Camden Council (202108167)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202108167

Camden Council

4 May 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 at the property.

 

Background

  1. The resident is the secure tenant of a ground floor flat in a low-rise block. She visited the property in September 2020 as a potential tenant and noted repair issues which were outstanding. Work was carried out and the property was let to the resident with a Tenancy Agreement starting 18 January 2021. Upon commencing the tenancy, the resident reported further repair issues. This resulted in further works being carried out whilst the resident temporarily vacated. Consequently, the landlord agreed to amend the tenancy start date to 15 March 2021.
  2. Shortly after the re-commencement of the tenancy, the resident reported sound insulation issues at the property. She also made re-housing enquiries as she was not satisfied with the tenancy, citing the disruption caused by repairs and leaks, as well as the noise disturbance from the upstairs flat. She then submitted a formal complaint (3 April 2021), this referred to the fact that repair issues remained outstanding when she moved back into the property, and the noise from her neighbour, stating that she could hear everyday noise, though she also explicitly stated that the complaint did not relate to the neighbour deliberately making excessive noise. She said however, that the noise issues were having a detrimental impact upon her mental health and requested soundproofing.
  3. The landlord’s stage one response (15 April 2021) responded to the resident’s reports about repairs and leaks; it also confirmed that it would not be installing soundproofing as this amounted to an improvement and, as such, was “something we cannot undertake”. The resident asked the landlord to reconsider the decision not to install soundproofing and requested escalation of the complaint on this basis on 2 May 2021; she also continued to make reports of noise disturbance.
  4. The landlord sent its final response to the complaint on 18 June 2021. This included an offer of £350 compensation for inconvenience relating to the resident having to vacate shortly after the original tenancy start date. Regarding soundproofing, the landlord confirmed that it was unable to install soundproofing, but that its Housing Officer (HO) had discussed the issue with the neighbour and would monitor the situation.
  5. The resident continued to make noise reports to the landlord and, in correspondence with this Service she has stated that nothing substantive has changed. There is also evidence of counter allegations of noise disturbance from the neighbour (September 2021) and a further landlord visit in March 2022 to assess the noise and again consider the installation of soundproofing. This further visit confirmed the previous decision that soundproofing would not be installed. Whilst the resident’s complaint involved other issues, it is the landlord’s handling of her reports of noise and its decision about soundproofing that the resident has referred to this Service for investigation.

Assessment and findings

  1. The resident’s first report to the landlord of noise disturbance came shortly after she moved back into the property in March 2021, with her formal complaint submitted early in April 2021. At this point, her reports about the neighbour were consistent with issues relating to ‘everyday’ noise, such as TV noises, coughing, talking etc. She confirmed in her complaint that she did not believe that the neighbour was deliberately making excessive noise. As such, it was reasonable for the landlord to approach the stage one complaint response with a view to responding to her request for soundproofing, as opposed to considering the case from an ASB management perspective.
  2. Regarding the request for soundproofing, the landlord confirmed that this would amount to an improvement and was therefore not something it was able to undertake. This position was appropriate as a landlord is not required to undertake improvements to a property.
  3. As the case progressed, it is clear that the nature of the resident’s reports about the neighbour changed in substance. Whilst she continued to report her concerns that she could hear everyday noise, she also referred to the neighbour raising his voice frequently whilst on the phone. Such reports would generally be considered as potentially anti-social, and it is noted that the landlord advised the resident from an ASB management perspective during its discussions with her. It said that noise disturbance that amounted to ASB would generally be considered to take place between the hours of 11pm and 8am and also asked whether the resident had attempted to discuss her concerns directly with the neighbour.
  4. The resident’s complaint continued to focus on her desire that the landlord install appropriate soundproofing between the properties. In its final response of 18 June 2021, the landlord confirmed once more that it was unable to apply soundproofing, though it also confirmed that the issue had been referred to the resident’s HO, who had spoken directly with the neighbour and requested that he be more mindful of his actions, including his use of his loudspeaker when on the phone. It also confirmed that the HO would follow this issue up with the resident in the following week.
  5. The landlord’s actions present as reasonable given the circumstances of the case and appropriate in consideration of its management of the case from an ASB perspective. At the point that the issue presented as potentially something more than reporting of everyday noise, the landlord has taken steps that the Ombudsman would expect to see. It discussed the issue with the alleged perpetrator, including a request that he consider the impact of his actions. It also outlined the actions it would then take to monitor the situation. Whilst the resident was focussed on the installation of soundproofing to alleviate the noise she was experiencing, there is no evidence that the landlord was required to take such action and it explained to her the reasons why it was unable to do so.
  6. It is apparent that the resident continued to experience noise related issues following the completion of the complaints process. In addition, the neighbour has reported noise related issues and his own preference that soundproofing be installed. The resident has reported to this Service that this resulted in a further assessment of the noise, with an outcome that again refused the request for soundproofing to be installed. It is to the landlord’s credit that it has seemingly given further consideration to the soundproofing issue. It remains however, that the landlord is under no obligation to take this course of action. 
  7. There is also concerning updates from the resident in relation to potential further issues of ASB, including use of derogatory comments and behaviours aimed at the resident. As such incidents occurred outside the complaint under investigation they have not been addressed here. A recommendation has been included below, however, for the landlord to contact the resident to discuss any current concerns and to raise a new ASB case if appropriate.

Determination (decision)

 

  1. In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was no maladministration in relation to the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of noise nuisance at the property. 

 

Orders and Recommendations

 

Recommendation

 

  1. The landlord to contact the resident to discuss any ongoing concerns she has with noise from the neighbouring property. Based upon the outcome of any such discussions, the landlord to confirm whether it will be opening a new ASB case.