Hackney Council (202106699)

Back to Top

 

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202106699

Hackney Council

5 July 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.

Background

  1. On 18 June 2020, the resident advised the landlord he had been complaining about noise issues from the flat above since 2013, due to the wooden flooring in the neighbour’s flat, and the issues were still ongoing. The landlord responded on 22 June 2020 and said that it had responded to his previous report in 2017, but the resident had not provided details of the noise. It said to pursue with the complaint, the resident would have to provide evidence for it to establish whether the noise was considered statutory nuisance.
  2. Following correspondence from the resident, this Service asked the landlord to contact the resident about his complaint on 18 June 2021. In the landlord’s final response to the complaint, it said that as the resident had informed it the current tenant in the above flat was not making noise, it was unable to take any action. It said that if he experienced any further noise, he should complete diary entries and it could install noise monitoring equipment to check the level of noise. It added that it would write to his neighbour, to ascertain whether they gained permission before installing the laminate flooring in their property.
  3. In the resident’s complaint to this Service, he said he was dissatisfied that the landlord made him responsible for documenting times of the noise nuisance, in order for it to proceed with its investigation. He said he wanted the landlord to enforce terms of the tenancy and compel the neighbour to remove the laminate flooring to resolve the ongoing noise issue.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

  1. The resident has advised this Service that he has been making noise reports to the landlord for over 15 years. Under Paragraph 39(e) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, we will not consider complaints that were not brought to the attention of the landlord as a formal complaint within a reasonable period, which would normally be within six months of the matters arising. Therefore, whilst the historical incidents provide contextual background to the current complaint, this assessment focuses on events from 18 June 2020 onwards, which was when the most recent complaint was raised to the landlord.
  2. The resident has advised that the ongoing issues with the noise nuisance has impacted his health. The Ombudsman does not doubt the resident’s comments about his health but we are unable to draw conclusions on the causation of, or liability for, impacts on health and wellbeing. Therefore we cannot consider whether the resident’s health was affected by any action or inaction by the landlord. Nonetheless, consideration has been given to the general distress and inconvenience which the situation may have caused the resident.

Noise nuisance

  1. The landlord’s ASB (anti- social behaviour) policy states that noise nuisance is considered as ASB, therefore the landlord is obliged to respond to the resident’s reports in line with its policy. On 18 June 2020, the resident reported that he had been experiencing noise due to the laminate flooring in the neighbour’s property since 2013. The landlord explained that the last report it had received was in 2017, and it had not received evidence as previously requested. Given the time elapsed, it was appropriate for the landlord to explain that it would open a new investigation upon receiving details of the noise from the resident, to establish whether it would be considered a nuisance.
  2. Landlords are expected to follow an evidenced based approach to ASB, to ensure their services are fair and an efficient use of resources. Therefore, it was reasonable for the landlord to require evidence of the reported noise, by requesting the resident to complete diary entries, in order for it to proceed with any action. Due to limited resources, it was appropriate for the landlord to request diary entries, before installing noise monitoring equipment as the diary entries could be used to see if it was worthwhile investigating the matter further. If the diary entries showed no evidence of noise nuisance the landlord may decide not to install noise recording equipment. The landlord also explained that it required additional evidence as there had been a tenancy change since the previous report of noise. This was appropriate as the landlord cannot take action against new tenants for the actions of previous tenants and it would also be reasonable to assume the noise levels could vary with different tenants. Although the resident has advised this Service that he was dissatisfied that he was responsible for providing such information, the landlord acted in line with its policy and industry best practice in requesting this.
  3. Evidence has been provided to this Service that the resident did complete some diary entries documenting the noise, however it is unclear which time period they covered, or whether they were submitted prior to the formal complaint to the landlord. However, in its final response to the complaint, the landlord advised that as the resident had informed it the current tenants were not making any noise, it was unable to take any further action. The landlord’s ASB policy states that it will utilise tools such as mediation, good neighbour agreements and legal action where appropriate to resolve ASB. However, given that the resident had not provided the landlord with substantial evidence of noise nuisance, it would not be proportionate to take such actions. Despite this, the landlord stated in its stage two response to the complaint that it had wrote to the resident’s neighbour on 1 December 2020, and advised them to be mindful of the noise levels. The landlord also reasonably managed the resident’s expectations regarding the evidence it would require in order to take further action.
  4. The resident stated that he remained dissatisfied as he wanted the landlord to enforce that his neighbour replaced the laminate flooring. In the leaseholder agreement, it states that leaseholders must request permission to make alterations to the property, which would include laminate flooring. Additionally, it states that if the flooring is found to be causing a noise nuisance, the leaseholder can be asked to replace it with a soundproof alternative. The landlord explained to the resident in its complaint response, that it would write to his neighbour and ascertain whether they gained permission from the landlord prior to installing the flooring. However, with the current evidence available to the landlord, it would not be reasonable to enforce this clause of the lease agreement as there is not sufficient evidence that the neighbour is causing noise nuisance. Despite this, the landlord should ensure that it continues to investigate any further reports in line with its policies, as it advised the resident in its final response.
  5. Overall, the landlord has acted in line with its ASB policy and advised the resident on the evidence it required to take further action against his neighbour. As the resident confirmed that the current neighbour was not making noise, it would not have been appropriate for the landlord to compel them to change the flooring in their property. The landlord should review this position if there are further reports of noise nuisance and it should explain its decision clearly to the resident.

 

 

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration by the landlord in respect of its handling of the resident’s reports of noise nuisance.