Yorkshire Housing Limited (202342174)

Background

1. The resident lived in the property which was a 1-bedroom flat.

What the complaint is about

2. The landlord’s response to the resident’s:
   1. Reports of noise nuisance.
   2. Request for a management move.
   3. Complaint.

Our decision (determination)

3. We found there was no maladministration in the landlord’s response to:
   1. The resident’s reports of noise nuisance.
   2. The resident’s request for a management move.
   3. The resident’s complaint.

Summary of reasons

The landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of noise nuisance

4. The landlord’s actions were proportionate and in line with its ASB policy. While the noise reported did not constitute a statutory noise nuisance, the landlord adopted a solution focused approach and was considerate to the resident’s vulnerabilities.

The landlord’s response to the resident’s request for a management move

5. The landlord responded to the resident’s request in line with its policy. It has evidenced it supported him to explore the other options available. It was reasonable for it to agree to submit a further request if the inspection did not identify any defects in the property above.

The landlord’s response to the formal complaint

6. The landlord responded to the resident in line with its complaint policy and our Complaint Handling Code (the Code). It was positive for the landlord to consider service improvements it would make as a result of any learning from the complaint.

Our investigation

The complaint procedure

What we found and why

The circumstances of this complaint are well known by the parties involved, so it is not necessary to detail everything that’s happened or comment on all the information we’ve reviewed. We’ve only included the key information that forms the basis of our decision of whether the landlord is responsible for maladministration.

7. The landlord has demonstrated that following the resident’s initial noise report It attempted to call him and arrange a visit. On 28 June 2023 the resident confirmed that on the day he initially reported the issue, the noises had stopped, and he had not heard anything since. In conversation with the landlord on 3 July 2023, he said there was not much noise and he was happy for the landlord to close the case. He mentioned the neighbours below appeared to be antagonising each other.
8. The resident reported further noise from the flat above on 11 July 2023. He said it was badly affecting his mental health. The landlord confirmed on the same day that it would review the noise recordings he submitted. The landlord informed the resident on 13 July 2023 that it had spoken with the neighbour and the noises were due to their work shift patterns. It confirmed the neighbour was moving out and said it would close the case.
9. The landlord’s response was reasonable. It had reviewed the recordings and spoke with the neighbour. As the neighbour was moving out and it appeared the noises were a result of their shift pattern and were not deliberate, it was reasonable for it to close the case.
10. In his formal complaint the resident said he was feeling much better as the flat above was empty but he was very anxious for when the next person moved in. He reported noise from the flats below which included the floorboards creaking and banging noises. The landlord sent a letter to the resident on 27 October 2023 to state that it was closing his ASB case. It said it had interviewed both him and his neighbours, reviewed the sound recordings, and had arranged mediation for the neighbours. It said it had regularly contacted him and referred him to the necessary support.
11. The Ombudsman’s spotlight report on noise complaints highlights that mediation is a useful tool for good neighbourhood management and helping neighbours reach an understanding. It was therefore appropriate for the landlord to have considered the relationship between the 2 neighbours and the impact it was having on the resident, and to offer them mediation. We have not seen any evidence of the resident reporting further issues with the neighbours following the stage 1 response.
12. While it did not carry out a risk assessment, the landlord has evidenced how it managed any risks. In a call with the resident on 27 July 2023, the landlord appropriately raised a welfare check and logged a safeguarding concern following concerns raised during the call. It made note of the support which the resident was accessing and signposted the resident to other support services which it felt would be helpful. Prior to closing the ASB case it obtained an update from the staff member who had been working with him. They advised that he was in a much better place mentally.
13. In its complaint responses, the landlord confirmed it would raise an inspection for the flat above to investigate any causes of the noise. This was appropriate in light of the resident’s concerns. The landlord showed it managed the resident’s expectations as it is not always possible to eradicate all noise transference between properties or resolve the issue. But it said if it found there was nothing it could do, it would submit a further management move request. These were proportionate next steps to take. The landlord acknowledged it should have carried out the inspection sooner, this may have alleviated the distress caused to the resident.
14. It is not clear when the landlord inspected the flat above. However, the resident informed this Service that it did take place and the landlord had concluded there was nothing it could do. He confirmed the landlord did then follow up on its commitment to submit a further management move request, which was appropriate.
15. The resident wanted reimbursement from the landlord for the costs and damages he said he sustained since making the complaint. He said he lost his job, his car, and his mental health deteriorated. While we do not dispute the resident’s comments, we are unable to draw conclusions on the causation of, or liability for, impacts on health and wellbeing. The resident may wish to seek independent advice if he wishes to pursue this aspect of this complaint.

16. The landlord’s allocations policy states that it will consider management moves where there are circumstances that threaten life or would seriously affect the safety of a resident. An example it provides which would be relevant to this case is “exceptional cases of ASB, including serious or targeted hate crime”.
17. The landlord’s initial response to the resident’s request to move into the flat above was fair. It agreed to submit the request but explained he may not meet the criteria for a management move. It also raised a safeguarding concern and requested a welfare check due to the resident’s reports regarding his mental health.
18. The landlord completed the management move referral form on 7 August 2023. The form confirmed the ASB in this case was noise from the above flat but that it did not have evidence of the noise and the neighbour had moved out. It is unclear when the landlord first informed the resident it had rejected his request. However, its decision was reasonable and in line with the criteria outlined within its allocations policy.
19. The landlord explained in a letter and its complaint responses that the resident was not eligible for a management move. It also outlined the action it had taken to help the resident explore the other options available to him. It assigned him a tenancy coach who provided support and referrals to address his arrears and apply for other properties. These actions demonstrated a proactive and solution focused approach.
20. The landlord also appropriately identified learning it could take from its communication regarding rejected management moves. It confirmed that if following the inspection and it if it could not find any cause of the noise transference between properties, it would submit a further request for a management move. This was reasonable and it was positive to hear that the landlord followed up on its commitment made following its stage 2 response.
21. The resident has informed this Service that the property offered to him was not suitable. As this took place after the stage 2 response and the landlord has not had the opportunity to respond, we are not able to investigate this element of the complaint.

22. Our findings are:

• The landlord had a published complaints policy which complied with the terms of the Code in respect of timescales.
• The landlord provided its complaint responses within the expected timescales. The complaint responses were fair, clear, and considered what learning it could take from the complaint.