London Borough of Barnet (202322862)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202322862

London Borough of Barnet

11 April 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 resident’s reports of:
    1. Anti-social behaviour (ASB).
    2. Excessive noise transference from the property above.

Jurisdiction

  1. What the Ombudsman can and cannot consider is called the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction. This is governed by the Scheme. When a complaint is brought to this service, the Ombudsman must consider all the circumstances of the case, as there are sometimes reasons why a complaint will not be investigated.
  2. Paragraph 42(a) of the Scheme notes as follows:

42. The Ombudsman may not investigate complaints which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion:

a) are made prior to having exhausted a member’s complaints procedure, unless there is evidence of a complaint handling failure and the Ombudsman is satisfied that the member has not taken action within a reasonable timescale.

  1. The resident reported to this Service that her relationship with her neighbour (neighbour A) has deteriorated significantly since she escalated her complaint to this Service. She states that neighbour A has been displaying ASB towards her, including bullying, harassment, and reporting the resident to the police for vandalising their car. The resident noted she felt that the landlord had not taken steps to resolve this, and it had left her feeling scared.
  2. It is not evident that the resident has not exhausted the landlord’s internal complaints procedure (ICP) on this element of the complaint. This Service cannot investigate aspects of a complaint which have not exhausted a member landlord’s ICP.
  3. A key part of the Ombudsman’s role is to assess the landlord’s response to a complaint and therefore it is important that the landlord has had an opportunity to consider all the information being investigated by the Ombudsman as part of its complaint response.
  4. After carefully considering all the evidence, in accordance with paragraph 42(a) of the Scheme, the complaint about ASB is outside of the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction.
  5. If the resident makes a formal complaint, progresses it through the landlord’s internal complaints procedure and is dissatisfied with the outcome, she may then be able to refer the complaint to this service.

Background

  1. The resident is the leaseholder of the property. The landlord is the freeholder. The property is a ground floor flat. Neighbour A’s property is directly above the resident’s. The landlord has no vulnerabilities recorded for the resident.
  2. On 3 November 2022, the resident contacted the landlord to report that neighbour A had laminate flooring in their property which was causing excessive noise transference between the 2 properties. The resident repeated her concerns on 21 November 2022. She reported that neighbour A was watching a football match and that she could hear a lot of noise. The landlord advised the resident on 21 November 2022 that it had written to neighbour A to warn them about the noise levels.
  3. The resident reported noise again on 4 January 2023. She stated that the noise transference from the laminate flooring in neighbour A’s property was unbearable. The resident noted that the lease stated that laminate flooring was only permitted on the ground floor and asked the landlord what it intended to do to have it removed.
  4. The resident complained on 11 January 2023. She stated that she had received a letter from the landlord warning her about unauthorised alterations in her property. She stated she had not made any alterations, but the property above had because they had installed laminate flooring, which was against the leaseholder’s alterations guide.
  5. The landlord wrote to neighbour A on 18 January 2023 to warn them about the breach of the lease. It gave neighbour A a deadline of 1 February 2024 to replace the laminate flooring. On 26 January 2023, the landlord granted neighbour A permission to make alterations by installing acoustic underlay and carpet in their property.
  6. The landlord provided its stage 1 response on 27 January 2023. It advised it was working with neighbour A to resolve the matter and outlined that the resident had reported to a member of its staff that she would also like to make alterations, which is why it sent her the letter.
  7. The landlord visited neighbour A on 20 February 2023. It reported that there was laminate flooring in the property, but this had not been installed by neighbour A because it was in situ when they moved in. The resident continued to report instances of noise transference, particularly when neighbour A was watching football matches.
  8. On 21 April 2023, the landlord wrote to neighbour A to outline that, even though they had inherited the laminate flooring, it was their responsibility as leaseholders to remove it so that it complied with the lease agreement.
  9. The resident raised a stage 2 complaint on 7 June 2023. She expressed frustration that the noise transference had not been resolved. The landlord provided its stage 2 response on 4 July 2023. It assured the resident that it was in regular contact with neighbour A to resolve the matter and that it was taking action. It noted that the building type does allow for some noise transference, but it was investigating options to mitigate the noise.
  10. The resident responded on 10 July 2023. She expressed frustration that neighbour A had undertaken works outside of the lease and outlined that neighbour A had also removed the skirting boards that were designed to support noise reduction.
  11. A structural survey of both properties took place in September 2023. No structural issues were identified although it was noted that neighbour A had laminate flooring. Additionally, it was noted that neighbour A’s skirting boards had not been removed. The installation of carpet in neighbour A’s property was completed in February 2024.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

  1. When the resident asked this Service to investigate her complaint, she raised a concern that the noise reported had impacted on her health and mental wellbeing. This aspect of the resident’s complaint ultimately requires a determination of liability for personal injury. Claims of personal injury, including damage to health, can be considered via a landlord’s public liability insurance or in a court of law. Such claims will take into consideration medical evidence and allegations of negligence. These matters fall outside of the Ombudsman’s remit.
  2. The resident may wish to seek independent advice on making a personal injury claim, if she considers that her health has been affected by any action or lack thereof by the landlord.

Excessive noise transference from the property above

  1. The landlord’s ASB policy outlines that day to day living or domestic noises that cause nuisance may not be considered ASB. This includes where the installation of laminate flooring is magnifying noise. The landlord’s neighbourhood management policy states that it will deal sensitively and proportionately with reports of noise nuisance. It states it will take reports of noise nuisance seriously and work with parties to resolve matters.
  2. The resident is dissatisfied by the landlord’s response to her reports of excessive noise transference from the property above. Although it is noted that there are historical reports by the resident about the noise transference to the landlord, this report will focus on the landlord’s handling of the resident’s recent reports from November 2022 and up to the landlord stage 2 response, as this is what was considered during the landlord’s recent complaint responses.
  3. When the resident reported noise transference to the landlord in November 2022, the landlord wrote to neighbour A to warn them about the noise. This was an appropriate response at the time. Following the resident’s January 2023 reports, the landlord wrote to neighbour A on 3 further occasions to advise that the laminate flooring was in breach of the lease and asked that it be removed. It also conducted visits to gain evidence and understand the scope of the issue. This demonstrated that the landlord was taking the matter seriously.
  4. The landlord informed the resident it had written to neighbour and was investigating the matter. It outlined clearly that it could not provide specific details because it could not share neighbour A’s personal information and circumstances with the resident. The evidence suggests that the landlord provided the resident with a reasonable level of information where it could without interfering with neighbour A’s right to privacy, and kept the resident up to date with what steps it was taking.
  5. The resident expressed frustration that the removal of the laminate flooring was taking too long. It is noted that the landlord gave neighbour A a timeframe of approximately a year to resolve the matter. There was likely a significant financial cost to neighbour A to replace the flooring and underlay. Additionally, neighbour A had not installed the laminate and had inherited it when they moved into the property. It is evident from correspondence seen by this Service that neighbour A had not envisaged the need to remove the flooring. The landlord therefore acted reasonably and fairly by providing neighbour A with an extended time frame to change the flooring. The flooring was replaced in February 2024.
  6. The landlord took steps to investigate the cause of the noise transference and what it could do to mitigate it. The landlord offered mediation, but this was declined by both parties. It ensured that it visited the resident during a football match so it could understand the severity of the noise transference. When the resident raised concerns about the structure of the building and the skirting boards in neighbour A’s property, it carried out a structural survey to investigate this. These steps were appropriate in the circumstances because it demonstrated it was taking proactive steps to resolve the matter.
  7. Overall, the landlord’s actions in relation to the noise transference from the flooring was appropriate. The landlord took steps to have the flooring removed but did so in a way that was fair and proportionate to both parties. It kept the resident up to date while respecting neighbour A’s privacy and provided assurances that it was taking the matter seriously. For these reasons, there was no maladministration in this case.

Determination

  1. As noted above, in accordance with paragraph 42(a) of the Scheme, the complaint about ASB is outside of the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was no maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of noise transference from the above property.

Recommendations

  1. The landlord should contact the resident to discuss her concerns about ASB and consider the matter in line with its relevant policies.