Peabody Trust (202106252)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202106252

Peabody Trust

4 August 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 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 his upstairs neighbours’ property.

Background

2. The resident is a tenant of the landlord of a flat.
3. The resident raised concerns with the landlord about noise disturbances from his upstairs neighbours’ property on 28 January 2021, requesting that the sound insulation that he reported that he had enquired about five to six years earlier be installed, as he said that this was offered to him by the previous landlord. The current landlord replied to him on the same day, stating that it did not offer noise insulation services anymore since its merger, due to policy changes.
4. The resident was instead given two weeks of noise diary sheets to record and evidence the disturbances, as well advised to call the local authority’s noise pollution team. The landlord then closed the case until he raised the issue again. On 15 March 2021, it told the resident that it had reviewed the diary sheets finding that, on all but two occasions, the noise was during sociable hours from 8am to 11pm, and that this was general living noise.
5. The landlord further noted that the noise levels were in line with the expected increases from four children being at home during the Covid-19 lockdown, and was not antisocial behaviour (ASB) but general living noise, with there being no evidence of this being deliberate. It therefore wrote to the resident’s upstairs neighbours, asking them to be mindful of the noise, and it stated that it could not take any more action without further evidence.
6. The resident raised further noise concerns on 14 June 2021 with this Service. He stated that there was a “thunderous” noise of “stomping and jumping” “on purpose” from his upstairs neighbours’ property, and that the landlord had paid to have carpet there, but he questioned the quality or presence of this. The resident also disputed that it had previously commented that it could only detect living noises from inside his property, on the two occasions that recording equipment was installed there by it.
7. The resident subsequently raised a stage one complaint with the landlord via this Service on 14 December 2021, requesting that it address his noise concerns and compensate him for the distress and inconvenience that this had caused. Its stage one complaint response of 30 December 2021 confirmed that it had reviewed his previous diary entries, stating that the noise was not ASB, and that it could not take any further action against his upstairs neighbours for this. The landlord instead advised the resident to send more diary sheets to it if the noise continued, and it repeated its previous advice to him.
8. The resident escalated his complaint to the final stage of the complaints procedure on 14 January 2022, saying that he felt that the landlord had not followed its ASB policy, and that the noise was “very deliberate and malicious” by his neighbours. Its final stage complaint response of 24 February 2022 stated that his noise sheets had been reviewed, but showed no evidence of deliberate or malicious disturbances, reiterating that the noise did not meet the requirements of its ASB policy for excessive noise and that the sound insulation would have met building regulations.
9. The landlord also said that it had not received any additional noise reports from the resident since 15 March 2021. It therefore advised him to install a sound monitoring app on his mobile phone and encouraged him to make further diary entries, but it advised that it could do nothing further at this stage with the evidence presented.
10. The resident then complained to this Service that the landlord had dismissed his reports of noise from his upstairs neighbours’ property, despite his diary illustrating this, for which he felt that it had not appropriately addressed his concerns or compensated him.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

11. While the resident has expressed concerns over the quality or presence of carpeting at his upstairs neighbours’ property, and disputed the outcome of the landlord’s sound recordings at his property, these matters are outside of the scope of this investigation. This is because there is no evidence that a complaint by him about these issues has exhausted its complaints procedure and, under the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, this Service cannot investigate complaints which are made prior to having exhausted the landlord’s complaints procedure, as it needs to be given the opportunity to formally respond to them.
12. The resident has also referred to having previously been offered sound proofing at his property five to six years earlier by the previous landlord. However, under the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the scope of this investigation is limited to its handling of his noise reports in 2021. This is because this Service cannot investigate complaints that were not brought to the landlord’s attention as a formal complaint within a reasonable period of normally within six months of the matters arising, and his stage one complaint about them was made on 14 December 2021.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of noise nuisance from his upstairs neighbours’ property

13. The landlord’s ASB policy states that it will not consider low level disagreements between neighbours where there is no breach of tenancy to be ASB cases. It further says that it will only investigate noise nuisance where the noise is frequently excessive in volume and duration or occurs at unreasonable hours. The landlord’s tenancy agreements prohibit its residents from making noise that causes or is likely to cause nuisance or annoyance to others in the locality, and particularly that is audible outside their properties between 11pm and 8am.
14. As the resident’s two weeks’ diary entries for between 28 January to 15 March 2021, which he submitted to the landlord, evidenced noise disturbance during reasonable hours from 8am to 11pm and there was no evidence that this breached the neighbours’ tenancy agreement or was excessive, it was not unreasonable that it took no further action at the time. Although it did advise him to call the local authority’s noise pollution team, and it wrote to the neighbours to ask them to be mindful of the noise, which was a suitable response to his noise reports that it was unable to take any other action for under its ASB policy and tenancy agreements.
15. The landlord then responded to the resident appropriately in both its stage one and final stage complaint responses. It identified under its ASB policy that it required sufficient evidence of excessive or unreasonable noise disturbances before it could consider or take further action for these as ASB cases. The landlord also confirmed that the evidence that was provided to it of the disturbance by the resident was of daily living noise made during sociable hours, for which, although this had increased, it advised him to take into account that this was during the Covid-19 lockdown, which was reasonable.
16. The landlord additionally advised the resident to further document and evidence the noise disturbances in its stage one complaint response by providing it with more diary sheets for these. In its final stage complaint response, it added that he could do so by using a sound recording app on his mobile phone, confirmed its position at stage one and explained that, while it did not dispute that there was some sound transference, it could not find any evidence to support that the noise was malicious, deliberate or excessive.
17. Landlords are expected to follow an evidenced-based approach to ensure that their services are fair and an efficient use of resources. Therefore, it was reasonable for the landlord to require sufficient evidence that the resident’s reports of noise were considered to be ASB under its ASB policy in order for it to proceed with any further action for these. As his two weeks of diary sheets that it reviewed did not show this, it was reasonable that it requested further evidence of this from him via the local authority’s noise pollution team, more diary sheets and the sound recording app. For the landlord to have taken further action under its ASB policy, it required supporting evidence of ASB to justify more formal action.
18. There was nevertheless no evidence to suggest that the resident sent any further diary sheets to the landlord since its first review of these on 15 March 2021, or that it was provided with further evidence of noise nuisance by the local authority’s noise pollution team or the sound recording app. Therefore, it has not been possible to identify any failures in the landlord’s response to his noise reports. Although it is acknowledged that this would have been distressing for the resident.
19. While there were no failures in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s noise reports, it did not suggest the use of a sound recording app on his mobile phone to him to help to determine the volume or nature of the noise until its final stage complaint response. It would have instead been more helpful for it to have done so at an earlier stage, and so it has been recommended below to do so in the future.

Determination

20. In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration by the landlord in its handling of the resident’s reports of noise nuisance from his upstairs neighbours’ property.

Recommendation

21. It is recommended that the landlord review its processes for responding to reports of noise nuisance to ensure that it suggests the use of sound recording apps and/or equipment to help to identify and assess cases of antisocial behaviour from the outset of every case.