Plymouth Community Homes Limited (201907375)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 201907375

Plymouth Community Homes Limited

16 June 2021

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 response to reports of anti-social behaviour (ASB).

Background and summary of events

Background

The residents are leaseholders of the landlord. The property is a two-bedroom half house flat. The garden is split lengthways and is accessed via a communal path. Clause 21(a) of the lease says that a fence must be maintained on the boundary to the satisfaction of the landlord.
The “Your New Home” booklet, which is given to leaseholders when they move in, says that the landlord will “make sure that you enjoy the right to live peacefully in your home without disturbance from neighbours” and offer support to victims of nuisance.
The landlord’s ASB policy says that it is committed to creating communities where people can live peacefully without the fear of ASB and it will support residents to resolve ASB issues. It will investigate all reports of ASB and take prompt and appropriate action to tackle the problems effectively as well as being open about how it is managing cases so that it can manage residents’ expectations. The landlord will work with partners to develop consistent and effective measures to tackle ASB.
In this policy the landlord defines ASB as conduct: that has caused, or is likely to cause, harassment, alarm or distress to any person; that is capable of causing nuisance or annoyance; or is capable of causing housing-related nuisance or annoyance.
The policy says that it will listen to reports of ASB and treat them seriously and sensitively. It says its initial response will be based on its objective to “promote good neighbour relations and tolerance of lifestyle differences”. That may include the resident speaking with the alleged perpetrator to resolve the issues, seeking independent mediation or ensuring more serious incidents are reported to the police. It says that it will only consider legal action once other measures have been considered an applied as appropriate. The policy says that the landlord will close ASB cases where it considers it to be the most appropriate course of action. Parties will be notified of this decision in writing.
At the time of the events complained about the landlord had a three-stage complaints policy. At stage one the landlord will acknowledge the complaint within two days and aims to respond to the complaint within ten working days. At stage two the landlord aims to respond within twenty working days. If the complainant remains dissatisfied, the policy says that the customer assurance team will convene a complaint review panel and the complainant will be invited to that panel to detail their complaint and the resolution they require. The policy says that contact for a further explanation of its decision is not considered to be a complaint.

Summary of events

On 10 July 2017 the residents reported noise from their neighbour downstairs including door slamming, a loud TV and large gatherings of family visiting his property. They said they had approached the neighbour about this and, while he was understanding at first, on the last occasion the neighbour’s daughter had sworn at them and slammed the door on them. On the following day the landlord opened an ASB case; it spoke to the residents, agreed to speak with the neighbour and sent them diary sheets to complete. The landlord wrote to the residents setting out the agreed action and said that they may wish to make a report to the local authority as they had additional powers to tackle noise nuisance.
On 11 July 2017 the landlord wrote to the neighbour to arrange a meeting about the reports of ASB.
On 11, 13, 18 and 19 July 2017 the residents reported further ASB including hammering, loud music, banging, door slamming and the neighbour putting items against their newly installed fence. They provided photographs and an audio file from 5 July which lasted 30 minutes in which the landlord noted music could be heard as well as clapping and singing.
On 20 July 2017 the landlord interviewed the neighbour. From the notes of that meeting the landlord noted that it would look at putting rubber stoppers on the doors to prevent them from slamming; the noise from the TV was not excessive; noise from children and having family over were not a noise nuisance or tenancy breaches; it would consider if the fence was positioned correctly and it noted the neighbour would consider mediation as a way forward.
The landlord wrote to the residents the same day with this information and said it could have noise monitoring equipment installed to assess whether the amount of noise could be classed as a nuisance.
On 24 July 2017 in a phone call to the residents, the landlord offered mediation but it was declined. The residents agreed to have noise monitoring equipment installed in early September 2017.
On 11 August 2017 the landlord inspected the newly installed fence and established it was three inches within the resident’s boundary.
Noise monitoring equipment was installed in the property from 4 to 11 September 2017. The residents told the landlord that it had stopped working part-way through the week but things had been better and there had not been “too much noise” throughout the week. The landlord subsequently noted there was no significant recordings that demonstrated ASB.
On 18 September 2017 the residents reported loud music and that the neighbour was leaning toys and bikes up against the fence. The landlord responded the same day asking if they wanted noise monitoring equipment installing again as it had previously failed. It said the issue about the fence would best to resolved through mediation and asked them to consider this.
The residents agreed to have noise monitoring equipment installed again; however, they subsequently changed their minds saying it was a “pointless exercise”.
On 22 September 2017 the landlord tried to speak to the neighbour without success. It wrote to him on 4 October 2017 asking him to move the bench that was immediately next to the fence and therefore inside the resident’s garden. It also asked him not to lean items against the fence.
On 29 September 2017, at the neighbour’s suggestion, the landlord asked its repairs team to put a post and chicken wire fence on the boundary.
On 5 October 2017 the landlord told the resident that, while the noise of his neighbour playing darts might be annoying, it would not be a breach of tenancy.
On 10 October 2017 the landlord visited the residents. The note of that visit says that they said they “definitely wouldn’t agree to” mediation. The landlord noted that, without noise monitoring equipment, it could not evidence the noise and therefore could not take the case further. It noted it was sorry it was “unable to resolve things for him at this moment in time but respect his decision on not progressing further so will close the case”.
On 24 November 2017 the landlord told the residents that it “would not be re-opening [the ASB] case”.
On 8 December 2017 the landlord met with the resident and he played a number of recordings he believed demonstrated ASB by the neighbour. The landlord arranged to meet with the neighbour and arranged mediation for the parties.
Between 9 December 2017 and 12 August 2018, the landlord received 161 noise recordings from the residents. Of those reviewed between December 2017 and May 2018, the landlord considered that four recordings could be considered as ASB and six could indicate a nuisance.
Meanwhile on 24 January 2018 the residents reported noise from the neighbour – loud TV, children shouting and door slamming. The landlord acknowledged this the same day and said it listened to the noise app recordings that they were sending in. It said it would contact them again after mediation had taken place.
Mediation took place on 12 February 2018 but agreement was not reached between the parties.
On 23 May 2018 a councillor representing the residents contacted the landlord about their noise complaints.
On 31 May 2018 the landlord met with the residents and a Police Support Community Officer (the PSCO). The landlord explained that the neighbour had made counter allegations and that it had listened to the noise app recordings but was unable to use them as they did not prove ASB but were instead everyday living noise which could be expected from living in a flat.
On 27 June 2018 the residents reported graffiti on the pathway at the back of the building which said, “happy people this way” and pointed towards the neighbour’s property. They said they felt it was provoking them. They also reported music, singing and shouting at the TV and that items were on his boundary on the other side of the fence. The residents said they had “started to slam” their doors as they did not know “what else to do”.
On 29 June 2018 the landlord said that it had asked its repairs team to put door closures on the doors to prevent them from slamming.
On 4 July 2018 the landlord noted it had received 22 noise app recordings from the residents that were taken during one football World Cup game. It noted this was not ASB and wrote to the residents to say that no further action would be taken.
On 23 February 2019 the residents contacted the police about the neighbour’s behaviour. They said they “were stressed and in fear of what will happen next”. The residents installed CCTV at the property in early 2019. They provided the landlord with 256 CCTV files from 21 April 2019 to 16 July 219 lasting in length from 3 seconds to over 22 minutes.
In an incident on 5 May 2019 which was recorded on the resident’s phone, the landlord noted that both parties could be heard shouting at each other. On 13 May 2019 the residents reported that the neighbour had built something on their land on the other side of the fence.
On 15 May 2019 the landlord told the residents that it would open a new ASB case. On 17 May 2019 the landlord spoke to the neighbour and arranged to meet him on 24 May 2019.
On 19 May 2019 the residents reported a further incident that had occurred the previous day when they said the neighbour had shouted and sworn at them over the fence. The neighbour told the landlord that he did so because the residents threw items over the fence that had hit him. The PCSO told the landlord that, although the residents considered these incidents to be victimisation, it would be considered as a neighbour dispute.
On 24 May 2019 the landlord interviewed the neighbour and wrote to the residents afterwards saying that the neighbour had made counter allegations that they “stomp” on the floor in the evenings and night. The landlord said it was unable to substantiate their claim that the noise was deliberately created to antagonise the other. The landlord added that it could not substantiate that the music the neighbour played was at an unacceptable volume or an unreasonable time adding that other residents had not made complaints about this. It said that it had discussed this with the neighbour and he had agreed to ensure he played music in a responsible way. The landlord said in the future the residents would have to substantiate the level of music by recordings from a noise app or noise monitoring equipment. It added the neighbour had agreed not to put items up against the fence and suggested that the residents put additional boards at the bottom of the fence to close the gap.
The landlord wrote to the neighbour the same day drawing attention to his tenancy agreement by which he had agreed to not behave in a manner that would be considered anti-social; to not do anything that would cause nuisance, harassment, alarm or distress to anyone in the locality: and not to do anything hat interfered with the peace, comfort or convenience of other people living locally. It said it would not be taking further action.
On 4 June 2019 the landlord interviewed the residents. The main points were:
1. There was no evidence that the neighbour’s door slamming was deliberate and could not be differentiated from day–to–day noise.
2. The residents provided CCTV footage of door slamming. This was new evidence and the landlord said it would review it but it would be up to the local authority to decide if it was a statutory nuisance.
3. The loud music had not been a problem recently.
4. The neighbour had agreed not to put items up against the fence but, ultimately, the landlord could not enforce that. The landlord suggested that they concentrate on other issues where there might be a tenancy breach as the fence issue “can come across as petty” and make the residents look “unreasonable”.
5. The landlord would look into the neighbour’s removal of the hedge at the front of the property.
6. The neighbour had agreed not to chalk anything inappropriate or offensive on the path.
7. The landlord agreed to look into if previous ASB cases had been closed without the residents’ knowledge and would consider any CCTV footage they sent in.
The landlord was unable to substantiate the allegations and counter-allegations. The landlord subsequently shared recordings of the noise from the neighbour with the local authority.
On 5 June 2019 the residents sent the landlord an audio file of loud music from the neighbour that day.
On 9 June 2019 the residents reported that the neighbour was having bonfires in the garden to annoy them. The next day the landlord suggested they contact the local authority to assess if the neighbour was breaking environmental laws; it added that bonfires must happen frequently to be considered a nuisance. On 26 June 2019 the residents gave the landlord permission to share CCTV files with the local authority.
On 27 June 2019 the residents made a complaint to the landlord about noise from their next-door neighbour.
On 20 July 2019 the police told the residents that they understood the neighbour had had carpet installed and closures on the doors to prevent them from banging. They said it would visit the neighbour in relation to abuse that he had shouted out of the window at them.
On 26 July 2019 the local authority’s environmental health officer (the EHO) told the landlord that it had issued a community protection warning to the neighbour in respect of loud music and speech.
On 29 July 2019 the EHO confirmed that the recordings provided were not sufficient to demonstrate that the noise from banging would constitute harassment and suggested it was the result of poor sound insulation.
On 8 August 2019 the resident provided the landlord with more CCTV footage.
On 9 August 2019, in an email to the EHO, the landlord noted that it had listened to a sample of the CCTV files but could only hear the noise of a door closing and it was not clear that it was slammed. It added it was therefore not possible to say this was intentional.
On 16 August 2019 the landlord wrote to the neighbour saying in May 2019 he had agreed to play his music responsibly and that he would agree by the terms of his tenancy. It said that it had become aware that he had been given a community protection warning regarding music and voices coming from his property. The landlord also suggested that he not have bonfires in his garden as this could also be classed as a statutory nuisance in some cases. It said the neighbour should consider this letter as “a warning” and warned that further complaints if unreasonable behaviour may lead to tenancy enforcement action which may include a Notice of Seeking Possession (an NOSP).
On 20 August 2019 the landlord met with the residents. They complained about being told about a NOSP being served on the neighbour; being informed that an acceptable behaviour contract would be tried; and general communication after the case was closed following a review of his complaint in 2018.
On 21 August 2019 the landlord acknowledged the complaint received the previous day during its meeting with them. It said a response would be sent within ten working days. It asked them to provide any evidence he considered appropriate to help with its investigation.
On 22 August 2019 the landlord wrote to the residents following the meeting two days earlier. It said:
1. It would install boundary posts and wire between their garden and the neighbour’s garden. It confirmed it had told the neighbour not to lean items against the fence or trespass into their garden. It said that it hoped the physical reinstatement of the boundary would help matters.
2. While the language used was offensive, the incident of 18/19 May 2018 would not constitute a hate crime. It said it had noted this incident and warned the neighbour about offensive language and that it would not tolerate a further incident. It said that was based on the residents removing themselves from any similar situation and contacting the police.
3. It would write to the neighbour to formally ask him to stop leaving items on the resident’s property. It said it would provide a plan of the property so the neighbour could see exactly what land they were entitled to use.
4. There was no breach of tenancy by the neighbour in removing the hedge at the front of his garden or by him burning items in his back garden. It added that regular bonfires would result in action by it or the local authority.
5. The neighbour may have breached his tenancy by playing music and singing and he had received a written warning from both it and the local authority. It asked that they provide evidence of any more noise and it and the local authority would review it to see if it was a statutory nuisance.
6. It had asked the local authority to investigate the audio recording of external doors slamming late at night from 14 July 2019 and contact them after doing so.
On 23 August 2019 the EHO wrote to the residents setting out what criteria must be satisfied for a noise nuisance to exist.
Following further correspondence from the residents, on 28 August 2019 the landlord told the residents that it would visit the property along with the EHO on the evening of 4 September 2019 to try to establish the level of noise transference between the property and that of the neighbour. On the same day and over the next few days the residents provided further CCTV files saying that some of the noise was “very loud”.
Meanwhile, on 3 September 2019 the landlord responded to the residents at stage one of its formal complaints procedure. It said it had become clear at the meeting of 29 August 2019 that they had been affected by the actions of the neighbour in particular his interactions with them whilst in their garden; leaning his items on the garden fence; the alleged deliberate door banging. The landlord said it was sorry that their quality of life and wellbeing had been affected as a result. The main points were:
1. The landlord acknowledged that the housing officer had told the residents that he intended to serve the neighbour with a NOSP. This was the first step in the legal process if trying to end a tenancy and it had to consider whether such action would be deemed reasonable and proportionate by the court. It would need to persuade the court that the neighbour’s actions were deliberate and intending to cause alarm, harassment or distress.
2. The landlord explained that it had reviewed the audio recordings the resident had provided but had concluded that the noise would not constitute a statutory nuisance. This was based on the fact that the type of noise must be considered alongside how reasonable it was for that time of day, along with its duration and frequency. The noise would have to prove to be excessive and unreasonable and having a continuous and significant impact on neighbouring use and enjoyment of property. While it acknowledged the noise was having an impact on the residents, it was not considered excessive and unreasonable and therefore did not meet the above test.
3. The landlord acknowledged that it would have been appropriate for the housing officer to have told the residents that he had changed his mind about the NOSP following assessment of the evidence. It apologised that he did not do so at the time.
4. The landlord said that the housing officer did not recall telling the residents at a meeting with them with the PCSO on 31 May 2018 that he would try an acceptable behaviour contract (an ABC) with the neighbour. It said the PCSO could have proceeded with the ABC with, or without, the landlord’s cooperation. It added it could not find any conclusive evidence that an ABC had been agreed between the housing officer and the PCSO.
5. The landlord said that the evidence showed that it had told the residents in a phone call on 10 October 2017 that the ASB case would be closed as mediation as well as noise monitoring equipment had been declined by them. The landlord acknowledged it should have written to the residents to confirm the case closure.
6. The landlord apologised if there was any confusion when explaining the purpose of mediation but had no evidence to support that.
7. The landlord said that the housing officer had confirmed that he had never knowingly failed to return any phone call from the residents. It said it would be difficult to find evidence of this after such a long period.
8. The landlord also said that it was glad to hear matters had quietened down with the neighbour and he had stopped leaning items against their fence.
The landlord explained how the residents could escalate their complaint.
On 4 September 2019 the landlord visited the residents along with the EHO to assess the level of sound transference between the properties.
On 5 September 2019 the EHO told the landlord that a statutory nuisance had not been established after considering all the recordings. They said they would write to the residents.
On 6 September 2019 the EHO wrote to the residents saying that there was insufficient evidence to demonstrate the noise from the neighbour (either from the closing doors or music and radio being played in the garden) constituted a statutory nuisance. He said he was unable to help further.
On 13 September 2019 the landlord wrote to the neighbour following the visit of 4 September 2019. It said there was no evidence that he was creating a statutory noise nuisance and that it was satisfied he was not in breach of his tenancy agreement. However, it said that there were improvements that could be made to ease the situation and it had arranged for a carpenter to attend on 26 September 2019 to rehang doors that were sticking. It said it would also install a door closure arm on the front door to prevent it from slamming.
The landlord also provided plans of the property and asked the neighbour to remove items from the neighbour’s property within three days. It also explained where the neighbour should place his bins and that he should leave the area in front of the gas meters clear. It added that the neighbour’s fence had been built within three inches of their boundary and it would remark the boundary with posts and wire so that neither party could be accused of trespassing. The landlord also said that, if he continued to burn items in the garden, it would consider further action.
On the same day the landlord wrote to the residents saying that on the visit of 4 September 2019 it had identified a high level of sound transference between their and the neighbour’s property. However, the actions of the neighbour did not constitute a statutory nuisance. It said it would serve the neighbour with a noise abatement warning letter; however no further action was required at that time. It said it was not proportionate or appropriate for it to take tenancy action. It added that case law had established that a lack of sound insulation between properties could not constitute as a statutory nuisance. It explained the improvements it planned to implement to the neighbour’s property to try to reduce the noise. It said it had written to the neighbour about the boundary, keeping items off the property and bonfires.
The landlord also said that it was aware that the police had been called a number of times but, as action was taken at the time, this had not led to further action. It said, in the absence of evidence of a statutory noise nuisance in the following four weeks, it would close the case. It said, if the residents wished to take further action (as they had indicated), this would need to be a civil action against the neighbour.
On 16 September 2019 the landlord told the residents it would not be taking further action unless the local authority told it that there had been a statutory noise nuisance. On the same day the residents asked the landlord to escalate their complaint. They said they believed the housing officer to have been “negligent and unprofessional”. They said their case had been compromised by a lack of supporting evidence in the form of adequate case notes.
On 24 September 2019 the landlord acknowledged the escalation request and said it would respond within 20 working days.
On 26 September 2019 the residents wrote to the landlord unhappy with the content of its letter dated 13 September 2019. The landlord responded on 10 October 2019. Its main points were:
1. The construction type of the property meant that there was a lack of sound insulation however, the noise they had reported was “normal household noise”.
2. The environmental health team was more qualified to establish what a reasonable amount of noise was, rather than the councillors that had attended the property.
3. It agreed with the environmental health team that they did not slam the door when leaving on 4 September 2019.
4. The police had confirmed that the recordings they had listened to did not constitute harassment; a single door slam was not indicative of harassment.
5. It suggested that, while the neighbour was “technically” causing an obstruction by placing items in front of the meters, they should “rise above such behaviour and access the meters”.
On 14 October 2019 the landlord responded to the residents at the second stage of its complaint procedure. It said it recognised that the build-up of all the incidents they had described had had an effect on the quiet enjoyment of the property. It added that it had taken their health and wellbeing seriously. The main points were:
1. The decision not to serve a NOSP was made because it considered there was insufficient evidence to persuade the court of the neighbour’s intention to cause a deliberate and continuous nuisance. It apologised that it had not kept them informed of that decision.
2. The decision not to implement an ABC was after a meeting with the neighbour on 23 June 2018 when it was deemed inappropriate. It said that there was no evidence that the residents had been told that an ABC would be implemented but, if that was the case, it or the PCSO should have told them about the revised decision.
3. It apologised that noise monitoring equipment that had been installed in September 2018 had not worked. It added that manual intervention to start recordings could potentially corroborate a statutory noise nuisance or confirm the number of times a door was banged.
4. It had spoken to the senior housing officer and noted that he should have advised the residents of any changes to the proposed actions that had been discussed with them. It apologised for that.
5. The landlord confirmed that the noise experienced by the residents did not meet the threshold to be classed as a statutory nuisance. It said it had visited the neighbour several times and had asked him to curtail any noise the residents deemed excessive. It said it had also adjusted the neighbour’s doors to prevent them dragging on the floor and causing unnecessary noise and he had complied with their request not to lean items on their garden fence.
In conclusion the landlord said it was satisfied it had taken appropriate action in accordance with its policies and procedures. It signposted the residents to the Ombudsman.
On 21 October 2019 the landlord told the residents that it was closing the ASB case.
On 25 October 2019 the residents asked the landlord to escalate their complaint to stage three on the basis of the survey which the landlord said the residents had completed when the case was closed in 2017.
On 18 November 2019 the landlord told the residents it required a fence to be constructed on the boundary within 14 days to comply with clause 21(a) of the lease (paragraph 2). It explained that this would ensure that the boundary was well-defined which reduced the risk of encroachment and allowed each party to fully maintain and enjoy their land. In their response the residents said that they had permission from the landlord for the existing fence and there was no responsibility in the lease to erect a boundary fence.
On 21 November 2019 the landlord refused the complaint escalation saying it fell outside its complaint policy as it was “contact for a further explanation of a decision”.
On 28 November 2019 the landlord told the residents that its repairs team had told it that it was not practical to install a post and wire fence due to the positioning of their fence.
When the residents approached the Ombudsman, they said they wanted the ASB to stop so that they could live “peacefully and stress-free within their own home”. They also wanted some compensation for the inconvenience and distress caused.

Assessment and findings

It is the Ombudsman’s role to assess the appropriateness and adequacy of the landlord’s actions in responding to reports of anti-social behaviour and the fairness and reasonableness of its response to the formal complaint. This does not include establishing whether a party is responsible for anti-social behaviour; our investigation is limited to the consideration of the actions of the landlord in the context of its relevant policies/procedures as well as what was fair in all the circumstances of the case. The Ombudsman cannot tell the landlord to take action against neighbours.
In response to the first reports of ASB (slamming doors, loud TV and other noise) in July 2017, the landlord took various action by:
1. Opening an ASB case.
2. Speaking with the residents and giving them diary sheets to complete and return to it.
3. Meeting with the neighbour to discuss the reports.
4. Minimising the door noise by installing rubber stoppers.
5. Installing noise monitoring equipment as well as offering mediation.
This was appropriate action by the landlord as it was in line with its ASB policy. It took reasonable and proportionate efforts to assess the level of noise as well as taking steps to try to minimise the noise by installing rubber stoppers. While the noise monitoring equipment failed part-way through the week, the landlord concluded there were no significant recordings that indicated ASB. It had signposted the residents to the local authority explaining that they had additional powers to tackle noise nuisance.
When the residents reported noise and that the neighbour was leaning items up against the fence in September 2017, the landlord again took appropriate action by writing to the neighbour and suggested that a post and wire fence was installed on the boundary. At this time the residents refused mediation as well as the installation of noise monitoring equipment and the landlord closed the ASB case. This decision was reasonable given the landlord could not progress matters in the absence of evidence of unreasonable noise. The landlord should have written to the residents to notify them of this case closure and acknowledged that in its stage one complaint response (paragraph 54.e). It would have been good customer service for the landlord to have apologised for that oversight at that time. This would also have been in line with the Ombudsman’s dispute resolution principles; put things right and learn from outcomes.
From December 2017 the residents provided the landlord with noise recordings of the neighbour. The landlord arranged mediation between the parties which took place in February 2018 but agreement was not reached. The landlord listened to the recordings and, in May 2018, met the residents along with the police and explained that it did not consider there to be ASB, but everyday household noise. The landlord arranged for door closures to be put on the neighbour’s doors to prevent them from slamming. Following further noise recordings in July 2018, the landlord wrote to the residents saying that no further action would be taken. The action taken here was appropriate. It is clear that the landlord took the reports seriously by listening to the recordings and meeting with the residents along with the police; however, in the absence of unreasonable noise it was reasonable for the landlord to decide to take no further action.
The landlord opened a new ASB case in May 2019 following the residents reporting further ASB and providing evidence in the form footage from their newly installed CCTV. The landlord took various action at this time, namely:
1. Meeting with the neighbour.
2. Sharing evidence with the local authority’s environmental health team.
3. Giving the neighbour a written warning.
4. Meeting with the residents along with the EHO.
This action was appropriate and proportionate; it also progressed the case with the involvement of the EHO. His conclusion was that there was no statutory noise nuisance. It was therefore appropriate for the landlord not to take tenancy action against the neighbour. However, the landlord has a responsibility to ensure the residents live peacefully in their home without disturbance from neighbours (paragraph 3). The evidence shows that the landlord has acted as far as it could to uphold its responsibility by taking various action from installing equipment to reduce noise from the neighbour’s property, arranging mediation, meeting with both parties several times along with the police and the EHO on occasion and considering the evidence provided by the residents.
Though it is evident that the residents do not believe that the actions taken by the landlord were sufficient, or that it was improving the situation, they were reasonable actions for the landlord to take to try and resolve the problems they were experiencing. This Service does not dispute that the residents are adversely affected by the everyday noise from the neighbour and that this causes them inconvenience and distress. However, ultimately, there was a lack of evidence that the neighbour was breaching their tenancy or was responsible for a statutory nuisance. It was therefore reasonable for the landlord to decline to take further action at that time. However, it would be reasonable for the landlord to consider taking tenancy action in the future should the local authority determine that there is a statutory nuisance. A recommendation has been made below in respect of this.
The evidence shows that a factor in the tensions between the parties is the positioning of the fence in the back garden which this Service understands to be within the boundary of the residents’ garden by three inches (paragraph 14). The placement of the fence means that the residents cannot maintain their full garden and means it is likely that encroachment will take place as the neighbour has to navigate an invisible boundary. The evidence does not show whether this matter has been resolved or not. If not, in these circumstances, it would be reasonable for the landlord to take action to resolve this matter and a recommendation has been made, below.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was no maladministration by the landlord in respect of its response to reports of ASB.

Reasons

The landlord acted appropriately in responding to the residents’ reports of ASB. It took various action including trying to reduce the noise, considered the noise recordings provided and worked with the police and the local authority. In the absence of a statutory noise nuisance, it was reasonable that it decided to take no further action.

Recommendation

It is recommended that the landlord takes the following action:
1. If this matter is not resolved, it is recommended that the landlord meets with the resident to agree how to relocate the fence to the boundary.
2. Writes to the resident to explain what action they would need to take in the future to report noise so that, if the local authority determines there is a statutory noise action, it can consider tenancy action against the neighbour.