London Borough of Newham (202221862)

Back to Top

 

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202221862

London Borough of Newham

7 October 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 landlord’s handling of reports of noise nuisance.
  2. The landlord’s complaint handling is also considered.

Background

  1. The resident has a secure tenancy that began on 20 November 2018. The property is a 2-bed, first floor flat that the resident shares with her child. The landlord is a local authority. This complaint concerns the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of noise from the flat below (‘property A’), and the flat above (‘property B’).
  2. On 24 March 2022 the resident made a report to the landlord of excess noise from property A.
  3. On 5 April 2022 the resident made a report to the landlord about noise coming from property B. The resident said the noise was affecting her and her child’s mental health. The landlord’s records state it sent ‘advisory letters’ on 7 April 2022.
  4. The resident raised a complaint to the landlord on 21 April 2022 about its handling of noise nuisance. The resident said she had made nearly 10 reports but received only 1 response from the landlord. The resident said the noise from property A had subsided, although she noted this normally did not last. The resident said the biggest issue was with property B, which had wooden flooring, meaning she could hear everything that happened in the flat. The resident said the noise affected her sleep and her physical and mental health. The resident asked for the property to be inspected, the wooden floor removed and if that was not feasible to be rehoused.
  5. The resident reported noise nuisance from property A on 5 May 2022. The landlord’s records show it closed the case on 6 June 2022.
  6. The resident reported noise nuisance from property B on 2 September 2022. Thereafter, on 6 September 2022 the landlord sent ‘advisory letters’.
  7. Between 16 September and 7 December 2022, the resident made 8 further reports of noise nuisance relating to property B. On 9 December 2022 the landlord sent ‘advisory letters’.
  8. The resident contacted this Service on 14 December 2022 as she not received a complaint response from the landlord.
  9. Between 14 December and 20 December 2022, the resident made 4 further noise reports about property B to the landlord.
  10. The landlord told this Service on 22 December 2022 that it had no record of a recent complaint from the resident but had provided a stage 1 response to the resident on 10 June 2022.
  11. On 4 January 2023 the landlord told the resident it would undertake a stage 2 investigation and asked for evidence of the concerns she had raised to this Service. The resident said she had recordings of the noise.
  12. The resident made a further noise report on 23 January 2023.
  13. The landlord provided a stage 2 response on 26 January 2023. The landlord said the noise nuisance was classified as ‘domestic’, and did not constitute statutory noise nuisance, meaning it was unable to take legal action. The landlord said the resident had made 4 noise reports in December and, on 9 December 2022 sent ‘advisory letters’. The landlord apologised that it had not done this earlier. The landlord said that as the resident had advised the noise nuisance continued, it would investigate her concerns and would replace the wooden flooring in property B with carpets. The landlord upheld the resident’s complaint and awarded her £150 compensation for the time it had taken to reach a resolution and £150 compensation for the time and trouble caused by the noise nuisance.

Events after the conclusion of the landlord’s internal complaints process

  1. On 1 June 2023 the landlord closed the noise nuisance case following 60 days without a further report.
  2. The resident has told this Service the noise issues with property B were ongoing. The resident said she did not believe the landlord had laid carpet in property B, and the noise nuisance continued to affect her physical and mental health.

Assessment and findings

Handling of reports of noise nuisance

  1. The Ombudsman understands the resident’s situation and recognises that the concerns she has reported have caused her distress. In cases relating to ASB, it is not the Ombudsman’s role to determine whether ASB occurred or who is responsible. However, the Ombudsman can assess how a landlord has dealt with matters in the time of a complaint, and assess whether the landlord followed proper procedure, followed good practice, and behaved reasonably, taking account of all the circumstances.
  2. The Ombudsman understands from the resident that she first reported noise nuisance to the landlord in 2019 or 2020. The Housing Ombudsman Scheme (‘the Scheme’) requires the Ombudsman to examine issues that occurred within a reasonable period of the complaint. This investigation will therefore consider the 12 months prior to the resident raising a stage 1 complaint to the landlord on 21 April 2022.
  3. The landlord’s ASB and nuisance policy confirms that ASB can include noise nuisance. The policy states that if a resident reports noise or other nuisance, it will write to the resident to acknowledge receipt of the complaint as well as write to the alleged perpetrator to issue an initial warning and advice on preventing further nuisance. It states that in instances of persistent noise, it will open a case and undertake an investigation. It says where evidence is gathered of persistent noise nuisance, formal enforcement action may be taken.
  4. The landlord’s records show the resident reported noise nuisance from property A on 24 March 2022.The resident said she had recordings of the noise and asked how she could provide these to the landlord. There is no evidence the landlord instructed the resident how to provide the recordings to it. The landlord’s records refer to an earlier report made by the resident about property A in December 2021, however, the landlord has not provided the earlier report to this Service. There is no evidence the landlord acknowledged receipt of the noise complaint. Accurate and timely recordkeeping is important in order to allow the landlord to manage reports in an effective and transparent way in accordance with its policies and procedures.
  5. The resident made a report of noise nuisance from property B to the landlord on 5 April 2022. The resident has told this Service that it was the noise from the property upstairs and the landlord’s handling of this noise that was an issue at the time and remains an ongoing issue. There is no evidence the landlord acknowledged receipt of the noise complaint. The landlord’s records show it sent an ‘advisory letters’ 7 April 2022, however the landlord has not provided copies of the correspondence to this Service.
  6. The resident raised a complaint to the landlord on 21 April 2022. The resident said she had made nearly 10 reports but received only 1 response from the landlord. She said property B had wooden flooring, and she could hear everything that occurred in the flat. The resident said her physical and mental health had been affected due to the lack of sleep. The resident said she had recordings of the noise. She asked for property B to be inspected, the wooden floor removed and if that was not feasible to be rehoused.
  7. The resident made a report of noise from property A to the landlord on 5 May 2022. There is no record that the landlord acknowledged receipt of the noise complaint. The landlord’s records show it closed the case on 6 June 2022. The landlord’s ASB and nuisance policy states that if no further incidents of noise are reported within 28 days it will close the case. The policy states that if the landlord decided to close a case it would write to the resident and explain why it had taken that decision. There is no evidence the landlord wrote to the resident about the case closure. The landlord closed the case 33 days after the resident’s report, however, the landlord acted inappropriately in not acknowledging receipt of the noise complaint and not writing to the resident to inform her it intended to close the complaint.
  8. The landlord’s records show the resident reported noise nuisance from property B on 2 September 2022. The resident said she was told months earlier that the landlord would investigate the issue and that the noise continued to affect her health. There is no evidence that the landlord acknowledged receipt of the noise complaint. The landlord’s records state it sent an advisory letter on 6 September 2022, however, the landlord has not provided a copy of the correspondence to this Service.
  9. The landlord’s records show it spoke with the occupant of property B on 14 September 2022 and explained she could request carpet to replace the wooden flooring in the property. An internal landlord email sent thereafter said the noise from property B was ‘domestic’ and the landlord could not take enforcement action. The email went on to say the resident had made numerous complaints about the noise and asked if carpet could be installed to address the issue. There is no evidence that the landlord communicated to the resident at this stage that it was unable to take enforcement action. The landlord has told this Service that it is currently developing a policy on domestic noise.
  10. Despite not having a domestic noise policy in place at that time, it is reasonable to expect the landlord to have communicated effectively with the resident and to set out what measures it could take, such as providing the resident with a noise recording ‘app’ or a noise monitoring machine in order to monitor the situation and gather evidence to establish the extent of the noise transfer into the resident’s property.
  11. Between 16 September and 20 October 2022, the resident made 6 further reports to the landlord of noise from property B. There is no evidence the landlord acknowledged receipt of the noise complaints to the resident. On 21 October 2022 the landlord sought an update on the question regarding installing carpet and on 25 October 2022 it was confirmed that property B was managed by the landlord’s temporary accommodation team and the query had been sent to that team for attention.
  12. The resident made further reports of noise from property B to the landlord on 6 and 7 December 2022. There is no evidence that the landlord acknowledged receipt of the noise complaints. The landlord’s records state an advisory letter was sent on 9 December 2022, however, the landlord has not provided a copy of the correspondence to this Service.
  13. The resident contacted this Service on 14 December 2022 as she had not received a response to the complaint she raised with the landlord on 21 April 2022.
  14. Between 20 December 2022 and 23 January 2023, the resident made 5 reports of noise from property B to the landlord. There is no evidence the landlord acknowledged receipt of the noise complaints.
  15. On 26 January 2023 the landlord provided a stage 2 complaint response. The landlord said the resident’s reports were about ‘domestic noise’ and the landlord was unable to take enforcement action. The landlord said it had sent an advisory letter on 9 December 2022 and apologised for not doing this sooner. The landlord said that as the resident had advised the noise nuisance was ongoing the landlord would investigate and would arrange for the wooden flooring in property B to replaced with carpet. The landlord upheld the resident’s complaint and awarded £150 compensation for the time and trouble caused by the noise nuisance.
  16. The landlord has not provided evidence of the investigation referred to in its stage 2 response. It is reasonable to expect the landlord to have contacted the resident regarding the investigation, confirmed when the new carpet was installed and ascertained if this had resolved the issue, however, there is no evidence the landlord did this. The landlord’s records show it closed the case on 1 June 2023 as 60 days had elapsed without a report. There is no evidence the landlord informed the resident that it intended to close the case. The resident contacted this Service on 30 September 2023 as the noise issues were ongoing, and she did not believe the flooring in property B had been replaced with carpet.
  17. When there are failings by a landlord, the Ombudsman will consider whether the redress offered by the landlord (an apology and/or compensation) put things right and resolved the resident’s complaint satisfactorily in the circumstances. In considering this the Ombudsman takes into account whether the landlord’s offer of redress was in line with the Ombudsman’s Dispute Resolution Principles; be fair, put things right and learn from outcomes.
  18. In summary, the landlord failed to act in accordance with its ASB and nuisance policy. It did not acknowledge receipt of the resident’s noise complaints. The landlord assessed the noise as being domestic and not subject to enforcement action but did not communicate this information to the resident at the time. It also failed, prior to the intervention of this Service, to set out what action it could take to support the resident. It is unclear if the landlord carried out the actions set out it the complaint response, as no evidence of an investigation has been provided. The landlord did not confirm to the resident that the flooring in property B had been replaced, and the resident reports the noise issue is ongoing. The £150 compensation awarded by the landlord was not commensurate with its failings and their effect on the resident and her child. An appropriate total amount compensation for the failings identified is £500. As a result, there was maladministration in this case. The landlord is ordered to apologise to the resident and to pay a further £350 for the time, trouble, distress and inconvenience caused. This is in accordance with the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance.

Complaint handling

  1. The resident raised a stage 1 complaint to the landlord on 21 April 2022. The landlord’s complaint policy provides for a 2-stage complaints process. The policy states it will respond to a complainant at stage 1 within 20 working days and within 15 working days at stage 2. There is no evidence that the landlord acknowledged the resident’s complaint.
  2. The resident contacted this Service on 14 December 2022 because she had not received a complaint response. When contacted, the landlord told this Service that it had no record of a recent complaint from the resident but had provided a stage 1 response to the resident on 10 June 2022. The evidence provided to this Service refers to a complaint being passed to 3 different landlord teams and states the outcome of the complaint was unknown. There is no evidence the landlord provided a stage 1 response to the resident. By not responding to the complaint at stage 1 the landlord deprived the resident of the opportunity to have the issues she had raised considered, and potentially resolved earlier, and was a fundamental failure of its complaint process.
  3. The landlord contacted the resident on 4 January 2023 and said that contrary to the information it had provided to her the previous day, it would not be opening a new stage 1 complaint but would escalate the resident’s pervious complaint to stage 2.
  4. The landlord provided a stage 2 response on 26 January 2023. It detailed 4 noise reports made by the resident in December 2022. The landlord said it would investigate the resident’s concerns and arrange for the wooden flooring in property B to be replaced with carpet. The landlord apologised for its delay in resolving the complaint and awarded £150 compensation.
  5. The landlord provided the stage 2 response 193 working days after the resident raised her initial complaint. It is reasonable to expect the landlord to have accounted for this substantial delay and to have explained why it failed to provide the resident with a stage 1 response. The landlord acted unreasonably in not doing so.
  6. In the stage 2 response the landlord committed to investigating the resident’s concerns and replacing the wooden flooring in property B. It is reasonable to expect the landlord to have also set out in the stage 2 response, how it would confirm if the measures had resolved issue and the steps it would take if it did not. The landlord acted unreasonably in not including this information in the complaint response.
  7. In summary, the landlord failed to acknowledge receipt of the resident’s stage 1 complaint and did not provide a stage 1 complaint response. It was only after it was contacted by this Service that the landlord responded to the resident’s complaint. The landlord’s stage 2 response did not demonstrate that it had conducted an adequate investigation and did not account for why the failings had occurred. The compensation £150 awarded by the landlord did not reflect the level of failure, and an appropriate figure is instead, £350. As a result, there was maladministration in this case. Orders are therefore made for the landlord to apologise to the resident and to pay a further £200 compensation for the time, trouble and inconvenience caused. This is in accordance with the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord in its handling of reports of noise nuisance.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord in its complaint handling.

Orders and recommendations

  1. Within 4 weeks of the date of this report, the landlord must:
    1. Apologise to the resident in writing for the failings identified in this report.
    2. Pay the resident a further £550 compensation. This is in addition to the compensation awarded at stage 2 and comprises:
      1. £350 for the time, trouble, distress and inconvenience caused to the residents as a result of the failings in the landlord’s response to reports of noise nuisance.
      2. £200 for the time, trouble, distress and inconvenience caused to the residents as a result of the failings in the landlord’s complaint handling.

The sum should be paid direct to the resident and should not be paid to rent or service charge account.

  1. Set out in writing the nature of the flooring throughout property B. If the wooden flooring has not been removed in its entirety, the landlord should specify the date when it will replace the floor. The landlord should provide confirmation to the resident and this Service, thereafter, that the flooring has been replaced.
  1. In accordance with paragraph 54(g) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the landlord should conduct a review of the key failures highlighted in this report. Within 8 weeks, it should present this review to its senior leadership team and provide the Ombudsman with a report summarising its identified improvements. The review should focus on, but is not limited to the following:
    1. How it will ensure noise nuisance reports are acknowledged and recorded.
    2. How it will ensure effective oversight of noise nuisance cases. The steps it will take to ensure decision making on whether cases reach the threshold for enforcement is recorded and consideration is given to non-statutory response measures.
    3. Whether the noise nuisance information published on its website meets the needs of residents. The review should consider whether the information provides clear, unambiguous detail how the landlord will respond to reports of noise nuisance and the service level residents should expect from the landlord.
    4. How the landlord’s forthcoming ‘domestic noise’ policy will address the issue of wooden flooring to ensure the learning from this case is included in the policy, and how the landlord will ensure this learning is utilised in case management in the interim.
    5. How it will incorporate the recommendations from the Ombudsman’s Spotlight report on noise complaints within its forthcoming ‘domestic noise’ policy.
  2. The landlord should provide evidence of compliance with the orders made in this report within the timescales outlined above.