Aspire Housing Limited (202017563)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202017563

Aspire Housing Limited

13 November 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:
    1. The resident’s reports of noise transference from a neighbouring property.
    2. The associated complaint.

Background

  1. The resident is an assured shorthold tenant of the landlord, which is a housing association. The tenancy commenced on 23 March 2020. The property is a one bedroom flat which was built in 2020.
  2. The resident initially reported issues of noise and vibration transmitting from a neighbouring (above) property in April 2020. The landlord completed a sound transference and vibration test through a mobile app in July 2020. It concluded that the noise and vibration evident in the property was not excessive and was within acceptable levels for residential buildings. The landlord fitted carpet and sound-reducing underlay in the above property, when it was vacated in March 2021. A new neighbour moved into the above property shortly thereafter.
  3. This Service raised a formal complaint on the resident’s behalf in early April 2021. The resident did not believe that fitting carpets had improved the issue, and raised concern about the soundproofing of the property. She said that she could still hear noise coming from the above property including, conversations, coughing and the use of the washing machine and the toilet. The resident asked that the landlord undertake repairs to soundproof the above property, and inspect the neighbour’s floorboards to lessen reverberation when walking or when the machine was in use. She also raised concern about the landlord’s handling of her reports stating that it had not shown empathy toward her. She disputed that everything was done within the regulations, as she believed its inspections in 2020 did not comply with the regulations.
  4. The landlord attended the resident’s property in April and May 2021; it reported hearing running water, switches being turned on and muffled voices. It concluded that the noises were general living noise, which were expected to travel between adjoining properties, and was not “intrusive enough” to be classed as a nuisance. The landlord advised that the neighbour’s support workers had agreed to explore options in providing furniture and curtains to help absorb some of the sounds. The resident agreed to wait until the noise level test was completed before its complaint response was provided. The landlord’s contractor carried out a sound insulation test in April 2022 which passed the noise and reverberation measurements.
  5. In response to the resident’s complaint, the landlord explained that its tests were to establish whether the vibration and sound transference within the flat, complied with British Standards guidance. The landlord confirmed that the property was constructed in accordance with building regulations. It advised that adequate sound proofing materials had been used, and that its findings from the sound tests were within recommended standards, and were not excessive.
  6. The landlord said it had provided the results of its sound tests to the National House Building Council (NHBC), who confirmed they were satisfied with the findings of its report. The landlord said the local authority informed it that they had installed noise monitoring equipment in the resident’s property, and deemed that noise transference was within acceptable levels and regarded as everyday living noise. The landlord refused the resident’s request for additional sound proof measures, as it advised the sound tests demonstrated they were not required. It asked that the resident contact it if she needed support in mental wellbeing or advice on accessing housing in her area.
  7. The resident brought her complaint to this Service as she was dissatisfied with the landlord’s investigation into the noise transference. She did not believe the landlord had discussed the issue with the local authority. She asked for a thorough investigation and to be moved.

Assessment and findings

Scope

  1. The resident has referred to her medical conditions and explained that the noise transference had impacted her physical and mental health. The Ombudsman does not doubt the resident’s comments regarding her medical conditions, but this Service is unable to draw conclusions on the causation of, or liability for, impacts on health and wellbeing. This is more appropriate to be dealt with through the courts as a personal injury claim as courts can call on medical experts and make legally binding judgements. Nonetheless, consideration has been given to the general distress and inconvenience which the situation may have caused the resident.
  2. In the resident’s correspondence to this Service she asked to be moved. However, as there is no evidence that the resident raised this matter with the landlord as part of her formal complaint, this is not something that this Service can adjudicate on at this stage. This is because the landlord needs to be provided with the opportunity to investigate and respond to this aspect. The resident will need to contact the landlord and, if appropriate, escalate the complaint further.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of noise transference from a neighbouring property

  1. Generally, upon receipt of noise nuisance reports, a landlord should investigate the allegations made, forming an understanding of the noise being reported. It should identify whether reported noises would be deemed as everyday living noise, or anti-social and disruptive to other neighbours. In this case it is clear from the evidence provided that the landlord has adequately responded to and investigated the resident’s reports of noise. It also made reasonable adjustments to alleviate the noise transference in the resident’s property.
  2. In accordance with the landlord’s Anti-social behaviour (ASB) policy, household noise due to every-day living would not be classified as a noise nuisance. In this case the resident reported conversations, and the use of the washing machine and toilet, which would likely be classified as daily living noise rather than noise nuisance, and would therefore not be subject to the landlord’s ASB procedure.
  3. Nonetheless it is clear that the noise emitting from the above property had an impact on the resident. It was therefore appropriate for the landlord to investigate by witnessing the noise, and completing sound transference and vibration tests in July 2020 and April 2021. Despite the landlord’s conclusion that the noise emitted was daily living noise, it was appropriate to install carpet and sound reducing underlay in the neighbour’s property, which it did in March 2021, as this would aid in alleviating the noise transference. Correspondence shows that the landlord explained the action it had taken to investigate and resolve the noise issues. It also appropriately updated the resident and kept her informed regarding the noise tests arranged and its conclusion in relation to its findings. The landlord also acted appropriately by liaising with NHBC and the local authority to obtain further advice regarding the noise.
  4. It is noted that the resident believed the landlord’s sound test in July 2020 did not comply with the regulations. It was appropriate for the landlord to make the resident aware of the advice received from the NHBC, and to explain its position. It was also appropriate for the landlord to follow the NHBC’s advice, and complete retesting on 11 April and 28 July 2021 to determine if noise and vibration levels were within acceptable tolerance and complied with building standards.
  5. The resident asked that the landlord undertake further repairs to soundproof the neighbour’s property. The landlord confirmed that the property was constructed in accordance with building regulations in place at the time, and a completion certificate was obtained. It was appropriate for the landlord to explain the reason it carried out specific tests to establish whether the vibration and sound transference within the flat complied with British Standards guidance. The landlord appropriately informed the resident that its findings from the tests were in accordance with the building regulation requirements. In the absence of any structural or repair issues, a landlord would not be obligated to complete sound proof measures for noise that is considered everyday household noise. Therefore, it was not unreasonable that it declined the resident’s request for additional sound proof measures, as the sound tests demonstrated they were not required.
  6. The landlord acted appropriately by explaining its findings and the reason behind its decision. It was also appropriate for the landlord to liaise with Environmental Health who determined they could not take action because the noise was everyday living noise, and not “nuisance” behaviour. Nevertheless, it was reasonable that the landlord arranged a visit with support workers to source furniture and curtains in the neighbour’s property, which might aid in absorbing some of the sound transmitted to the resident’s property. It was also reasonable to advise the resident to contact the landlord if she needed support with mental wellbeing or advice on accessing housing in her area.

The associated complaint handling

  1. The landlord’s customer feedback policy sets out a two-stage complaint procedure. It states that at stage one it aims to respond within five working days, and when an immediate resolution is not possible, it would agree on a response date with the resident. The policy states that its final complaint response should be provided within ten working days.
  2. The resident raised a formal complaint on 1 April 2021. The resident agreed to wait until the noise level test was completed before its complaint response was provided. Therefore, the landlord’s complaint response issued on 11 May 2021 was in line with the landlord’s customer feedback policy, which states that where it is not possible to provide a response in line with its complaint procedure, it would agree a response date with the resident.
  3. The resident escalated her complaint 21 April 2022. The landlord issued its final complaint response on 14 June 2022 which was outside its ten-day complaint response procedure. The landlord acknowledged its error and apologised noting it was due to miscommunication which led to a delay in logging her stage two complaint. It was appropriate for the landlord to apologise. However, this constitutes service failure and compensation as detailed below is due in view of this.
  4. As the landlord does not have a compensation policy the Ombudsman has assessed the level of compensation which should be paid using our own remedies guidance, which is published on our website. The landlord should pay the resident £100 in compensation; this is in line with the remedies guidance where the failure is of a short duration and the impact may not have significantly affected the overall outcome for the resident.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration by the landlord in respect of, the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of noise transference from a neighbouring property.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure by the landlord in respect of its handling of the associated complaint.

Orders

  1. The landlord is ordered to pay the resident £100 in compensation for its failure to provide its response in line with its complaint procedure. This should be paid within 28 calendar days of the date of this letter.
  2. The landlord is to confirm to this service when it has complied with the above order.