London Borough of Croydon (202227737)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202227737

London Borough of Croydon

4 July 2024


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 landlords:
    1. Handling of reports of noise nuisance.
    2. Complaint handling.
  2. The Ombudsman has also investigated the landlord’s record keeping.

Background

  1. The resident is the leaseholder of a 1-bedroom ground-floor maisonette. The resident’s neighbour lived above her in a 2 floor 2 bedroom property. The landlord is the freeholder of the property.
  2. The resident raised her stage 1 complaint on 9 May 2022 and said:
    1. The landlord had not taken her “nuisance” complaints seriously and the issue was affecting her health. The tenancy officer had also told her there was nothing they could do.
    2. Her complaint was about the noise nuisance from her upstairs neighbour and the handling of the issue, its lack of action, and the fact the tenancy officers had not done enough to resolve the situation as they said they could not. They had visited both properties and observed the noise.
    3. She had been keeping a record of the noise disturbance but as it was so often, it was pointless. She realised that the properties were not maintained well, along with the neighbour being purposely noisy.
    4. The nuisance was unbearable and unsatisfactory, the property may be old but that did not mean she had to live with constant “nuisance”. It was nonstop noise caused by banging of doors, jumping, stomping, running down the stairs, and squeaking doors.
    5. Her neighbour had laminate flooring and no underlay, and unstable floorboards in the property. This was affecting her enjoyment of her property as she could barely sleep, and this was also affecting her work.
    6. The tenancy officers had advised her neighbour that they could report the problems to the landlord’s repairs team to have the issue resolved. Her neighbour claimed they did not know they could report the repairs, but she believed that they did know, and she had said this to the tenancy officer.
    7. Her neighbour had no regard for someone living underneath her, refused access to her home, and had reported nothing. She was unable to report the issues on their behalf and this was where the tenancy officers should step in and follow up with the complaint about her neighbour.
  3. The landlord provided its stage 1 response on 23 June 2022. It apologised for the delay in issuing its response. It said:
    1. It had spoken to her tenancy officer who wanted to apologise for the lack of updates, and that she was still living with the issue. As they had started to take action to notify her neighbour about the noise nuisance, they had gone off work due to illness.
    2. It acknowledged this had not helped the situation or alleviated the issues she experienced. The tenancy officer would make contact with her to update her on what steps would be taken to address the issues.
    3. It provided her with their contact details in case she wanted to provide any additional information or discuss the case further.
  4. The resident emailed the landlord on 4 July 2022 and said she had not heard from it. She said she had no additional information to provide and queried the next steps.
  5. The resident asked the landlord to escalate her complaint on 2 August 2022. The landlord responded on the same day and apologised that the issue remained unresolved. It asked her to elaborate, clarify her reasons for wanting to escalate and the outcome she sought. The resident responded on 3 August 2022 and said:
    1. She wanted to escalate her complaint as it was approaching a year since her original complaint and contact with the tenancy officer about the issue. It was unfortunate she had to make a complaint about her concerns as it could not be resolved by her tenancy officer, and she was sure her neighbour had an agreement to adhere to.
    2. She queried why she had to put up with the “nuisance” and said she had no enjoyment at the property as there was no peace. She said this was unfair to her as a leaseholder.
    3. She had given a fair amount of time for improvements to be made and nothing seemed to be happening. It had also failed to respond to her concerns, she had plenty of video evidence and someone could also visit again as it was beyond unacceptable “nuisance”. She confirmed she had not heard from her tenancy officer.
  6. Between August 2022 and December 2022, the landlord sought updates and information from the tenancy officer, which they provided. It also provided the resident with updates on the delays in its response.
  7. The landlord provided its stage 2 response on 19 December 2022. It thanked the resident for escalating her complaint and apologised for the length of delay in responding to her. The landlord:
    1. Said her tenancy officer had visited her neighbour in September 2022 to ascertain the layout of the property and the furnishing. They advised the property was carpeted except the living room which was laminate flooring.
    2. Advised that the washing machine stood even and did not move, although it was to be expected that there would be some movement, noise, or vibration when the machine was in use. Domestic noise such as this was something to be expected in terrace housing and houses which had been divided into flats and maisonettes.
    3. Told her it was noted that the floorboards beneath the carpet and laminate throughout the neighbours flat and stairs creaked a lot. This would naturally increase the level of noise travelling into the property below (the resident’s property).
    4. Stated it was due to return to her neighbour’s property the following week to identify how to resolve the ongoing issue with the flooring. It had however been informed that the issues within her neighbour’s property were now a legal disrepair case, and it explained what a legal disrepair case was.
    5. Advised as the case was a legal case, it fell outside of its complaints process. However, it was hopeful this meant it would hasten the works which were required to the floors of her neighbour’s property and alleviate the level of domestic noise she was experiencing.
    6. Apologised for the length of time it had taken to move things forward. She had been raising the concern for some time and whilst its repairs service was exceptionally busy, this did not excuse the lengthy delay.
    7. Apologised for any distress caused to her and thanked her for her continued patience throughout the process.
  8. The resident advised the Ombudsman on 28 March 2023 of the impact of the noise issues on her health. She also raised concerns with the level of action the landlord had taken around her concerns. She stated the level of noise would not pass noise regulations and she believed the block needed upgrading/ sound proofing measures.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

  1. The resident has raised concerns about the effects of the situation on her health. The Ombudsman is unable to draw conclusions on the causation of, or liability for, any impact on health. Personal injury claims, must, be decided by the court as they can consider medical evidence and make legally binding findings. However, the Ombudsman will consider the general distress and inconvenience the situation may have caused the resident as well as the landlord’s response to any reported impact on her health.
  2. The landlord and resident identified that the issues with the noise had been ongoing for a substantial amount of time. However, the Ombudsman is only able to consider complaints which were brought to the landlord’s and the Ombudsman’s attention within 12 months of them occurring. As such the Ombudsman’s investigation will focus on the issues which occurred from 2022 onwards.

Handling of noise nuisance.

  1. The Ombudsman’s spotlight report on noise states that a theme identified was a failure by landlords to manage residents’ expectations at an early stage around what the likely outcome of the resident’s noise report would be. It also states that landlords need to adopt a broader, pragmatic, and holistic approach to noise complaints when considering whether they can or should act. The landlord in this case has not demonstrated that it took either of these actions and this is unreasonable. This led to frustration and distress for the resident.
  2. The landlord told the Ombudsman in an email on 7 November 2023 that the matter was domestic noise and not antisocial behaviour (ASB). It said the matter had been exacerbated by a property requiring structural repair and would not have involved its ASB team. Although it did not deal with the matter under its ASB policy, the Ombudsman would expect the landlord to have a clear procedure it followed in dealing with such matters, and detailed any potential remedies or actions it could take. The landlord has not demonstrated that it did, and this was unreasonable.
  3. The landlord confirmed in an email on 31 August 2022 that the resident’s concerns had been ongoing for 3 years. She advised the Ombudsman on 21 June 2024 that it had visited both hers and her neighbour’s property in January 2022. This was to determine whether the level of noise was reasonable, this was an appropriate approach for it to take. The landlord has however provided no evidence of this visit or what was discussed with the resident when she made her reports of noise prior to her complaint in May 2022, this was inappropriate. It is essential that landlords keep detailed records of communication with residents, allowing it to have oversight of previous advice and actions. This would allow the landlord to make informed decisions on appropriate next steps and have good case management. Based on the evidence, the Ombudsman believes it would be reasonable to conclude a visit took place, as the resident refers to conversations with a tenancy officer.
  4. The resident confirmed that following the visit in January 2022, she was asked to complete noise diary sheets and to use noise equipment it gave her, to provide evidence of the noise and when it occurred. These were appropriate actions for it to take to substantiate the level of noise and identify if it did constitute a nuisance.
  5. The resident told the landlord that she did not believe there was any point in completing the diary sheets as the noise occurred so frequently. As she had not returned them, it could have considered what actions it needed to take or if further action was required. For example, it could have contacted the resident to identify if the issue was on going and to try understanding why she had not returned the diary sheets. Its failure to do so in this instance was unreasonable.
  6. Throughout the timeframe the resident reported that the noise was ongoing, and she was frustrated and distressed with the landlord’s lack of action. From the evidence provided it has not demonstrated that it considered the tools available to it, to further investigate the noise or help mitigate it. For example, it would have been good practice for the landlord to have explained to her what would happen if it did not receive the diary sheets. It has not demonstrated that it did, and this was unreasonable.
  7. Further good practice suggests that the landlord should have had an agreed action plan in place with the resident detailing the actions it would take and when, at the earliest and most practical opportunity. This should also have had information on any agreed communication frequency. It should also have completed a risk assessment as this would have been a useful tool in it understanding the impact of the situation on the resident. It would have allowed it to identify how she was affected, and to review if she required any additional support. These documents would have assisted in informing its approach and allowed it to plan for any required action it needed to take or identify if it needed to reevaluate its position. For example, it could have reevaluated its position following the resident’s concerns about her health, or when it did not receive the diary sheets. The landlord failed to demonstrate that it did so, and this was unreasonable. This contributed to the resident’s frustration and distress as she was often left uninformed and waiting for updates.
  8. In this case which was protracted and having a detriment on the resident, the landlord has not demonstrated that it considered using good practice to investigate or mitigate the noise. For example, it could have looked to identify if there was enough insulation underneath the flooring within the neighbour’s property. It could have looked to reassure her and itself that the building met sound proofing standards at the time of its building/conversion. Other options available to it may have included providing advice to the neighbour, completing a sound test to understand the level of noise, installing vibrating pads for the washing machine and soft door closures. It could further have considered mediation between the resident and her neighbour. It has not demonstrated that it considered any of these approaches explained, that it followed up with her around either the diary sheets or the noise equipment and this was unreasonable. The landlord’s failure to evidence that it used any established policy or practice in its handling of the case meant that good practice and a customer focused approach was overlooked.
  9. The resident raised concerns with the floorboards in her neighbour’s property in her complaint of May 2022. The landlord completed a survey of the neighbour’s property following the stage 1 response in June 2022. The surveyor raised concerns with the floorboards in a small area on the ground floor. The landlord has provided no evidence of taking any action until 6 September 2022, when it visited the resident’s neighbour. Both the landlord and the neighbour shared the concerns with the floorboards and the potential impact around the noise. It was appropriate for the landlord to visit the upstairs neighbour’s property. However, its visit was unreasonably delayed, and it has provided no evidence of taking any appropriate action following this visit.
  10. The landlord said there was a disrepair claim on the neighbour’s property in its stage 2 response and that, as a claim had been issued, the issue fell outside of its complaints process. It then has not demonstrated that it took any action around the resident’s concerns following this. The resident confirmed that, as of 21 June 2024, the noise issues were ongoing. As such, instead of taking any action to resolve the noise issues following its inspection, it left her living with excessive noise for almost 2 and a half years to date. This was unreasonable and caused her significant frustration and distress which led to a lack of confidence in the landlord. The Ombudsman understands that the timeframe may have been longer. However, there is no evidence that the matter was brought to the landlord’s attention as a formal complaint within 12 months of the issues occurring. As such the Ombudsman is only able to consider the events which have occurred around the resident’s current complaint.
  11. There were issues with the landlord’s communication during this time. The landlord identified in its stage 1 response on 23 June 2022 that it had only just started to take action to notify her neighbour around her concerns. Although it explained the delay, was due to illness, the Ombudsman would have expected some proactivity in the landlord’s handling of the matter. It could have ensured the matter was passed onto another member of staff to deal with, rather than waiting for the return of the relevant officer or explained the delay far sooner to the resident. This was unsatisfactory and raises concerns with the landlord’s record keeping and communication. It then told her that it would be in contact to update her. She then did not appear to receive any information until after the visit to her neighbour in September 2022. This represents a delay of 2 months which was unreasonable. This would inevitably have led to frustration for the resident that the landlord was not taking the matter seriously, despite her explanation of the impact of the situation on her.
  12. The landlord’s internal process also caused avoidable delays in providing updates to the resident. It had to repeatedly chase its member of staff for updates between October 2022 and December 2022. It escalated the concerns to a manager and received a response on 7 December 2022 advising that it was omitted from the email of 6 September 2022. This represents a delay of over 2 months and raises further concerns with the landlord’s record keeping and communication. It also demonstrates a lack of urgency in its responses to the situation.
  13. The resident raised concerns about her enjoyment of the property due to the noise issues, and its effect on her health due to difficulties sleeping. She raised her concerns about the enjoyment of the property on 2 further occasions, in her stage 2 response, and in an email to the landlord in October 2022. The landlord has not demonstrated that it acknowledged these concerns at any point, and this was inappropriate. It has not shown that it took any action around these issues to address her concerns, or that it offered any assistance or signposting, and this was unreasonable. This would have inevitably added to the resident’s frustration, distress, and lack of confidence in the landlord. It has not considered whether her comments around the enjoyment of the property, and the effects on her health and wellbeing required it to take any action and this was inappropriate.
  14. The resident raised concerns with the landlord that her neighbour was not reporting repairs. It told the resident that it had advised them that they could report repairs to the relevant team. Although the landlord explained this to the resident, it could have taken appropriate, proactive steps to ensure her neighbours repairs were reported. If it was unable to report the repairs on their behalf, it could have taken steps to support them to ensure that the neighbour did report them. The Ombudsman has not been provided with any information about this, however we are mindful that information may not have been provided around this due to limitations imposed by the General Data Protection Regulations (GDPR).
  15. The resident said she believed some action should have been taken against her neighbour due to the noise. The landlord has not demonstrated that it managed the resident’s expectations on what actions it could take and when/if it would be able to take any action as a result of the noise and this was inappropriate. The failure to do so may have led to the resident concluding that it was not taking any action around the issue.
  16. It is acknowledged that the landlord took appropriate action by visiting both properties to inspect them in January 2022 and by attending the neighbour’s home in September 2022. During the visit in September 2022, it identified issues with the floorboards and also confirmed that the home was carpeted except for the living room. The landlord said it believed an inspection of the floorboards and stairs were required as they were extremely weak. However, it did not demonstrate that it took any action to address the concern. It identified in its stage 2 response that a disrepair claim had been issued relating to the neighbour’s property, as such it would not act. The landlord has not demonstrated that it took any action in a reasonable time to address these issues, and this is unacceptable.
  17. The landlord combined the neighbour’s disrepair and the resident’s noise report and took the position it was unable to progress the noise issue. This was unreasonable in the circumstances. While some of the repairs identified in the neighbouring property may have contributed to the transference of noise and be subject to a legal matter, this should not have stopped it exploring what other options it had available to it. There is no evidence to indicate that it gave reasonable consideration to other tools it could use to address the noise, and this was unacceptable.
  18. The landlord advised internally on 20 December 2022 that the noise nuisance formed part of the disrepair claim due to the noisy floorboards. The resident sought an update on 8 June 2023 as she said it had proved there was a lack of action. She said she had been patient as the issue had been ongoing for months. She was then told by the landlord that legal disrepair fell outside of its complaints process on 9 June 2022. The resident explained to the Ombudsman on 21 June 2024, that she had tried to tell the landlord that the disrepair claim was her neighbours, and her noise complaint was separate to the disrepair claim. She said the landlord wanted to close the complaint and nothing had been done to address her concerns and that this was unreasonable. The failure to clarify its approach after her follow up, and simply telling her it fell outside of the complaints process contributed to the resident’s frustration, distress, and lack of confidence in the landlord.
  19. In summary, the landlord failed to take timely action, investigate, make use of good practice, communicate effectively, and recognise the impact of the situation on the resident. Its handling of the matter was poor, and the issue remains ongoing. Based on this the Ombudsman finds that there was severe maladministration.

Complaint handling.

  1. The Housing Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (CHC) states that a landlord must provide a complaint response at stage 1 within 10 working days. The resident raised her complaint on 9 May 2022 and the landlord responded on 23 June 2022. This represents a delay of 21 working days. The landlord has not demonstrated that it requested any extensions from the resident, or that it provided updates around the delays. Its actions around the stage 1 response were unsatisfactory.
  2. The CHC states that a landlord must confirm in writing the decision on a complaint, and the reasons for any decisions made. The landlord’s stage 1 response failed to provide the outcome of the resident’s complaint, or why it had reached the decision, and this was unreasonable.
  3. The Housing Ombudsman’s Code states that a landlord should provide a complaint response at stage 2 within 20 working days. The resident escalated her complaint on 3 August 2022 and the landlord did not provide a response until 19 December 2022. This represents a delay of 77 working days, and this was unreasonable. Although the landlord updated the resident on the delays in its complaint response, the evidence provided shows it did not begin doing so until 7 October 2022. It has provided no evidence that it explained the delays between August to October 2022 to the resident. This represents a delay of 26 working days before it took the appropriate action, and this was unreasonable.
  4. Within its stage 2 response, it provided the resident with information on the actions it had taken around visiting her neighbour. It then told her that it would not be dealing with her complaint due to the disrepair claim however, it did not provide her with an outcome to her complaint in line with the CHC, and this was inappropriate. This left the resident chasing the landlord and trying to explain to it that the disrepair claim was not related to her complaint, and this was unreasonable.
  5. Throughout its complaint handling, the landlord failed to demonstrate that it appropriately investigated the resident’s complaint. It failed to address a number of issues raised by her in its responses such as her questions about the appropriateness of the flooring, underlay, and whether a lack of action by it was acceptable. This was unreasonable and shows it did not take a customer focused approach in its investigations.
  6. In summary there were delays with the landlord’s handling of the complaint, and with its communication around this. It also failed to appropriately consider all the concerns raised by the resident in her complaint. Based on this the Ombudsman finds that there was maladministration.

Record keeping.

  1. The landlord failed to provide the Ombudsman with any policies or procedures it follows in dealing with issues of noise. It has also failed to provide a copy of any lease or tenancy agreements which may highlight its responsibilities around dealing with such concerns. The Ombudsman requested these on 2 separate occasions within its information request and asked the landlord to provide any documents it felt may be of assistance on 21 June 2024. It failed to provide any documents, which was unreasonable and raises concerns with the landlord’s record keeping, and its practices around the handling of such issues.
  2. Throughout the report, concerns have been raised with the landlord’s record keeping. The landlord’s poor record keeping in this instance contributed with the delays in its communication, and its handling of the resident’s concerns and this was unreasonable.
  3. Landlords have a responsibility to ensure they have appropriate systems and procedures in place to ensure all required actions are recorded to allow for timely action and reduce unnecessary delays to its residents. The landlord has failed to demonstrate that it did so and its failure in doing so has led to unnecessary delays in handling the resident’s concerns and communicating with her. Based on this the Ombudsman finds that there was maladministration.

Determination (decision)

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman’s Scheme, there was:
    1. Severe maladministration with the landlord’s handling of reports of noise nuisance.
    2. Maladministration with the landlord’s complaint handling.
    3. Maladministration with the landlord’s record keeping.

Orders

  1. Within 4 weeks of this report the landlord must:
    1. Provide the resident with a written apology from its Chief Executive Officer, around the failings identified within this report.
    2. Pay the resident compensation of £1250 consisting of:
      1. £1000 for its handling of the reports of noise nuisance.
      2. £250 for its handling of the resident’s complaint.
    3. Meet with the resident to discuss any ongoing issues with noise. Create a time bound action plan with the resident, to include a frequency of communication, actions it will be responsible for and explain any limitations it may face in dealing with the issue. It must also explain any actions it will be unable to take in its management of the resident’s concerns. It must ensure that the case is regularly reviewed by a senior manager.
    4. Provide proof of compliance with these orders.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 54.g of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the landlord is to provide the Ombudsman with a review conducted by a senior manager within 10 weeks to ensure:
    1. The wider public interest is addressed by reviewing this case, identifying the failings and where it should have taken necessary action/ what action it should have taken to assist the resident and dealing with her complaint.
    2. It has implemented a policy/procedure to deal with issues of domestic noise and noise transference or adapting its antisocial behaviour policy to include reports of domestic noise and noise transference.
    3. It has completed a self-assessment against both the Housing Ombudsman’s Spotlight reports on Noise, and Knowledge and Information Management. The landlord is able to provide evidence of any previous self-assessments if it has already self-assessed against these reports.
    4. It provides its members of staff with training on complaint handling. This is to include specific training on handling complaints with interrelated disrepair claims, and when it is appropriate to deal with such issues.
    5. It provides its members of staff on handling noise transference reports, and the need for prompt and timely action and communication with residents around such concerns.
    6. Provide proof of compliance with these orders.