Crawley Borough Council (202103813)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202103813

Crawley Borough Council

21 January 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 response to the resident’s reports of noise nuisance from neighbouring properties, particularly with regards to the sound transference between the party wall and the landlords’ refusal to perform acoustic tests and take remedial action.

Background and summary of events

Background

  1. The resident is a joint tenant in a 3-bedroom house that was obtained following a mutual exchange. The landlord has not provided a copy of the resident’s actual tenancy agreement however has shown us a blank copy of this.
  2. The property was built between the 1950s and 1960s and as such, it is not subject to the same building regulations that apply to new build homes.
  3. Section 7.7 of the tenancy agreement states the resident has the right to carry out alterations, additions or improvements to their own home provided they receive prior written permission from the Council.

Summary

  1. The resident first raised concerns about noise disturbances from his new neighbours on 16 June 2020. He was concerned with loud music being played late at night, slamming doors, and noise from visitors and children at very late times of the day. The resident approached the neighbour about loud music however the noise disturbances continued. The resident advised the noise was having a negative impact on his mother and himself, and he was concerned that there was a problem with sound insulation in the property.
  2. The landlord responded to confirm that a letter was being written to the neighbour to address the issues he had raised. The resident acknowledged this and advised of further noise disturbance. He was concerned with the number of people living in the flat and wanted to know the next steps that would be taken by the landlord.
  3. The landlord explained that there were procedures in place to deal with these matters from a legal point of view, however tenancy action could be a slow process. It explained it was unable to disclose any information about the neighbour’s tenancy due to confidentiality. The landlord explained going forward the resident should notify it of any further disturbances, and this would go towards the case.
  4. The resident continued to report noise disturbances and the landlord acknowledged these reports. Inspectors were sent to the property on 9 July 2020 and believed the poor sound installation was a contributing factor to the noise transference and this ultimately was a structural issue. The resident confirmed that although the neighbour had listened to the advice regarding noise, he could still hear everyday living through the walls. The landlord advised that it would investigate the matter and the evidence on file shows an internal follow up email with the inspectors was sent.
  5. On 21 July 2020 the landlord wrote to the resident to confirm that following his ASB concerns, it had been in touch with his neighbour and was aware that there had been a positive improvement with the noise issues. It acknowledged his questions around whether it would consider sound proofing, however explained that this was not something it’s repairs team would implement.
  6. From 3 September 2020 through to October 2020 the resident reported further noise disturbances. The landlord was in constant communication with the resident and took active steps to address these issues with the neighbour. It offered sound recording equipment to the resident which he considered an option, however, was concerned as the noise disturbance was intermittent. He advised it would be quiet for a few days, and then the noise would start again. He was also concerned as to whether the banging noises would be recorded as he would have to turn the recording equipment on and by this time, the banging would have ended. The landlord confirmed that the sound recording equipment had a pre-record feature and if noise was at an unacceptable level, it would be picked up. The resident advised he would consider this option and get back to the landlord.
  7. The landlord continued to check up on the resident following his reports. He explained the noise was intermittent and he would wait to see if the issue worsened. He was still concerned with the slamming of the doors.
  8. The resident contacted the landlord on 8 December 2020 through to January 2021 to raise concerns about ASB and the landlord took steps to address this with the neighbour in line with its ASB policy. This included issuing a warning letter and kept the resident informed of the actions it had taken. Following this time, the landlord checked on the resident who confirmed there was some improvement, but he was still experiencing some issues with day to day living noise disturbance.
  9. The resident emailed the landlord on 17 January 2021 to advise of his concerns regarding the ongoing ASB issues. He advised that despite the landlord actions, the neighbour continued to make noise in the early hours of the morning which included the slamming of doors. He advised that the noise was intermittent as it would be quite for a few days and then the problems would return. The resident was concerned with people coming over to stay at the neighbour’s property as this was against the lockdown restrictions at the time. The resident also raised concerns about the neighbour and her visitors leaving rubbish outside which would blow into his front garden. These issues were raised with the neighbour.
  10. The resident raised concerns about the smell or cannabis coming from his neighbour’s property on 27 January 2021 and the landlord advised him to log this issue with the police every time he smelled it. The landlord requested an update on the noise issues and the resident advised that they continued to be intermittent.
  11. The resident raised a complaint on 1 February 2021 regarding the problems he was experiencing with noise transference and the impact it was having on him. He explained that a surveyor did attend, however no testing on the wall was carried out. The resident noted that the surveyor could hear the noise coming from next door during their visit but did not comment on this. The resident was unhappy that following the surveyor visit, the landlord had closed the case as it could not do anything about the noise and was unable to soundproof properties under normal circumstances. The resident was referred to the ASB team however he confirmed the noise disturbance was not anti-social noise. The resident requested a sound test to be done to ascertain if the walls were weak and if anything could be done to rectify the issue.
  12. The landlord issued its first response on 9 February 2021 in which it explained that it was unable to act on his reports of noise disturbance as it was not regarded as anti-social noise. It explained that the Council’s policy regarding sound insulation had not changed, and therefore it could not intervene as the building was built to the design specification at the time and had not changed since. It explained the resident could consider installing noise reducing insulation, but that would be something that he would have to implement following approval from it.
  13. On 21 February 2021 the resident requested to escalate his complaint as he was still unhappy with the noise transference from the party wall. He requested an acoustic test to be done and for the landlord to consider insulation in order to alleviate the problem. As the resident did not receive a response to his escalation request, he sent a follow-up email on 2 March 2021.
  14. There was an email conversation between the resident and the landlord about the process to escalate his complaint prior to his request being received as this had been sent to the wrong department email.
  15. The landlord issued its final response on 10 March 2021. It explained to the resident that there was no work carried out to the wall that would impact the noise performance and it would not carry out a sound test because it would not be able to do any work on the wall following the test. The landlord explained that there was an element of noise transference, but this was more likely due to the layout of the property and chimney design. The landlord explained that as the noise was normal domestic noise, it was unable to assist in requesting noise reduction from the resident’s neighbour. It advised the resident could request permission from it to carry out sound insulation work on the property.
  16. A surveyor visited the resident’s property on 3 June 2021 and inspected the dining room wall. There were no defects found with the wall and no specialist contractor was engaged following this visit.

Assessment and findings

  1. Evidence shows that the ASB disturbances from the neighbour were also reported by another neighbour. The resident provided the landlord with sound recordings of the noise disturbances during the course of his concerns.
  2. Evidence shows that where ASB was acknowledged, and appropriate actions were taken by the landlord to rectify the issues. The actions taken included, verbal and written warnings, offering mediation, advising the repairs team to look at the neighbour’s doors and taking appropriate legal action when required. The landlord acted accordingly, in line with its ASB policy. Whilst the landlord was unable to give the resident in depth details regarding circumstances with the neighbour due to confidentiality, the landlord was in constant communication with the resident regarding the steps it was taking to try to resolve the concerns. In terms of the landlord’s handling of the ASB reported by the resident, there was no service failure.
  3. I appreciate the resident has advised that his main concern now is that the landlord will not consider the installation of soundproofing insulation in the party wall to alleviate the issue of sound transference. As the resident confirmed that the noise disturbance, he was experiencing was not ASB, but rather day-to-day living noise, the landlord was not obligated to carry out further works.
  4. The landlord mentioned that the properties were not very well sound insulated given that they were built to the specifications at the time (around the 1950s and 1960s). The landlord confirmed there had been no building modifications to the property, however following the investigation, it arranged a surveyor to attend the property and it was confirmed there were no defects found with the wall. Therefore, it was reasonable that any changes to the wall, that the resident sought would be considered improvements to the property.
  5. Whilst section 7.7 of the tenancy agreement does not specify sound insulation within the terms, it is reasonable for this to be considered an improvement to the home. As the noise transference the resident is experiencing is not classed as ASB, the landlord is unable to act on his reports with regards to any further actions against his neighbour.
  6. The landlord explained, it would be unable to soundproof the residents wall under normal circumstances, however it had not denied him the option to install the soundproofing himself in line with the tenancy agreement. Therefore, there was no failure in the landlord’s response, given it was not obliged to install the sound insulation.
  7. Based on the evidence available the landlord provided the correct advice with regards to the noise transference and sound insulation as the noise was caused by day-to-day living, therefore in accordance with the resident’s tenancy agreement, it is the resident’s responsibility if he wishes to make improvements to the property by way of installing insulation, subject to the landlord’s approval.

Determination (decision)

  1. In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of noise nuisance from neighbouring properties, particularly with regards to the sound transference between the party wall and the landlords’ refusal to perform acoustic tests and take remedial action.

Reasons

  1. The landlord handled the residents reports of noise nuisance in line with its ASB policy and the tenancy agreement. It acted proactively in the instances where it could intervene (ASB issues) and provided the correct advice about soundproofing insulation to the resident regarding noise transference in relation to the day-to-day living noise.