Notting Hill Genesis (202102134)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202102134

Notting Hill Genesis

6 July 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

  1. The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of noise nuisance.

Background

  1. The resident is an assured tenant of the landlord.
  2. The resident initially made a report of noise disturbance from the flat above on 18 August 2020. He said that he could hear coughing, groaning, walking, opening cupboards and doors and microwave sounds at unsociable hours. Following this the resident raised the matter with his MP, who in turn wrote to the landlord on his behalf. The resident, landlord and MP were in communication about the matter and the steps being taken between October 2020 and February 2021.
  3. The resident contacted this Service in June 2021 and was advised to raise a complaint with the landlord. Following contact with the local authority’s noise team who advised it could not offer support, the resident escalated his complaint with the landlord on 15 November 2021. He said that the noise level from his neighbour’s flat was impacting his sleep and health issues. He said the carpet had not reduced the noise level and he did not think mediation would aid the situation. He requested that the landlord fit sound insulation.
  4. In the landlord’s final response, it said that it had contacted its surveyor who had confirmed that it was unable to carry out any works to reduce the noise transference. It said that it would assess the thickness of the carpet underlay in the neighbour’s property, and increase the thickness if required. It recommended that the resident engage in mediation.
  5. In the resident’s complaint to this Service, he said that he remained dissatisfied as he had been unable to sleep at the property for almost a year and it was impacting his mental and physical health. He wanted the landlord to soundproof the neighbour’s property. 

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

  1. The resident has referenced how the landlord’s failure to resolve the noise issues has impacted his health. The Ombudsman is unable to draw conclusions on the causation of, or liability for, impacts on health and wellbeing. This would be more usually dealt with as a personal injury claim through the courts or insurers, as these bodies can call on medical experts and make binding judgements. This is in accordance with paragraph 39(i) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme which says the Ombudsman will not investigate complaints which concern matters where the Ombudsman considers it quicker, fairer, more reasonable or more effective to seek a remedy through the courts, a designated person, other tribunal or procedure. Nonetheless, consideration has been given to the general distress and inconvenience which the situation may have caused the resident.

Noise nuisance

  1. Whilst it is evident that the situation has been distressing for the resident, it is important to note that it is outside the Ombudsman’s role to determine whether anti-social behaviour (ASB), in this case noise nuisance, has been occurring. Instead, this report will assess whether the landlord appropriately responded to the resident’s reports of noise nuisance, in line with its legal and policy obligations, and whether its response was fair in the circumstances of the case.
  2. The landlord’s ASB policy states that it does not consider domestic noise as ASB and although it can offer assistance, it will explain to the resident that the actions it can take will be limited. The noise reported by the resident included closing cupboards and coughing, which is considered typical household noise and as such, the landlord was not obliged to consider his reports in accordance with its ASB policy.
  3. The resident initially reported the noise nuisance on 18 August 2020 and then sent a further email regarding the issue on 14 October 2020, as he had not received a response. It Is clear there was some delay in the landlord responding to the resident, but given the pandemic and impact on all services, the Ombudsman does not consider that this delay was wholly unacceptable. The landlord has stated in an internal email that it discussed the reports with the resident on 23 November 2020, while the Ombudsman does not have a record of the content of the call, it is clear the landlord was in communication with the resident’s MP on the matter, later confirming that carpets in the property above had been fitted and it would not offer soundproofing. It also suggested that the resident consider rehousing, given that it was limited in the actions it could take, this was a reasonable suggestion. It is noted that the resident was offended by this suggestion, for which the landlord apologised.
  4. Following further correspondence from the resident’s MP, the landlord reconfirmed on 12 February 2021 that the noise reported was typical domestic noise and it would not install soundproofing. The information provided to the resident’s MP on all occasions was reasonable and appropriately managed the resident’s expectations, however it is clear the impact on the resident was to an extent which meant he continued to expend additional time and effort in reiterating that the neighbour’s property should be soundproofed.
  5. The landlord reasonably discussed the issues with the resident’s neighbour and again confirmed that the noise was general living noise. Given that the landlord offered mediation on several occasions and also discussed a property transfer with the resident, which he declined the offer, it actions were reasonable in the circumstances. In considering the impact on the resident, it appropriately signposted him to the local authority’s noise team, and provided him with diary sheets. As there was no evidence of ASB, the landlord would be unable to take tenancy action against the resident’s neighbour, as it would not be proportionate to the reports made, but it was reasonable that it took the action as noted above, to properly confirm this was the case.
  6. The resident made several requests for the landlord to install soundproofing, to reduce the impact of the noise. It was appropriate that the landlord installed carpet in the flat above and request that its surveyor assess the carpet underlay, which was confirmed as satisfactory. It is important to note that adding additional soundproofing is beyond the landlord’s obligations (unless there is a repair issue), as it would be considered as an improvement.
  7. Following the completion of the complaints process, the landlord advised the resident that although it would not install further soundproofing, he could request to complete the works himself under the home improvement policy. It also suggested that it could buy rugs for the flat above to add additional insulation and noise absorption. It is unclear whether the landlord has since provided rugs, and although it would not be obliged to do so, it should confirm to the resident whether it would in order to manage his expectations.
  8. Overall, the landlord assessed the resident’s reports of noise, but determined that it was general living noise, rather than ASB. Despite this, it took steps to support the resident, by laying carpet in the property above, offering him a property transfer, offering mediation, referring to the local authority’s noise team and requesting the resident complete diary sheets. This was all reasonable in the circumstances and there were no failings on the landlord’s part.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration by the landlord in the way it handled the resident’s reports of noise nuisance.

Recommendations

Recommendations

  1. It is recommended that the landlord confirms to the resident whether it will provide rugs to the flat above.