Places for People Group Limited (202420468)

Background

1. The resident first reported noise nuisance from his neighbour in June 2023. This was originally regarding a loud static noise that would allegedly start at around 7am on some days. The resident said that these were impacting his health due to his medical conditions. He made further reports about loud music and a dog barking.

What the complaint is about

2. The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of noise nuisance.
3. We have also investigated the landlord’s complaint handling.

Our decision (determination)

4. There was service failure in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of noise nuisance.
5. There was maladministration in the landlord’s complaint handling.

We have made orders for the landlord to put things right.

Summary of reasons

6. We found that:
   1. The landlord failed to pro-actively investigate the resident’s initial reports.
   2. The landlord failed to offer an appropriate explanation of what defined household noise and what was a statutory noise nuisance. It did not explain its limitations in addressing noise complaints.
   3. The landlord did not offer appropriate redress for its delay in acknowledging the resident’s complaint escalation.

Putting things right

Where we find service failure, maladministration or severe maladministration we can make orders for the landlord to put things right. We have the discretion to make recommendations in all other cases within our jurisdiction.

Orders

Landlords must comply with our orders in the manner and timescales we specify. The landlord must provide documentary evidence of compliance with our orders by the due date set.

Our investigation

The complaint procedure

What we found and why

The circumstances of this complaint are well known by the parties involved, so it is not necessary to detail everything that’s happened or comment on all the information we’ve reviewed. We’ve only included the key information that forms the basis of our decision of whether the landlord is responsible for maladministration.

What we did not investigate

7. The resident has described how the alleged noise nuisance affected his health. While we are an alternative to the courts, we are unable to establish legal liability or whether a landlord’s actions, or lack of action, had a detrimental impact on a person’s health. Nor can we calculate or award damages. While we cannot consider the effect on health, we can consider any general distress and inconvenience the resident experienced due to any landlord failings.

What we did investigate

8. The landlord’s Antisocial Behaviour (ASB) policy defines ASB as ‘conduct capable of causing nuisance or annoyance to a person in relation to that person’s occupation of residential premises’. The policy does not classify noise nuisance from animals or low level noise from televisions or radios as ASB. There is an obligation though for the place manager to investigate these types of nuisance.
9. In cases relating to ASB, it is not our role to determine whether the ASB occurred or who was responsible. Rather, we assess how a landlord dealt with the reports it received, and whether it followed its policy and good practice, and behaved reasonably, considering all the circumstances of the case.
10. The resident alleged noise was coming from the neighbour’s property in June 2023. He initially said this was occurring at various times of the day and sounded like a loud static or crackling electrical sound.
11. The landlord responded within 3 working days and stated that, based on the description provided, it would not class this as harassment. It advised the sound described did not seem to be something the neighbour would intentionally be doing. It referred him to the local authority, stating it was their role to investigate and determine if this met statutory noise nuisance classification. Whilst it is acknowledged that statutory noise nuisance decisions fall to the local authority, it would have reasonable for the landlord to establish the facts prior to signposting the resident. The landlord did provide appropriate advice around the subjectivity of noise nuisance and offered to contact the neighbour to establish the cause. However, it is not clear from the records if this action took place.
12. The records are then silent until 22 February 2024, when the resident reported a further incident of noise nuisance from the same neighbour. He stated the neighbour’s dog would start barking around 7am and again around 3pm. He advised that, due to his medical condition, this was affecting his sleep and causing a nuisance. He requested the landlord address the issue in line with his tenancy agreement.
13. The landlord responded by triaging the report and establishing the duration and frequency of the events. It sought information around the dog’s temperament and the owner’s responsibilities. This was an appropriate response to allow the report to be correctly categorised as either ASB or managed by the communities team. oHow
14. However, the landlord again referred the resident to the local authority without completing an initial visit to establish further facts or attempting an informal resolution. The landlord’s policy states that animal noise nuisance would be managed by its place manager. As such, it would have been appropriate for the place manager to investigate in line with its policy.
15. The records provided do not show further reports of noise nuisance up to the landlord’s place manager visit on 5 April 2024 to investigate the allegations. It is unclear if this was following the February 2024 report or if there were additional allegations. The landlord’s stage 2 response suggests there were additional reports in March but evidence of this has not been provided to us. It is vital that landlords keep clear, accurate and easily accessible records to provide an audit trail. If we investigate a complaint, we will ask for the landlord’s records. If there is disputed evidence or no audit trail, we may not be able to conclude that an action took place or that the landlord followed its own policies and procedures.
16. During the visit, the place manager noted how the noise was affecting the resident. They appropriately requested the resident complete diary sheets or collate evidence via a noise app. This is a reasonable first step as the landlord requires evidence in order to assess whether noise is anything more than everyday living noise. This assessment would determine what action, if any, it could take.
17. Cases where there is a history of noise reports over an extended period can be challenging for a landlord to manage. In practice, the options available to a landlord to resolve a case may not extend to the resident’s preferred outcome. It is therefore important to consider whether the landlord has acted in line with its policy to manage the resident’s expectations. It is not clear from the records that the landlord explained its limitations following his refusal to complete diary sheets or work with the noise app. However, the manager arranged to visit the neighbouring property on 23 April 2024.
18. Prior to this visit to the neighbour, the resident reported an additional incident of noise nuisance on 10 April 2024. This concerned the same neighbour playing music in the garden. The resident referenced his tenancy agreement which prohibits the use of any audio equipment of any kind in a way that can be heard outside of the premises.
19. The records show the place manager discussed both issues during the visit to the neighbour. The neighbour was unaware either had caused nuisance, but said they would monitor and address the dog barking situation where possible. The manager advised that playing music would not be an issue as long as the volume and timing were respectful of neighbours. This was an appropriate response to allow people to enjoy their home while being mindful of potential nuisance.
20. However, the message conveyed back to the resident did not mirror the agreement made with the neighbour – in particular, the position on the playing of music in the garden. This meant that the landlord did not manage the resident’s expectations appropriately. This failure caused him additional time and trouble later in the timeline.
21. The resident raised 2 further reports of noise nuisance on 28 April 2024 and 2 May 2024. In its response, the landlord informed him it had now completed an investigation to establish if the reports would constitute a statutory noise nuisance or be deemed unreasonable. It confirmed that, without evidence, it would be limited in what actions it could take. It advised mediation may be the best course of action. Had the landlord offered this advice at the outset, this would have been an appropriate way to manage the resident’s expectations, along with providing appropriate information on what constitutes statutory (and non-statutory) noise nuisance.
22. In his complaint on 8 July 2024, the resident expressed his dissatisfaction as to the handling of his reports. He also alleged the place manager had made comments about him to his neighbour.
23. In its July 2024 stage 1 response, the landlord appropriately advised natural noise is allowed. It reiterated it would not be able to act without evidence of the noise nuisance and referred to correspondence from the resident advising his neighbour was trying to comply with the place manager’s request. It added that the resident had advised there had been no music played outside since the April 2024 visit. It was reasonable for the landlord to rely on the information it noted it had received from the resident to inform its actions and approach.
24. In the resident’s complaint escalation to the landlord, he refuted that he had refused to provide evidence. He stated the refusal was only in reference to being asked to compile evidence to be be passed to the local authority.
25. The landlord’s stage 2 response provided further clarity on its investigation. It confirmed that its records showed the resident had declined to collate diary sheets or work with the noise app. It stated it had offered mediation but he had declined to participate. It confirmed it had agreed an action plan to speak with the neighbour, which it had done.
26. This was an appropriate response and demonstrated it based its findings on available evidence. It also provided an outcome to its investigation into the allegation of comments made by the place manager. It confirmed it had made enquiries with neighbours and was unable to validate any allegations. It was appropriate for the landlord complete a thorough investigation and this shows it took the resident’s reports seriously.
27. Overall, the Ombudsman finds service failure in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of noise nuisance. It completed appropriate actions in triaging the risk, completing an action plan and requesting diary sheets or noise recordings in order to investigate. However, it failed to appropriately manage the resident’s expectations early in the timeline or follow its policy to allocate to a place manager prior to signposting to the local authority.
28. As the initial reports differed in nature, and were also sporadic, it would have been reasonable for the landlord to establish whether there was a possible statutory noise nuisance prior to signposting the resident in order to avoid the potential for an elongated process. By doing so, it also offered the opportunity for an informal early resolution to the matter. As such, the landlord should pay the resident £50 for the time and trouble caused to him in pursuit of a resolution.

29. The landlord’s complaints policy states it will respond to stage 1 complaints within 10 working days. If a customer escalates a complaint to stage 2, it will respond within 20 working days. These timescales align with the Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code.
30. The resident raised a complaint on 8 July 2024. The landlord acknowledged the complaint and provided its stage 1 response 17 working days later, narrowly outside of the timescales in its policy.
31. The resident requested an escalation on 31 July 2024. The landlord wrote to the resident 12 working days later (on 16 August 2024) to request an extension. The landlord’s policy says that an extension period should be no longer than 20 working days. This meant that the stage 2 response should have been issued by 13 September 2024. After having chased the landlord on 22 August 2024 without a response, the resident approached us on 10 September 2024 for support.
32. The landlord reissued a stage 2 acknowledgement on 2 October 2024, again advising of a 20 working day response date. This was 2 months after the resident first requested a complaint escalation. This was an unreasonable period of time to leave a resident without a resolution, or a full explanation of why there was a delay.
33. The landlord issued its stage 2 response on 6 December 2024. This was a delay of around 4 months since the resident’s initial escalation request. The landlord apologised for the delay and offered £25 compensation as a gesture of goodwill.
34. The Ombudsman does not consider that the compensation offered is sufficient given the circumstances of the case. The unreasonable delays in responding to the resident’s escalation request caused avoidable distress and inconvenience over an extended period. He had to chase the landlord for responses and contact us before the landlord offered its final response. This delay prevented him bringing his complaint to the Ombudsman earlier.
35. Overall, the Ombudsman finds maladministration in the landlord’s complaint handling. As such, the landlord should pay the resident an additional £125 for its delays in escalating the resident’s complaint. This is in line with the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance for a failure which adversely affected a resident.

Learning

Complaint handling

36. The landlord must ensure all staff are aware of the timescales within its complaints handling policy. Following the correct process ensures accountability, timely resolution, and compliance with regulatory standards. It also builds trust by showing the landlord takes concerns seriously and responds consistently. Every team member should understand the complaint policy and apply the correct timescales.

Communication

37. Clear and timely communication is critical when managing complaints. The landlord must provide regular updates so the resident does not need to chase for information. Consistent communication builds trust and prevent unnecessary inconvenience. In this case, the landlord acknowledged its communication failure within its complaint handling. However It should ensure that where it identifies failings, appropriate redress is offered in line with the Ombudsman’s Remedies Guidance.