Clarion Housing Association Limited (202012635)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202012635

Clarion Housing Association Limited

23 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 residents reports of Anti-Social Behaviour (ASB) and inadequate sound insulation at his property.

Background

2. The resident is an assured shorthold tenant of the landlord. The property is a flat in a block of similar properties.
3. On 21 October 2020 the resident reported noise nuisance from his neighbour to the local authority’s Environmental Health (EH) department. On 27 November 2021 EH visited the resident’s property and recorded that while the noises heard during the visit were everyday noises and not considered to be deliberate, noises such as people walking around should not be heard by neighbouring properties. It therefore advised the resident that the sound insulation would need to be considered by the landlord before it could assess the nuisance. It is not clear if the resident notified the landlord of this.
4. In December 2020 the landlord called the resident in response to an email from him saying he had called the police over the noise from his neighbours. He said the noise problem had been going on for months and questioned what flooring the neighbours had. The landlord noted that the resident had made several reports via “general enquiry” and had completed diary sheets, however this Service has not been provided with records of those reports.
5. It is unclear when the landlord confirmed that the neighbour had laminate flooring, however it noted that the flooring was a tenancy breach. In January 2021 the resident made three reports to the landlord about noise nuisance and ASB from the neighbour. A letter from the landlord to the neighbour on 19 February 2021 confirms that it had visited her property and that carpet was to be installed in the following weeks. The resident was advised, later on 2 March 2021, that while he needed to make further contact with EH, an inspection by a Surveyor would be arranged.
6. On 12 March 2021, following a complaint from the resident on 10 March 2021, the landlord confirmed that it would respond to the resident under its complaints process. It was made aware by this Service that the resident was displeased with the handling of his reports of noise nuisance and ASB. The resident sought an investigation of the flooring at the neighbour’s property and the installation of proper sound insulation.
7. In its complaint responses on 26 April 2021 and 11 June 2021 the landlord explained that its surveyor had visited the neighbour’s property and that the property was compliant with all building regulations at the time it was built. It said there would be a certain amount of noise transference, but there were no repair requirements. It also confirmed that the neighbour had replaced the laminate flooring in her property with underlay and carpet. As such, the landlord was satisfied that nothing further would be done. The resident was directed to this Service to pursue his complaint further if he wished.
8. It is noted that as noise nuisance continued to be reported after the landlord’s final response, the landlord acted on the recommendations of another surveyor. On or around December 2021 the landlord replaced the floorboards at the neighbour’s property with a proprietary acoustic composite flooring system which offered some improvement, but did not completely eradicate the noises experienced.

Assessment and findings

9. This Service has not received any records of contact from the resident to the landlord prior to him contacting the EH department in October 2021. It is therefore unclear whether the landlord signposted him to that department following contact with itself (as advised in its ASB policy). The Ombudsman has also not received any record of the resident informing the landlord of the issues the EH identified with the sound insulation in November 2020.
10. In December 2020, when the resident made the landlord aware that he had contacted the police about the noise from his neighbour and questioned what floor covering they had, nonetheless, the landlord acted appropriately by opening an ASB case and investigating whether the neighbour had flooring which breached her tenancy agreement. Although it is unclear how quickly this was done, this was appropriate.
11. Following three further ASB reports from the resident in January 2021 the landlord also acted appropriately by visiting the neighbour and confirming that she intended to lay carpets. This was all in line with the landlord’s ASB policy and was reasonable given that this was not a one-off event of noise, but was seemingly having an impact on the resident’s / resident’s family’s enjoyment of their home.
12. Following a report from his neighbour in February 2021 that the resident had verbally abused her, it was not unreasonable that the landlord also issued the resident with a warning letter on 2 March 2021. As well as doing this, still, in recognising the resident’s frustration, this Service can see that the landlord assured the resident at this time that a surveyor would inspect the block. This showed a willingness to investigate the issue.
13. It is noted that a surveyor visited the block on 17 March 2021 and advised that a possible solution would be to create a false ceiling to buffer the noise. It was noted, however, that this would be particularly expensive and would likely outweigh the benefits. As it is reasonable for the landlord to rely on the expertise of its surveyor, and for it to consider the practicality of its approaches, it was not unreasonable that it subsequently took the decision not to pursue this option. It was reasonable, nonetheless, that it advised the resident that it was not planning to do this.
14. Where noise nuisance has been determined to be household noise (rather than ASB), but the landlord recognises that this may be excessive, it will recommend that residents make contact with EH. This is so that the level of noise can be properly assessed, and consideration can be given for whether there is a statutory nuisance. The Ombudsman can see that the landlord did this in this case, which was also in line with its ASB policy.
15. Also in line with its policy, this Service notes that in April 2021, the landlord confirmed an action plan with the resident. This enabled it to demonstrate that it was taking this matter seriously, to highlight the steps that it had taken / was proposing to take, and also the steps that the resident needed to take. At this time, it was able to confirm for the resident that carpet had been laid to improve the noise transference.
16. It was also reasonable that the landlord (and EH) attempted to accrue evidence of the noise. The landlord would have been restricted in the steps that it could take without this and therefore, diary sheets would have been an important tool in taking any enforcement action. The Ombudsman can see that the landlord liaised with EH to establish whether noise recording equipment would be installed and was able to confirm that none of the noise recordings were indicative of a statutory nuisance.
17. In relation to the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint, the landlord’s stage one complaint response was issued outside of the ten working days that its complaint policy aims for. It was therefore reasonable that the landlord acknowledged this and made an offer of £50 for the late response which this Service considers a reasonable amount. Both complaint responses were reasonable as they relied on the expertise of the surveyor and advised the resident that no further work was planned and had also asked the surveyor to contact the resident to discuss his findings.
18. As the noise nuisance reports continued following the landlord’s stage two complaint response, and it was confirmed following further recordings that the noise was sufficient to cause annoyance, it was appropriate that the landlord arranged for another surveyor to inspect both properties. It is noted that at this time, the surveyor recommended replacing the floorboards which the landlord did. The Ombudsman appreciates that had the first surveyor recommended this too, the resident might have seen a reduction in the noise at an early time. Still, however, this Service cannot see that there was a service failure. It appears that the landlord was actively seeking to resolve the matter.

Determination

19. In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration by the landlord in respect of its handling of the residents reports of ASB and inadequate sound insulation at his property.