Islington Council (202217733)

A picture containing font, text, graphics, logo

Description automatically generated

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202217733

Islington Council

27 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

The complaint is about:
1. the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of noise nuisance;
2. the landlord’s handling of reports that she was experiencing ingress of urine through her hallway ceiling;
3. the landlord’s complaint handling.

Background and summary of events

Background

The resident has been a secure tenant of the local authority landlord since October 2011 and resides in a one-bedroom ground floor flat within a converted Victorian house.
The resident lives alone and has disclosed to the landlord several physical health issues.

Tenancy conditions

The conditions of tenancy state that:
1. Residents must “keep floors of the property, other than kitchens and bathrooms, covered with carpet or other similar floor covering”. It also states that residents must not install laminate, wooden, tiled or other similar flooring without prior written permission from the landlord.
2. The landlord states it will consider “The suitability of the flooring and whether enough has been done to reduce noise nuisance to other residents” before granting permission.
3. Residents must allow the landlord access to the property for “management purposes”.
4. Residents must not do anything which:
  1. causes or is likely to cause a nuisance or disturbance to anyone in the local area
  2. interferes with the peace, comfort or convenience of other people in the local area.
5. The landlord may apply for possession of the property if the resident “or another person living in the property has caused anti-social behaviour, harassment, nuisance or annoyance to neighbours”.

ASB policy

The landlord defines ASB as “all types of behaviour, which adversely affects the quality of life of local people”. It includes “noise nuisance – excessive noise” within a list of behaviours which may be considered anti-social.
The landlord’s ASB policy states it will:
1. make an appointment to interview the reporting person within five working days, or 24 hours in serious cases
2. interview the alleged perpetrator
3. outline to reporting persons any limitations in order to manage their expectations
4. conduct a risk assessment with the reporting person and alleged perpetrator to identify any risk factors
5. identify any support needs of both parties and refer for support as required
6. agree an action plan for managing the case
7. review all cases monthly and update the reporting person of progress
8. write to reporting persons when a case is closed to explain why
9. “provide ongoing support for as long as victims feel it is necessary and as long as reasonably practical”
The ASB policy also states:
1. The landlord can only take action that is “reasonable in light of how serious the problem is”.
2. The landlord may not be able to take legal action if it has insufficient evidence to support such action.
3. There are a number of tools available to the landlord to manage ASB, these include noise monitoring, mediation, use of professional witnesses, and legal action.
The landlord’s ASB case management procedure states that risk assessments are “an integral part of the case management process” which “identify potential risks and to make decisions on how they can be managed”. It states that the risk assessment is a “live document” and that it should be updated as a case progresses and further reports are received. The action plan should also be “reviewed throughout the case”.
Within its ASB procedure the landlord also states that the names and addresses of any witnesses or neighbours who may be affected should be obtained during the initial interview with the reporting person. The procedure also references an ‘appeal for witnesses standard letter’ which is used to “write to all residents within a block of flats encouraging them to come forward with any information they have”.

Repair obligations

Landlords are required to look at the condition of properties using a risk assessment approach called the Housing Health and Safety Rating System (HHSRS). HHSRS does not specify minimum standards, but it does set out general expectations concerned with avoiding, or minimising potential hazards. “Threat of infection and threat to mental health associated with personal hygiene…sanitation and drainage” are within the scope of HHSRS. Also within the scope of HHSRS are “Health hazards due to poor design, layout and construction making it hard to keep clean and hygienic, attracting pests and inadequate and unhygienic provision for storing household waste”.
The landlord’s repairs policy provides the following categories and timescales for repairs:
1. Emergency repairs – where there is “an immediate danger to a person or serious risk of damage to the property” the landlord will attend to “make safe” within 24 hours.
2. Urgent repairs – which “affect a tenant’s day-to-day living”, the landlord will respond within three working days.
3. Routine repairs – will be responded to within 20 working days.

Complaints policy

At the time of the resident’s complaint the landlord operated a three-stage complaint process. The policy stated that the landlord would respond to stage one complaints within 21 calendar days, ‘stage one reviews’ within a further ten working days, and ‘Chief Executive stage’ complaints within 28 calendar days.
The landlord stated within its previous complaints policy that “It should be noted that the Housing Ombudsman insists that all complaints are made in writing”. This is not the case – the Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code described a complaint as “an expression of dissatisfaction, however made”.
The landlord updated its complaints policy in February 2023. The current policy states that stage one complaints will be responded to within ten working days, and stage two complaints responded to within 20 working days. The current complaints policy has removed the incorrect reference to Ombudsman’s guidance regarding complaints being made in writing.

Compensation policy

The landlord’s compensation policy, last updated in May 2017, states that “Where the Council has unjustifiably delayed in taking action in neighbour nuisance cases, compensation may be appropriate”.
In calculating compensation, the landlord states that it will consider whether the reporting person has assisted the landlord in its investigations eg by completing and returning diary sheets, and whether they have behaved unreasonable or in a way that has contributed to the issues with their neighbour.
The policy states that the landlord may pay up to £500 per year (pro-rata) for “minor cases”, and up to £2,000 per year (pro-rata) for “severe cases” as compensation for distress in neighbour nuisance cases.
The landlord states that, in cases of disrepair, it will pay between £500 and £2,500 compensation per annum “depending on the severity of the problem”.
The policy also states that where there have been complaint handling failures, the landlord may pay:
1. £100 to £300 for “time and trouble”
2. Up to £25 for each month of delay in “the service guideline” or “service statutory period”
3. £100 to £300 for distress
4. Up to £1,000 for severe or prolonged distress.

Events prior to the complaint period

This Service has seen information that demonstrates that the resident first reported ASB issues to the landlord in August 2015 when she described “noise nuisance as the upstairs tenant doesn’t have any floor covering”. At this time she also stated there were issues with her neighbour’s use of the communal garden.
This Service has seen evidence that in 2015 the landlord:
1. Completed a risk assessment for the resident, this identified the risk as ‘low’.
2. Completed an action plan, issued a noise diary to the resident and asked that she report any recurrence of ASB.
3. Made enquiries with mental health services to ascertain if the resident was receiving support.
4. Interviewed the upstairs neighbour who stated that she had wooden flooring as she could not afford to replace her carpet which she had removed as it was “ruined”. She made counter-allegations against the resident.
5. Referred both parties for mediation.
In response to a request for information from this Service the landlord has advised that “A mediation referral was made in October 2015. Due to the length of time that has elapsed, there is no record on file as to whether this was attended by both parties and no report as to the outcome of the referral.”
The landlord received a noise nuisance complaint about the resident from her upstairs neighbour in April 2016. Her neighbour alleged that the resident had a “cinema-type sound system” which she was using very loudly between 8.30pm and 2.30am which was causing her to be disturbed. The resident refuted the allegations stating she did not have such a sound system. The resident made counter allegations that she understood that her upstairs neighbour had no floor covering and she was experiencing “a lot of noise” from their property including banging, children playing, and conversations and arguments.
On 9 September 2019 the resident contacted the landlord enquiring whether soundproofing could be installed at the property. This Service has not seen a response from the landlord to the resident.

Events within the complaint period

The resident contacted the landlord on 6 August 2020 asking for help in getting floor coverings fitted in the property above to reduce noise and water penetration. She said she could “no longer take anymore” as it was affecting her sleep almost every night and impacting on her health. The landlord has advised this Service that it has been unable to locate a response to the resident.
The resident contacted the landlord on 4 September 2020 to advise that she had been contacting the landlord to try and resolve an issue with noise from her upstairs neighbour. The resident stated that her neighbour did not have any carpet down in any of the rooms in the property and she could hear “Heavy footsteps across the ceiling, banging, everything movement is heard, the lights shake in the living room”. The resident stated she was kept awake at night by the noise and the issue was “unbearable”. The call log states that “During the call extremely loud/heavy footsteps/stomping could be heard”.
The resident telephoned the landlord’s out of hours service on 4 October 2020 at 1:57am. She reported loud noise and talking from the property upstairs”.
On 11 December 2020 the resident contacted the landlord and stated that she was “desperate to resolve the issue of noise with the neighbours”. She stated she was sleep deprived, “unable to function” and having to see her doctor. The call handler noted “Caller was upset, and sounded incredibly tired”.
Also on 11 December 2020 the resident contacted the landlord for a second time and stated that her upstairs neighbour did not have any flooring down and as a result she could see through their floorboards. The resident was concerned that her neighbours could see through the gaps in the floorboards into her bathroom and living room, and that when water was dropped on the floor in the upstairs flat, it went through the floorboards and into the resident’s flat. Notes from the telephone call state that there was an “ongoing dispute” with the neighbour and the resident “would now like to put in a complaint as it is messing with her health and making her sick”. She requested an urgent response.
An internal email dated 11 December 2020 demonstrates that the landlord raised a formal complaint which was allocated to its homes and communities department with instruction “where possible, please acknowledge the complaint within 24 hours”. This email was forwarded again to the homes and communities department on 21 December 2020. This Service has not seen evidence that the landlord investigated or provided a response to the resident about this complaint.
The resident contacted the landlord again on 15 December 2020 and requested a call back. She reported:
1. ongoing noise from her upstairs neighbour who did not have flooring
2. noise from the neighbour’s son screaming, neighbours on the phone, and furniture being moved
3. concerns regarding her lack of privacy as her neighbour had once heard her reported their noise to the landlord
4. hearing mice running around in the flat above
5. the noise was affecting her health as she was unable to sleep.
Internal landlord emails dated 18 December 2020 demonstrate that the resident reported noise from her neighbour to the landlord again and that advised the landlord that the issue had been ongoing for four years and was affecting her mental health. The landlord asked the resident to keep a noise diary and send this to her housing officer.
On the evening of 18 December 2020 the resident emailed the landlord and said “I am at the end, I don’t sleep, I can’t think, the noise coming from upstairs at the above property, everyday is relentless”. The resident stated the issue was having a detrimental impact on her wellbeing, she was suffering “constant headaches” and stress, she couldn’t eat or sleep and her health was suffering. She said that she had “had to leave the property to get some sleep. I have sat/slept in my car outside at 2am because it’s so bad”. The resident reported that she felt “vulnerable and intimidated” and described:
1. her neighbour’s son shouting on the telephone between 2am and 5am
2. dragging furniture
3. banging
4. water coming through her ceiling through the resident’s floor.
An email from the environmental health department to the resident on 21 December 2020 advised her to download and use the Noise App. The Noise App is a mobile phone application used to record noise nuisance and send the recordings to a landlord. This was in response to her reports of noise nuisance made on 11 December 2021.
On 15 January 2021 at 4.34am the resident emailed the landlord to report that she had been awake for 30 minutes due to her neighbour’s son shouting and walking loudly up and down. She said “I really don’t want to live like this anymore” as she was “really tired, stressed, anxious…I’m getting headaches, my breathing is really bad”.
The resident contacted the landlord on 17 January 2021 to report that the night before her neighbour had thrown a plant pot over their balcony and it had landed on her table on her own balcony. She had reported this to the police who advised it was a “landlord issue”.
The resident also contacted the Noise App to advise she was experiencing difficulties using the app as it only recorded in 30 second segments and only allowed ten recordings in each 24-hour period.
On 18 January 2021 the resident reported noise from the flat above. She advised the landlord that her neighbours son stayed there and was “shouting on the phone and pacing up and down” at night. The resident stated that she had spoken to her neighbour and they had told her that she should “feel lucky it is quiet during the day”. The call log states that the resident has “various health issues” that were being worsened by the noise and is “vulnerable and needs to sleep”.
On 27 January 2021 internal landlord emails demonstrate that the resident had contacted the landlord stating that she had been reporting problems with her upstairs neighbour since 2015 but felt nothing had been done about it. She had spoken to an officer in December 2020 who had advised that they would look into the issue but she had heard nothing since. The resident stated that her neighbours were constantly shouting and had no flooring which caused the noise to be excessive. The resident advised she had approached her neighbours and asked that they keep the noise down but this had not worked.
The resident contacted the landlord on 18 May 2021 to report that her upstairs neighbour had a rat infestation which they were failing to address. The rats had now accessed her kitchen and she had to throw away lots of food which she could not afford. She stated that she had health issues and the issue was causing her anxiety and stress. The resident stated that she had reported the issue to environmental health but had been advised they could not help as the neighbour had not provided access to their flat.
The resident contacted the landlord on 28 July 2021 and stated she was experiencing noise from the property above. She also said that she could hear rats which had been reported to pest control and had a leak coming through her hallways ceiling from the neighbour’s toilet above but that her neighbour was not cooperating to allow the issues to be resolved. The resident stated, “I have health issues I have to manage and it’s becoming unbearable living under such noise/Rats/leaks all the time”.
The resident made a further formal complaint on 4 August 2021. In her complaint she stated:
1. She was experiencing a leak into her property from her neighbour’s toilet.
2. Rats had entered her property from her neighbour’s flat.
3. Her neighbour had no floor coverings and she was experiencing noise nuisance.
4. Her neighbour was refusing the landlord access to resolve the issues and she was at her “wits end” and felt she was getting nowhere in resolving the issues.
The landlord’s repair records show that on 17 August 2021 a repair was ordered for a plumber to trace a leak into the resident’s property from the flat above.
On 25 August 2021 the landlord provided a response to the resident’s stage one complaint (ref 15635476). It stated:
1. The resident had complained regarding issues she was experiencing with her upstairs neighbour.
2. The landlord was managing the “long running dispute case” and would visit the neighbour to inspect the flooring.
3. “If they do not have carpets, please be assured, that they will be instructed to install it, as stipulated in the conditions of their tenancy and if they do not, further action will be taken.”
4. Pest control had visited her neighbour most recently in April 2021 and the neighbours were aware of the issue.
5. The landlord did not uphold the complaint as it did not identify a service failure.
The resident responded to the landlord on 26 August 2021 and advised that pest control had advised her in July 2021 that they had been unable to gain access to the flat above. She asked that the landlord clarify this.
The resident contacted the landlord on 27 August 2021 and reported urine coming through her ceiling from her upstairs neighbour’s toilet. The repairs operatives who had attended the neighbour’s property had confirmed the issue to be splashed urine. She described the smell as “unbearable” and stated that she had a lung condition and other illnesses and was at risk of infection which could harm her health. She also stated that “The light fittings and fire alarm is soaking with urine around the connections too.” This Service has seen photographs which show areas of water staining on the ceiling including around a mains-fitted smoke detector.
Also on 27 August 2021, the landlord’s repair records show that a repairs operative attended the neighbouring property and noted that no leaks were found but that they found “urine stains by the toilet which suggests leak comes from tenant missing the toilet and mopping up with unsealed flooring”.
The resident emailed the landlord on 9 September 2021 and reported that water was coming through her ceiling in the kitchen from when the upstairs neighbour dropped liquid or mopped the floor. She stated this was due to inadequate flooring.
The landlord’s repair records show that an operative carried out dye testing on the bath, toilet and sink in the neighbour’s property which ruled out a leak from these items. They stated “leak is from people missing the toilet when urinating”.
On 28 September 2021 the resident emailed the landlord and stated that urine was coming through her ceiling from her neighbour’s toilet due to a lack of lino causing a “horrible” smell.
The resident contacted the landlord on 1 October 2021 to report “constant noise coming from upstairs due to flooring issue”. The resident noted that they were unhappy regarding a previous phone call from the principal tenancy officer (PTO) and requested a call back.
On 3 November 2021 the resident made a formal complaint. She stated:
1. Her neighbours had no floor coverings and she had been reporting issues of noise nuisance since 2016.
2. She was also experiencing urine coming through her hallway ceiling caused by her neighbour urinating on their floor.
3. She felt the landlord had not responded to her reports of these issues and that she had been “abandoned”.
4. She was unable to sleep or to function due to the noise.
On 8 November 2021 the resident advised the landlord that urine was soaking through her hallway ceiling due to the upstairs neighbour not having adequate, properly sealed flooring in the toilet area. She stated this was a health hazard and caused a smell.
On 23 November 2021 the resident telephoned the landlord to report that she was being harassed by her upstairs neighbour. She stated that she had video which recorded her neighbour threatening and harassing her and threatening to take her dog away. The landlord has advised this Service that it does not have this recording on file.
Further to her telephone call above the resident also emailed the landlord on 23 November 2021. She stated that the male in the flat above was “urinating through cracks on the toilet floor which leads down to my corridor” and that this had been confirmed by the repairs team who had attended when she had reported the issue on 28 October 2021. The resident said that her neighbour had not had the correct flooring properly installed and as a result it was not waterproof.
On 24 November 2021 the landlord emailed the resident and provided a stage one complaint response which stated:
1. The resident had made a formal complaint on 3 November 2021 regarding the landlord’s lack of response to her ASB reports.
2. The resident had first reported noise issues related to her neighbour’s lack of suitable floor covering in August 2015.
3. The resident had complained again in April 2016 and the landlord had visited the neighbour on 13 April 2016 and found “no carpet on the stairs…the landing had vinyl tiles, which were patchy, and that the tenant’s lounge had laminate flooring”.
4. The landlord informed the resident’s neighbour “that their flooring was inadequate and exasperated the noise you were experiencing”.
5. The resident had reported water penetration coming through her ceiling in November 2020 – “Unfortunately, it is not clear what action was taken following these reports” however the landlord would inspect the issue when it visited her neighbour on 25 November 2021. In order to ensure that her neighbour installed suitable flooring enforcement action would be taken “if necessary”.
6. Following the PTO’s visit to the neighbour on 16 November 2021 it was found that the neighbour’s son was no longer urinating on the floor.
7. The resident’s PTO “has recognised the lack of action taken up until now and has apologised for this”.
8. The landlord was unable to locate a written complaint sent to the landlord’s email address which had not been responded to.
9. In order to take action against her neighbour the landlord needed to evidence the issue. The resident had experienced difficulties in trying to use the Noise App to record the issue but the landlord stated it could put her on the waiting list for noise monitoring equipment to be installed.
10. The landlord found “no evidence to suggest any service failures over the last 12 months” but did acknowledge “the lack of action up until now” and therefore upheld the resident’s complaint.
The resident contacted the landlord on 25 November 2021 stating that the PTO had not attended as arranged to see herself or her neighbour. She stated that there were a number of other neighbours who had witnessed her upstairs neighbour’s behaviour and were willing to provide statements. She also reported that there had been an altercation the day before and her neighbour had “started shouting at her and telling her that she was taking over the communal garden”. The Police had been called and the resident had a video of the incident. Emails dated 25 November 2021 and 26 November 2021 demonstrate that the resident attempted to send the video to the landlord but that the landlord was unable to open it.
On 26 November 2021 the PTO contacted the resident to advise he would attend that day at 11am.
The landlord wrote to the resident on 8 December 2021 to confirm actions agreed when it visited the resident and her neighbour on 29 November 2021. Both parties were advised to remove all garden furniture and plant pots from the communal front garden (except pots on window ledges) and that dogs were not permitted to “roam” the communal garden.
On 13 December 2021 the resident telephoned the landlord as she had missed its recent call. She requested a call back to discuss damage to her satellite dish caused by her upstairs neighbour and a letter she had received from a neighbour.
On 15 December 2021 the resident requested that her complaint be escalated. She stated:
1. The noise issue was still outstanding.
2. On 29 November 2021, following the landlord’s visit, her neighbour had smashed her satellite dish. She had been afraid and “fled” her property.
3. The following morning her neighbour had hand delivered letters to “all…neighbours in our street” containing untrue allegations. This had caused her embarrassment and distress and she was concerned that her name and address was being shared by her neighbour.
4. She had immediately contacted the housing office by email and phone but no one had contacted her back about her report however she had just received a letter from her PTO about her plant pots and garden furniture
5. Her neighbour’s adult son was a “big man” and she felt “intimidated by both of them” due to being a female living alone with “a chronic disability”.
This was acknowledged by email on the same day and the resident advised she would receive a response within ten working days.
On 10 January 2022 the PTO wrote to the resident stating that following his visit on 29 November 2021 he had written to both parties outlining the actions that they had agreed to complete. Since this date the landlord had received further allegations and counter allegations from both parties. The PTO advised he would be visiting the properties on 13 January 2022 to inspect the communal garden and confirm whether carpet had been installed in the neighbour’s property.
The landlord provided its stage one review response on 10 January 2022, this stated:
1. The purpose of the complaint process was not to “address or take action against the anti-social behaviour itself” but to establish whether any service failures had occurred.
2. The landlord was working to resolve the ASB case. It was sorry that a resolution had not been found but “resolving anti-social cases can be very problematic” and lengthy and “at times may look like we are not taking reports seriously or that they are simply being ignored”. The landlord had to ensure that allegations could be sufficiently evidenced before taking action.
3. The PTO had issued both parties a letter on 29 November 2021 detailing actions agreed.
4. The PTO had arranged to visit the resident on 13 January 2022 and would check the neighbour’s flooring to ensure that carpet had been installed. If it had not been installed “then further action will be taken”. The PTO would also inspect the communal garden to ensure that all furniture and plant pots had been removed and mediation would be offered to both parties.
5. The outcome of the complaint remained “not upheld, for the reasons set out is our Stage 1 response”.
Also on 10 January 2022 the resident contacted the environmental health department and requested that it investigate the noise she was experiencing from her upstairs neighbour. She stated that her neighbour made continuous noise and had no soundproofing and that her health was suffering due to a lack of sleep. The resident said that she felt the property was “not fit for purpose” and that “this is becoming uninhabitable to live here and to live this way anymore without some resolution”.
On 12 January 2022 the resident contacted the landlord and advised that the situation with her neighbour had “taken a toll on my health and well-being”. She was unable to sleep and had not been taking her medication which then impacted her mental and physical health. She stated that due to her health she had been unable to move her plant pots and benches telephoned to reschedule a home visit from the PTO as she was unwell. She advised that she continued to experience noise between 2am and 4am from her neighbour’s son and felt that the landlord had not addressed his behaviour of spoken to other neighbours who had also witnessed the noise nuisance. The resident asked that the landlord cancel the home visit booked for 13 January 2022 due to her poor health.
The resident contacted the landlord on 21 January 2022 to request that her complaint be escalated as she was not satisfied with the stage one review response she had received on 10 January 2022. She stated that the landlord had not responded to her reports that her neighbour had damaged her satellite dish and posted letters to her neighbours about her.
The landlord issued a chief executive stage complaint response on 24 November 2022 which stated that:
1. The landlord understood that the resident felt:
  1. it had ignored her ASB reports regarding her neighbour which she had first reported in 2015
  2. it had failed to manage the issues reported although she had sufficient evidence
  3. she had not been supported and issues had not been addressed in writing
  4. it had not addressed the damage to her satellite dish or her neighbour hand delivering “letters bearing your address to other neighbours on your street with incorrect information”
2. The resident’s neighbour was told during a visit in 2014 of the need for her property to be carpeted and the landlord had written to her on 21 December 2021 “advising her to install carpets”.
3. The stage one complaint response had confirmed that the resident’s neighbour “avoided having suitable flooring for many years and this was not followed up” by the landlord.
4. On 29 November 2021 the PTO had visited and tried to liaise with the resident and her neighbour but parties were unable to reach an agreement. Actions were however agreed for all garden furniture and plant pots (except those on window ledges) to be removed and that dogs were not to roam in the communal garden. Letters were issued to both parties with these actions.
5. The resident had reported urine coming through her ceiling from her neighbour’s toilet floor and stated that her neighbour was not cooperating for repairs to be completed. The landlord issued a works order on 26 November 2021 to renew lino in the toilet and works were completed on 30 March 2022 and post-inspected 31 March 2022.
6. Further works were raised on 25 April 2022 to inspect the flat on 10 May 2022 for a leak affecting the resident’s flat but there was no access.
7. The resident had reported her neighbour posting hand-written letters through her door. They had been cautioned to stop this on 29 November 2021.
8. The resident had called the PTO on 13 December 2021 to report bullying and intimidation and as she had felt compelled to leave her home but had received no response. Service records confirmed the resident’s call to the PTO and that there was no confirmation that he had returned her call. The landlord apologised for the service she had received.
9. The landlord partly upheld the resident’s complaint due to the landlord’s “oversight in allowing your neighbour to continue to have inadequate flooring in their property for a period of time” and the failure of the PTO to return her call for “support for the harassment you experienced from your neighbour”.
10. The landlord offered the resident compensation of £450 comprising:
  1. £350 for distress, time and trouble
  2. £25 for the failure of the PTO to return the resident’s call
  3. £75 for the delay in the chief executive stage response.

Events after the complaints process

The landlord has stated in March 2023 in response to a request for information by this Service that “[the resident’s] neighbour has been written to instructing her to install carpets. Her neighbour responded that she has been unable to afford new carpets throughout her property. This is a large street property with poor sound insulation, which is not something the council is in a position to install at this time”. The landlord also states it has received no further reports from the resident since October 2022.
The resident stated in June 2023 that she continues to experience noise nuisance from her upstairs neighbour, that “there is still no adequate flooring upstairs”, and that there is “water penetration…bulging the ceiling”.
The landlord has stated in recent communications with this Service that this failing occurred because the landlord currently has two complaints teams – one which deals with responsive repairs, and the other deals with all other housing services. Because the resident selected a drop down option for ‘repairs’ when logging her second complaint, it was not linked to her first complaint as it was automatically directed to the other complaints team. The landlord acknowledged that it “is disappointing that the complaint was not referred to the Customer Solutions team to address, as this would have been a more appropriate course of action, and would have resulted in [the resident] having the opportunity to escalate her complaint at an earlier date. I would like to apologise on behalf of the service for this error in judgement.”
The landlord states that it is restructuring its complaints service into a single team and that this will “provide a more consistent and comprehensive experience for our residents”.

Assessment and findings

Scope of the investigation

Whilst it is accepted that the resident made regular reports to the landlord regarding noise transference caused by poor sound insulation and a lack of floor covering since 2015, a formal complaint was not raised by the landlord until August 2021.
This Service considers that the landlord should have considered the resident’s complaint as being made on 11 December 2020. This report has therefore focussed on the events that occurred from June 2020 onwards. This is in accordance with the Ombudsman’s Scheme, which states that the Ombudsman will not consider complaints which were not raised with the landlord as a formal complaint within a reasonable time, which would normally be within six months of the matter arising.
This Service recognises that this situation has caused the resident severe distress as she has experienced noise nuisance in her property over a prolonged period of time. Aspects of the resident’s complaint relate to the impact of her living conditions on her physical and mental health. Where the Ombudsman identifies failure on a landlord’s part, we can consider the resulting distress and inconvenience. The Ombudsman accepts that the resident has a number of diagnosed physical health issues, unlike a court however we cannot establish what caused the health issue, or determine liability and award damages. This would usually be dealt with as a personal injury claim through the courts. Though the Ombudsman is unable to evaluate medical evidence, it will be taken into account when considering the resident’s circumstances.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of noise nuisance which was worsened by a lack of floor covering in her neighbour’s property

Between August 2020 and January 2022 the resident contacted the landlord 25 times to report issues with noise nuisance from her neighbour’s property. The noise described by the resident – shouting and moving furniture in the early hours of the morning – clearly meets the definition of ASB used by the landlord as the behaviour adversely affected the quality of life of the resident. As such, the case was subject to the landlord’s ASB procedure.
When the resident first reported the noise nuisance in 2015, the landlord carried out a risk assessment and completed an action plan. This Service has seen no evidence that the landlord completed any further risk assessments since that time and the landlord confirms that it has no records of further risk assessments taking place. The landlord therefore failed to adhere to its own procedure which describes the risk assessment and action plan as live documents which must be updated as a case progresses.
Whilst the landlord did contact mental health services in 2015 to ascertain whether the resident was known to them, the landlord confirms that there is no information to demonstrate that it made any further support referrals or enquiries in response to the resident’s disclosure of her vulnerabilities.
Despite the resident regularly expressing the impact of the noise nuisance on her wellbeing, this Service has not seen any evidence that the landlord referred the resident for support as required by its ASB policy. The resident has disclosed physical health vulnerabilities to the landlord and, within her contact with the landlord, regularly used language which clearly indicated that she was experiencing significant distress. She stated that she could “no longer take anymore”, “I don’t sleep, I can’t think”, and “I really don’t want to live like this anymore”. It is of significant concern to this Service that these statements did not result in appropriate or timely action being taken to ensure the resident’s wellbeing.
In cases of neighbour dispute caused by lifestyle differences, mediation can be an effective way of resolving conflict by bringing parties together to understand the views of the other party and arrive a mutual agreement to live amicably. In October 2015 the landlord referred both parties for mediation. The resident states that she was willing to engage in this process but that her neighbour was not.
The landlord has been unable to provide any details of what happened at mediation as it no longer holds this information. Guidance on document retention and disposal published by National Housing Federation (NHF) in 2018 suggests that ASB case records should be retained for a period of five years due or until the end of legal action. Whilst the NHF guidance was written for housing associations, the legislation it relies on also applies to local authorities. This Service suggests that as the case was still being investigated in 2022, any documentation relating to the dispute between the parties should have been retained until at least 2027. This is a failure in the landlord’s information management and a recommendation has been made in respect of this.
Although the landlord’s complaint response of 10 January 2022 stated that it would be offering both the resident and her neighbour mediation, the landlord has confirmed to this Service that it does not hold any information on file to evidence that such an offer, or subsequent referral, was made. This Service considers an offer of mediation should not be a one off ‘box-ticking’ exercise and that it would have been best practice for the landlord to continue to encourage both parties to engage in mediation as a means of assisting in the resolution of the case.
The landlord failed to effectively manage the resident’s expectations of what action it would take to resolve the issue. On three occasions, in response to formal complaints from the resident, it communicated that it would take further enforcement action against her neighbour if they did not install suitable flooring. It did not however outline what this action may entail, provide timeframes, or follow through on taking any such action.
The landlord acknowledged that the resident’s neighbour was in breach of the terms of their tenancy agreement by not having sufficient floor covering however no evidence has been seen that it considered taking further action against them to resolve the case.
The landlord advised the resident that in 2014 her neighbour was advised that she needed to install carpet and that in December 2021 she was sent a letter advising her again to install carpet. There is no indication that this constituted a formal warning.
The landlord has stated in its complaint response letters in November 2021, January 2022, and November 2022, that it required “sufficient evidence” before taking further action. Whilst noise diaries were issues to the resident in 2015 and December 2020, this Service has not seen any completed diaries and the landlord confirms it does not have on file any diaries or recordings made by the resident. In September 2020 a call log made by the landlord indicates that a staff member could hear “extremely loud” noise on the call. As this was the case, it is likely that the noise could have been evidenced by a professional witness. This is described by the landlord as one of the tools available to it in managing ASB. This Service has not seen evidence that this option was explored.
The landlord acknowledged in November 2021 that the resident had installed the Noise App but was experiencing technical difficulties and suggested that she could be placed on the waiting list for noise monitoring equipment to be installed in her property. This Service has not seen evidence that this was pursued by the resident or the landlord.
The resident stated to the landlord in November 2021 and January 2022 that there were other witnesses to the noise nuisance. Despite this, this Service has seen no evidence that the landlord attempted to obtain the details of any witnesses or to make use of the ‘standard letter’ referred to in its ASB procedure to write to neighbours to see if they were also experiencing the noise nuisance. Such investigative action would have been reasonable and proportionate given the long-running nature of the case and the significant detrimental impact it was having on the resident. Therefore, the landlord failed to apply its own procedures in investigating and corroborating the reported nuisance.
The landlord itself described the noise nuisance as a “long standing case”. Despite this, and the escalation in the nature of the behaviours reported, the landlord has not demonstrated that it carried out any reviews of the case which the ASB policy states will be completed monthly. Failure to carry out regular case reviews meant that the landlord missed opportunities to identify that there had been failures in the handling of the case, and to rectify them. This caused the resident’s distress to be unnecessarily prolonged and for her to experience time and trouble in regularly chasing the landlord for a response.
The Ombudsman’s Spotlight report on noise identified that, as in this case, noise transference is a key issue, particularly in converted properties. The report encouraged landlords to consider prevention through the installation of sound insulation. This said, the landlord is not contractually or otherwise legally obliged to provide sound insulation and this Service recognises that the cost of such works may be prohibitive.
In September 2019 the resident contacted the landlord to enquire whether it could install soundproofing. The landlord has advised this Service that it does not have on file a response to the resident on this matter.
The landlord has advised this Service that it was not currently in a position to install sound proofing. The Ombudsman acknowledges that the landlord is not obliged to provide sound proofing however it is not reasonable that it did not respond to the resident and provide an explanation of why it could not grant her request.
Whilst it is accepted that the landlord was not obliged to provide soundproofing, it would have been proportionate and appropriate for it to consider installing an inexpensive floor covering in the neighbours property on a discretionary. Such a measure may have provided a cost saving as opposed to the investment of staff time in investigating and responding to reports of noise transference and repair to the property below.
Overall, the landlord failed to take reasonable and proportionate action to resolve the noise nuisance experienced by the resident which was causing her extreme distress. It failed to apply its own policy and procedure in investigating the reports of noise nuisance and failed to take a risk management approach to the case. There was severe maladministration in the landlord’s ASB handling and orders have been made accordingly.

The landlord’s handling of reports that she was experiencing ingress of urine through her hallway ceiling

The resident first reported to the landlord that there was “water” leaking into her property from the property above on 11 December 2020. The resident then advised the landlord on 28 July 2021 that urine was dripping through her ceiling from her neighbour’s toilet. The resident reported water and urine ingress through her ceiling in the kitchen and hallway on nine occasions between December 2020 and November 2021. On 30 March 2022 the landlord installed lino in the bathroom of the property above, resolving the issue of urine leaking through the resident’s ceiling.
This Service considers that, apart from being entirely unpleasant, urine coming through the resident’s ceiling from another individual’s property is a defined hazard under the HHSRS. This is because it could pose a risk of infection as well as being a clear threat to the resident’s welfare given her expressed distress.
The resident experienced urine leaking through her ceiling for a period of eight months before the landlord installed lino to the upstairs neighbour’s toilet floor to resolve the issue. This is far in excess of the three-working day timeframe for ‘urgent’ repairs impacting on a resident’s day-to-day life specified in the landlord’s repairs policy and therefore is entirely unreasonable.
Of particular concern is that on 27 August 2021 the resident stated that the urine was coming through her light fitting and smoke detector. This posed a serious health and safety hazard and could have led to an electrical fire and the landlord should therefore have responded to this as an emergency repair within 2 hours to make safe. This Service has not seen evidence that this action was taken, or indeed evidence of any risk management approach or mitigation methods taken by the landlord.
Within her communications to the landlord regarding the urine leaking through her ceiling, the resident clearly stated that she had health issues and was concerned that being exposed to urine could be a risk to her already poor health. Such a concern would undoubtedly have had a serious detrimental impact on the resident. The resident was also distressed at the “horrible” and “unbearable” smell that the urine caused in her property.
This Service considers that the landlord unduly delayed in resolving the resident’s reports of what constituted an urgent repair and in doing so it unnecessarily exacerbated and prolonged the resident’s severe distress and inconvenience. The landlord’s inaction placed the resident at an elevated risk, therefore there was maladministration in the landlord’s repair handling.

The landlord’s complaint handling

It is noted that the stages and response timeframes outlined in the landlord’s complaint procedure that were in place at the time of the resident’s complaint were not compliant with the Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code).
The policy that was in place at the time purported to be a two-stage complaints process but in effect it involved three stages – stage one, stage one review, and stage two Chief Executive review.
The landlord aimed to respond to stage one complaints within 21 calendar days (as opposed to ten working days specified in the Code), ‘stage one reviews’ within a further ten working days, and ‘Chief Executive stage’ complaints within 28 calendar days. In total this comprised a nine-week period compared to the total of six weeks for timeframes specified in the Code. This had the effect of delaying the resident’s access to this Service which was unreasonable.
The landlord stated within its old complaints policy that “It should be noted that the Housing Ombudsman insists that all complaints are made in writing”. This is a misinterpretation of the Ombudsman’s approach – the Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code described a complaint as “an expression of dissatisfaction, however made”, this includes complaints made verbally. Indicating that complaints should be made in writing in this way, and that this advice has been given by this Service, may have dissuaded many residents from exercising their right to complaint and thus means the complaint process was not fully accessible or fair.
While outside the scope of this investigation, this Service is reassured to observe that the landlord updated its complaint procedure in February 2023 and that the current procedure contains two stages and timeframes that comply with the Code. The misleading statement that complaints should be made in writing has also been removed.
On 11 December 2020 the resident stated in an email to the landlord that she wished to make a complaint. This Service has seen internal landlord emails that demonstrate that a complaint was raised but has seen no evidence that the resident received an acknowledgement or response to this complaint. This is a serious complaint handling failure that delayed the resident’s right to complaint by a period of eight months.
The landlord has acknowledged this failing in recent communications with this Service and has stated “All Housing services will be reminded of the importance of referring formal complaints to the appropriate complaints team for formal investigation and response”. This Service is reassured that the landlord intends to learn from this failing however it remains that the resident was detrimentally impacted by the delay.
The resident continued to contact the landlord to report issues with her neighbour and to express frustration at the lack of action taken. Between December 2020 and August 2021 the resident contacted the landlord ten times.
On 4 August 2021 the landlord raised a stage one complaint and provided a written response on 25 August 2021, 15 working days after the complaint was raised. Whilst this timeframe was in line with the complaint policy that the landlord had in place at the time, it was not in line with the Code.
Following the landlord’s first stage one response, the resident continued to report issues with her neighbour and to express dissatisfaction at the landlord’s handling of her noise reports. The landlord then raised a new stage one complaint on 3 November 2021.
This Service considers that, as the substantive issue was the same as reported in the previous complaint, and because the previous complaint had not resolved the issue, the landlord should have escalated the resident’s initial complaint rather than raise a new one. Failure to deal with the complaint as a continuation of the initial complaint further delayed the complaint process and the resident’s exercise of her right to review.
Although not within the scope of this investigation, this Service considers the landlord’s decision to restructure its complaints team and review its processes is a sensible action and that the landlord is demonstrating ‘learning from outcomes’ in line with our dispute resolution principles.
The landlord provided a written response to the new stage one complaint on 24 November 2021. Again, this was within the timeframes outlined in the landlord’s complaint procedure of the time but was not in line with the Code.
The resident was unhappy with the landlord’s complaint response and on 21 January 2022 she requested that her response be escalated to Chief Executive stage. She did not receive a response to this complaint until 24 October 2022, nine months later. This timeframe far exceeds that in both the landlord’s complaints procedure and the Code. The resident waited 22 months for a final response to a complaint she first raised with the landlord in December 2020 and this is completely unreasonable.
The landlord’s final response letter of 24 October 2022 acknowledged failures in its handling of the resident’s reports of noise but failed to acknowledge the full extent of the failures and the detriment caused to the resident.
This Service does not consider that the compensation offered by the landlord provides sufficient redress for the extended period that the resident was reporting the noise issue and during which the landlord failed to take any action. This Service also does not consider that £75 provides proportionate redress for a complaint response that was received nine months after the escalation to Chief Executive stage was requested. Nor does it acknowledge that the previous complaint responses failed to identify the historic failures in the handling of the noise nuisance case.
The landlord’s own compensation policy states it will pay up to £500 per year (pro-rata) in cases of “minor” neighbour nuisance and up to £2,000 per year (pro-rata) in “severe cases”. The resident has clearly experienced significantly more than ‘minor’ distress and carried out all actions asked of her by the landlord to evidence her claims. Therefore this Service considers it proportionate that the landlord pay the resident £2,200 for its service failure in managing the neighbour nuisance case. This has been calculated pro-rata at £1,200 per year from 11 December 2020 to 24 October 2022.
The landlord’s policy states that it will pay between £500 and £2,500 per year in cases of disrepair. This Service considers that it is reasonable that the landlord pay the resident £670 in respect to the urine which the landlord allowed to continue leaking through her ceiling into her home. This has been calculated at £1,000 per year pro-rata for the eight-month period from July 2021 to March 2022 (rounded).
The landlord’s policy also states that it may pay further compensation for complaint handling failures. Therefore this Service considers it proportionate that the landlord pay:
1. £300 for “time and trouble”;
2. £750 for distress.
The landlord has demonstrated that it is learning from its failings in complaint handling and making improvements in its complaints service. However these improvements do not provide redress for the failings experienced by the resident and the time and trouble and significant distress she experienced. When the impact of the landlord’s cumulative failings is taken into consideration, this constitutes severe maladministration.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Ombudsman Scheme there was:
1. Severe maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of noise nuisance which was worsened by a lack of floor covering in her neighbour’s property;
2. Maladministration in the landlord’s handling of reports that she was experiencing ingress of urine through her hallway ceiling;
3. Severe maladministration in the landlord’s complaint handling.

Reasons

The landlord failed to take appropriate and timely action to the resident’s regular heartfelt requests for assistance in addressing noise nuisance from her neighbour. The resident, in reporting the noise, made clear to the landlord her pre-existing vulnerabilities and the impact of the noise on her wellbeing but the landlord failed to conduct regular risk assessments or refer the resident for support.
The landlord failed to take timely action to resolve the resident’s reports of urine coming through her ceiling from her neighbour’s property. The resident was exposed to the unpleasant smell and potential hygiene and fire risk hazards and this caused her an extended period of severe distress.
The landlord failed to log and investigate the resident’s complaint when she first raised it in December 2020. It failed to provide a complaint response until August 2021 and then, rather than escalate the complaint in November 2021 it raised a new stage one complaint. This, and the unacceptable delay is responding to the Chief Executive stage complaint, resulted in the resident receiving a final complaint response in October 2022, 22 months after her initial complaint. The landlord’s complaint response failed to provide a resolution to the complaint and failed to provide financial redress for the time, trouble, and distress experienced by the resident for a prolonged period of time.

Orders

Within four weeks of the date of this report the landlord’s chief executive to apologise to the resident in person.
Within four weeks of the date of this report the landlord to pay the resident £3,920 comprising:
1. £2,200 for failing to take proportionate action to resolve reports of noise nuisance;
2. £670 for failing to take action in response to the resident’s report of urine coming through her ceiling;
3. £300 for time and trouble due to complaint handling failures;
4. £750 for distress due to complaint handling failures;
5. This amount replaces the landlord’s previous offer of £450 for compensation related to this complaint. If the landlord has already paid the resident this amount, this should be deducted from the amount ordered and the landlord should pay the resident the remaining £3,470. The landlord should provide evidence of compliance with the above to this Service within four weeks of this report.
Within four weeks of the date of this report the landlord to inspect the neighbouring property to ascertain whether appropriate flooring is now in place and if not, what action it intends to take to resolve the issue.
If it has not done so within the past six months, within six weeks of the date of this report, the landlord to provide refresher training to all relevant staff on:
1. the tools available to collect evidence of noise nuisance including:
  1. Expert witnesses
  2. Noise monitoring equipment
  3. Writing to neighbours appealing for witnesses
2. The importance of completing and updating risk assessments and the potential outcomes of failing to do so.
The landlord to review its procedures in relation to the ongoing review of ASB cases to ensure that case reviews are conducted monthly in line with its policy. The results of the review should be shared with this Service within six weeks of the date of this report.

Recommendations

The landlord to carry out a self-assessment against the Ombudsman’s noise complaint Spotlight recommendations with the aim of developing a good neighbourhood management strategy to assist in managing household noise as recommended by the Ombudsman in the Spotlight report on noise. The landlord must provide this Service with the outcome six weeks of the date of this report.
The landlord to review its document retention policy and consider making changes in line with the best practice guidelines published by the NHF. The landlord must provide this Service with confirmation of its intentions regarding this recommendation within four weeks of the date of this report.
The landlord to carry out a self-assessment against the Ombudsman’s knowledge and information management Spotlight recommendations. The landlord must provide this Service with the outcome six weeks of the date of this report.