Home Group Limited (202203575)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202203575

Home Group Limited

3 October 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 concerns the landlord’s decision to decline to undertake a sound proofing test in the resident’s property.

Background

  1. The resident is a shared owner of the property with the landlord, which is a housing association. The property is a new-build flat in a communal building.
  2. The resident has experienced issues of noise nuisance from properties in the floor below since he moved into the property in March 2021. On 3 February 2022 the resident wrote to the landlord and requested to raise a complaint into the matter. He described the elements of the complaint as:
    1. He can hear day-to-day living noise from two properties from the floor below.
    2. He did not believe that this noise constituted antisocial behaviour, but rather the soundproofing between the floors was inadequate and a building defect.
    3. As the building was still under warranty and within the defects liability period, the landlord and builder should arrange for a soundproofing test to be undertaken in the resident’s property.
  3. In its complaint responses, the landlord:
    1. Explained that the building design drawings state that an acoustic layer was installed between the floors of the building. It noted that the thickness of this layer was not specified in the drawings, but material of this type is normally 10mm thick.
    2. Informed the resident that a sound insulation test of the building was undertaken in October 2020 and a sound testing certificate was issued that confirmed that the sound insulation in the building exceeded building regulations in November 2020. The landlord provided the resident with copies of both the certificate and the full sound insulation test report.
    3. Declined the resident’s request for it to undertake an additional sound insulation test as the previous test found that the building was within the required legislation and regulations. It noted that if the resident were to arrange his own test that disputed these results, the landlord would review its position.
  4. In referring the case to this Service, the resident described the outstanding issue of the complaint as the landlord’s refusal to undertake a sound insulation test in his property. The resident explained that the November 2020 report did not test his or nearby properties, but only a sample of the properties in the building.
  5. As a resolution to the complaint, the resident requested that the landlord arrange for a sound insulation test to be undertaken in his property and then install appropriate soundproofing.

Assessment and findings

Relevant policies and procedures

  1. Resistance to sound: Approved Document E is part of the government’s building regulations and provides statutory guidance to developers for soundproofing standards for new homes. Section B3.13 of the document states that the minimum level of airborne sound resistance for dividing walls or floors between homes is 45dB (decibels) in new build properties.
  2. Section 1.11 of Document E provides advice on how to undertake sound insulation tests and how to choose a sample of appropriate properties. It notes that a group of properties should be selected that represents all of the property types in the development and states that “in order for meaningful inferences to be made from tests, it is essential that developments are considered as a number of notional groups, with the same construction type within each group”.

The landlord’s decision to decline to undertake a sound proofing test in the resident’s property.

  1. Once it was informed by the resident of his concerns relating to sound proofing, the landlord had a duty to respond to the resident in line with its obligations as shared owner of the property. As the property was still within the defect liability period when the complaint was raised, the landlord acted appropriately by informing the builder of a potential defect so it was aware of the issue when the end of defects inspection was undertaken on 22 February 2022. The landlord also reviewed the build design drawings and the architect specification for the development. It then informed the resident on what type of acoustic material was used for soundproofing.
  2. The landlord provided the resident a copy of the 2020 sound insulation test and certificate. This concluded that “all tests met and exceeded the airborne and impact sound insulation standards detailed within Approved Document E (2003 Edition incorporating 2004, 2010 and 2015 amendments)”. The resident disputed this conclusion on the grounds that his property was not one of the properties tested.
  3. As detailed above, a developer is not obligated to undertake a sound test in every property, but is expected to test all the different types of properties in the development. The flats on the floor that includes the resident are of a different layout to the flats on the other floors in the building. The developer would therefore be expected to include both layout types in its sample of properties chosen to be tested. The inspection report states that both property types were tested and both were found to be in compliance with the relevant government regulations relating to soundproofing.
  4. The landlord has therefore met its obligations as shared owner of the property. It provided information to the resident which showed that the property had been properly soundproofed and the builder had ensured that the development was in compliance with the relevant building regulations. As no evidence that the noise penetration experienced by the resident was as a result of a property defect, it was reasonable for the landlord to decline the resident’s request to undertake a sound insulation test in his property.
  5. However, the landlord informed the resident that it would review its decision if an inspection arranged by the resident disputed this evidence. This was a fair and appropriate position for the landlord to take because if it was presented with new evidence of issues with the soundproofing, this may be considered a latent defect (a defect that was not apparent until after the expiry of the defect liability period and is the responsibility of the builder to resolve while the building is under warranty).

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration by the landlord in respect of its decision to decline to undertake a sound proofing test in the resident’s property.