Hyde Housing Association Limited (202122199)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202122199

Hyde Housing Association Limited

20 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 from a neighbouring property.

Background

  1. The resident is an assured tenant of the landlord.
  2. The resident initially raised his concerns with noise from the flat above on 4 January 2021 as he reported thumping and banging. The landlord advised the resident to complete diary entries to document the noise and to contact the local authority’s Environmental Health department (Environmental Health). The landlord also sent a letter to the resident’s neighbour advising them of the complaint.
  3. The resident raised a complaint on 2 June 2021 as he was dissatisfied with the landlord’s handling of the ASB (anti-social behaviour) case. In his complaint escalation on 26 October 2021, he said that the landlord had not pursued tenancy enforcement action to remove the laminate flooring installed by his neighbour without permission from the landlord.
  4. In the landlord’s final response, it said that it found no failures in its handling of the ASB case as it had been in regular contact with the resident. The landlord stated that it had agreed to remove the laminate flooring in the neighbour’s property and install a thick carpet with underlay; it said it should have pursued this sooner. It offered £100 compensation for poor complaints handling, £200 for the delay and £250 for inconvenience.
  5. In the resident’s complaint to this Service, he said he remained dissatisfied as he felt the landlord did not initially take enough action and there were delays to the carpet installation in the neighbour’s property. He said the issue had impacted his mental and physical health and his ability to work from home. He also did not feel the landlord had properly considered the effect on  his children who were unable to sleep due to the noise.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

  1. The resident has referenced how the landlord’s failure to resolve the noise nuisance has impacted his health. The Ombudsman does not doubt the resident’s comments about his health. However, we are unable to draw conclusions on the causation of, or liability for, impacts on health and wellbeing. Therefore, we cannot determine whether there was a direct link between the landlord’s handling of the noise nuisance and problems with the resident’s health. Nonetheless, consideration has been given to the general distress and inconvenience which the situation may have caused the resident. This is an accordance with paragraph 39(i) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme which states the Ombudsman will not investigate complaints which concern matters where the Ombudsman considers it quicker, fairer, more reasonable or more effective to seek a remedy through the courts, a designated person, other tribunal or procedure.

Handling of noise nuisance

  1. In accordance with the landlord’s ASB policy, the landlord considers ASB to include “a wide range of unacceptable activities that have a negative effect on the quality of community life and the private lives of people within those communities”. As a result, the landlord was obliged to acknowledge the resident’s concerns regarding noise nuisance, investigate his reports and take appropriate action where necessary. The resident initially reported noise nuisance from the flat above on 4 January 2021. The landlord promptly responded and sent a letter outlining the agreed actions on 11 January 2021, in which it advised the resident to complete diary entries, contact Environmental Health and said that it would contact the neighbour. The resident then reported on 18 January 2021, that he thought the noise was heightened due to his neighbour having laminate flooring in their property.
  2. In order to take action against a tenant for ASB, the landlord requires evidence of the reported behaviour. The resident completed diary entries for several months documenting the noise, which mainly consisted of banging sounds. The landlord also advised the resident to contact Environmental Health, and Environmental Health sent the landlord findings from noise monitoring equipment on 15 April 2021, 23 June 2021 and 2 August 2021. Environmental Health initially determined that there was evidence of statutory noise nuisance, however, following further monitoring it concluded that the noise was brief, sporadic and was considered to be expected household noise. However, it was determined that the neighbour’s flooring caused additional noise transference, as it was laminate flooring. It was appropriate for the landlord to suggest that the resident contact Environmental Health as they are experts in noise complaints and could provide noise monitoring equipment to assist with the gathering of evidence to support any further action by the landlord for noise nuisance.
  3. As the landlord found that the noise transference was a result of the flooring, rather than avoidable excessive noise or ASB, it was appropriate for the landlord to close the ASB case as it is unable to take enforcement action against tenants in line with its ASB policy for general household noise. However, it advised the resident that the matter was being handled as a tenancy issue as in accordance with the tenancy agreement, laminate flooring is not permitted in the neighbour’s property. Therefore, as the neighbour had breached the tenancy, and was causing a negative impact on the resident, the landlord would be expected to enforce the tenancy agreement. The landlord sent a letter to the resident’s neighbour on 31 March 2021, advising them that they had four weeks to remove the laminate flooring.
  4. In the resident’s complaint escalation, he asked why the landlord failed to make progress until October 2021, when it had confirmed it would pursue enforcement action in March 2021. There is no evidence of the landlord attempting to contact the resident’s neighbour between 29 April 2021 and 7 June 2021. The landlord advised the resident on 9 July 2021, that it would whether it could use its funding to install carpet in the neighbour’s property. It then took until 19 October 2021 for the landlord to confirm that it would replace the flooring, which it advised the resident of on 24 October 2021. The carpet was scheduled to be installed on 14 December 2021, however was delayed due to the incorrect carpet being delivered. The carpet installation was then completed on 12 January 2022. The landlord would not have been obliged to pay for the carpet to be installed in the neighbour’s property, as it did not install the laminate flooring and residents are generally responsible for floor covering within their own properties in line with the tenancy agreement. The landlord explained in its stage two complaint response, that if it had taken legal action to force the neighbour to change his flooring, the process would have taken longer. It was therefore reasonable that the landlord identified this, and in light of the disturbance caused to the resident, exceeded its obligations by replacing the laminate flooring in all areas of the neighbouring property which had laminate.
  5. There were several factors that the landlord could not control that delayed the installation of the carpet, including issues with contacting the neighbour and the incorrect carpet being delivered by the supplier. However, given that the landlord had identified the laminate flooring was causing the noise and it was aware of the impact the noise was having on the resident, the overall delay was unreasonable. The landlord also failed to reasonably manage the resident’s expectations regarding the expected timeframe for the carpet to be installed and the resident had to regularly chase for updates.
  6. In its complaint response, the landlord acknowledged that it should had ensured a new carpet was installed at an earlier date and that its communication with the resident should have been improved. It offered £200 compensation for the delay and £250 for the inconvenience caused. In line with this Service’s remedies guidance (published on our website), awards of £250-£700 are appropriate in cases where a complainant repeatedly has to chase responses and seek correction of mistakes, necessitating an unreasonable level of involvement by that complainant. As the landlord has identified and adequately compensated for the failings highlighted within this report, in line with this Service’s remedies guidance, it has taken reasonable action to resolve the complaint and it is not required to do anything further.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 55 (b) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the landlord has made an offer of redress prior to our investigation which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, resolves the complaint about the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of noise nuisance satisfactorily.

Recommendations

  1. If it has not done so already, it is recommended that the landlord pays the resident the £550 offered in its final response to the complaint.