Applications are open to join the next Housing Ombudsman Resident Panel – find out more Housing Ombudsman Resident Panel.

One Vision Housing Limited (202216643)

Back to Top

 

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202216643

One Vision Housing Limited

25 September 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 response to the resident’s reports of noise and vibration.

Scope of investigation

  1. Paragraph 42(g) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme states that the Ombudsman may not investigate complaints which concern matters where the Ombudsman considers it quicker, fairer, more reasonable or more effective to seek a remedy through the courts, other tribunal or procedure.
  2. The resident has provided medical information to this service and the Ombudsman is concerned to note that the reported noise and vibration are reported to be having a detrimental effect on the mental health of the resident’s household. However, it is outside the remit and authority of the Ombudsman to determine if there was a direct link between the reported noise and vibration and any ill-effects experienced by the resident’s household.
  3. This investigation will therefore focus on whether the landlord responded reasonably to the resident’s reports of the noise and vibrations. If the resident considers that he or his household have experienced a negative health impact as a direct result of the landlord’s actions or inaction, then he may wish to seek independent legal advice on making a claim through the courts or a personal injury insurance claim.

Background

  1. The resident is an assured tenant of the landlord and occupies a 2-bedroomed house (the property).
  2. On 29 March 2022, the resident reported to the landlord that his neighbour’s dryer caused noise and vibration to be transferred to his property, which was “driving them mad”. The landlord recommended that the resident use the noise app to record the noise transference, although he questioned its usefulness in this situation. The landlord offered to speak to the neighbour, advising that it was unable to take enforcement action in respect of household noise, and suggested he approached the local authority’s environmental health team. It also suggested carrying out an inspection of his heating pipework for potential defects.
  3. The landlord visited the resident and his neighbour on 20 April 2022 and offered mediation, which the neighbour declined. Its surveyors then inspected the property on 11 May 2022, when it was found that the neighbour’s dryer was placed on a worktop, which caused vibration to be transferred through the wall. The landlord’s surveyors made 4 recommendations:
    1. Installation of ‘acoustilay’ material under and alongside the dryer.
    2. Relocating the dryer.
    3. Replacement of the dryer with a low-noise model.
    4. Installation of sound monitoring equipment.
  4. The landlord relayed these recommendations to the resident on 13 May 2022, advising that these were not enforceable. He relayed that he had since reported the matter to the local authority’s environmental health team.
  5. The resident raised a stage 1 complaint with the landlord on 30 September 2022, as he was unhappy that he had not heard anything further since the inspection, and the noise and vibration persisted. It issued its stage 1 response to him on 7 October 2022 which did not uphold the complaint. The landlord reiterated that the recommendations made by its surveyors were not enforceable, and the neighbour said that they were considering the purchase of the acoustilay material to dampen the noise and vibration.
  6. The resident escalated his complaint to the final stage of the landlord’s procedure on 14 November 2022, as he considered that its stage 1 response did not provide a solution. It provided its final response to him on 25 November 2022, in which it asserted that it had acted on his reports and found that the reported noise was everyday living noise. The landlord confirmed that there were no defects in the property and it conformed to the building regulations at the time it was constructed. It reiterated that it was unable to take any enforcement action and noted that the resident’s approach to the local authority was the most appropriate course of action in the circumstances. The landlord said that it had agreed to provide noise and vibration insulation to the neighbour which would “be installed in due course”.
  7. The resident informed the Ombudsman, on 9 December 2022, that he remained dissatisfied because the noise and vibration had not been resolved, although he recognised that the wall was not defective and the landlord had taken some steps to address the matter.

Assessment and findings

  1. The Ombudsman’s “Spotlight on: Noise Complaints” report, highlights that it is not always appropriate to investigate noise complaints through a landlord’s antisocial behaviour (ASB) policy. Noise complaints often require a tailored approach that is appropriate to the circumstances of each complaint.
  2. In this case, the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of noise and vibration was reasonable in the circumstances. The source of the noise was a household appliance which caused noise and vibration during day-to-day operation; there was no evidence that this was being caused at unsociable hours or carried out with intent to cause a disturbance. It was therefore reasonable that the landlord did not approach the case as an ASB case.
  3. It was a reasonable step for the landlord to visit both the resident and his neighbour to seek an agreement on the use of the dryer. It was also reasonable for it to offer mediation on both this visit and during its investigation of the final stage complaint. The landlord also fairly inspected the resident’s pipework and carried out surveyors’ inspections of both properties to rule-out any structural defect leading to the reported noise and vibration. These were informal early-intervention actions which were appropriate measures to attempt to resolve the situation between the parties.
  4. The landlord informed the resident that the surveyors’ recommendations were not enforceable. This was reasonable as a landlord is only able to carry out enforcement action when there has been a clear evidenced breach of tenancy; as there was no evidence of this, it was appropriate for it to instead make recommendations to the neighbour to attempt to resolve the situation.
  5. It was reasonable for the landlord to suggest that the resident contact the local authority’s environmental health team to progress his report of noise. This team would be able to install noise-recording equipment to assess whether or not a statutory noise nuisance was present, and would have the authority to carry out enforcement action in respect of this.
  6. The landlord’s final response confirmed that it had agreed to provide noise and vibration reducing material to the neighbour; this would be a reasonable resolution to directly address the reported cause of the noise. Since it has already committed to doing this, it is recommended that it installs this without undue delay.
  7. Overall, the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of noise and vibration was reasonable; in the circumstances, it took the appropriate steps that were within its power to resolve the situation.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration by the landlord in its response to the resident’s reports of noise and vibration.

Recommendations

  1. The landlord is recommended to:
    1. Install the noise and vibration insulating material at the neighbour’s property, which it agreed to in its final response.
    2. Liaise with the local authority’s environmental health team to assist with any investigation of the noise.