The Riverside Group Limited (202006171)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202006171

The Riverside Group Limited

12 February 2021

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 of noise nuisance from a neighbour.

Background and summary of events

2. The resident spoke with his housing officer on 20 May 2020 regarding noise nuisance he experienced from his neighbour’s children. The landlord subsequently spoke with the neighbour regarding the resident’s reports.
3. On 21 May 2020 the resident emailed the landlord to say that he believed the noise he experienced was avoidable and noted that he had sent the landlord noise recordings.
4. The landlord advised the resident on 21 May 2020 that the neighbour lived in their property since before the resident moved into the building and no issues had previously been reported. It suggested that what the resident was now reporting was a consequence of people working from home and children being off school during the coronavirus pandemic. It confirmed it raised the reports with the tenant in question immediately after speaking to the resident on two occasions and could not take action if the noises and disruptions were not deemed to be excessive or anti-social. It had not received the resident’s sound files and asked him to resend them.
5. The resident sent the landlord noise recordings on 22 and 24 May 2020. He said that these demonstrated noise from the neighbour’s balcony, where the children were using scooters, and from the resident’s children playing in the corridor of the building.  
6. On 26 May 2020 the landlord spoke with the resident’s neighbour, who denied that their children made excessive noise throughout the day. They said that their children were off school and therefore were at home longer than they normally would be, and they did not allow them to play in the corridor but did allow them some time on the balcony for fresh air. The landlord asked the neighbour to keep noise to a minimum and be mindful of others trying to work from home.
7. The landlord also spoke with the resident and advised that the sound quality in the recordings was poor, so it could not hear anything that would be deemed excessive. It informed the resident that he could contact the local environmental services team to see if they could offer further support.
8. On 26 May 2020, following a call from the resident to the landlord’s call centre, the landlord’s housing manager emailed the resident in response to dissatisfaction he had reported with the actions of his housing officer to date. The resident responded on 26 May 2020. He explained that his main concern was his neighbour’s children causing noise in the corridor. He felt the landlord sending a written notice to the neighbour might make them be more understanding and considerate of other residents who were working from home or self-isolating.
9. On 29 May 2020 the landlord’s housing manager confirmed that they had contacted the neighbour again, who had given an undertaking to try and be more mindful and utilise parks and outside spaces where possible. The manager reiterated that the landlord struggled to hear any significant noise in the recordings, which could be due to the quality of the recording. It suggested that equipment provided by the local authority’s environmental health team might assist with this. Finally, the housing manager noted that the rules put in place by the government to combat the coronavirus pandemic created some challenges as many people had not spent this amount of time limited to their surroundings. With the reduction of covid-related restrictions, the landlord hoped some of these types of situations would resolve naturally, or at least lessen.
10. On 1 June 2020 the resident asked to log a formal complaint because he still experienced noise nuisance daily.
11. The landlord responded to the resident’s complaint on 9 June 2020. It confirmed that it had advised the resident that it could not hear any excessive noise on his recordings and suggested that he contact the local environmental services, for assistance with capturing evidence of noise nuisance on which the landlord could act. It reiterated that the resident and neighbour had lived as neighbours for the past few years without complaint or incident and so, as coronavirus lockdowns continued to ease and things returned to normal, it believed that the “status quo experienced previously between the two properties” would also return.
12. On 15 June 2020 the resident reported to the landlord that he experienced further noise nuisance from his neighbour’s children in the corridor. He attached a short clip and asked the landlord to escalate his complaint and write to his neighbour.
13. The landlord confirmed, on 16 June 2020, that it had escalated the resident’s complaint. It asked for further details on the noise captured in the sound clip and if the resident had sought further advice or requested equipment from environmental services. Finally, the landlord confirmed the incident had been logged and the resident could call its 24-hour call centre whenever there was a noise issue that was disturbing him for this to be logged on the case.
14. The resident responded on 16 June 2020 that the noise would happen when the neighbour and their children would leave or enter their home. This would be “quite brief but extremely loud and sudden, at random points in the day/evening”. The resident explained that his most recent noise recording captured the neighbour’s children going up and down the corridor on bikes, presumably waiting for their mother. He also added that his neighbour was not considerate about closing their front door gently. The resident finally advised that he sent his own recordings because it was easy for him to do.
15. On 19 June 2020 the resident reported that his neighbour’s children were running and jumping on the balcony, which made it difficult for him to work from home. He requested a call back from a senior member of the landlord’s staff.
16. The housing manager emailed the resident on 23 June 2020. They explained that their capacity to respond to customers’ requests for contact was proving difficult, given business changes and the coronavirus pandemic. They confirmed that the complaint regarding noise nuisance had been escalated and they would be responding in line with the procedural time scales.
17. On 30 June and 1 July 2020 the resident reported that his neighbour’s children called were making excessive noise and were allowed to play in the corridors and on the balcony.
18. The landlord wrote to all of the residents of the block on 2 July 2020. It asked that, while people were staying in their homes, they were considerate of their neighbours while indoors and in their balconies. It asked that noise was kept to a minimum and that neighbours were considerate about the volume when playing music, closing doors etc.
19. On 2 July 2020 the resident sent the landlord a clip of the neighbour’s child playing on their scooter on the balcony. The landlord responded on 3 July that it could not play the clip but would “take the resident’s word for it” and write to the neighbour, who had been told not to not to allow use of the scooters on the balcony. It also asked for an update on any progress the resident made in obtaining the sound recording equipment.
20. The resident responded that he had not requested sound recording equipment because he was able to capture the sound himself but would do this if necessary, to resolve his complaint. The landlord asked that the resident did this as it would “struggle to take this any further without significant evidence”. It also said that the equipment would record constantly so all noises were picked up and it would give the landlord a bigger picture of how often and when the noise occurred.
21. The resident replied on 5 July 2020 that he was working from home and he discussed confidential/sensitive information with people, so was not willing to record sound constantly if it captured this. He confirmed he was recording noise instances and keeping a log (with dates and times).
22. The landlord sent the resident its final complaint response on 5 July 2020. It reiterated its view that, as the resident and alleged perpetrator had been neighbours for several years without complaint, it was a reasonable assumption that the situation was symptomatic of the imposed quarantine only. The landlord explained that it had to follow a specific process and take all steps available before considering taking any enforcement action. It noted that noise transference was often an unavoidable occurrence in apartment living and noise complaints could be particularly difficult to resolve satisfactorily as a result.
23. For it to consider taking any enforcement, the landlord explained that substantial evidence of excessive noise was needed. In this instance, there were two young children residing at the property and so the landlord said that some elevation of noise, particularly whilst quarantine measures were in place, was expected. The landlord confirmed that the evidence that the resident provided did not substantially support the view that this noise was deliberate and beyond reasonable. In an attempt to establish any wider impact and corroborate the resident’s allegations, the landlord said that it contacted neighbouring properties to ascertain if they had any concerns regarding noise nuisance generally. No claims of this nature were raised.
24. The landlord reiterated its recommendation that the resident contact the local environmental services, as they could provide recording equipment which may help with capturing the noise reported, and asked if the resident would be willing to enter into mediation with his neighbour. The landlord explained that this would enable the resident to try and reach an agreement with his neighbour about what needed to happen going forward.
25. Finally, the landlord directed the resident to contact this service if he remained unhappy with its response to his complaint.

Assessment and findings

26. The landlord’s anti-social behaviour (ASB) procedure says it will deal with reports of noise nuisance but will ask the customer to submit evidence of the alleged nuisance. In some cases, it may also refer customers to the relevant local authority who have a duty to deal with statutory nuisance, which can include noise pollution.
27. In accordance with the landlord’s ASB procedure, when the landlord receives reports of ASB it should interview the complainant within seven working days; assess the risk; formulate an action plan that includes how to record/gather evidence; and interview the perpetrator within five working days of interviewing the complainant. It should report back the initial findings to the complainant within 20 working days of receipt of the report.
28. For a landlord to take formal action in respect of anti-social behaviour it requires corroborative evidence of the alleged behaviour to support formal action. In this case, it was evident that the landlord took reasonable steps to investigate and seek corroborative evidence in line with its obligations. For example, it acted promptly to interview both the resident and the neighbour and then reported its findings back to the resident. It considered the noise recordings provided by the resident, contacted neighbouring properties to ascertain if they had any concerns regarding noise nuisance, and gave the resident advice on gathering evidence by referring him to the local authority.
29. Landlords cannot reasonably be expected to take formal action against tenants 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. Ultimately, however, there was no clear evidence of noise nuisance, despite the landlord’s investigations into the matter. It was therefore reasonable that the landlord did not take further action against the neighbour and offered mediation between the resident and his neighbour.
30. Given the above, the landlord’s attempts to investigate the resident’s reports were in line with its policy but, ultimately, it found no evidence of any noise nuisance. Its handling of the resident’s reports and offer of mediation was, accordingly, reasonable.

Determination (decision)

31. In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of noise nuisance from a neighbour.