Thurrock Council (202204322)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202204322

Thurrock Council

29 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

  1. The complaint is about the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of noise nuisance.
  2. The Ombudsman has also considered the landlord’s complaint handling.

Background

  1. The resident has a secure tenancy with the landlord which is a local authority. The tenancy commenced on 18 September 1995.
  2. The landlord’s records show that the resident suffers from depression, anxiety disorder related to Obsessive Compulsive Disorder (OCD), fibromyalgia and osteoarthritis.
  3. The property is a 2 bedroom flat on the second floor of a block of flats. The property above is designated for use as temporary accommodation. 
  4. In April 2022 the resident contacted the landlord to report noise issues. On 21 April the resident raised concerns about whether the type of floor covering in the property above was contributing to the noise issues. On 21 May the resident emailed the landlord to confirm that she was wearing the headphones and ear plugs it had provided but they were not helping. Throughout the period March 2022 to June 2024 the resident made approximately 62 complaints about noise from above. The complaints covered a range of noise issues including the washing machine, loud music, jumping on the floor, banging doors, shouting and screaming.
  5. On 13 July 2022 the resident made a complaint to the landlord about “constant” noise from her neighbour above who was “jumping” on the ceiling. She said it was affecting her health and asked the landlord to make sure both this tenant and future tenants were more mindful.  The landlord issued its stage 1 response on 27 July 2022 to confirm that it had spoken to the resident above to remind them to be considerate.
  6. On 27 July 2023 the resident emailed the landlord to raise her dissatisfaction with its response. The landlord emailed the resident on 31 July to advise that the request to escalate was out of time and signposted the resident to this Service.
  7. On 11 October 2023 we wrote to the landlord to raise a stage 1 complaint on the resident’s behalf.
  8. The landlord provided its stage 1 complaint response on 25 October 2023, the main points being:
    1. The resident attended its offices on 20 October to discuss noise nuisance.
    2. It could not enforce issues with domestic noise but would speak to the resident above regarding their shouting and screaming.
    3. It arranged for door dampers on the fire doors to be checked to prevent them slamming shut at night.
    4. Due to the age of the property sound transference occurred “throughout the complex.”
    5. It had previously provided the resident with headphones to assist in blocking out noise but she had stopped wearing them due to anxiety about unknown individuals breaking into the property from scaffolding and not being able to hear them.
    6. She had declined for it to install window restrictors as she had key locks fitted to windows to allow her to feel secure enough to wear headphones.
    7. It had ensured the property above was carpeted to help reduce the noise.
    8. The resident declined to take up offers of alternative accommodation as she was concerned about the stress of moving. It advised that its safeguarding team would support her should she wish to take up this option.
  9. On 25 October 2023 the resident emailed the landlord to request to escalate to stage 2 and asked that it soundproof the property above.
  10. The landlord issued its stage 2 complaint response on 22 November 2023. It set out action it had taken to try to limit the noise including:
    1. Carpeting the property above.
    2. Checking fire doors to ensure they did not slam shut.
    3. Speaking with neighbours to reduce screaming and shouting.
    4. Providing headphones to help block out noise.
    5. Offering one to one support as well as onward referrals for additional support in addition to offering alternative accommodation.
  11. The complaint became one we could investigate on 18 December 2023. On 16 January 2024 the resident emailed this Service to say she could not cope with young children jumping around above her. She asked that the landlord soundproof the property and remind the resident above her to be mindful. She said it was affecting her “badly” and that she was “dreading” the next change of residents.

Assessment and findings

Landlord’s obligations, policies and procedures

  1. The landlord’s ASB and hate crime process (ASB process) says that it will carry out an initial visit to undertake a full risk assessment which uses a set of assessment criteria specially designed for this area of work. Cases may escalate or de-escalate with monitoring and each time they are reassessed. It will categorise severity, including:
    1. Category 2 – medium severity containing severe and persistent noise nuisance.
    2. Category 3 – low severity of one off incidents of noise, dog fouling and neighbour disputes.
  2. Its housing complaints policy says it will respond to stage 1 complaints within 10 working days and to stage 2 complaints within 20 working days. It will escalate complaints to stage 2 if requested by the resident no later than 28 days from its stage 1 response.

The complaint is about the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of noise nuisance.

  1. On 19 April 2022 the landlord appropriately advised the resident that it would speak to the neighbour living in the property above to ask them to reduce the noise. In an email to the landlord on 21 April the resident said this had a positive effect because the noise had been better. She requested that carpet be laid when the current neighbour left and a new one moved in.
  2. On 24 October 2024 the landlord provided this Service with photographs of the property above, dated 14 February 2020, which show newly laid carpets in 2 bedrooms and the lounge. The landlord’s records show it received the void in February 2020 with carpets fitted. However, it has not provided evidence to confirm that the carpets remained in situ.
  3. Following the resident’s ongoing reports of noise the landlord appropriately spoke to the resident above on 25 July 2022 to remind them to be mindful. However, the resident continued to email the landlord to report further noise.
  4. On 9 August 2022 the resident emailed the landlord to say she had thought about taking an overdose because she was in pain and “could not suffer any more.” There is no evidence that the landlord provided a response to the resident which was particularly inappropriate given the impact on her mental health.
  5. Furthermore, in the circumstances it would have been reasonable for the landlord to have conducted a risk assessment and/or considered what further support it might be able to offer the resident. That it failed to do so showed a lack of regard for her welfare.
  6. The resident emailed the landlord approximately 9 times between September and October 2022 to report ongoing noise nuisance. It is unclear what action the landlord took by way of response which is inappropriate. The lack of clarity caused the resident uncertainty and frustration.
  7. During January to July 2023 the resident emailed approximately 11 reports of noise nuisance to the landlord. This included a domestic disturbance at the property above on 6 February which was addressed appropriately. 
  8. The resident’s email to the landlord of 19 July 2023 said she was a “bundle of nerves” due to “loud banging noises.” On 20 July the landlord responded to ask the resident to provide further details. She said the resident above had been banging on the water pipes and banging and stomping on the floor until around 3.00a.m.
  9. The landlord replied on the same day, 20 July, to say it would add the location to its out of hours patrol happening that night. It also said it would forward the resident’s email to the temporary accommodation officer to consider the reports and investigate any issues relating to flooring in the property above. This was a positive step however, there is no evidence that the out of hours visit took place and/or that the temporary accommodation office considered the report.
  10. The resident’s frustration was evident in her email to the landlord of 27 July 2023 when she described feeling depressed and in pain due to her disability. She said the landlord was not being consistent in its response. One person had said they could help, another “said something different.”
  11. On 20 October 2023 the resident met with the landlord to discuss the situation. On 24 October 2024 the landlord provided this Service with a dated handwritten file note from the meeting which set out the resident’s reports about door slamming and the resident above screaming and crying.
  12. On 24 October 2023 the landlord appropriately sent an internal email to raise a request to check and adjust the close dampers for the landing doors and doors for properties on the resident’s floor. The landlord said the caretaker would check the landing doors but that it did not have access or authority to check flat doors. 
  13. There is no evidence setting out when the caretaker checked the landing doors and whether any works were carried out. Furthermore, it would have been appropriate for the landlord to consider seeking permission from the resident above to check the closers on the doors in her property. That it did not do so was a failure.
  14. This investigation acknowledges that the landlord provided the resident with headphones and earplugs to try to reduce the noise. However, the resident reported that these were not having the desired effect. For example, in an email dated 21 May 2022 she said the headphones were not helping. In an email to the landlord of 21 August 2023 the resident said not only were they not helping, but she had also been given medical advice not to wear the ear plugs. There is no evidence that the landlord considered the issues raised by the resident in relation to the headphones and ear plus which was inappropriate.
  15. During April 2022 to July 2023 the resident made a number of noise reports. The landlord contacted the resident above on 3 occasions to remind them of their obligations. However, there is no evidence that the landlord undertook a thorough investigation into the reports, communicating the outcome to the resident to manage her expectations. For example, it is unclear as to whether the landlord only contacted the resident(s) above on 3 occasions because, having assessed the reports, it was satisfied this was reasonable and proportionate in the circumstances.
  16. The Ombudsman’s spotlight report on noise complaints acknowledges that it can be unfair to treats reports of noise as ASB. The landlord’s ASB process sets out its response to noise complaints. Its response was not in line with its process because it failed to carry out an initial visit and undertake a risk assessment. There is no evidence that this was because it considered it would be inappropriate to follow its ASB process in the circumstances. There is also no evidence that it had regard to its duty under the Equality Act 2010. Its assessment of the situation and subsequent response lacked transparency which caused frustration for the resident. 
  17. The resident’s email to the landlord of 9 August 2023 said she had tried to move but there was nowhere suitable for her. In an email to this Service of 2 September she said the landlord did not understand her condition and her requirements regarding a potential move. This is contrary to the landlord’s stage 1 complaint response of 25 October which said the resident had declined to move to alternative accommodation due to the stress of moving.
  18. The landlord’s records show that it offered the resident a move on 23 June 2022. The resident declined because the property was sheltered accommodation which she had said she did not want.  The resident and landlord exchanged emails during December 2023 which confirmed the resident was in first position for a property. However, there are no further notes to outline why the resident did not move.
  19. The landlord’s complaint responses confirmed it was still willing to support the resident should she wish to move. In a phone call to this Service on 17 October 2024 the resident said she would like to move to alternative accommodation which is suitable for her needs.
  20. The landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of noise nuisance lacked clarity causing distress to the resident. The failures amount to maladministration because they had an adverse effect on the resident. The landlord has been ordered to pay the resident £250 which is consistent with the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance where there was no permanent impact.

The Ombudsman has also considered the landlord’s complaint handling.

  1. The landlord’s email to the resident of 31 July 2023 setting out its decision to decline to escalate her complaint to stage 2 was in line with its complaints policy. Furthermore, it issued its complaint responses in line with its complaints policy.
  2. The Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code requires landlords to provide a response to each point raised in the resident’s complaint. In the resident’s emails to the landlord of 9 August, 24 October and 25 October 2023 she asked it to consider sound proofing the property. The landlord failed to provide a response to the resident’s request which was inappropriate, causing frustration and uncertainty.
  3. The failure amounts to service failure for which the landlord has been ordered to pay the resident £50. This is consistent with the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance where the failure was of short duration and may not have affected the overall outcome for the resident.

 

Determination (decision)

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was maladministration in the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of noise nuisance.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was service failure in the landlord’s complaint handling.

Orders

  1. Within 4 weeks of the date of the determination the landlord is ordered to:
    1. Write to the resident to:
      1. Apologise for the failures identified by this investigation.
      2. Set out its response to the resident’s request for sound proofing and for alternative accommodation.
    2. Pay the resident £300 compensation comprised of:
      1. £250 for its failures in its response to the resident’s reports of noise nuisance.
      2. £50 for the uncertainty caused by its complaint handling failure.
    3. Take appropriate steps to satisfy itself that carpet remains in situ in the property above. If further works are required it should set out an action plan with timescales. It should write to the resident and the Ombudsman to confirm the outcome, also within 4 weeks.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 54.g. of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the landlord is to provide the Ombudsman with a review of its response to the resident’s noise complaints. The review should refer to the Ombudsman’s spotlight report on noise complaints. It should use its learning to write a policy setting out its response to noise complaints.
  3. The landlord is to confirm compliance with the order to the Ombudsman within 12 weeks of the date of this report.