Wandsworth Council (202112082)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202112082

Wandsworth Council

17 May 2022

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 by a neighbour.

Background

2. The resident is a leaseholder of the landlord.
3. The resident made her initial report of noise nuisance to the landlord on 22 February 2021, stating that her neighbour was ‘bellowing’ and laughing intermittently between 2am and 5am. The resident then made a further 18 reports between 2 March 2021 and 25 June 2021, with the same noise being reported. The landlord had attended the property on five occasions but was only able to identify noise on one occasion. The landlord determined that the noise it identified it was not at the nuisance level.
4. The resident raised a complaint on 9 May 2021 regarding the landlord’s handling of the issue and said it was impacting her health. She had safety concerns regarding the landlord’s proposal to enter her property to assess the noise level and she asked how the landlord would keep her report anonymous. She also requested that the landlord installed soundproofing at her property.
5. In the landlord’s final response to the complaint, it outlined the actions it had taken and said it had determined that the noise did not constitute a nuisance level so it was unable to proceed with legal action against the neighbour. It had also discussed the issue with the resident’s neighbour and suggested mediation. The landlord said it would carry out a property visit in an appropriate manner and would maintain the resident’s confidentiality. As the neighbour was a leaseholder, there were no provision within the lease that would allow the landlord to enforce that soundproofing was installed between the walls.
6. In the resident’s complaint to this Service, she said she remained dissatisfied that the landlord had failed to resolve her reports of noise nuisance and had failed to propose a viable method of assessing the noise. She wanted the landlord to install additional soundproofing if it was unable to resolve the noise.

Assessment and findings

7. Whilst it is evident that the situation has been distressing for the resident, it is important to note that it is outside the Ombudsman’s role to determine whether anti-social behaviour (ASB), in this case noise nuisance, has been occurring. Instead, this report will assess whether the landlord appropriately responded to the resident’s reports of noise nuisance, in line with its legal and policy obligations, and whether its response was fair in the circumstances of the case.
8. In cases of reported noise nuisance, the landlord’s ASB policy states that it should take appropriate actions, which could include mediation, warning letters and legal intervention. It also states that it will “provide a dedicated noise nuisance line during and outside of normal working hours”. As such, it was appropriate that the landlord investigated the resident’s reports of noise and acted in line with its ASB policy.
9. It was reasonable for the landlord to require evidence of the reported noise in order for it to proceed with any formal action. In this case, the landlord used multiple approaches to gather evidence in support of the reports made by the resident. It asked the resident to complete diary entries, visited the property on five occasions promptly after the noise was reported and also discussed the issue with the resident’s neighbour.
10. The resident had requested noise monitoring equipment. While this may have been a useful tool, social landlords have limited resources and it is not always possible to implement all monitoring techniques and it was appropriate that the landlord clearly explained it would not be able to provide the equipment. There is correspondence between the resident and the landlord in which they discuss the resident sending it noise recordings she had taken, which would have gathered similar evidence to noise recording equipment.
11. The landlord’s noise nuisance policy states that “complainants should be visited and the noise witnessed inside their home unless the complainant indicates otherwise when making the complaint”. It was therefore reasonable, and in line with its policy, that the landlord suggested this action to the resident, to get a more accurate account of the noise she was experiencing. The resident said she did not feel comfortable with the landlord’s staff entering her property, unless there were two staff members and at least one was female. The landlord would be expected to make reasonable adjustments to adhere to the resident’s requests, particularly as it concerned her safety. However, it provided a clear explanation that it could not guarantee that it could facilitate her request due to staff availability at the time of her reports. It was reasonable that the landlord explained that its staff members routinely carried out similar visits in an appropriate manner to ensure residents’ safety and confidentiality. The landlord’s ASB policy states that it does not ‘expect the complainant to do anything they do not wish to do’ but ‘this may mean the case cannot be pursued’. It is understandable that the resident had concerns with the landlord entering her property, however, as a result this meant that the landlord was unable to gather further evidence. It explained that the noise it observed outside the property was unlikely to reflect her experience of noise inside her property and that in order to proceed with legal action, it was important to gain independent evidence to support any allegations of excessive noise.
12. As the landlord did not have sufficient evidence of the noise, it was limited in the actions it could take. It had discussed the issue with the resident’s neighbour, and was satisfied that he had taken sufficient steps to reduce the noise transference between the properties. It also reminded the neighbour to be mindful of the noise he was making, upon receiving further reports. It had offered mediation but the resident had declined due to confidentiality concerns. The landlord had explained that it was unable to take legal action, due to the lack of evidence. Overall, the landlord’s actions were proportionate to the reports made by the resident, based on the availability of evidence.
13. The resident made several requests for the landlord to install soundproofing, to reduce the impact of the noise. As the neighbour property was a leaseholder, adding insulation between the properties would be beyond the landlord’s obligations (unless there is a repair issue). This is because although the landlord is responsible for keeping the structure of the building in a good state of repair, it is not expected to carry out improvements and adding soundproofing would be an improvement. It was appropriate that the landlord advised the resident that although there are provisions in the lease to have sufficient soundproof flooring, there is not the same obligation for walls, and as the resident’s neighbour was next door, rather than the flat above, it would not be able to take action to enforce the neighbour to install further soundproofing.
14. Overall, the landlord acted appropriately to attempt to identify the noise, however it was unable to obtain the relevant evidence which it would need in order to take formal action against the neighbour. Despite this, it still took steps in order to support the resident in line with its ASB policy and explained why it was unable to take legal action or install soundproofing.

 Determination

15.  In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration by the landlord in respect of its handling of the resident’s noise reports.