Newcastle City Council (202126319)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202126319

Newcastle City Council

7 June 2023

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 response to the resident’s noise reports about a neighbour.

Background and summary of events

2. The resident is a secure tenant of the landlord at the property, which is a two-bedroom flat. The tenancy began on 28 September 2020.
3. The resident reported initially to the landlord excessive noise from a neighbour’s property in September 2021. The landlord worked with the resident and the neighbour to locate the source of the noise through the remainder of 2021 and into 2022. The resident made a formal complaint about the landlord’s response to the issue on 2 March 2022. She expressed dissatisfaction with the landlord’s approach and the findings from the noise monitoring equipment. She further complained about communication from the landlord, particularly in relation to the first closure of the case in December 2021.
4. The landlord issued a stage one response on 15 March 2022. It did not uphold the resident’s complaint as it considered that a thorough investigation had taken place. It further stated that the case closure had been conducted in line with its policy, with the decision being communicated to the resident in person, rather than in writing as she later requested.
5. The landlord continued to work with the resident to attempt to isolate the noise that she continued to report through the following months. On 7 July 2022, the resident made a request to escalate the complaint to stage two of its process. The landlord acknowledged this request on 11 July 2022.
6. The landlord issued a stage two response on 25 July 2022, in which it did not uphold the resident’s complaint. The landlord disputed the resident’s assertion that the investigation was not thorough and reiterated that, as there was no independent evidence of excessive noise, the case would remain closed.
7. The resident confirmed to the Ombudsman that she remained dissatisfied with the landlord’s complaint response, and clearly communicated the distress that the ongoing issue had caused. She stated that she had been subjected to loud music from the neighbour’s flat at unsocial hours for over eight months. She disputed the findings of the noise monitoring equipment, which she said was not fit for purpose. She made further complaints about the handling of the issue by a housing manager, who she said had not responded to reports of noise.

Assessment and findings

8. The Ombudsman understands that the resident found her experience throughout the course of the complaint to have been distressing. However, in reaching a decision, the Ombudsman will not seek to establish whether there was an actual noise that the resident experienced. We will consider whether the landlord has kept to the law, followed proper procedure and good practice, and acted in a reasonable way. Our duty is to determine complaints by reference to what is, in this Service’s opinion, fair in all the circumstances of the case.
9. The resident first made a report of excessive noise from a neighbour’s property on 8 September 2021. She explained that she believed the noise to be caused by the neighbour’s grandson, who was home from university for the summer. She described the noise as music playing “all day on and off” and said that it started on 4 August 2021. She described the ongoing noise as loud music and slamming doors during most nights, between 10.00pm and 3.00am.
10. The landlord, in line with its Safe Living Policy, contacted the resident to follow up and obtain further detail on the same day. It completed a risk assessment in six days. The landlord made further information gathering phone calls to both the resident and the alleged perpetrator on 21 September 2021.
11. The landlord established that the neighbour’s grandson was back at university. It proposed that the case should be closed, given that the issue was therefore resolved and there had been no clear breach of the neighbour’s tenancy agreement. The neighbour was vulnerable and suffered from such an illness, which the landlord stated could mean that she sometimes became confused and raised her voice. The Housing Plus Officer (HPO) emphasised to the neighbour and her son that it was important to ensure that doors were closed carefully and asked them to be generally mindful of noise that could impact on the resident.
12. The resident, however, stated that the music was ongoing, despite the departure of the grandson. The Safe Living Officer (SLO) therefore visited the property on 22 September 2021 to install a noise monitoring app on the resident’s phone in order to gather evidence of the noise. She showed the resident how to use the app. The landlord’s actions were reasonable and in line with its policy which requires it to assess the situation and determine the appropriate action when a report is made.
13. Over the course of the next few days, the resident continued to report loud music “going up and down” all day. It was confirmed by the landlord, through a further home visit to the neighbour, that this included occasions (such as 28 September 2021) when the alleged perpetrator was not at the property. The resident did not make a recording of the noise that she heard, and the SLO returned to the property to show the resident again how to use the noise monitoring app. The resident was also advised to contact the HPO should she hear any noise, so that there was independent verification of the noise. The landlord, thus, demonstrated that it was actively supporting the resident and responding to her reports.
14. The resident submitted 20 separate recordings from the noise monitoring app between 29 September 2021 and 9 October 2021. Upon review, there was no evidence of any excessive or unreasonable noise, and specifically no recording of sustained music. The app appeared to be functional as there was noise captured such as passing cars, a washing machine, bird song and the resident’s breathing. There was one recording of background music, but this was later confirmed to be live music from an event at a nearby park and not noise that could be attributable to the alleged perpetrator.
15. The HPO spoke to one of the resident’s daughters, who stayed at the property one night. She confirmed that she had heard some vibrations on 2 October 2021. She believed her sister had heard some music playing the previous evening, but no recording on the noise app was made.
16. Given the failure to record any significant noise using the phone app, the landlord proposed that an environmental noise monitoring (ENM) device be installed at the property to provide further evidence of the noise at the property. The resident continued to make submissions via the phone app, but these failed to pick up any unusual or unreasonable noise. Sounds recorded included cars passing, a loud ticking sound and a cupboard door being slammed.
17. While this monitoring via the phone app was ongoing, the landlord conducted a number of home visits and telephone interviews with neighbours. None of the neighbours reported any noise nuisance apart from one, who described a radio playing loudly and someone singing along. The noise appeared to be coming from a different source when further investigated. The ENM device was installed on 30 November 2021 and made 41 separate recordings. There was nothing of note captured other than the noise from the resident’s own television.
18. Given that there was no evidence of anti-social or unreasonable noise, the landlord closed the case on 16 December 2021. In accordance with the landlord’s policy, the decision was communicated to the resident in person during a home visit. The resident remained dissatisfied with the situation and stated that the stress and lack of sleep was having a considerable impact on her. The landlord arranged for neighbourhood wardens to patrol at the times that the noise was said to occur in order to ensure that any new evidence could be assessed, but otherwise the case was closed at this point due to insufficient evidence. The noise monitoring equipment picked up no unreasonable or undue noise, or even anything that matched the resident’s description of bass music and vibrations.
19. The landlord handled the reports about the noise issue appropriately in this first stage. It took a holistic approach, trying to locate the source of the noise through a range of monitoring methods, including face to face interviews, a review of neighbouring properties, ad hoc and reactive visits to the property and two separate methods of noise recording equipment. After closing the case due to no evidence in December 2021, the landlord engaged further by arranging warden patrols to monitor the property. It took a proactive and empathetic approach to the situation, focussing clearly on the resident’s experience and seeking to resolve the situation.
20. Following the case closure in December 2021, the resident continued to make reports of excessive noise through January 2022. When she pursued her complaint through this Service, although it did not uphold her stage one complaint, the landlord reopened the case in March 2022 despite the absence of any new evidence. Thus, it further demonstrated its willingness to fully consider the issues raised by the resident.
21. The landlord conducted a home visit on 22 March 2022 to complete a new assessment and agree an action plan. The resident accepted that the apps had not identified any noise but explained that this did not change the fact that she continued to live with the situation, which was causing her distress and impacting her health. She was of the view that the noise was only audible when she was alone in the property, thus, she opined that the noise was intentional and malicious.
22. The reports continued through March and April 2022, but the phone app again did not pick up anything audible and the noise was not witnessed by anyone else, despite visits by the warden and by the SLO and HPO. The resident’s daughters were also not able to corroborate the reports of noise.
23. Internal emails from the landlord demonstrated that there was a genuine commitment to attempting to resolve the situation for the resident and empathy for her situation. The landlord conducted further home visits in May and June 2022 and, again, signposted her to support services. The resident agreed to keep a diary to establish whether there was a pattern to the noises to assist in identifying the source and to contact her daughter if the noise occurred so that she could listen to it over the phone or visit to confirm.
24. Ultimately, the resident lost faith in the investigation by the landlord and refused to cooperate with further monitoring as she considered it ineffective. The landlord maintained that it was unable to take action due to the lack of evidence of the noise through any of the methods employed to secure independent verification.
25. The resident also raised concerns how the case had been closed in December 2021. This Service finds that the communication was, again, in line with the landlord’s Safe Living policy, which states that “in these situations, we will inform the customer in person, at the earliest opportunity that further action cannot be taken. We will not reopen a closed case without good reason, for example, where there has been a change in circumstances or new evidence has come to light.” It is evidenced that this closure happened at the home visit on 16 December 2021. While the landlord acknowledged that it might have been helpful to inform the resident that case was closed in writing at this point, it did not have any obligation to do so as per its policy.
26. The landlord took all reasonable steps in the extensive investigation and assessment of this difficult case. It followed policy at each stage within the identified timescales. It deviated from the policy only to try to resolve the issue (for example, by reopening the case despite no new evidence of unreasonable noise). Throughout its involvement, the landlord attempted to engage with the resident to resolve the situation and the issue was escalated appropriately to managers.
27. The difficulty was caused by the fact that it was not possible to secure independent verification of the reported noise, despite the deployment of two different noise monitoring technologies. In the absence of such verification, the landlord was unable to take action which could change the situation as reported by the resident. While she, understandably, wanted the issue resolved to her satisfaction, she was unable to specify what more she thought the landlord could have done to resolve the issue. Whilst it is appreciated that the resident is distressed by the issues she has reported, this Service concludes that the landlord has dealt appropriately with her reports.

Determination (decision)

28. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration in relation to landlord’s response to the resident’s noise reports about a neighbour.