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

Haringey London Borough Council (202122735)

Back to Top

 

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202122735

Haringey London Borough Council

19 June 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 reports of noise nuisance, including providing soundproofing.

Background

  1. The resident is an assured tenant of the landlord and lives in a ground floor flat.
  2. The resident complained to the landlord that there were noise issues from the neighbouring flat above. She advised that the noise was deliberate and that the soundproofing between the flats was not adequate.
  3. In its stage 1 complaint response, the landlord advised that it would send a final warning letter to the occupant of the flat above, its noise specialists would assist her, and that it would review funding for soundproofing. The resident remained dissatisfied as the noise nuisance continued and she was having difficulty getting in contact with the housing officer.
  4. In its stage 2 complaint response, the landlord upheld the complaint. The landlord advised that it had sent a final warning letter to the occupant of the flat above, it advised that it would be in contact with a view to gathering evidence of noise nuisance, and it advised that no decision had been made in respect of soundproofing. The landlord accepted there was failure with its communication, and it would work towards a solution and update the resident every two weeks of its progress.
  5. When the resident brought the complaint to this Service, she was unhappy that the landlord had not contacted her every two weeks as agreed. The landlord had not contacted her at all, and the noise nuisance was ongoing. She was unhappy that the landlord had not provided soundproofing between the properties, and that the landlord only acted when a complaint is brought to this Service. As a resolution, the resident wanted soundproofing between the properties and stricter enforcement on her neighbour.

Assessment and findings

  1. When investigating a complaint, the Ombudsman applies its Dispute Resolution Principles. These are high level good practice guidance developed from the Ombudsman’s experience of resolving disputes, for use by everyone involved in the complaints process. There are only three principles driving effective dispute resolution:

a.         Be fair – treat people fairly and follow fair processes

b.         put things right, and

c.         learn from outcomes.

  1. The Ombudsman must first consider whether a failing on the part of the landlord occurred, and if so, whether this led to any adverse effect or detriment to the resident. If it is found that a failing did lead to an adverse effect, the investigation will then consider whether the landlord has taken enough action to ‘put things right’ and ‘learn from outcomes’.

Scope of investigation

  1. This Service previously decided upon the landlord’s handling of reports of noise nuisance dating back to 2018. That decision was made on 12 June 2020. The previous investigation has been considered for context of this complaint; however, this investigation is focused on the landlord’s handling of the reports of noise nuisance since 12 June 2020.

Landlord’s handling of reports of noise nuisance

  1. This Service will consider how the landlord has handled reports of noise nuisance and decide whether the landlord dealt with the reports reasonably and treated the resident fairly in the circumstances.
  2. The landlord’s ASB and noise complaint procedure sets out that complaints of noise can be made online, via their noise app, by telephone or in person. If it receives a noise report by telephone or in person, it will log the noise report online for the resident. After receiving a report of noise, the landlord aims to assess it within 24 hours and contact the resident within five working days. If it cannot help with the issue, it will allocate the case to its noise enforcement officers.
  3. When the resident brought her complaint to the landlord, she complained that there had been ongoing ASB and noise nuisance from her neighbour which remained unresolved since her previous complaint. She was unhappy that her appointed housing officer was unavailable, and she also advised that the soundproofing between the properties was not adequate.
  4. On 07 August 2020, the landlord carried out a building survey to assess the level of noise transference between the properties and concluded that the flooring in the property was suitable but noted that the flooring is likely to be noisy and vibrate when shuffling or moving furniture.
  5. On 21 September 2020, the landlord requested that its noise specialist investigate and assess if the noise levels are a statutory nuisance. Based on the evidence provided, the noise team did not contact the resident until 20 April 2021 when it emailed the resident a link to its noise app and information to set it up. This was an unreasonable delay in the landlord’s handling of reports of noise nuisance.
  6. On 20 July 2021 and 23 July 2021, the resident emailed the landlord to complain of noise coming from her neighbour’s TV, she felt that it was deliberately loud and that the lack of sound proofing between the properties was contributing to the noise levels. The landlord did not log these noise reports. On 27 July 2021, the resident called the landlord and advised that she had contacted this Service. She reported that her neighbour had been vindictively turning the TV up and had slammed doors.
  7. In response, the landlord sent a warning letter to the neighbour and advised that it would serve a Notice of Seeking Possession (NOSP) if the noise persisted. The landlord could have considered alternative options to encourage positive engagement between the neighbours.
  8. The neighbour disputed the allegations of ASB. She advised that she had taken steps to reduce the noise by laying carpet and underlay. The neighbour also advised that she could hear noise from the resident’s flat at conversational level and was willing to engage with the landlord to mitigate the noise transference, however, she had not heard from the landlord since it carried out the building survey. The resident’s neighbour also expressed interest in mediation. This demonstrated a willingness on the neighbour’s behalf to address the issues. There is no evidence that the landlord communicated this with the resident.
  9. This was unfair and unreasonable. The landlord should have communicated the neighbour’s position to the resident and offered mediation. This was an opportunity to encourage positive engagement between the resident and neighbour.
  10. In its stage 1 complaint response, the landlord advised that it had sent a warning letter to the neighbour, it advised that it would obtain a NOSP if the ASB continued, and that its noise specialist would be in contact to provide advice on using the noise app to gather evidence. The noise specialist did not contact the resident. In its stage 2 complaint response, the landlord advised that it had sent a warning letter to the neighbour but that to obtain a NOSP it would need evidence of ASB. It again advised that its noise specialist would be in contact to assist with gathering evidence. There is no evidence that the noise specialist contacted the resident. Enforcement action on the neighbour was unlikely without strong evidence, which was not obtained.
  11. The landlord’s actions were unreasonable and unfair to the resident in the circumstances. Given the allegations of distress caused by the ongoing alleged deliberate noise, the landlord should have followed up and assisted the resident, as it said it would. Furthermore, it should have advised the resident that the neighbour had disputed the ASB allegation and was open to engagement with the resident in the form of mediation.
  12. This Service orders the landlord to contact the resident and assist with gathering evidence of noise nuisance, as it said it would. This Service recommends that the landlord contact the resident and the neighbour to offer mediation and advise the resident of its current position on enforcement action against the neighbour.
  13. This Service further recommends that the landlord review the Housing Ombudsman’s spotlight report on noise complaints and consider the benefits of implementing a good neighbourhood management policy, distinct from its ASB policy. Options of mediation, information sharing, community building events, and dedicated staffing can assist when dealing with neighbour friction and reduce escalation to ASB.
  14. The resident complained that when she was experiencing ongoing noise nuisance, she could not contact her housing officer that dealt with the stage 1 complaint. In its stage 2 complaint response, the landlord advised the resident that the housing officer no longer worked for the landlord, so it was unable to comment on the difficulties she had in contacting them. The landlord acknowledged failures in its communications and advised that it was addressing this issue, and it would contact her every 2 weeks with an update. The resident advised this Service that there had been no further contact from the landlord.
  15. This demonstrates poor communication and poor record keeping by the landlord. It should have systems in place to maintain clear and accessible records of ASB. The landlord should have communicated its position to the resident and allocated a new point of contact for the resident. This Service recommends that the landlord review its record keeping procedures in relation to recording ASB.
  16. This Service finds that there was maladministration in the landlords handling of reports of noise nuisance. This is because its communication was unreasonable, and it failed to follow up with actions that it said it would. These failures caused delay, time and trouble, and distress and inconvenience to the resident.
  17. This Service orders that the landlord pay compensation of £600 to the resident for the distress and time and trouble caused.

Soundproofing

  1. Based on the evidence, both the resident and her neighbour have alleged that soundproofing between the properties is a contributing factor to the noise. Following a previous complaint to this Service, the landlord was ordered to survey the property and confirm to the resident if it can take any action to reduce noise transference.
  2. On 07 August 2020, the landlord’s surveyor visited the property. It did not witness any excessive noise at the time of its visit. It advised the resident that the flooring was timber floorboard secured to floor joists, and that there will be slight foot movement. It noted that the neighbour had laid carpet. On 09 September 2020, in an internal email, the landlord confirmed that it would not provide soundproofing. The landlord did not share this information with the resident. This was a failure in the landlord’s communication as it should be open and transparent in its communications.
  3. Based on the evidence, there has been no contact with the resident to advise if it plans to provide soundproofing. In its stage 2 complaint response, 14 months after the survey, the landlord advised the resident that it would contact her when a decision had been made. This was an unreasonable and unfair delay by the landlord. It is unclear to this Service what steps the landlord has taken in terms of reviewing funding or assessing the feasibility of providing soundproofing.
  4. This Service orders that the landlord write to the resident and confirm if the building meets relevant regulations for noise transference, what steps it has taken in respect of funding and assessing the feasibility of soundproofing and confirm if it plans to carry out soundproofing.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of reports of noise nuisance, including providing soundproofing.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

  1. It is ordered that the landlord pay the resident compensation of £600 for distress and time and trouble caused.
  2. It is ordered that the landlord write to the resident and confirm if the building meets relevant regulations for noise transference, what steps it has taken in respect of funding and assessing the feasibility of soundproofing and confirm if it plans to carry out soundproofing.
  3. It is ordered that the landlord contact the resident and assists the resident with gathering evidence of noise nuisance as it said it would in its complaint responses.
  4. The landlord should provide evidence to this Service that it has complied with the above orders within four weeks of the date of this report.

Recommendations

  1. This Service recommends that the landlord review the Housing Ombudsman’s spotlight report Noise Complaints: Time to be heard and consider the benefits of implementing a good neighbourhood management policy.
  2. This Service recommends that the landlord contact the resident and the neighbour to offer mediation and advise the resident of its current position on enforcement action against the neighbour.
  3. This Service recommends that the landlord review its record keeping procedures in relation to recording ASB.