Stonewater Limited (202206680)

Back to Top

 

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202206680

Stonewater Limited

4 July 2023

 

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 response to the resident’s reports about:
    1. noise transfer.
    2. insufficient sound proofing in the property.

Background

  1. The resident is an assured non-shorthold tenant of the landlord. The property is a 1 bedroom flat. The tenancy commenced on 12 January 2021.
  2. The resident contacted the landlord on 18 November 2021 about sound and noise transfer. He stated that the issue had been ongoing since April 2021, and that he had spoken to his neighbour about it, but it still continued. During interactions via telephone, email and letter between 18 November 2021 and 30 December 2021, the resident informed the landlord that he believed that the walls were hollow and that the partitions and sound proofing in the building did not meet regulations.
  3. The landlord agreed an action plan for the resident to log noise in diary sheets and make recordings, and for the landlord to speak to the neighbour and follow this up in writing. This action plan was carried out and it is evident that noise nuisance from the neighbours subsequently abated. The landlord reviewed 3 sound recordings provided by the resident, and found these to be inconclusive in relation to evidencing noise nuisance. The landlord advised the resident to log noise in diary sheets on multiple occasions, although there is no evidence that these were completed and returned. The landlord also arranged an in person test at the property for noise transfer, to establish how noise transferred between the residents and neighbouring properties, which took place on 4 February 2022. While this found that staff could not hear their colleague in tests, they ‘noticed’ the soundproofing was ‘possibly’ not great and requested a repairs report about this.
  4. In July 2022, the resident made a formal complaint about the noise transfer between neighbouring properties; the insulation (or lack of) between properties; and the landlord’s response to these issues.
  5. In its stage 1 and 2 responses to the complaint in August and September 2022, the landlord said there were no other sound transfer issues at the block; said the building met building regulations at the time it was built; signposted to its website about managing noise nuisance; and recommended the resident to contact the local authority about noise.
  6. Following the complaint, the resident has contacted the landlord about further noise, and the landlord has advised him to log and return diary sheets.

Assessment and findings

The landlord’s response to the resident’s reports about noise transfer

  1. The resident has raised concerns about neighbouring properties’ noise transferring to his property. There has been ongoing, sporadic contact from the resident in relation to the issues over a period of time. Following the reports, it was necessary for the landlord to consider the resident’s concerns and to take action such as contact the resident; discuss issues with relevant neighbours; provide appropriate advice; and to deal with the reports in a proportionate and appropriate manner, considering its obligation as landlord.
  2. In order for a landlord to take further action for noise, a landlord is entitled to be sure that it would be a proportionate and justified response to the reports and the evidence available. In this case, this Service has seen no evidence that the information available reasonably warranted further action than was taken and advised.
  3. The landlord arranged two action plans in the course of the complaint. It reviewed 3 sound recordings provided by the resident and concluded that there was no conclusive evidence of noise transfer. It also investigated if other residents experienced noise transfer issues, and spoke to neighbouring properties. It later carried out a sound test, which concluded that there was no noise transfer issues between the floor and ceiling of the property in question, and found that there was suitable flooring to minimise noise transfer. The landlord spoke to a neighbour about the use of domestic appliances at night, which the neighbour ceased. These show that the landlord took appropriate steps to review evidence of the noise the resident experienced; consider if the issue was experienced by other residents; carry out first-hand inspection of the issue; and speak to neighbours.
  4. The landlord recommended the resident to log diary sheets and contact other agencies such as the local authority. The landlord was reasonable to advise the resident to log diary sheets, as formal diary logs of dates, times and description of noise transfer enables a landlord to gain a clearer and more detailed insight into the nature, frequency and timings of noise. This then provides a landlord with a clearer basis behind taking any further action in respect to an issue. The absence of information such as diary sheets will have limited the landlord’s options. In the circumstances, the landlord was also reasonable to advise the resident to contact the local authority. The local authority has responsibilities in respect to noise in addition to the landlord, and may have been able to provide further advice about the issues.
  5. It is noted that the landlord logged the reports as ASB. It is not appropriate to handle all cases of noise as ASB, as detailed in our spotlight report on noise, however the initial reports from the resident alleged that his neighbour was intentionally causing noise. The landlord also considered the issue beyond ASB and kept regular communication with the resident. While this is the case, there is evidence that not all communication such as call records was logged or recorded, and so a recommendation is made in relation to this.
  6. It is also noted that the landlord recently asked the resident to provide diary sheets from a 14 day period within 14 days, otherwise the case would be closed. It was reasonable to request the resident to complete diary sheets, however it was not entirely reasonable for the deadline to complete and provide the diary sheets to be the same, and so a recommendation is also made in relation to this.
  7. Overall, in the Ombudsman’s opinion the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports about noise transfer was reasonable, considering all the circumstances of the case, and proportionate to the level of information about noise transfer at the property. Before and after the formal complaint, it fulfilled its obligations to consider and respond to the reports in a timely and reasonable manner. It discussed the issues with the resident and his neighbours; it reviewed evidence it was provided; it took reasonable action where appropriate; it advised the resident on how to produce further evidence for it to review; and it confirmed a position on matters at appropriate times.

The landlord’s response to the resident’s reports about insufficient sound proofing in the property

  1. The resident has stated that the sound proofing within the property is inadequate; the walls are hollow; there are no partitions between the floors; and the property, when built, did not meet building or fire regulations. It is not in this Service’s authority or expertise to make definitive decisions about whether a building meets building or fire safety regulations, as this is the jurisdiction of parties such as local authorities or the fire service. However, we can assess how a landlord has considered a resident’s reports about such issues.
  2. In this, it is evident that the landlord’s surveyors have considered this issue; visited the property; and informed the resident at various times that the building met the correct standard when it was built, and it has no obligation to meet current regulations. Given the level of evidence available about the sound proofing at the property, the landlord’s actions and position seem reasonable.
  3. This investigation understands that the resident’s block was converted from offices to flats within the past 10 years. As part of the process, building plans were submitted to the local authority to review the planning application and ensure this complied with the then building regulations for conversions of offices to flats. This Service understands that the sound insulation requirements for office to flat conversions differ from those for new build residential properties, and may not be as extensive. The progress of the development provides reasonable basis to conclude that it met applicable building regulations, and the resident has the option to contact the local authority’s planning or building control department if he has any further concerns about this.
  4. This Service understands that the resident has a different point of view, however the landlord is entitled to rely on the professional opinions of its staff, and this investigation notes that there is no evidence or opinion of an equivalent professional nature to support the resident’s view that the building did not meet the building regulations that applied when it was built. For example, he has mentioned opinions provided by the fire service about matters, however there is no evidence that the fire service contacted the landlord directly for the landlord to consider any appropriate action.
  5. The landlord’s February 2022 visit noted that soundproofing was ‘possibly’ not great and a repairs report was requested about this by a surveyor. It is not evident that a repairs report about the soundproofing was obtained and reviewed as seemed to have been planned, which is not entirely satisfactory. This may have mismanaged the resident’s expectations, however given the findings that staff in the resident’s property could not hear colleagues in the other, and the level of other evidence, it is not clear that this significantly impacts matters. While this is the case, a recommendation is made in relation to this.
  6. Overall, in the Ombudsman’s opinion the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports about insufficient sound proofing in the property was reasonable, considering all the circumstances of the case.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration in the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports about:
    1. noise transfer.
    2. insufficient sound proofing in the property.

Orders and recommendations

Recommendations

  1. The landlord to review this Service’s spotlight report on noise complaints and consider the recommendations and its staff training needs in respect to this.
  2. The landlord to review its record keeping and ensure that records of all communications such as callsare captured.
  3. The landlord to review its communication about the timeframes it gives for residents to respond to requests for information such as diary sheets.
  4. The landlord to review the previous finding that soundproofing was ‘possibly’ not great under the bathroom floor of the upstairs property; consider if it should progress the surveyor’s request for a repairs report; and inform the resident about its position on this.
  5. The landlord to liaise with the resident to consider and respond to his fire regulations concerns.