Notting Hill Genesis (NHG) (202208938)

A picture containing logo Description automatically generated

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202208938

Notting Hill Genesis

30 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 the landlord’s handling of:
1. The residents report of domestic noise from the neighbour’s property.
2. The record keeping.

Background

Scope of investigation

The resident has an assured tenancy which began on 10 June 1996. The property is described as a one-bedroom maisonette, with the living room on the ground floor and the bedroom on the top floor. The landlord does not have any vulnerabilities recorded for the resident. The landlord is a housing association.
The resident complained to this Service and the landlord that she had been experiencing noise for over 2 years from the property above hers. Whilst this Service has not seen records of reports made by the resident until November 2021, the landlord acknowledged in its stage two response that it had received some ad hoc reports from her before this time. It has not provided evidence of these reports and any specific dates or information about the reports, but it noted that the frequency of the reports increased in October 2021.
The resident did not however raise a formal complaint about its handling of the noise reports until 21 April 2021. This report therefore focusses on events that occurred between November 2021 to 21 June 2022, when the landlord issued its final response to the complaint.
This is because resident’s are expected to raise complaints with their landlords in a timely manner so that the landlord has a reasonable opportunity to consider the issues whilst they are still ‘live’, and while the evidence is available to reach an informed conclusion on the events that occurred.
This Service notes the resident’s comments regarding her health and the impact caused by the delays during the course of her complaints. This Service is unable to draw conclusions on the causation of, or liability for, impacts on health and wellbeing. Matters of personal injury or damage to health, their investigation and compensation, are not part of the complaints process, and are more appropriately addressed by way of the courts or the landlord’s liability insurer as a personal injury claim.

Policies and procedural information

The landlord’s domestic noise and neighbourhood disputes policy defines domestic noise as the experience of noise caused within a domestic residence. This excludes instances where the noise is too loud or amplified which it would consider as noise nuisance and dealt with as anti-social behaviour. It defines neighbourhood dispute as a conflict between neighbours where there has been no breach of occupancy agreement which includes the behaviour of children.
On receiving a complaint of domestic noise, it will advise the resident:
1. To politely discuss the issue directly with their neighbour in the first instance.
2. Of the tools available to help them resolve the issue including mediation, advice from housing management, provide support to the resident or through an agency.
3. To report excessive noise nuisance (outside the hours of 7am to 11pm) to their local authority.
The landlord’s resident handbook advises that:
1. Residents should obtain permission before installing wooden or laminate flooring if they live in a flat because their neighbours will hear more noise where they are installed.
2. Where installed without permission, the resident will be asked to remove it and replace the original flooring at their own expense.
The landlord’s moving home document advises that:
1. It maintains its own housing register in partnership with another organisation for existing residents who wish to move to another of its properties. Residents who wish to move will be provided more information by their housing officer. It will award priority depending on the resident’s personal circumstances, whether they are overcrowded, and it will consider any medical conditions.
2. Residents who wish to move home could find someone to swap their property with (mutual exchange).
The landlord’s compensation policy allows for goodwill gestures and financial redress where it has identified failures in the standards of the services delivered to its residents. It would offer discretionary payments of up to £250 or higher levels of compensation in circumstances where they have been multiple service failures.

Summary of events

In response to our request for evidence of earlier reports made to the landlord regarding noise disturbance from the flat above hers, the resident provided a copy of an email dated 1 November 2021, titled noise nuisance, which the landlord had sent to her. The email did not contain any information, but it indicated that the landlord and the resident had been in contact regarding her concerns as of that date or before.
The landlord provided incident diary sheets to the resident on 8 November 2021, to record the dates, times and content of disturbance being caused.
The resident reported noise disturbance to the landlord by email at 8:02pm on 11 November 2021. She said she could hear the child running up and down and that the neighbour refused to answer when she knocked on their door. She said nobody was taking her concerns seriously and that it was affecting her mental health. She said she had called the police emergency line (999), but they were unable to assist her.
The landlord opened an ASB case on 19 November 2021 and it made arrangements with the resident on 22 November 2021 to visit her.
The landlord’s records noted that it visited the resident’s flat on 26 November 2021. It attempted to visit the above flat on 3 December 2021 and the evidence indicated that it had a discussion with them around this time.
The landlord (housing management) visited the resident on 17 December 2021 for an annual visit. It noted that the resident reported that she had been experiencing noise for over two years from the above flat from a four-year-old child who is autistic. It said the resident reported that the child:
1. Ran up and down their living room which is on top of her bedroom as the property is a maisonette.
2. Tapped the window all day.
3. Tapped his foot on the floor.
4. Screamed until the early hours of the morning.
It advised the resident that it would investigate the matter and update her.
The resident wrote to the landlord on 19 January 2022 and asked if there had been any improvements or changes made whilst she was away.
The landlord responded to the resident on 20 January 2022 that they had previously not been able to visit the neighbour due to the lockdown restrictions in the previous year and also because she was away at that time. It said it would be better for them to look into the matter further when she returned from her trip and provided further evidence of any noise experienced. The resident responded to the landlord the same day that she was disappointed in its response as she expected it to have had a follow up discussion with the neighbour as they had agreed.
The landlord (housing officer) wrote to the resident on 25 January 2022 and said that it had spoken to the neighbour, but that it had not been able to visit them due to the lockdown restrictions.
The landlord visited the neighbour on 28 January 2022 around 12pm and noted that the child sat quietly throughout the time it was there. It discussed the complaint from the resident and the neighbour confirmed that the boy tapped the floor occasionally but not all day and that he screamed sometimes when he was hungry. It noted that the child usually went to bed around 8pm so the neighbour could not understand why the resident complained about noise disturbance during the night.
The landlord instructed the neighbour that they had to remove their wood flooring, but she said they could not use carpet as their child was allergic, so they agreed that they should put rugs on the floor to reduce the noise and also remove the chair by the window to deter the child from tapping it. It gave the neighbour 28 days to complete the actions agreed.
The resident informed the landlord on 30 January 2022 that she had just returned home and could hear loud stamping on the wooden floor at 23:08pm. She asked for the details of her housing officer’s manager so she could escalate the matter.
The landlord responded to the resident on 31 January 2022 and explained that they had spoken to the neighbour and confirmed that they had bought a highchair for their child and insisted that they purchase rugs. It explained that it had to deal with the neighbour sensitively due to their child’s condition. It assured the resident that it would visit the neighbour by the end of the week to ensure that they had complied with the instructions given. The resident responded that the neighbour needed to carpet their entire house and that they had illegally removed the carpet in their property. She said the family should be moved to a ground floor flat as she should not be made to suffer indefinitely.
On 1 February 2022, the resident asked the landlord to confirm its intention to visit the neighbour to ascertain that their entire home had been carpeted and that the highchair had been bought. She told the landlord that the noise (running up and down) had not ceased since she returned to her home. She expressed that the landlord could enforce the residents to put carpet in their home, soundproof the home or move them to a ground floor flat to alleviate the distress to her.
The landlord wrote to the resident on 2 February 2022 and informed her it had spoken to the neighbour who was very cooperative. It said that it would visit her to inspect the property to ensure that a rug had been fitted properly. The resident responded the same day that the house needed to be carpeted not just a rug laid down. She explained that the neighbour’s child was very active and ran up and down and that she could hear them even when they walked around the flat. She further said that her neighbour in another flat also said she could hear the noises and that she was willing to be interviewed.
The resident contacted the landlord for feedback on 7 February 2022.
There were further communications between the landlord and the resident between 8 February 2022 and 14 February 2022. During this period:
1. The resident contacted the landlord at 1:33am and said that the child was running up and down and stamping his feet and that she could not sleep.
2. The landlord responded that the neighbour had placed a rug on the floor and bought a highchair which they had put in front of the window to stop him from stamping his feet continuously and from tapping the window. It said that the neighbour explained that their child went to bed at 8pm so it would be impossible to hear any noise from the bedroom. The landlord noted that it would be difficult to comment on this as it did not live there.
3. It further advised the resident that the neighbour said they could not afford to remove the flooring hence the rug. It said that it believed the rug should be sufficient as this had been effective in similar cases. It said it would continue to monitor the case and apologised for any inconvenience caused.
4. The resident invited the landlord to her home to witness the noise, but it said there was no noise experienced on the day it visited for the duration of 30 minutes that it visited. It advised the resident to start recording the noise and send them to her to review.
On 14 February 2022 the landlord emailed the resident and thanked her for providing the recordings. She advised that she review it and get back to the resident by 16 February 2022.
On 27 February 2022, the resident emailed her housing officer and expressed further concerns about the noise and the effect it was having on her mental health.
On 1 March 2022, the landlord wrote to the resident and advised her to contact her local authority’s noise team due to the sensitivity of the case. It said that the recordings she had sent were unclear, so her local authority would have better noise monitoring equipment. It further advised that as the case involved a child with a medical condition, she might have to involve children services for their intervention. It stated that it wished it could do more but that there were insufficient grounds to take further action as the evidence was not clear.
The resident wrote to this Service between 2 March 2022 and 7 March 2022 regarding her noise complaint. She said that that whilst she was extremely sensitive to the child’s circumstances, her case had always been about the need for the landlord to mitigate her suffering as her health had suffered severely over the months, she had been reporting the matter. She said that she had been complaining since the start of the pandemic and all she wanted the landlord to do was to ensure that the flat was carpeted, soundproof their home, or move her as a last resort.
She also contacted the landlord on the same day and expressed discontent with the landlord’s handling of her reports. She stated that her concerns were being disregarded and that she was informed by the local authority that this was not a matter for them to deal with, but for the landlord to address through its housing management.
The landlord responded to the resident on 3 March 2022 reiterating its previous advice to her, to contact her local authority. The voice recordings were reviewed by members of its staff, but they all came to the conclusion that it was difficult to identify a child running/shouting or screaming and that they could hear occasional thumping which did not exactly depict the source of the noise. It clarified that it had a responsibility to treat all residents fairly and it could not take action without evidence. She continued to send recordings up until 23 March 2022 which the landlord acknowledged.
On 21 April 2022, the resident submitted a formal complaint to the landlord. She complained that:
1. She had endured 2 years of constant noise nuisance from the neighbour above me, who has an autistic child.
2. The continual banging and noise had gravely affected her mental health, but its officers had continually informed her that there was nothing they could do.
3. The landlord had contravened their tenancy agreement by allowing the neighbour to install laminate flooring in a first floor flat.
The complaint was acknowledged by the (housing officer) on 26 April 2022. It advised that a response would be sent by a senior member of staff the following week.
The resident wrote to the landlord on 9 May 2022 and chased up the response to her stage one complaint.
The landlord responded to the resident’s stage one complaint on 16 May 2022. The key findings from the response were:
1. It had investigated her complaint and confirmed that the neighbour had completed all recommended actions.
2. In response to further noise reports made by the resident it agreed to visit her property to listen to the noise, but it did not witness any noise on the day it attended. It noted that the resident said that the child was still sleeping as it was around 11am.
3. It provided information regarding the local authority’s noise nuisance team. It advised they could visit at different times of the day dependent on when the noise occurred and that they are able to take action themselves in order to resolve the concern.
4. It had reviewed the noise recordings sent by the resident and noted that there was a banging noise, but no shouting or screaming could be heard. It apologised that it was difficult to take further action against the parent due to the lack of evidence. It asked the resident to send further incidents so that it could discuss with the neighbour to see what additional actions could be taken to mitigate the nuisance.
The resident wrote to the landlord the same day and said:
1. She had not received a call from her housing officer’s manager as promised.
2. The resident bought a rug, but it did not run through the flat, so it had not helped.
3. The neighbour had failed to remove the wooden flooring in the flat and asked why the landlord had not offered the family assistance in doing so.
4. She had contacted the local authority but had been told that it was not their responsibility. She could not understand why it had advised her to contact social services as it was its responsibility to manage the case.
5. The landlord should take positives steps to manage the case as a child with special needs should not be leaving in a floor flat.
The landlord wrote to the resident on 23 May 2022 and advised her that her correspondence had been logged as a stage two complaint. It further advised that a response would be sent to her within 28 working days.
The landlord responded to the resident’s stage two complaint on 21 June 2022. It apologised for the delay in responding to the stage one complaint and said:
1. Whilst the resident had stated that she had been experiencing the noise for 2 years, it could see ad hoc reports which then escalated in October 2021 where she had reported several concerns to her previous housing officer.
2. At the annual visit on 17 December 2021 by her housing officer, it discussed her concerns and options that may reduce the nuisance and noted that the case would be monitored to track any incidents.
3. It acknowledged that it was slow to respond to her initial reports and it apologised for the inconvenience caused. It also said that there were delays in visits to both her and her neighbour due to the restrictions over visits during the government enforced lockdown.
4. It found that reasonable actions over improvements to her neighbour’s home were completed and it would like to continue to work with the neighbour to minimise the noise transfer.
5. Following its review of her noise nuisance complaint, it noted that an anti-social behaviour case was opened, but the case was managed under its ‘Neighbour disputes and Domestic Noise’ policy.
6. In line with the policy, she and her neighbour should have been offered mediation as one of the possible routes to resolution. It would like to offer this service, so it asked her to confirm her interest. It would also be discussing mediation with her neighbour.
7. It noted that noise could be heard within the recordings, but it was inconclusive to say whether it went beyond reasonable household noise considering her neighbour had a vulnerable child.
8. Any further action could only be taken based on further evidence and information from the local authority’s noise nuisance team. It must consider her neighbour’s family situation and had not found evidence of noise that was outside of that which could be considered reasonable household noise. Any action it takes must be based on evidence and the local authorities noise nuisance team should be contacted to gather information.
9. It found that the case could have been managed more effectively and different routes sought to help improve the situation and potentially reduce the nuisance.
10. The landlord partially upheld the resident’s complaint in relation to the management of her case and found service failures. It said that the communication from its officers could have been timelier.
11. There were lessons to be learnt from her case as it should have been clear on how her case would be managed. It would be discussing this with the relevant teams to discuss how noise nuisance can be managed and the different routes to try and find resolutions.
12. It offered total compensation of £250 for the service failures identified broken down as:
  1. £50 for the delay in responded to her stage one complaint.
  2. £100 for the lack of communication and slow follow up to her concerns.
  3. £75 for the failure to offer mediation.

Post complaint actions

The resident wrote to the landlord on 23 June 2022 and advised that she was reluctant to mediation but willing and asked how this could be arranged. She continued to complain that the walls of her property shook due to the stamping from the above flat. She could hear the conversation in the above flat whilst in her living room. She had been informed that the landlord could request multi-agency meetings to investigate the wider issues. The local authority had told her that the request to install noise monitoring equipment had to come through her landlord.
The resident contacted this Service on 29 July 2022 and stated that:
1. The family refused to remove laminate flooring from their flat.
2. The landlord told her it would offer the family financial assistance, but it failed to provide further updates.
3. The noise was getting worse.
4. The landlord should rehouse the family or find her alternative accommodation, but it asked her to make such arrangements herself through a house swap.
The landlord responded the same day that moving her, or her neighbour would be a last option so it would look into mediation and work with her neighbour. It advised her to contact her local authority as their noise nuisance team can provide evidence as well as take their own actions and assistance in minimising noise transfer.
The landlord’s internal emails dated 9 September 2022 noted that it liaised with a mediation service for the resident and the neighbour, and it asked if the neighbour had given consent.
She also informed this Service on 16 September 2022 that:
1. The landlord had ignored her request for mediation.
2. It had ignored several emails sent to it regarding the installation of noise monitoring equipment.
The resident contacted this Service on 17 October 2022 and advised that the problem was getting worse. She said she understood, following discussions with the neighbour that there was nothing they could do to keep the child quiet, but that the landlord could rehouse them or her.
The landlord provided a copy of the mediation agreement between the resident and her neighbour dated 27 April 2023. They both agreed during mediation that:
1. The landlord had been unsupportive.
2. The landlord had apologised and acknowledged that it had not mediated the situation properly and that it was the resident who had recommended mediation.
3. They wanted soundproofing to address the noise that was being generated from each living space.
4. They had tried everything they could to reduce the noise, but these were not long-term solutions.

Assessment and findings

The Ombudsman’s Dispute Resolution Principles are:

Be fair.
Put things right.
Learn from outcomes.

This Service will apply these principles when considering whether any redress is appropriate and proportionate for any maladministration or service failure identified.
In cases relating to ASB, it is important to clarify that this Service’s role is not to ascertain whether ASB occurred or not or who is responsible, but to determine whether the landlord responded to reports of ASB received in the timeframe of a complaint, and assess whether the landlord has followed proper procedure, good practice, and behaved reasonably, taking account of all the circumstances of the case.
As previously noted in the background section of this report, this Service has not seen evidence substantiating the resident’s historic reports of noise disturbance. The evidence suggests that the landlord initially proceeded to follow its ASB procedure as it sent diary sheets to the resident and created an ASB case on 19 November 2021. On its visit to her on 17 December 2021, it noted her concerns as noise disturbance from the above flat, caused by the neighbour’s four-year-old child who is autistic. It assured the resident that it would look into the matter, but it is unclear at this point if the resident’s expectations were managed and if advice was offered on how it would handle such reports. Whilst it initially appeared to manage the case as an ASB investigation, it did not set up the case within an appropriate time frame, (it took more than a week from the case being reported), and there was no evidence of a risk assessment being undertaken to understand the impact on the resident, despite the resident informing it of the impact upon her. This is not appropriate as it would have left the resident unclear on what level of service delivery to expect causing frustration and distress to her.
Following its visit to the neighbour on 28 January 2022, they admitted that their child occasionally made some noise. It instructed them to remove their laminate flooring and replace it with carpet, but the neighbour said their child was allergic to carpet and it agreed that they could place rugs on the floor to reduce the noise. The landlord at this point appeared to acknowledge a concern about noise transference within the flats, exacerbated by the laminate flooring in the neighbour’s property. Its actions here were reasonable and in line with its tenancy conditions with its resident.
The resident reported further noise disturbances to her housing officer on 30 January 2022. The landlord responded that it would visit the neighbour to ensure that the actions agreed had been completed, but the resident highlighted that it should verify that the neighbour had installed carpet throughout the flat. This indicates that the landlord had not been open about the resident’s expectations in clarifying to her that the neighbour had said they were unable to have carpets in their home due to allergies. This is not reasonable as the landlord should have been open and realistic with the resident and considered other options of investigating and resolving the noise transference.
It did not directly answer the resident’s query about carpeting the property but responded on 2 February 2022, that it would inspect the neighbour’s property by the end of the week to ascertain that she had fitted a rug in the flat. In response to further noise reports from the resident (including an email sent to the landlord at 1:33am where she reported that the child was running and stamping his feet) the landlord informed her on 8 February 2022, that the neighbour had placed a rug on the floor, but they could not afford to remove the laminate flooring. This contradicts the landlord’s previous case notes as it said the neighbour’s child was allergic to carpet. It failed to re-visit the initial action plan agreed with the resident and failed to manage expectations. This left the resident feeling like that were not being listened to, due to the landlord changing position from their initial agreement on resolving the noise.
The landlord appropriately tried to witness the noise but as it was unable to hear any noise on its visit, advised the resident to record the noise and later on reviewed the recordings sent by her. The resident continued to contact the landlord about noise, and she informed it on 27 February 2022, that it was beginning to affect her mental health. The landlord responded that it had reviewed the recordings that she had sent but that they were unclear, so it advised her to contact her local authority to provide better noise monitoring equipment. It is unclear why the landlord offered this advice, as its domestic noise and neighbourhood disputes policy makes a clear distinction between noise generated through everyday living or by children, and that these would not be dealt with as ASB unless in instances where the noise caused was too loud and a nuisance. This led to unrealistic expectations for the resident, in giving poor advice around recording of noise and referring to the local authority, indicating it was managing the case through its ASB process. This would have led to further distress and inconvenience.
The resident told the landlord on 2 March 2022, that she had contacted the local authority as advised, but they had responded that it was a matter for her landlord to deal with through its housing management. The landlord appeared to have missed this point as it again advised her to contact her local authority in its communication to her on 3 March 2022, indicating that it did not actively listen to the resident’s concerns. It said the recording had been reviewed by members of staff who all concluded that they could hear occasional thumping but that they did not identify a child running, shouting, or screaming. It said it could not take any further action without evidence and suggested that the resident should report the matter to social services for their intervention. The landlord’s actions here are unreasonable and not in line with its policy position, which states that it would contact the relevant service (adult social services or children social services) where intervention is needed. It was not appropriate that it passed this responsibility to the resident.
In response to the resident’s stage one complaint, it repeated that the local authority’s noise nuisance team would be able to provide evidence as it was unable to take action against the parent due to insufficient evidence. This suggests that the landlord was treating this as an ASB investigation suggesting that the neighbour was deliberately causing noise to annoy the resident. This is not appropriate nor is it in line with its policy for handling domestic noise complaints. The landlord’s advice here was also misleading, as it had already established from its previous communication with the neighbour that their child made noises. It had also advised the neighbour to remove her laminate flooring and replace it with carpet in an attempt to resolve the noise transference issue, but this had not been followed through conclusively with both the resident and her neighbour. It’s communication with the resident was again not clear and open in terms of what it could realistically do to resolve the noise issue. The landlord also failed to assess or recognise its obligation to consider the fabric of the building and seek surveying support from its repairs and home improvement teams.
In her stage two complaint, the resident reiterated that the actions previously agreed had not been fully adhered to. She again informed the landlord that the local authority was unable to assist her and asked if it could offer the family assistance with removing the wooden flooring. In its response to the complaint, it acknowledged that it had not effectively managed her case and that it was slow to act on her reports. It appeared to have learnt from its errors and acknowledged the noise transference as an issue. It offered mediation, accepted that it could hear some noise from the recordings she had sent, but that it was unable to ascertain if it went beyond reasonable household noise. This Service would expect to see use of mediation to help seek a local resolution to the issue much earlier in the process, to try and stop the relationship between the neighbours breaking down further, but this was offered far too late in the process for it to be effective. Whilst the landlord also explained that the case was managed through its domestic noise policy (although initially as an ASB case), it has not evidenced that it followed the policy correctly.
The landlord also failed to fully respond to all the issues the resident had raised. The complaints process is an opportunity to identify where things have gone wrong, learn from this and seek a resolution. By not responding to all of the resident’s concerns meant it missed an opportunity to fully provide a full resolution.
The landlord acknowledged that her case could have been managed more effectively, that communication could have been timelier and different routes sought to help improve the situation. It said that there were lessons to be learnt from the case and that it should have been clear on how her case would be managed. It said this would be discussed with the relevant teams to explore how noise nuisance can be managed and the different routes to resolving such issues. The landlord’s response here is reasonable as it identified that errors were made. Moreover, it recognised that improvements had to be made on how it handled domestic noise reports, as its policy does not include detailed actions it would take in handling such reports.
Having acknowledged these failures, the landlord concluded the response by referring the resident to her local authority so they could gather more information, again missing the opportunity to clearly explain why and to facilitate contact with them. The landlord’s response here is also unreasonable as it appears to disregard the resident’s feedback that the local authority were unable to assist her. This does not demonstrate that it actively listened to the resident, which would have consequently caused her frustration, confusion, a lack of trust and confidence in the landlord. Its actions here do not adhere to its domestic noise & neighbourhood disputes policy where it agrees to provide support to its residents or through an agency. It partially upheld her complaint and offered compensation in the amount of £175 (an additional £50 for the delay in responding to her complaint) for the lack of communication and failure to offer mediation.
Overall, the landlord accepted that it had not acted quickly to resolve the resident’s concerns. It acknowledged that its communication could have been better, that it needed to improve its processes for dealing with noise reports and that it would continue to work with the neighbour to minimise noise transfer. On one hand it accepted that changes needed to be made to its noise management processes and but went on to refer the resident to the local authority to pursue the matter without any clear explanations for this (suggesting that it was managing the case through its ASB and domestic noise policies). The landlord therefore did not manage this case effectively through either of the policies and it failed to recognise this error or learn from this, which would have caused the resident confusion and uncertainty.
This Service recognises that the landlord took some reasonable steps in arranging visits to the resident and the neighbour, attempting to witness the noise, in listening and reviewing the recordings sent by the resident and in recommending that the neighbour remove the flooring and laying rugs. It however did not go far enough in addressing the issues raised by the resident, especially her repeated query about financial assistance to the neighbour in replacing her wooden floor with carpet and her request for either party to be moved to a more suitable property. It is also unclear if the landlord provided information to the resident about moving and it if explored whether additional priority could be awarded to her as stated in its housing policy. Its offer of mediation was also not offered in a timely way, missing opportunities to see a resolution at the earliest opportunity. This would have left the resident feeling unheard and unsupported during this time.
The resident at some point informed the landlord that another neighbour had also said that they experienced the noise and that they were willing to be interviewed. It remains unclear from the evidence if the landlord responded to this request, and it did not advise whether it had received similar complaints from other resident’s within the block. The landlord said it was managing the noise complaint through a separate policy, but it continued to refer the resident to an external organisation to investigate it even though its policy notes that this would only be necessary with excessive noise.
This Service’s spotlight report (published in October 2022) on noise outlines that although a lack of statutory noise levels does limit landlords’ options, particularly tenancy enforcement action, it does not absolve them of the requirement to explore other suitable resolutions. This Service would expect the landlord to have been proactive, facilitated contact with the local authority regarding the noise transference and been clear that this was to assess the level of transference between the properties, rather than assessing if a statutory noise nuisance was occurring. Based upon the landlord’s investigations and the evidence already reviewed, it was clear that this was not a case of ASB, as the noise was not being caused as a deliberate act in order to cause nuisance or annoyance to the resident. This is a failing which again led to a poor service delivery, that failed to be transparent, and customer focused on the actions that it could achieve.
Taking these failures into account, the Ombudsman finds that there was maladministration in the handling of the noise report. This would have caused, frustration, distress, and inconvenience to the resident. The landlord’s policy allows for financial redress of over £250 where there have been multiple failures in its service provision to residents. Whilst this Service acknowledges the landlord’s offer of redress, this does not go far enough and fails to account for the distress and frustration caused to the resident in light of the failings identified in this investigation. An award has therefore been made below to address this.

The record keeping.

The Ombudsman’s spotlight report on knowledge and information management emphasises the importance of record keeping and more importantly its maintenance. The report highlights how a minor administrative error by a landlord can have profound human and organisational impact causing detriments to residents.
The resident complained to this Service and the landlord that her noise reports had been ongoing since 2021 or earlier. She told this Service that she initially did this through telephone messages to the landlord. Although the landlord indicated that it had received some reports prior to October 2021, it did not provide records of these reports when asked by this Service to do so. This suggests that the resident’s reports were not picked up or appropriately recorded by the landlord undermining her complaint.
This made it difficult for this Service to determine the scope of the investigation and ascertain how long the resident had been reporting her concerns about noise to the landlord. Although the landlord had already admitted to receiving these earlier reports and that it failed to manage the case or act quickly to resolve them, the lack of evidence brings to light concerns about the landlord’s record keeping and whether it kept appropriate records of the resident’s reports. The limited evidence has also impacted our ability to conduct a full and fair investigation of the resident’s complaint about noise. An order has therefore been made below to reflect this.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was evidence of maladministration in respect of the landlord’s handling of the resident’s report of domestic noise from the neighbour’s property.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was evidence of service failure in the landlord’s record keeping.

Reasons

It took steps to investigate the resident’s noise complaint and admitted following the investigation of her complaints that it could have done more in the handling of the matter. Whist it accepted these failings, offered compensation, mediation and acknowledged that there were lessons to be learnt, it failed to listen to the resident, and it continued to pass the responsibility for the noise investigation to her local authority without any justifiable reasons.
The landlord failed to investigate if there were any steps that it could have taken by using a surveyor to assess the structure of the building and if any works could be undertaken to address the level of noise transference that had been identified. It also failed to clearly explain to the resident that it could assist in assessing the level of noise transference but would not be assessing if a stat noise nuisance was occurring, as this was not a case of ASB. It therefore failed to manage the resident’s expectations in this regard.
The landlord failed to demonstrate that it kept a clear and accurate records of the resident’s reports of noise. This impacted this Service’s investigation making it difficult to determine how long the resident had been complaining and if the landlord responded in accordance with its policy and guidelines.

Orders

The landlord should within four weeks of the date of this:
Pay the resident compensation in the amount of £800 broken down as:
1. £450 for the distress and inconvenience caused to the resident for the failures identified in its handling of the noise report.
2. £100 for the failures identified in its record keeping.
3. £250 previously offered to the resident (if it has not already been paid).
Assess itself against this Service’s spotlight report:
1. On knowledge and information management (KIM).
2. On noise (Time to be heard) and develop a strategy for handling non-statutory noise seriously, sensitively, and proportionately. It should review its current noise policy position against this and provide this Service actions to ensure that it brings its policy and process into line with best practice outlined in the report.
The landlord should work with the resident to assess the level of noise transference between the properties and arrange for a surveyor to attend and undertake an inspection to see if any works could be undertaken to address the level of noise transference between the properties.
It should provide us with a copy of the inspection report and recommendations, that are agreed with the resident.
It should also discuss the resident’s housing options with her and contact any partner agencies directly where it deems it necessary to its investigation.
Provide evidence of compliance with the above orders to this Service.