Sandbourne Housing Association (202324398)
REPORT
COMPLAINT 202324398
Sandbourne Housing Association
8 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
- The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of noise nuisance from her neighbour.
Background
- The resident is an assured tenant of the landlord, a housing association. The resident’s one-bedroom flat is within a block of four flats.
- The resident has vulnerabilities, which include mental health, PTSD, OCD, and an eye condition.
- Between May 2023 and the resident’s complaint in November 2023, she reported noise nuisance from her neighbour on at least 4 occasions, including hitting, tapping, and thudding on her walls. The landlord sent diary sheets for her to complete and listened to the resident’s audio recordings that she submitted.
- The resident contacted us in November 2023 and formally complained to her landlord on 29 November 2023. She said that to block the noise from her neighbour, she turned her electric fan heater on 24 hours a day to avoid her going “crazy” or shouting things at her neighbour.
- The landlord sent a stage 1 response on 4 December 2023. After reviewing all the communication and listening to the audio recordings, it confirmed that it had no evidence of the reported noise nuisance. The resident had not returned any diary sheets, and without evidence, the landlord could not address the reports with her neighbour. The landlord provided contact details for Environmental Health (EH), which it had previously given, to request sound monitoring equipment to capture the noise. The landlord understood that the events had been unsettling for the resident and had increased her anxiety, so it offered a meeting at her property on 12 December 2023. The landlord was concerned that the resident was not receiving the support that could benefit her.
- On 5 December 2023 the resident replied that the landlord was not considering the evidence and felt she was wasting her time and energy trying to get help and could not continue to live like it. The landlord responded the same day, reiterating its advice to contact EH, whose equipment could capture the reported noise. The landlord also asked for the resident’s GP contact details for further support. It restated that the diary sheets should record the time, date, and effect of the noise on the resident when it occurs, as this helps gather evidence to progress cases.
- The resident contacted us again in April 2024. We asked the landlord to send a stage 2 response, which it did on 4 June 2024. It confirmed that housing officers had visited the resident on 28 May 2024 but had not witnessed any noise. It was understood that the resident had been unable to complete recovery therapy because she thought her neighbour was listening to her conversations. EH had concluded that because of the short duration of the noise and the times of the day, the noise was considered general living noise. It confirmed that with effect from 30 May 2024, unless reports were accompanied by verifiable evidence, any emails connected to the noise nuisance would be logged, acknowledged, and filed for future reference.
- The resident asked us to investigate her complaint because she was unhappy with the landlord’s lack of action to address the noise. She has said that she feels like she is going crazy, and the noise is significantly impacting her mental and physical health.
Assessment and findings
Scope of investigation
- The resident has raised concerns about the impact the noise is having on her mental and physical health. We acknowledge the concerns and distress this is likely to have caused. However, this would be more appropriately considered by a court where liability can be established. We have considered the landlord’s response to the resident’s ASB reports and whether it was reasonable.
ASB policy
- The landlord’s approach to tackling ASB behaviour focuses on prevention, diversion, early informal intervention, support, and enforcement. Its holistic approach involves working closely with other partner agencies. Whenever possible, it will encourage and facilitate appropriate changes in behaviour to achieve long-term resolution of ASB cases. It confirms that lifestyle and domestic noise are not considered ASB.
- When the landlord receives an ASB report, it will assess the nature of the complaint, the likely impact of the behaviour, and the vulnerabilities of the complainant and the alleged perpetrator.
Assessment
- Determining whether ASB or noise nuisance has occurred is outside our remit. Instead, our role is to consider the actions taken by the landlord to investigate and respond to the resident’s reports of noise from a neighbouring property. We have considered whether the landlord has acted reasonably, proportionately and in line with its policies and procedures in response to these reports and the subsequent formal complaint.
- The Ombudsman’s spotlight report on noise states that “landlords should have a proactive, good neighbourhood management policy, distinct to the ASB policy, with a clear suite of options for maintaining good neighbourhood relationships”. This ensures low-level issues of neighbour friction are not inappropriately handled as potential ASB. In this case, the landlord applied its ASB policy when responding to noise reports, which did not constitute ASB. Therefore, it is recommended that the landlord consider implementing a good neighbourhood management policy for instances where reported noise is not constituted as ASB.
- In May and June 2023, the landlord investigated the resident’s reports that her neighbour was causing a noise nuisance, specifically by hitting, tapping, and thudding her walls. After listening to recordings provided by the resident, the landlord confirmed that it could not hear anything that would support the resident’s reports or suggest a statutory noise nuisance. The landlord concluded there was only evidence of slight noises or what sounded like the neighbour going up and down the stairs. The landlord provided the resident with diary sheets to record the frequency, time, duration, and impact of the noise. The landlord explained why it was important for the resident to complete the diary sheets to gather evidence and support her reports.
- The evidence shows that the resident raised concerns about completing diary sheets and her difficulties completing the form on her phone because of her eye condition. She also said that it took her a long time to complete. Our spotlight report on noise recommends that landlords provide a range of accessible and inclusive options for residents to report noise. The resident had asked the landlord to accept her phone screenshots as evidence of the noise, date, and time. The landlord has not provided evidence confirming that it responded to her request or considered adjusting evidence submission methods considering her request. Instead, the landlord persisted in asking the resident to complete diary sheets, which was unreasonable and highlights the need for the landlord to be more inclusive in its approach to evidence requests.
- On 14 June 2023 the landlord confirmed that it would write to her neighbour about the noise if the resident agreed. Although the resident agreed, we have not seen any correspondence to indicate that the landlord followed through with the letter. As such, it is unclear whether the neighbour knew that the resident was upset by the banging on the walls. While there may not have been evidence to suggest the neighbour was deliberately causing a noise nuisance, the landlord’s ASB policy says it will use informal early intervention to prevent a situation from escalating. This was a missed opportunity to highlight the issue and facilitate a behaviour change to achieve a quick and amicable resolution.
- Furthermore, there is no evidence to suggest that the landlord visited the neighbour to conduct a property inspection as part of its investigation into the reported noise. This inspection could have included soundproofing tests, assessments of furniture and TV placement, and evaluations of the carpets and flooring. It is unclear why the landlord did not take the opportunity to explore whether simple adjustments could have mitigated the noise reported by the resident, demonstrating that it was taking her reports seriously. Relying heavily on the return of diary sheets instead of conducting thorough investigations was unreasonable. The landlord failed to explore beyond the limited evidence it had been provided, neglecting to consider other reasonable measures to confirm the presence of noise.
- The landlord appropriately provided the resident with contact details for Environmental Health (EH) to request noise monitoring equipment. The resident was advised that her noise recordings did not meet the threshold for further intervention, so EH would not install monitoring equipment. The landlord passed this information to the resident within its stage 2 response and added that recordings submitted by the resident had not picked up any noise of concern. It was appropriate for the landlord to communicate its findings to the resident.
- The landlord’s decision not to take further action was based on the lack of clear evidence of statutory noise nuisance. After carefully reviewing the noise recordings, the landlord concluded that the noise was typical everyday household sounds and was not recorded during unsociable hours. As a result, it did not meet the criteria for a statutory noise nuisance. While this limits the landlord’s options for taking formal action, exploring other potential resolutions to address the issue effectively is important, such as informal letters and checking the noise transference between properties. There is no evidence that the landlord did this in this case.
- The landlord’s correspondence displayed empathy for the resident, her situation, and the impact on her health. Its proactive communication with other services, including the resident’s GP, and its offer to facilitate re-engagement with additional support services shows the landlord’s effective use of the ASB policy through collaborative partnership working.
- However, the stage 2 response indicated that without verifiable evidence, it would only log, acknowledge, and file her reports. While this approach may be justifiable in other cases, considering the resident’s vulnerabilities, this response likely diminished her experience and heightened her feeling that no one was listening. It is important to note that the landlord’s responsibility to investigate noise reports does not simply cease. At the very least, the landlord should have shown a willingness to discuss further steps it could take or support it could offer the resident.
- Although there are some positive aspects in relation to the landlord’s handling of this case, the landlord failed to thoroughly investigate the reports beyond the limited evidence provided by the resident. Additionally, the landlord relied too heavily on diary sheets despite the resident’s difficulties in completing them. The landlord did not do enough to acknowledge the significant impact of even minor noise on the resident who has PTSD and mental health issues. The landlord should have been more mindful of this when considering the noise reports. Therefore, we have found maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the residents’ reports of noise nuisance.
- To determine an appropriate level of compensation, we have considered the landlord’s compensation policy and our remedies guidance. The landlord’s compensation policy does not include specific redress for distress and inconvenience, but it does mention that it may provide goodwill payments at its discretion. Therefore, taking into account the failings identified in this report, as well as the landlord’s failure to appropriately consider the impact of the noise on a vulnerable resident, we have awarded £300 for the distress and inconvenience this likely caused.
Determination
- In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was maladministration by the landlord regarding its handling of the resident’s reports of noise nuisance from her neighbour.
Orders
- Within 4 weeks of the date of this report, the landlord is ordered to:
- Apologise to the resident for the failings identified in this report.
- Pay the resident £300 for the distress and inconvenience caused by its handling of her noise nuisance reports.
- Contact the resident by phone or home visit to check the current position in respect of the noise and whether she has any current concerns. It should then confirm in writing this discussion and any further action agreed, including any planned investigation, with a clear explanation of any decisions, and provide a copy of this letter to the Ombudsman.
Recommendations
- The Ombudsman recommends that the landlord re-visit the spotlight report on noise nuisance, available on our website. The report highlights that it is not always appropriate to investigate noise complaints through a landlord’s ASB policy. Noise complaints often require a tailored approach appropriate to the circumstances of each complaint. The landlord should consider this and take the recommendations made in the report on board to improve its service.
- The landlord should consider what steps it can take to expedite a property move for the resident.
- The landlord should confirm its intentions regarding the recommendations to us within 4 weeks.