Tower Hamlets Homes (202216444)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202216444

Tower Hamlets Homes

8 August 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 handling of the resident’s reports of noise nuisance from the above property.

Background

2. The resident is a leaseholder of the property, and the landlord is the freeholder.
3. On 19 November 2019, the resident contacted the landlord and reported that her new neighbour in the property above her was causing noise nuisance. The resident stated that she could hear walking and running from her neighbours’ grandchildren.
4. On 14 August 2022, the resident submitted a complaint to the landlord via the Ombudsman. The resident stated that the complaint was about the landlord not responding and addressing her concerns regarding the noise nuisance from her neighbour and their grandchildren at the above property.
5. The landlord provided its stage 1 complaint response to the resident on 26 August 2022. The landlord explained that it had inspected the flooring at the resident’s neighbour’s flat, and it stated it had logged a new case regarding noise nuisance due to the resident’s concerns. It explained that it had previously closed the noise nuisance case in May 2020 as resolved.
6. On 7 September 2022, the resident contacted the landlord and requested her complaint to be escalated to stage 2 of the landlord’s complaint process. The resident stated that her complaint was about multiple issues including the landlord’s neighbourhood officers’ lack of response. The resident also stated that the landlord’s response only referred to anti-social behaviour issues reported from 2019 to 2021.
7. On 11 October 2022, the landlord provided its stage 2 complaint response. The landlord explained that the building the resident lived in had poor sound insulation. This was due to the age and structure of the building, and it stated that major works to remedy the issue would be too expensive to carry out. The landlord also explained that it carried out work at the resident’s neighbour’s property to reduce the sound impact. It stated that that it repaired the floorboards and installed carpet at the property, which it paid for.
8. The resident remained dissatisfied with the landlord’s response and submitted her complaint to the Ombudsman. She stated her desired outcome was for the landlord to inspect the noise issue properly. The resident stated that the landlord needs to ensure that her neighbour’s property has adequate carpet and an anti-vibration mat for the washing machine.

Assessment and findings

9. The resident stated as part of her complaint, that she experienced noise issues with a previous neighbour. As this incident happened several years ago and was not raised through the landlord’s complaint procedure within 6 months of the incident taking place, the Ombudsman is not able to consider this incident in our investigation. This is in line with paragraph 42(c) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme which states, the Ombudsman may not consider complaints which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, were not brought to the attention of the landlord as a formal complaint within a reasonable period, which would normally be within 6 months of the matters arising.
10. It is outside the role of the Ombudsman to establish whether someone has committed anti-social behaviour, but rather, this service will assess the landlord’s handling of the residents’ anti-social behaviour reports. This service will consider whether the landlord’s response was fair and reasonable in view of all the circumstances and whether it acted in line with its own internal policies, the law and industry best practice.
11. The landlord’s anti-social behaviour policy states that when a resident reports anti-social behaviour, the landlord will assess the nature of the problem before deciding the most appropriate action to take. The policy explains that the landlord will contact a resident within two working days in relation to cases such as noise nuisance. It also explains that it will review and assess the details of the incident and assign the case to a relevant officer. Following this, the landlord will discuss the next steps and the likely outcome of any action it will take.
12. The resident reported noise nuisance to her landlord on 19 November 2019. She explained that her neighbour in the property above her was causing noise nuisance. She stated that she could hear walking and running from her neighbour’s grandchildren. The resident also contacted the landlord on several occasions between January 2020 and August 2022 regarding the noise nuisance. She explained that she could hear her neighbour’s washing machine, conversations and the dragging of furniture.
13. The landlord acknowledged the resident’s report of noise nuisance on the 19 November 2019 and provided her with diary sheets to complete. It was reasonable for the landlord to ask the resident to complete diary sheets so that it could investigate the issues she had reported. Diary sheets are an important tool for the landlord to understand the timing and the frequency of the issues reported as well as the impact these issues were having on the resident. It was a necessary starting point for the landlord to carry out its investigations into the residents’ reports of noise nuisance.
14. On 28 November 2019, the landlord held a telephone interview with the resident to obtain further information about the noise nuisance. The Ombudsman believes it was reasonable for the landlord to phone the resident as part of its investigation to gain a more detailed understanding of the reported noise nuisance.
15. The landlord contacted the resident on 6 December 2019 and explained that it was working on assisting her neighbour with floor covering at the property. The landlord fitted carpet in the neighbour’s hallway and living room in March 2020. The Ombudsman recognises that there were some delays in the landlord installing the carpet. However, it is evident that this was due to the resident’s neighbour dealing with a personal incident which would have prevented the landlord’s contractor accessing the property and would have been outside of the landlord’s control. The landlord stated in a letter dated 3 November 2022 that the main bedroom had also been carpeted. The Ombudsman recognises the tenant of the property is normally responsible for fitting carpets. Therefore, the Ombudsman acknowledges that the landlord went beyond its obligations when it installed the carpet at the resident’s neighbour’s property as the landlord was not strictly obliged to fit the carpet.
16. The resident acknowledged in an email sent to the landlord on 17 March 2020 that the noise had reduced. However, shortly after, the resident contacted the landlord and expressed that she could hear noises such as running and the washing machine.
17. In addition to installing the carpet, the landlord contacted the resident’s neighbour on several occasions to ask her to be mindful of the noise and the number of visitors they have visiting the property at one time. The landlord also offered mediation in August 2022. However, this was not accepted by the resident. Mediation is optional; therefore, it was entirely the resident’s decision whether she accepted the mediation offer. This service recognises that it was reasonable for the landlord to offer mediation to the resident as mediation can be an effective tool to resolve disputes between neighbours in some cases.
18. The resident requested for an anti-vibration mat to be placed under the neighbour’s washing machine. The Ombudsman recognises that it must be difficult for the resident hearing the washing machine when it is in operation. However, it is not the landlord’s responsibility to purchase an anti-vibration mat, this would the resident’s neighbour’s responsibility However the landlord would not be able to compel the neighbour to fit this as it is not a requirement under the tenancy agreement to have anti-vibration mats under washing machines, it is only a requirement to have suitable floor coverings such as carpets. In addition, a landlord does not have a legal obligation to fit improved sound insulation or sound proofing at a resident’s property. Therefore, the Ombudsman would not expect the landlord to install sound proofing at the property.
19. The identified noises were from general household activity such as footsteps, conversations, and the operation of the washing machine. A landlord cannot usually take formal action against residents for noise that is considered everyday household noise, regardless of how much it may disturb other residents. This is because tenants are entitled to go about their day-to-day life and this would not be considered to be ASB which the landlord could reasonably take action against such as tenancy warnings, acceptable behaviour contracts or eviction. The Ombudsman recognises that it must be difficult and distressing for the resident listening to the household noise on a regular basis. However, the Ombudsman believes the landlord took reasonable steps to reduce the sound impact of the noise as far as possible. Therefore, there has been no maladministration by the landlord in its handling of the resident’s reports of noise nuisance from the above property.

Determination (decision)

20. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of noise nuisance from the above property.