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

LiveWest Homes Limited (202015383)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202015383

LiveWest Homes Limited

22 June 2021


Our Approach

 

  1. 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 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.

 

  1. 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 about:

 

3.1. Noise, vibration and water ingress from a neighbouring property;

3.2. A landlord change in policy relating to children, pets and floor coverings.

 

Jurisdiction

 

  1. What we can and cannot consider is called the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction. This is governed by the Scheme. When a complaint is brought to the Ombudsman, we must consider all the circumstances of the case as there are sometimes reasons why a complaint will not be investigated. The resident has raised concerns about the landlord’s change of policy in respect of young children, dogs, and carpets, and that the landlord had not advised residents of this. This was a new issue that was raised following the exhaustion of the landlord’s complaints procedure in December 2020.

 

  1. The Ombudsman is not able to comment on specific issues which have not been considered through the landlord’s complaints process in the first instance. This is because we need to be sure that the landlord has had an adequate opportunity to investigate and resolve the issues internally before we intervene. This is in accordance with paragraph 39(a) of the Scheme, which states that the Ombudsman will not investigate complaints which are made prior to having exhausted a landlord’s complaints procedure. The complaint raised about noise, vibration and damp from a neighbouring property is within jurisdiction and has been considered below.

 

Background and Summary of Events

 

Background

 

  1. The resident is an assured tenant of the landlord at the property, a two-bedroom, second floor flat. The tenancy start date was 6 December 2008. The flat immediately above the property is occupied by a landlord tenant with a young child.

 

  1. The landlord’s ASB hate crime policy says that in responding to reports of ASB, it will take a proportionate response to incidents reported. 

Summary of events

 

  1. On 28 September 2020, the resident emailed the landlord regarding ‘DIY’ sounds from the property above. She stated she did not want to start the relationship (with a new neighbour) by complaining and asked that the landlord ensure the neighbour was aware of the tenancy condition of having carpets. On the same day, the landlord replied to say it had spoken to the neighbour, who apologised for the noise and explained they were decorating. They said the carpets would be fitted on 2 October 2020. The resident replied to thank the landlord but said she had not wanted the neighbour to think she had complained. The landlord replied later to assure the resident it had been tactful.

 

  1. On 8 October 2020, the resident asked the landlord to speak to the neighbour regarding noise as she was hearing DIY sounds from 7am until 1am on most nights, which led to a lack of sleep making her ill. She also said she did not think the carpets had been fitted. She requested a copy of the tenancy agreement to find out more about the landlord policy on children. The landlord responded to say it had spoken to the neighbour who apologised for their delay in completing the decorating and that the carpets would be fitted by 10 October 2020.

 

  1. On 9 October 2020, the resident emailed the landlord to clarify that she had asked for the night-time noise to stop, not that she was concerned about daytime decorating. She referred to the previous neighbour of the same property who had had anti-social behaviour (ASB) issues which had affected her health, and that it had been agreed this would be a “sensitive let“. She said she felt unwell and was concerned about the effect of a lack of sleep on her health. The resident stated she did not feel heard by the landlord and again requested a copy of the tenancy agreement which she had not yet received. The landlord replied and attached a copy of the tenancy agreement. It apologised that the resident felt unheard and said it would call the neighbour again.

 

  1. Later that morning, the resident replied, saying she didn’t feel heard because the landlord’s replies were “too vague” and that she never knew exactly what the landlord had done, said or planned to do. She was anxious about there being a baby upstairs, due to the likelihood of noise during the nights because of poor sound-proofing. She again referred to the stress caused by the previous neighbour and her current ill health. Shortly afterwards, the landlord emailed to apologise and say it would try to be clearer in future. It said it planned to arrange a visit with the new neighbour during the following week. The next day, the resident emailed the landlord to thank it for its response and to report that the neighbour continued working upstairs until past midnight.

 

  1. On 21 October 2020, the resident emailed the landlord to check that the landlord was still visiting the neighbour the following day. She also asked if it had received her recording of the washing machine upstairs at 11pm one night. She said she was worried the neighbour’s frequent washing and drying was causing her own property to become humid, which was affecting her health. She said there had been between 20 and 30 washes in one week.

 

  1. The landlord replied the next day to confirm two of its staff members would be visiting the neighbour that day at 2.30pm and would also visit the resident afterwards. The resident replied at 9.35am to say she didn’t feel well enough to meet the landlord in person that day. She asked that the landlord let her know what action would be taken and offered to record the noise. She said she had not heard any more DIY. The landlord replied later that day to say it would keep the resident informed.

 

  1. The resident emailed the landlord on 23 October 2020 to say she had been advised by an environmental health employee that the neighbour’s tumble dryer/washing machine should be checked for ventilation space. She said it may cause life threatening illness from the exhaust if ventilation was not adequate, especially given her health problems.

 

  1. Later that morning, the landlord told the resident it was a new washing machine and that it would buy a rubber mat for it to sit on. The resident replied shortly afterwards saying the landlord had previously told her the machine was broken. The landlord replied to confirm it had a slight leak and to say the neighbour had contacted the repairs department.

 

  1. The resident emailed the landlord on 26 October 2020 with an update:

 

16.1. She had bought a humidity monitor that showed the property’s humidity to be ‘unhealthily high’, which she thought was increasing her allergies and asthma.

16.2. She said she could smell detergents due to the tumble dryer.

16.3. She also said she had found damp in her bedroom and a wet patch in the living room. She mentioned her en-suite had previously had a leak which had been repaired, but that she had been told it was likely it had been leaking for years. She wondered if the leak had not been properly repaired.

16.4. She requested a dehumidifier.

16.5. She asked when the mat would be put under the washing machine.

 

  1. The landlord replied on 27 October 2020, saying it had passed the resident’s email to its maintenance officer and it would contact her again once it had more information.

 

  1. On 29 October 2020, the resident requested an update. She said she was now sleeping on her settee because there were more windows in the living room which she could keep open to prevent humidity. She said she felt exhausted, nauseous, and unable to relax. That afternoon, the landlord said the maintenance officer had reported that a washing machine was unlikely to be causing damp in her property, but a pre-inspection was raised. The landlord said the operative who would perform the inspection was planning to ring the resident the following week, but the resident could email the operative if she preferred.

 

  1. The resident replied on 2 November 2020 to say she had not heard from the operative, nor did she have the operative’s email address. She asked whether the landlord still planned to inspect the damp now the second Covid-19 lockdown was starting on 5 November 2020. The landlord replied on the same day, saying it had copied in the operative performing the inspection and gave the relevant email address. It said its operative would confirm lockdown maintenance arrangements. It added the neighbour had informed it the washing machine had been exchanged for a replacement and was now in situ, on top of a new rubber mat.

 

  1. Later that day, the resident said she was using motion sickness patches to allow her to cope with the vibrations. She felt the vibrations were causing her muscle tension and the humidity was adversely affecting her health. The landlord replied shortly afterwards to express sympathy and said it hoped the issue would be resolved by the actions it had taken.

 

  1. On 5 November 2020, the resident emailed to say she had sent a recording of the noise caused by the new washing machine. She said the monitor showed the vibrations were only slightly lower than those caused by the previous washing machine and she did not feel she could cope with multiple washing and drying cycles per day at those levels. She asked what type of mat was under the washing machine. Later that afternoon, the landlord replied to confirm the type of anti-vibration mat that it had bought. It thanked the resident for the noise recordings and said it would consider solutions.

 

  1. The following day, the resident emailed the landlord saying she did not think the mat was thick enough and its feet may need adjusting. She suggested it might be due to a structural defect in the building. The landlord replied to say it had listened to the noise recordings and had sought advice from the local council. The council had advised the landlord that washing machine noise is normal living noise, as long as it does not happen during the night. The landlord gave the contact details of the environmental health officer it had spoken to. It also suggested mediation and asked for the resident’s opinion on this.

 

  1. The resident responded to the landlord on 7 October 2020 to say she felt anxious about its emails, amongst other points. She then followed that up with a formal complaint on 8 October 2020, which said:

 

23.1.   She was unhappy with the way the landlord had handled her complaints about vibrations from the washing machine upstairs thus far.

23.2.   She felt unheard and not taken seriously.

23.3.   There was damp in the property.

23.4.   She thought the landlord was more concerned about the neighbour’s wellbeing than her own.

23.5.   She felt the situation had affected both her physical and mental health.

23.6.   She was unhappy that her history with the previous neighbour’s ASB was shared with the current neighbour. She also said the landlord should not have told the neighbour she had complained regarding the DIY when she had requested it not do so. She asked to be assigned to a different housing officer.

23.7.   Her complaint was initially with the landlord but was now also with the neighbour.

23.8.   She wished to have compensation due to negligence and the extra money spent.

 

  1. The landlord emailed on 9 November 2020 to apologise for the anxiety caused by its emails. It reassured the resident that it was impartial. It said the call to the council had been to find out what more it could do for her but as washing machines and footsteps were considered normal living noise, it could not consider this as ASB and a breach of tenancy. It repeated its offer of mediation. It also said it had spoken to the neighbour and visited them again.

 

  1. On 13 November 2020, the landlord issued its Stage 1 complaint response:

 

25.1.      It acknowledged the distress the resident felt but repeated that the noise could not be treated as ASB, as the sound of a washing machines and footsteps were everyday living noise and not preventable.

25.2.      It summarised the attempted solutions of the rubber mat, the resident’s attempts to make contact through letters, and mediation.

25.3.      It supported the involvement of environmental health which the initial housing officer had requested.

25.4.      It offered to visit when the washing machine was on so it could witness the noise experienced in person rather than via the recordings.

25.5.      It mentioned the damp but noted it was being dealt with separately and seemed to be progressing well.

25.6.      It apologised for the stress the resident said she experienced after the housing officer’s emails and asked for more details about her health so it could take this into account when communicating with her.

25.7.      It turned down the request for a different housing officer as it found no evidence of inadequate communication from the housing officer. It suggested the resident speak by telephone to try and overcome her perception of communication issues.

25.8.      It reassured her it was taking her situation seriously and that it was impartial.

25.9.      The conclusion was that it would not uphold the complaint about service failures. It also said it would not offer compensation as it was doing all it could to resolve the issues and assured the resident it would continue to work on resolving her situation.

 

  1. On 20 November 2020, the resident replied to the Stage 1 Response to ask that it be escalated to Stage 2. She made the following points:

 

26.1.      She agreed for the landlord to visit and check the noise and vibrations she was experiencing and requested it ensure the washing machine would be in use during the visit.

26.2.      She informed it the local council was now investigating her complaint.

26.3.      She asked for the electrical wiring to be checked as she was concerned the vibrations had caused a fault with her oven.

26.4.      She gave some further information about her health.

26.5.      She said the neighbour would not communicate and had no interest in how she was affected by their noise and mentioned the possible option to under-occupy a property.

26.6.      She said how frustrated she was by the situation and how her health and life were being “utterly ruined”.

26.7.      She reiterated her communication difficulties with her housing officer, in particular its “vagueness” and that she was given unsolicited details about other neighbours, as they were given details about her without her permission.

26.8.      She said the landlord was prejudiced against her and in favour of the neighbour.

26.9.      She reported seeking legal advice regarding compensation due to the impact on her financially, emotionally and with regard to her health.

26.10. She said both neighbours below had said they could also hear washing machine noise and feel the vibrations.

 

  1. Later that day, the landlord responded to say it was pleased the council were also investigating and thanked the resident for giving details about her health. It repeated that the use of the washing machine was not classed as ASB. It also said it had not told the neighbour of the resident’s anxiety following the occupancy of the previous neighbours. It said it had told them that “neighbours may be more anxious” due to the history of the property and her name had not been given specifically. It added that anything it had told her about the neighbour had been done so with their permission. It also apologised if she felt it was biased toward the neighbour but assured her this was not the case. It said if she still felt she wished to escalate to Stage 2, the landlord would arrange that.

 

  1. On 25 November 2020, the resident emailed the landlord to clarify the complaint was not about normal washing machine noise and footsteps. She said she had tried to compromise by writing to the neighbour suggesting timeslots when they could use their washing machine until the issue was resolved. The neighbour had not responded. She asked for the complaint to be escalated to Stage 2.

 

  1. There were several text messages exchanged between the landlord (housing officer) and the resident in early December 2020 regarding another neighbour’s experience of the washing machine and to confirm a visit on 3 December 2020. The landlord also said the floor and ceiling would be investigated and confirmed the visit for 10 December 2020.

 

  1. The landlord emailed the resident on 4 December 2020. It said it had spoken to the neighbour and they had agreed to mediation. The next day, the resident replied to also agree to mediation and asked whether the neighbour could be told to use her washing machine less. On 10 December 2020, the landlord emailed to say it had already requested this but were unable to insist upon it.

 

  1. On the same day, the landlord issued its Stage 2 response. It said:

 

31.1.      It apologised for the resident’s experience.

31.2.      It thought that its housing officer’s conduct had been “polite and timely“.

31.3.      It summarised its responses to the complaints, including listening to the noise recordings, buying a vibration mat, offering mediation and therapy, contacting environmental health for advice, visiting to listen in-person, arranging a maintenance inspection, removing one of the neighbour’s kitchen units, arranging for works on her ceiling and on the neighbour’s floor, the last of which was expected to complete shortly.

31.4.      It supported the Stage 1 conclusion that its behaviour had been appropriate.

31.5.      It apologised for the effect on the resident’s health and said it had raised a learning point regarding dealing with residents who had anxiety.

31.6.      It confirmed the neighbouring property was let as a “sensitive allocation” but that it could not place restrictions on allocating homes residents with children. It found no evidence to indicate bias toward the neighbour.

31.7.      It offered potential solutions including funded mediation, buying and fitting a dehumidifier, ensuring the resident was kept updated in future and reviewing training with regard to health and wellbeing.

 

  1. On 10 December 2020 an internal email from the landlord’s contracts manager to the maintenance officer said there was no issue structurally and concluded the issue was either in the floor or the washing machine itself.

 

  1. Further correspondence took place between the resident and the landlord following the Stage 2 response. This can be summarised as follows:

 

33.1.      After carrying out an inspection, the landlord found the noise from the washing machine to be far worse than it had expected, and it found excessive movement within the floor structure in the neighbour’s property. It put forward both short-term and long-term options that might improve matters. However, one of its contractor’s also visited the resident and felt there was no issue they could address. The landlord therefore arranged for a structural engineer visit to take place.

33.2.      The two parties had further discussions about the allocation of homes, including to those with children. Essentially, the landlord advised that it was required to allocate homes to those most in need, and had decided not to put a Local Lettings Plan in place (which could allow it to prevent children living in certain properties) because of the high level of local housing need for families with children. Though it would review this.

33.3.      The resident refused the landlord’s offer of a dehumidifier, and said she had instead bought an air purifier. The landlord reimbursed her for this.

 

  1. At the point of submitting the evidence to this Service, the landlord was arranging to investigate the floor construction as part of a wider scheme of works. The landlord did not have an estimated date of completion at the point of submission.

 

Assessment and Findings

 

  1. The role of this Service is not to establish whether the ASB reported was occurring or not; the Ombudsman’s role is to establish whether the landlord’s response to the resident’s report of ASB was in line with relevant policies, procedures and good practice.

 

  1. When the resident initially advised the landlord of the noise nuisance she was experiencing, it appeared that this was caused by the lack of carpets in the neighbour’s property. However, the landlord advised the neighbour of the matter, so that noise could be reduced at unsociable hours. That was appropriate.

 

  1. The resident then raised concerns about the noise, vibrations from the neighbour’s washing machine, including her view that the volume of usage was causing increased humidity and therefore damp within her own property. The landlord listened to the noise recordings she had made, which was reasonable. It then carried out a number of actions to try and reduce the disturbance caused to the resident, which included: – buying an anti-vibration mat; visiting the neighbour to make them aware of the impact use of the washing machine was having on the resident; made alterations to the neighbour’s kitchen; offering the buy a dehumidifier, and eventually reimbursing the resident for an air purifier; and arranging for inspections to take place to the property. All of these were reasonable and proportionate actions in the circumstances.

 

  1. The landlord had not opened an ASB case because it had received advice from environmental health that the use of a washing machine would not be considered ASB. However, it was apparent that the resident thought her neighbour was not engaging with her about the matter and that relations had broken down, and so the landlord arranged for mediation to take place. This was a proportionate response, and in line with the landlord’s ASB policy. Mediation can be a useful tool when there are neighbour disputes, particularly before matters have escalated over a long period of time. It was therefore appropriate for the landlord to arrange the mediation when it did.

 

  1. Although the landlord had listened to the noise recordings, it also visited the resident in person so that it could hear for itself the noise and vibrations she was experiencing. Given the resident’s continued complaints about the noise and vibrations over a two-month period, this was a reasonable response.

 

  1. The landlord consequently accepted that there was excessive noise, and carried out appropriate investigations into this, which were still ongoing when the complaint was referred to this Service. It was appropriate that the landlord continued to investigate the resident’s reports following the completion of the complaints process. Though the evidence as detailed above shows a reasonable response to the resident’s reports of noise and vibrations from the neighbouring property, it was clear that the resident remained affected. The landlord’s continued investigation has identified a possible structural issue, with further inspections planned. Whilst the progression of these issues is not something that has been investigated here, the resident has the option of submitting a further complaint for the landlord’s consideration.

 

  1. The resident believed that the frequency of the neighbour’s usage of the washing machine had resulted in water ingress in the property, with signs of ‘damp’ having been seen. The landlord’s stage one response confirmed that this issue was being handled separately and the final response referred to a dehumidifier that it was willing to supply. It would have been appropriate for the landlord to have been more explicit about its findings about water ingress/damp in its complaint response as the resident had complained about this issue and it had included ‘damp’ within its own complaint definition. Nonetheless, there is no evidence of a damp issue at the property and correspondence available to this investigation suggests that ventilation within the property, as well as the air purifier (which the landlord reimbursed her for) are managing moisture levels effectively.

 

Determination (decision)

 

  1. In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration by the landlord in respect of the resident’s reports of noise, vibration, and damp from a neighbouring property.

 

Reasons

 

  1. The resident reported ongoing concerns with the noise, vibrations, and possible water ingress from her neighbour’s washing machine. She made recordings of the noise she was hearing, which the landlord listened to. It sought advice from environment health, and found that the use of a washing machine would not be considered ASB, and so it did not open an ASB case. However, it took various actions to try and reduce the disturbance that the resident was experiencing – those actions were reasonable and proportionate. It also arranged mediation to try and improve relations between the resident and her neighbour, which was appropriate in the circumstances.

 

  1. However, after the resident continued to report noise disturbance for around two months, the landlord decided to listen to the noise in person. That was reasonable, given the length of time over which the resident had been raising concerns. After doing so, it accepted that further investigation was needed into the excessive noise and vibrations, and at the time of referral to this Service, those investigations were ongoing.

 

  1. There is also no evidence of damp within the property and the safeguards in place (air purifier and ventilation) appear to be managing this issue effectively.