in October 2023. It said that these recordings did not show there was statutory noise nuisance during that period but asked the residents to continue reporting any instances of excessive noise. It was appropriate for the landlord to have installed noise detectors and used these recordings in its investigation into the residents’ reports. The Ombudsman has noted that it took over a month for the landlord to confirm its findings after listening to the recordings. However, the Ombudsman appreciates there were a lot of recordings to go through and this would have taken a long time to review.
  7. The landlord’s records show that it tried to visit the neighbour on 27 November 2023 and spoke to her about the residents’ reports on 29 November 2023. She denied the allegations about the noise and a visit was arranged for 5 December 2023. The landlord visited the neighbour on 5 December 2023 and followed this up with a letter dated 14 December 2023. It reiterated what had been discussed during the visit, asked her to try and control her dog’s barking and recommended that the parties ‘keep out of each others way’. It also confirmed that if it continued to receive reports of excessive noise then it would take further action. It was appropriate for the landlord to have spoken directly to the neighbour regarding the residents’ reports. However, it has been noted that the landlord could have done this much sooner and it was not reasonable for it to take over 4 months after the residents first started reporting the issues.
  8. Despite this intervention the residents continued to report excessive noise from the neighbours property and the landlord spoke to her again on 23 January 2024. She denied using her washing machine late at night and said she would install a camera to see if it was her dog barking all the time.
  9. The residents made a further report about the noise on 8 February 2024 and the landlord again installed noise detectors the next day. It collected these devices on 21 February 2024. The landlord wrote to the residents on 29 February 2024 and said it was currently looking into the new noise recordings but that the previous set of records had not evidenced statutory noise nuisance. It said it would be unable to continue to contact the neighbour about the residents’ reports unless there was evidence to substantiate them. On 3 March 2024 the landlord wrote to both parties and confirmed that the most recent noise recordings did not evidence statutory noise nuisance. Noise recordings are a vital piece of evidence when determining whether or not a resident is causing statutory noise nuisance. Therefore, it was reasonable and appropriate for the landlord to reference these recordings when coming to this determination. As the landlord determined there was insufficient evidence of statutory noise nuisance, it was limited on what actions within its policy, if any, it could take against the neighbour.
  10. Following the landlord’s determination that there was insufficient evidence to show statutory noise nuisance, the residents continued to report instance of excessive noise. On 19 June 2024 it spoke to the residents about counter allegations the neighbour had raised against them. They denied the allegations and the landlord suggested mediation as a way to resolve the issues. In its stage 2 response the landlord said it was confident it had followed the correct process for investigating noise nuisance. However, it acknowledged that it should have offered mediation sooner than it did and said it would share this learning with the relevant team.
  11. The landlord’s ASB policy says it has several tools it can use to try and resolve ASB disputes. It says this includes things such as mediation to try and resolve neighbour disputes at a local level. Therefore, it was appropriate for the landlord to acknowledge its failure to offer mediation sooner than it did as well as to pass this learning on to its staff. However, it has not acknowledged that this was a significant delay and the impact that such a delay had on the residents. The landlord’s ASB policy does not provide a timescale and only says it aims to resolve ASB complaints as soon as possible. Therefore this significant delay was not in line with its policy. Had the landlord attempted mediation at the earliest possible opportunity, it might have resolved matters much sooner and prevented the reports impacts over a period of a year.
  12. Furthermore, the Ombudsman’s Spotlight Report on noise recommends that landlords consider reports of everyday noise under a separate noise policy rather than under an antisocial behaviour policy. The Ombudsman has not seen evidence of the landlord doing so or taking steps to assess whether there were other contributing factors to the level of the noise, such as building defects or poor sound insulation, which it could assist with. The residents reported that the noise of the neighbour walking around, talking, banging doors and the dog barking were loud enough to wake them. Therefore it would have been appropriate for the landlord to investigate whether there were any contributing factors to the noise from the property itself.
  13. The Ombudsman accepts that landlords are not legally responsible for soundproofing homes above the standards applicable at the time of building. However, our Spotlight Report on Noise Complaints recommends that actions taken to prevent and/or mitigate the typical sources of noise nuisance will, in the long run, be more cost-efficient than handling the subsequent noise nuisance report. Landlords should adopt a proactive good neighbourhood management strategy, distinct to the ASB policy, which recognises the impact of living in close proximity to others and has clear options for fostering understanding of differing lifestyles and maintaining good neighbourhood relationships. By doing so, landlords could stop noise complaints escalating into ASB and focus more on prevention.
  14. Overall the landlord’s failures, as set out above, can be summarised as a failing to take all reasonable steps to try and resolve matters between the parties at a local level within a reasonable timescale. Cumulatively these failures amount to a service failure as they led to a significant delay in steps being taken to resolve matters between the parties. This in turn caused the residents unnecessary distress and inconvenience as throughout the period in question they made regular reports of excessive noise. Had the landlord suggested mediation or used another form of secondary intervention earlier, it might have resolved matters sooner.
  15. In view of this, the Ombudsman orders the landlord to apologise for the failings identified in this report and pay the residents £150 compensation. This sum is in line with the Ombudsman’s published remedies guidance for failings where the landlord has made an offer of compensation but it does not quite reflect the detriment to the resident and/or is not quite proportionate to the failings identified by our investigation.
  16. This Service recommends that the landlord create and implement a distinct noise policy or good neighbourhood management strategy if it has not already done so. We also recommend that, if it has not already done so, the landlord review its ASB policy and consider establishing clearer standards regarding the steps it will take, the tools it will use and timescales when trying to resolve ASB complaints.

Determination (decision)

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was a service failure by the landlord in relation to the landlord’s handling of the residents’ reports of noise nuisance from their neighbour.

Orders

  1. Within 4 weeks of the date of this report the landlord must:
    1. Apologise to the resident for its failures. This written apology must be from a member of the landlord’s management team and it may wish to refer to the Ombudsman’s apologies guidance on our website.
    2. Directly pay the resident £150 compensation for its handling of the residents’ reports of noise nuisance.
  2. The landlord is to reply to this Service to provide evidence of compliance with these orders within the timescales set out above.

Recommendations

  1. If it has not already done so, the landlord should create and implement a distinct noise policy or good neighbourhood management strategy as soon as possible.
  2. If it has not already done so, the landlord should review its ASB policy and consider establishing clearer standards regarding the steps it will take, the tools it will use and timescales when trying to resolve ASB complaints.
  3. The landlord should write to this Service within 4 weeks of the date of this determination to set out its intentions regarding the above recommendation.