Southend on Sea City Council (202348068)

Background

1. The property is a bedsit flat. It is served by a careline service, which the resident can access via a pull chord. The resident has been reporting noise nuisance from a neighbour which she has said has caused her significant distress.

What the complaint is about

2. The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of:
   1. Reports of noise nuisance.
   2. The complaint.

Our decision (determination)

3. There was reasonable redress in the landlord’s handling of reports of noise nuisance.
4. There was service failure in the landlord’s complaint handling.

We have made orders for the landlord to put things right.

Summary of reasons

The landlord’s handling of reports of noise nuisance.

5. The landlord did not acknowledge the resident’s reports of noise nuisance as early as it could have. It did not recognise the distress to the resident at the earliest opportunity. It also did not manage the resident’s expectations as to what actions it could take in relation to the type of noise nuisance the resident was reporting. However, at the time of the stage 2 the resident reported an improvement in the noise nuisance. The landlord apologised for its failings and offered a compensation which was reasonable.

The landlord’s handling of the complaint.

6. The landlord responded to the complaint within the timescales as per its complaints policy. However, it missed an earlier opportunity to recognise an expression of dissatisfaction and respond appropriately.

Putting things right

Where we find service failure, maladministration or severe maladministration we can make orders for the landlord to put things right. We have the discretion to make recommendations in all other cases within our jurisdiction.

Orders

Landlords must comply with our orders in the manner and timescales we specify. The landlord must provide documentary evidence of compliance with our orders by the due date set.

Recommendations

Our recommendations are not binding, and a landlord may decide not to follow them.

Our investigation

The complaint procedure

What we found and why

The circumstances of this complaint are well known by the parties involved, so it is not necessary to detail everything that’s happened or comment on all the information we’ve reviewed. We’ve only included the key information that forms the basis of our decision of whether the landlord is responsible for maladministration.

What we did not consider

7. The resident told us that the landlord’s handling of her reports of noise nuisance has impacted on her health. It would be fairer, more reasonable, and more effective for the resident to make a personal injury claim for any injury caused. The courts are best placed to deal with this type of dispute as they will have the benefit of independent medical advice to decide on the cause of any injury and how long it will last. We have not investigated this further. We can decide if a landlord should pay compensation for distress and inconvenience.
8. The resident has advised us that after the stage 2 response the noise nuisance returned. We are aware the landlord opened a new ASB case. However as per our scheme we can only consider events that have been through the landlord’s complaints process. This is to ensure the landlord has an opportunity to respond to any complaint made by the resident. As such we can only consider events up until 22 January 2024, when the stage 2 complaint was issued. However, we can consider whether the landlord has upheld any commitments it made at stage 2 of the complaints process.

What we did consider

9. In the stage 1 response the landlord said the resident first reported the matter in March 2023. We note the first email within the evidence file sent to us by the landlord is dated 20 April 2023. The landlord’s ASB policy says it will record reports made by resident’s even if it does not consider the matter to be ASB. The landlord should have ensured it has accurately recorded all reports of ASB from a resident, as per its policy.
10. In the email dated 20 April 2023 the resident said that her neighbour was regularly talking throughout the night. This prevented her from sleeping and had significant impact on her health. The landlord’s ASB policy says that talking within the property, is not an example of ASB. However regular and persistent noise nuisance that has a detrimental effect on a resident may be ASB. It would have been reasonable for the landlord to explain to the resident whether it considered the matter to be ASB. The landlord did this and said that it would speak to the neighbour to ask him to be mindful of the impact on the resident. This was a reasonable action from the landlord. However, it may have been appropriate for the landlord to acknowledge the significant impact the resident had described the matter was having on her. The landlord did not do this at that time.
11. On 25 April 2023 the resident challenged the landlord’s position that the talking was not ASB, based on the definitions it had provided her. It also asked if the landlord had spoken with the neighbour as the situation had not changed. The landlord responded on the same day to confirm it had spoken with the neighbour on that day. It reiterated the behaviour was not a breach of tenancy. It may have been reasonable for the landlord to offer further information as to why it did not believe the behaviour constituted ASB and to acknowledge the impact the resident had described the situation was having on her. The landlord did not do this.
12. The resident reported further noise on 12 May 2023. The landlord asked the resident if she could download the noise app. It also said it would ask for a surveyor to check whether there was sufficient sound proofing in the property. These were both reasonable actions for the landlord to explore. However, we have seen no evidence that the landlord completed the survey to check for noise transference until 17 September 2024. There is no explanation for this delay. We note the survey ultimately found no structural defects. However we consider the delay is likely to have contributed to the resident feeling the landlord was taking insufficient action.
13. The resident sent an email on 1 June 2023. She asked who made decisions regarding what ASB was and what could be done about it. The resident chased a response to this on 8 June 2023, and on 14 June 2023. The landlord responded on 15 June 2023 to advise ASB cases were decided jointly by the landlord and the local council. The landlord acknowledged the delayed response. The landlord’s policies do not specify timeframes for when it will respond to residents. The landlord should ensure response times are known for residents, to help manage expectations.
14. On 19 October 2023 the landlord completed a risk assessment. It categorised the risk assessment as medium. It does not say what prompted this risk assessment, or what it intended to do moving forward to support the resident. We consider it likely that the risk assessment was prompted by further reports of noise nuisance. However, these are not recorded. We expect landlords to keep robust records to ensure the landlord has an accurate account of what the resident has reported.
15. In the risk assessment the landlord has recorded a recent threat of violence, with no further information. The landlord’s ASB policy said it will contact the resident within 10 working days where risk is low or medium. We have not seen evidence it did this.
16. On 28 October 2023 the landlord was informed by a careline service at the resident’s home that she had reported noise nuisance on 21 October 2023. There is no evidence the landlord acted on this report or contacted the resident. However, in an email from the resident dated 23 November 2023, the resident said she was waiting on noise recording equipment from the landlord. This indicates that there were further interactions between the resident and the landlord, which are not in the records.
17. The email dated 23 November 2023 noted that the resident felt the neighbour was being quieter. She had concerns about how the landlord had handled her case up to that point. The landlord’s stage 1 response acknowledged that the noise had been impacting on the resident and that it should have acted sooner. It offered counselling and mediation. It noted that the noise recording equipment had not picked up noise but said it would install it again if it was needed in the future. In the stage 2 response the landlord further apologised for its delays in responding to the residents concerns and recognised that the matter had caused significant distress. It offered £100 compensation.
18. The landlord did not respond to the resident as quickly as it should have. It also should have communicated more clearly as to whether it was handling the case as ASB and provided reasons for this. It had opportunities to acknowledge the impact on the resident earlier, whilst ensuring her expectations were managed. Its failure to do this and lack of timely responses increased the frustration and distress the resident was experiencing. At the time of the stage 2 response there were no outstanding actions for the landlord to take, due to the resident saying the noise nuisance was not ongoing. The landlord acknowledged its failings in the complaints responses and offered compensation which we consider to be reasonable redress for the failures in line with our remedies guidance.
19. Whilst we have found reasonable redress, we are aware the resident has continued to report noise nuisance.  She has raised concerns about how the landlord has handled this. We would recommend the landlord contact the resident and consider whether a new complaint is needed.

20. The landlord’s complaints policy defines a complaint as an expression of dissatisfaction. This is in line with the definition of a complaint as per our Code (2024). On 15 June 2023 the resident said she was “very unhappy with the response she received when she needed help”. We would consider this an expression of dissatisfaction, and as such the landlord should have opened a complaint at this time. We consider the failure to open a complaint is likely to have left the resident feeling unheard.
21. The landlord’s complaints policy says it will acknowledge complaints within 5 working days. It says it will respond to stage 1 complaints within 10 working days of acknowledgement and stage 2 complaints within 20 working days of acknowledgement. This is compliant with our Code.
22. The landlord acknowledged the complaint on the same working day as it was logged. It responded at stage 1 in 13 working days. This was 3 working days outside the timescales as per its policy. However, the total time was under the 15 working days when considering the timescales to acknowledge and respond to a complaint.
23. The landlord responded to the stage 2 complaint in 19 working days. This was within the timescales of its complaints policy.
24. The landlord has responded in reasonable timescales once it acknowledged the complaint. However, we consider the landlord had an earlier opportunity to log the complaint. As such we have found service failure. We have awarded £50 in line with our compensation guidance (2026).

Learning

25. At stage 1 and stage 2 the landlord demonstrated that it had understood the significant impact the situation had on the resident. It recognised where it had made errors and committed to logging an ASB case sooner if the resident reported further noise nuisance moving forward. We understand the landlord logged an ASB case when the resident next raised concerns.

Knowledge information management (record keeping)

26. We consider it likely that there are communications between the landlord and the resident that are not within the evidence file provided to us. We consider it important for the landlord to keep accurate and robust records. This is particularly relevant for a noise nuisance case, where persistent events can be what causes a case to be defined as ASB.

Communication

27. The landlord’s complaints responses demonstrated empathy and acknowledged the resident’s concerns. However, there were several communication failures prior to the complaint responses. This caused frustration to the resident and exacerbated the situation.