City of Doncaster Council (202311557)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202311557

City of Doncaster Council

26 November 2024

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

The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of noise nuisance.
The Ombudsman has also investigated the landlord’s complaint handling.

Background

The resident is a secure tenant of the property, a 3-bedroom house, and lives there alone. The landlord has told this Service it is aware the resident has previously received support for her mental health.
On 8 November 2022, the resident complained to the landlord that her neighbour was making loud noises that disturbed her. The landlord contacted the resident the following day with an action plan of how it would deal with her report and wrote to the neighbour, reminding them of their obligations within their tenancy agreement.
Noise monitoring equipment was fitted in the property on 23 January 2023 and 24 March 2023.
On 6 April 2023, the resident complained to the landlord that the noise was ongoing and requested that further action was taken against her neighbour. The landlord issued its stage 1 complaint response on 21 August 2023. It said:
1. The case had been fully investigated, in partnership with environmental health, but the noise was deemed to be general household noise and not statutory noise nuisance.
2. In these circumstances, there was no enforcement action the landlord could take.
3. The resident had declined the opportunity to discuss the matter with her neighbour.
4. It continued to offer the resident support for her wellbeing and alternative accommodation if she wished to take it.
The resident escalated her complaint on 6 September 2023 as she was unhappy with the response. On 25 September 2023, the landlord issued its stage 2 complaint response. The landlord reiterated that no evidence of noise nuisance had been found and it was unable to take enforcement action against the neighbour.
The resident remains dissatisfied and brought the complaint to this Service.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

In her correspondence with this Service, the resident has raised other similar matters that occurred after the landlord issued its stage 2 complaint response. In the interest of fairness, the scope of this investigation is limited to matters which completed the landlord’s internal complaints procedure on 25 September 2023. This is because the landlord needs to be given a fair opportunity to investigate and respond to any reported dissatisfaction with its actions before the involvement of this Service.
The resident has informed this Service how the issues have impacted on her health. It is recognised the situation is distressing for the resident. The evidence shows it has been ongoing for a considerable period of time. Where the Ombudsman finds failure on a landlord’s part, we can consider the resulting distress and inconvenience. Unlike a court, we cannot establish liability or award damages. This means we are unable to determine if the landlord was responsible for any health impacts.
This complaint involves a large volume of correspondence and other documents in addition to multiple noise reports. While not all documents and events are explicitly referred to, all have been examined and taken into account during this investigation.

Resident’s report of noise nuisance

The resident’s neighbour is also a tenant of the landlord. Paragraph 2.3 of the tenancy agreement states it is the tenant’s responsibility to make sure that every person living in or visiting their property, does not do anything which is likely to cause nuisance to, harass, annoy, or distress any person who either lives in or has lawful business in the neighbourhood.
On 8 November 2022, the resident contacted the landlord to report her neighbour was making loud noises. She said she had asked the neighbour to stop but the noise was continuing. The following day the landlord:
1. Contacted the resident by phone to gain further information.
2. Wrote to the resident with an action plan to investigate her “anti-social behaviour complaint”, which included weekly contact with a single point of contact.
3. Wrote to the neighbour to inform them a complaint had been received and reminded them of their obligations under their tenancy agreement.
The landlord’s housing management policy states it takes a zero-tolerance approach to tenancy breaches, and it will respond based on the priority of the issue reported. Noise nuisance is referred to under the Anti-Social Behaviour (ASB) section of the policy. “Low level noise nuisance” is classified as low priority and the landlord will respond to reports within 5 working days. The evidence shows the landlord’s initial actions following receipt of the resident’s reports were conducted in accordance with its policy and were reasonable.
The landlord labelled the matter as ASB from an early stage and frequently referred to it as this when communicating with the resident. In some occasions it may not be appropriate for noise cases to be handled as ASB as is detailed in the Ombudsman’s Spotlight report on noise complaints (October 2022). The Ombudsman considers that noise transference attributable to normal household activities would be better addressed through a good neighbourhood policy (distinct to the ASB policy). This ensures low level neighbourhood friction is not inappropriately handled as ASB.
The landlord contacted the neighbour on 17 November 2022. The neighbour informed the landlord they were not making noise intentionally and the walls in the property were very thin. The landlord updated the resident the same day and agreed the case was to remain open and to be monitored.
On 21 November 2022, the resident contacted the landlord and informed it she had called the police on her neighbour over the weekend. The landlord asked the resident if she wanted it to send a further letter to the neighbour, but the resident declined stating the noise had calmed down.
The resident called the landlord again on 24 November 2022 and informed it she had reported the noise issue to Environmental Health because the neighbour was still making noise which consisted of mainly cupboards banging and shouting. The landlord advised the resident to complete noise diary sheets so that Environmental Health could review them. It subsequently arranged to send the resident diary sheets and a list of useful numbers.
It was appropriate for the landlord to recommend the resident should complete diary sheets to submit evidence of the noise. Evidence gathering enables a landlord to gain a clearer and more detailed insight into the nature, frequency, and timings of noise. It also provides landlords with a clearer basis behind taking any further action in respect to an issue.
Following the call, the landlord sent the neighbour a further letter, seeking co-operation as further noise complaints had been received. On 1 December 2022, the landlord visited the resident at her property to discuss her concerns further. This was a reasonable, solution focused approach for the landlord to take.
The resident submitted her diary sheets to the landlord on 6 December 2022. The sheets recorded noise on an almost daily basis between 17 and 29 November 2022. The timings of the noise were recorded as 7.30am and between 4.30 and 11pm on all days. The landlord spoke to the neighbour on 22 December 2022 by phone and visited the neighbour’s property the following day. The neighbour again disputed the allegations made and stated they could also hear the resident making noises until the early hours of the morning.
In response, the landlord carried out the following actions:
1. Attended the resident’s property on 6 January 2023 to observe the noises that were taking place. It was noted that the neighbour was not home, and no noise could be heard.
2. On 10 January 2023 the landlord requested noise monitoring equipment was installed at the resident’s property.
The resident made out of hours reports of noise to the landlord on 10 and 12 January 2023. The landlord responded within 30 minutes to both calls and noted that the neighbour’s property was in darkness and no noise could be heard.
On 23 January 2023, noise monitoring equipment was installed at the resident’s property and recorded for 2 days. The recordings were reviewed by Environmental Health who confirmed there was no evidence of statutory noise nuisance and the dominant noise on the recording was that created by the resident’s television and washing machine. Environmental Health wrote to the resident on 6 February 2023 to inform her they were closing her complaint of statutory noise nuisance.
The resident contacted the landlord on 14 February 2023 and stated she disagreed with the decision made by Environmental Health and the noise issues were still ongoing. A further noise report was made by the resident the previous day. The landlord arranged to attend both the resident’s and neighbour’s property to try and recreate the noise that was taking place, to try and find a solution to the issue.
The landlord attended both properties on 21 February 2023. Operatives from the landlord visited each property at the same time to observe the noises that could be heard in both properties. Landlord notes indicate that while “muffled” noises could be heard, it was “normal living noises”. The resident remained unhappy, so the landlord agreed to request noise recording equipment be installed for a second time, on the understanding that the resident kept her television and washing machine switched off while the recordings were in progress.
The resident continued to report noise from her neighbour on 7 and 8 March 2023. The resident requested that the reports be logged only as the matter was under investigation. On 20 March 2023, the neighbour informed the landlord that the resident had been banging on the wall shouting at them to “be quiet”.
The noise monitoring equipment was reinstalled at the resident’s property on 24 March 2023 and recordings were made up until 29 March 2023. On 6 April 2023, Environmental Health wrote to the resident to confirm there was no evidence of statutory noise nuisance, therefore there was nothing further it could do. The letter advised the resident she was able to make a complaint about nuisance direct to the Magistrate’s Court. The landlord wrote to the resident on 18 April 2023, to confirm the case had been closed.
The landlord’s housing management policy states it will carry out a thorough investigation into all complaints received to ensure the most appropriate action is taken to resolve the issues. Given the actions taken and the level of evidence available, the landlord’s investigation, evidence gathering and decision making complied with the requirements of its policy. As such, its handling of the resident’s case was reasonable in the circumstances. It is noted that the resident has a different point of view and believes the noise is excessive. However, the landlord relied on the professional opinions of Environmental Health officers and the objective evidence collected in making its decision to close the case.
In its stage 1 and 2 complaint responses (dated 21 August 2023 and 25 September 2023) the landlord set out the actions it had taken to investigate the resident’s complaint and confirmed the evidence available suggested the noise was of the level that could reasonable be expected with an adjoining property. The landlord also highlighted the support it had offered to the resident throughout its investigation, such as mediation and alternative accommodation, both of which the resident declined.
Overall, in the Ombudsman’s opinion the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of noise nuisance were reasonable and appropriate. There was no maladministration in the landlord’s handling of reports of noise nuisance.

Complaint handling

A landlord’s complaint handling process is an essential aspect of its overall service delivery provision. An effective complaints process will enable a landlord to identify and address service delivery issues in a timely manner. It will also provide learning for future service provision.
Upon receiving notification that her noise nuisance case would be closed, the resident contacted the landlord by phone on 6 April 2023 to say she was unhappy, and she wanted further action to be taken against her neighbour. It is unclear exactly what words were used by the resident.
The resident has told this Service that she was under the impression a complaint had been recorded on this date. Landlord records following the call state it had “received a complaint” from the resident. A landlord internal email, dated 11 April 2023, stated the matter should be closed down “due to it not really being a complaint”. This decision was not communicated to the resident.
The landlord’s complaint policy defines a complaint as an expression of dissatisfaction, however made, about the standard of service, actions or lack of action by the landlord, affecting a resident.
Paragraph 1.9 of the Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (2022) (the Code) states that if a landlord decides not to accept a complaint, a detailed explanation must be provided to the resident setting out why the matter is not suitable for its complaint process.
While the landlord appears to have initially recognised the resident’s contact as a complaint, it failed to communicate its decision not to accept the complaint to the resident. This was a missed opportunity to manage the resident’s expectations and seek further clarity of what the resident was trying to achieve from the phone call on 6 April 2023.
On 4 August 2023, the Ombudsman contacted the landlord on behalf of the resident to advise the resident had not received a stage 1 response to her complaint. The landlord acknowledged the complaint on 7 August 2023 and provided a stage 1 response on 21 August 2023.
The landlord’s complaint policy states that a complaint will be recorded and acknowledged within 3 working days. It further states that a stage 1 response will be issued in 10 working days. While the landlord responded quickly following the Ombudsman’s intervention, the stage 1 complaint response was 4 months after the resident initially raised the matter.
In its stage 1 response, the landlord confirmed that a complaint was initially recorded on 6 April 2023. It further stated that as the resident was only asking for a further letter to be sent to her neighbour, the matter was closed as “no complaint to answer”. The landlord apologised that the resident was under the impression she would receive a response to her complaint.
The landlord also advised the resident if she was unhappy with the outcome, she could escalate her complaint to stage 2. The landlord explained that stage 2 complaints were reviewed by a Tenant Appeals panel, which included independent tenants. The landlord’s complaints policy confirms that an independent appeals panel will review and resolve complaints where the resident is unhappy with the response at stage 1.
The resident escalated her complaint on 7 September 2023. The landlord provided its stage 2 complaint response on 25 September 2023. The response had not been reviewed by an independent panel as per its policy and advice given to the resident. There was no reason documented for why this was the case. While the Code in place at the time did not require the matter to be considered by a panel, this was a further example of the landlord failing to manage the resident’s expectations.
The stage 2 response was issued 12 working days after the resident escalated her complaint. The landlord’s complaint policy states that stage 2 responses will be issued within 20 working days. The landlord’s response time was appropriate and in line with its policy.
In summary, the landlord made errors in how it initially assessed, recorded and communicated receipt of the resident’s initial complaint. This caused the resident to feel ignored and distressed, and damaged the landlord / tenant relationship. While its subsequent responses were in line with policy timescales following the intervention of this Service, its stage 1 response was 4 months overdue from the point of the original complaint being made.
This leads to a finding of service failure in the landlord’s complaint handling. An order has been made for the landlord to pay £100 compensation to the resident for the distress, time and trouble caused. This is line with the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance for service failure where the effect to the resident was minimal and may not have affected the overall outcome for the resident.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was no maladministration in the landlord’s handling of reports of noise nuisance.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was service failure in the landlord’s complaint handling.

Orders

Within 4 weeks of the date of this report, the landlord is ordered to:
1. Provide the resident with a written apology for the failings identified in relation to its complaint handling.
2. Pay directly to the resident £100 for its failures in complaint handling.

Recommendations

The landlord is recommended to use a proactive good neighbourhood management policy, distinct to the ASB policy, with a clear suite of options for maintaining good neighbourhood relationships and a matrix for assessing which option is the most appropriate. This is in line with this Ombudsman’s Spotlight report on noise.