BCP Council (202209571)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202209571

BCP Council

13 February 2023


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 response to the resident’s reports of antisocial behaviour (ASB) and noise nuisance from her neighbour.

Background

  1. The resident is a secure tenant at the property of the landlord. The landlord is a local authority. The property is a ground floor flat. There is another flat located immediately above the property which is occupied by the neighbour.
  2. On 26 October 2021, the resident reported that the floorboards in the flat above were “creaking, shaking, and booming,” which was affecting her quality of life. The resident noted she did not want to raise a formal complaint at this time.
  3. The landlord and a surveyor visited the neighbour’s property on 30 November 2021. The landlord noted there was laminate flooring in the neighbour’s flat, which was contrary to its policy for first floor flats. The landlord advised it wished to explore all options before insisting on removal of the laminate flooring.
  4. The resident sent a number of emails between October and December 2021 highlighting the ongoing noise nuisance from the neighbour’s flooring. On 13 December 2021, the landlord fitted sound monitoring equipment at the resident’s property. After reviewing the recordings, it concluded that only day-to-day noise could be heard, with some walking audible from the flat above. However, no noise could be heard to the extent described by the resident.
  5. The resident made a formal complaint on 15 February 2022. She noted that following the surveyor’s visit, there had been discussions around screwing down the floor boards to reduce the noise, but that no work had been undertaken. Furthermore, the resident expressed her dissatisfaction that the landlord had not approved her request to install her own sound proofing in her property.
  6. The landlord provided its stage one response on 11 March 2022. It advised that there was no evidence of malicious or deliberate actions to cause noise by the neighbour. It therefore did not consider there had been ASB. To address the noise, however, it had requested that the neighbour remove the laminate flooring. It would then offer to install sound proofing in the neighbour’s property once the flooring had been removed.
  7. Regarding the resident’s request to fit her own soundproofing, the landlord gave her permission to do this with the specific conditions that she did so at her own cost, that the landlord would not bear responsibility for repairs or replacing the sound proofing, and that it should be carried out by a qualified professional. The landlord partially upheld the complaint as it considered that enforcing removal of the laminate flooring could have been done sooner.
  8. In its stage two response dated 21 April 2022, the landlord offered £100 compensation for any distress caused by this delay.
  9. The resident brought her complaint to this service as she remained dissatisfied with how the landlord handled her ASB and noise nuisance complaints, the lack of action from the landlord to resolve the issue, and the level of compensation she was offered for her time and trouble.
  10. The landlord fitted sound proofing in the neighbour’s flat on 24 October 2021. The resident has advised this has reduced the noise to a muffle, but there was still a creaking floorboard which was causing nuisance.

Assessment and findings

  1. The Housing Ombudsman’s Spotlight Report relating to noise complaints published in October 2022 sets out that while a lack of statutory noise levels can limit landlords’ options, particularly with regard to potential enforcement action, it does not absolve them of the requirement to explore other suitable resolutions.
  2. In this case, following the resident’s reports, the landlord carried out an inspection of both properties. This was a reasonable step to take as it gave the landlord the opportunity to assess the noise directly and investigate any areas of concern. Its assessment concluded that it couldn’t hear any loud creaking or banging as described by the resident, but it agreed that the floorboards should be screwed down in an attempt to reduce the noise. Furthermore, the landlord acknowledged that laminate flooring was not permitted in flats above ground floor. However, before insisting on removal the landlord wanted to take an amicable approach to resolve the issue in order to limit further expenses to its tenants.
  3. This was a fair and practical approach by the landlord. The assessment did not highlight signs of any noise to the extent described by the resident. That is not to say it was not happening, but it was appropriate for the landlord to take initial steps based on the results from its assessment of the noise and begin by attempting to make repairs to areas of the flooring that were evidently contributing to the noise nuisance.
  4. As the resident’s complaints of noise nuisance continued, the landlord took steps to get sound recording equipment installed into the resident’s property in order to record the day–to–day noise she was experiencing. This was a reasonable step, in line with what the Ombudsman would expect, and in line with best practice. This was installed on 17 December 2021. The results of the recordings concluded that some walking from above could be heard, but no noise was heard to the extent that it constituted ASB.
  5. The landlord also offered to reinstall the recording equipment as the resident had advised that due to the landlord notifying the neighbour of the recording equipment, they had stopped making the noise, but started again once the devices were removed. The resident declined a second installation. Due to the lack of evidence from the first set of recordings it was appropriate for the landlord to re-offer sound recording equipment in order to assist the resolution of the resident’s noise nuisance reports. However, as the resident declined this, it still remained a case of “alleged anti-social behaviour,” as there still was not any strong evidence of these reports. Therefore, it was appropriate for the landlord to continue its approach of exploring other methods to resolve the issues. This was in line with the principles of this service’s spotlight report on noise.
  6. Mediation was also offered by the landlord which both parties accepted on 4 February 2022. This procedure began between the two parties with evidence of some communication sent between them. However, it did not remedy the situation as the resident continued to make reports of ASB. It was nevertheless a reasonable option in circumstances such as this for the landlord to offer mediation as the parties involved could come to a mutual agreement by themselves to resolve their issues. Given that mediation was unsuccessful, the landlord appropriately continued to explore other options.
  7. As part of its stage one response on 11 March 2022, the landlord confirmed that it would now be taking steps to enforce the neighbour’s tenancy agreement which stated that written permission is required before making any improvements to a property. As the neighbour did not obtain this, it would now insist they remove the laminate flooring so that sound proofing could be installed underneath. The landlord gave the neighbour a period of 21 days to remove the flooring, but the neighbour refused. The landlord made several attempts to contact the neighbour in order to get the flooring removed and also threatened legal action should the neighbour continue to refuse. The laminate flooring was subsequently removed and the sound proofing was fitted on 24 October 2022.
  8. This process lasted seven months and understandably this would have caused further frustration and distress to the resident. However, the Ombudsman understands that when a party refuses access, some delays are unavoidable. The landlord could not forcefully remove the laminate flooring and as a result it was required to give the neighbour a reasonable chance to follow its demands before taking further steps such as legal action. In this instance, it did not have to follow through with legal proceedings as the neighbour eventually complied. The landlord’s actions were reasonable, and the delay was outside of the landlord’s control given these circumstances.
  9. Nevertheless, delays were caused and, as stated above, understandably this would have impacted the resident. The landlord used its discretion to offer £100 compensation in its stage two response on 21 April 2022 to reflect the impact on the resident. It noted that the service it provided could have been timelier.
  10. In summary, the evidence available to the landlord did not prove ASB was occurring. It also took reasonable steps to resolve the issues without major works, and also attempted mediation. The delays to arranging the removal of the flooring, while inconvenient, was also beyond the landlord’s control. Given the above, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, the amount offered to address the time and trouble caused to the resident was proportionate and reasonable in the circumstances.
  11. As mentioned above, the landlord carried out the sound proofing in the neighbour’s property in October 2022. Shortly after, the resident emailed in again to complain about a creaking floorboard. She did state that the sound from above had been reduced to a muffle since the sound proofing had been fitted, but wanted the floorboard repairing. However, this changed after a few email exchanges between the resident and the landlord as the resident later said that the sound proofing had not worked and the noise nuisance from above was the same as before.
  12. A recommendation has therefore been made for the landlord to reassesses the reported noise, and take appropriate actions to investigate the reports.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 53(b) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the landlord has made an offer of redress in respect prior to investigation which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, resolves the complaint satisfactorily.

 

Recommendations

  1. The landlord to reiterate its offer of £100 compensation, if this is yet to be accepted.
  2. The landlord to carry out a further assessment of the neighbour’s and the resident’s property to assess the effectiveness of the sound proofing. Once done, the landlord should notify the resident of its findings and any subsequent plan of action.