Peabody Trust (202113952)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202113952

Peabody Trust

7 June 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 about noise nuisance from her neighbours.

Background

  1. The resident is a tenant of the landlord which is a housing association. The property is a flat within a block of flats. The resident has complained about two neighbours however for clarity in this report they will be referred to collectively as ‘the neighbour’.
  2. According to the landlord’s records, on 5 May 2021 the resident reported noise nuisance, stating that her (upstairs and next door) neighbours banged on the walls around 6am. The landlord noted that it had been in frequent contact with the resident and had also liaised with third parties such as the Safer Neighbourhood Team, Police, Community Mental Health Team and Tenant Family Support Team. It noted that it also asked the resident to complete diary entries which she submitted along with audio clips. The landlord advised that it had also arranged for sound monitoring equipment (SME) to be installed in her property on 10 May 2021. The resident continued to raise reports of noise nuisance, and on 15 May 2021, she said that her mental health had been impacted by her current situation. The resident explained that she had been experiencing antisocial behaviour (ASB) from her neighbour which she said caused her to react “defensively and irrationally”. She noted that noise was noticeable throughout the night and described loud slamming of cupboards and doors, and loud banging while she slept.
  3. Internal emails showed that on 25 May 2021, the area community safety lead explained to the landlord the findings from the resident’s noise recordings. He said that there were sounds of thudding, such as doors closing but advised that no noise witnessed from the recordings were over and above lifestyle noise which could be expected in a large block of flats housing many residents. He noted that there was no statutory noise or breach of tenancy. The landlord wrote to the resident in June 2021 confirming that it had reviewed her completed diary sheets and recalled it had installed the SME in her property for a week. It noted the recordings did not depict statutory noise nuisance and therefore it could not escalate this case further. It recalled that during a telephone conversation held with the resident that same day, she stated the situation had improved and the noise was not impacting her in the same way as before.
  4. The resident raised a formal complaint on 3 August 2021 stating that the landlord had not stopped the noise from her neighbours. She explained that the noise had been ongoing for a year and had prevented her from being able to work. She confirmed that the landlord had installed the SME that concluded no noise nuisance, but that she did not believe the landlord was on her side, and that she wanted to move and prove that the noise had “destroyed [her] life and some ambitions/motivation”. She reiterated that she wanted the banging to stop, to be moved, for the SME to be reinstalled, for the landlord to act against the “occasional knocking on the walls” and for the landlord to recognise the impact the situation had on her.
  5. The landlord issued its stage one complaint response on 27 August 2021, and advised it would speak with her neighbour about the noise and that it had arranged for repairs to be carried out to the neighbour’s flooring to reduce any noise transference between the flats. The landlord recalled that it had referred the resident and the neighbour to mediation, however the mediator informed it that the case was not suitable and so the process was discontinued. It recalled that the SME was installed in her home, but as it did not verify noise nuisance, given the noise levels were found to be typical of a building of that age and construction, its investigation was subsequently closed on the 29 June. It said it understood that the resident may be sensitive to noises, however this did not mean that the noises were of an antisocial nature. It explained that its SME was installed for a reasonable amount of time and would not be installed in her home again. The landlord advised that because the noise was not verified there was no further action it could take, and that her complaint was not upheld.
  6. The resident stated that she was dissatisfied with the landlord’s response as it had not considered her reports or her audio clips and videos. She raised similar concerns as that in her previous reports and formal complaint in August 2021. In an email dated September 2021, the landlord explained to the resident that, it had listened to her audio clips and found that they did not evidence noise nuisance in her home. It reiterated that its SME also did not verify antisocial noise and that due to the age and construction of the building there was a certain level of noise transference between flats which was to be expected. It noted that others had varying levels of sensitivity to noise, however it did not mean that the noise was of an excessive or antisocial nature and unfortunately there was nothing it could do. The landlord advised that it was conscious of the resident’s mental health and was working closely with the Community Mental Health Team and its Tenant Family Support Team to ensure she was supported.
  7. The landlord issued its final complaint response on 7 October 2021 and explained the purpose of its final complaint response was to review how her reports of noise nuisance were handled. It explained that the main sources of evidence it used was the diary sheets she completed, the SME and any evidence from independent third parties, but there was insufficient evidence to act against any alleged perpetrator. It explained that if an SME did not provide the necessary evidence, it did not mean that it would be installed again. The landlord acknowledged the resident’s request to move and explained that it was unable to do so as there was nothing warranting this, it explained how she could search for a property using its website. The landlord apologised for the noise the resident experienced, but that no further action could be taken. It provided contact details for this Service if the resident was dissatisfied with its response.

Assessment and findings

  1. The landlord’s antisocial behaviour policy advises that noise nuisance as defined by the Environmental Protection Act 1990 must meet one of the criteria: unreasonably and substantially interfere with the use or enjoyment of a home; and / or injure health or be likely to injure health. The policy further states that it is reasonable to expect some level of noise from everyday life but if there is concern for someone’s welfare this should be reported.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports about noise nuisance from her neighbours

  1. The resident has explained the impact the noise nuisance has had on her health. The Ombudsman does not doubt the resident’s comments regarding her medical conditions, but this Service is unable to draw conclusions on the causation of, or liability for, impacts on health and wellbeing. This would be more usually dealt with as a personal injury claim through the courts or as an insurance claim. Nonetheless, consideration has been given to the general distress and inconvenience which the situation may have caused the resident. This is an accordance with paragraph 39(i) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme which says the Ombudsman will not investigate complaints which concern matters where the Ombudsman considers it quicker, fairer, more reasonable or more effective to seek a remedy through the courts, a designated person, other tribunal or procedure.
  2. When a complaint of a statutory nuisance is made to a landlord by one of its residents the landlord should take such steps as are reasonably practicable to investigate the reports.
  3. The resident reported hearing banging on the walls from her neighbours at unsociable hours throughout 2021. The landlord’s ASB policy states that it will use a range of preventative measures, early intervention, signposting to mediation services and legal action to tackle ASB. The policy further states that the methods used will be proportionate to the seriousness, impact and frequency of the behaviour, the level of risk that it poses to those affected, and the evidence available to support the case.
  4. In this case, the landlord, took reasonable steps to investigate the resident’s reports of noise nuisance. It spoke with the neighbours concerning the noise reports, it arranged for repairs to be carried out to the neighbour’s flooring to reduce any noise transference to the resident’s flat. It appropriately advised the resident to complete diary sheets and audio recordings of the noises. It installed the SME in her property to capture any noises and liaised with relevant third parties both in response to reports made and relating to her wellbeing, to provide support to the resident. The landlord’s actions were therefore proportionate and in line with its ASB policy.
  5. The resident asked that the landlord resolve the noise nuisance or help her move. In the landlord’s complaint response, it explained that the SME did not verify noise nuisance from the flat above her, and the noise levels were found to be typical of a building of that age and construction. Accordingly, landlords cannot reasonably be expected to take formal action against residents for noise that is considered everyday household noise; however, if a noise is confirmed as constituting statutory noise nuisance, then both a landlord and Environmental Health service may be able to warn and take formal action against the perpetrator. 
  6. Ultimately, however, there was no clear evidence of noise nuisance, despite the landlord’s investigations into the matter, and it was therefore reasonable that the landlord did not take further action against the neighbour. The landlord explained that it was unable to comply with the resident’s request to move as the issues she complained of had not been evidenced to warrant this. The landlord’s ASB policy states that it may consider a priority move for those assessed as at risk. Noise nuisance, especially that has not been substantiated, would not be considered a risk for the landlord to initiate a move, therefore it was not unreasonable for it to advise this. Nonetheless, it was appropriate for the landlord to explain to the resident how to search for a property using its website.
  7. Due to the landlord being unable to find any unreasonable or antisocial noise nuisance despite installing the SME in the resident’s property and reviewing the noise recordings submitted, there was no basis for the landlord to pursue further action against the neighbours. In short, the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of noise nuisance was reasonable and proportionate in the circumstances.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration by the landlord in respect of its handling of the resident’s reports of noise nuisance.