Peabody Trust (202003977)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202003977

Peabody Trust

20 May 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 and antisocial behaviour (ASB).

Background

  1. The resident is a tenant of the landlord, which is a housing association. The property is a flat in a communal building.
  2. The resident has experienced an ongoing issue of noise nuisance from the property above, partly due to laminate flooring. A previous complaint was raised by the resident and responded to by the landlord in August 2020. As part of the complaint the landlord spoke with the neighbour, who agreed to the landlord’s request to fit rugs to the flooring to lessen the impact of noise transference.
  3. The resident contacted the landlord on 16 June 2021 and requested to raise a new complaint as the issue of noise nuisance was still ongoing. Following further correspondence between the resident, this Service and the landlord, a formal complaint was opened on 23 July 2021.
  4. A stage one complaint response was sent to the resident on 3 August 2021. The landlord referred to the previous complaint raised by the resident and explained that its position remained unchanged; that the level of noise reported by the resident did not constitute statutory noise nuisance and that there was no evidence that the neighbour had breached their tenancy agreement.
  5. The landlord sent a follow-up to its response on 7 August 2021 relating to the laminate flooring in the neighbour’s property. That landlord explained that tenants of the building had signed different versions of its tenancy agreements, some which allowed the installation of laminate or wooden flooring, and some which did not. The landlord apologised for previously providing the resident incorrect information that wooden or laminate flooring was not permitted in any circumstances.
  6. Following a telephone conversation on 19 August 2021, the landlord agreed to escalate the complaint and a stage two complaint response was sent to the resident on 7 October 2021. The landlord informed him that:
    1. It was satisfied that it had responded appropriately to the resident’s reports of noise nuisance.
    2. It had spoken to his neighbour about lessening the noise transference between the properties and the neighbour took the landlord’s advice in buying and laying rugs over the flooring.
    3. It noted that the resident had reported the sound of children plating upstairs as noise nuisance and explained that under its ASB policy, the landlord does not consider the noise of children playing as ASB.
    4. It further noted that buildings which have been converted into flats, such as the one the resident lived in, were more prone to noise transference than a purpose-built block of flats.
    5. It explained that without any evidence of noise nuisance it was not in a position to take any enforcement action against his neighbour.
    6. Its support team was available to him to provide help and support in managing the issue.
  7. In a telephone conversation with this Service on 14 October 2021, the resident explained the outstanding issues of the complaint were that the landlord had not properly addressed his reports of noise nuisance.

Assessment and findings

Relevant policies and procedures

  1. The landlord’s ASB policy defines antisocial behaviour as:
    1. Conduct that has caused, or is likely to cause harassment, alarm or distress to any person.
    2. Conduct capable of causing nuisance or annoyance to a person in relation to that person’s occupation of residential premises.
    3. Conduct capable of causing housing-related nuisance or annoyance to any person.
  2. The ASB policy goes on to state that the landlord will respond to high risk ASB within one working day and to low risk ASB within five working days. In regard to how it will handle reports of noise nuisance, the policy states that it “will only investigate noise nuisance where the noise is frequently excessive in volume and duration or occurs at unreasonable hours”. The Environmental Protection Act 1990 and Noise Act 1996 give councils the power to act where there is excessive noise between the hours of 11pm and 7am in domestic premises. “Excessive” is not defined within either Act.

How the landlord responded to the resident’s reports of noise nuisance and ASB

  1. The role of the Ombudsman is not to establish whether the noise nuisance or ASB reported was occurring or not; the Ombudsman’s role is to establish whether the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports was in line with its legal and policy obligations and whether its response was fair in all the circumstances of the case.
  2. Overall, the landlord has followed its ASB policy and procedures in responding to the resident’s reports of noise nuisance and ASB from his neighbour. It responded within its published timescales, opened an ASB case, undertook an assessment, contacted the neighbour and the resident to discuss the allegations, and sent an action plan to the resident.
  3. For a landlord to be in a position take formal action against an alleged perpetrator of noise nuisance, it requires sufficient supporting evidence that the behaviour is causing significant nuisance and/or harm to others and has occurred over a prolonged of time. Furthermore, a landlord is not obliged to take actions against tenants for noise that is considered everyday household noise. That includes noise such as walking around, closing doors, voices (unless they are loud and very late at night or early in the morning).
  4. If a noise is confirmed as being statutory noise nuisance, then both the landlord and the local authority’s environmental health department may be able to take formal action against the perpetrator, such as by issuing a tenancy warning or an acceptable behaviour agreement. As the landlord had not received sufficient evidence from the resident, it was reasonable for it to take the decision to close the ASB case. It confirmed the case would be reopened if the resident made new reports.
  5. The resident’s frustration and distress with his situation is entirely understandable and regrettable. Nonetheless, the landlord handled his reports reasonably. It opened an ASB case and investigated the issues in line with its ASB policy. It clearly explained to the resident why it was unable to consider further action during the time of the complaint. It also explained why it was not yet in a position to consider taking enforcement action against the neighbour,

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration by the landlord in respect of the complaint.