London Borough of Newham (202310755)

A blue and grey text

AI-generated content may be incorrect.

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202310755

London Borough of Newham

7 April 2025

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 the resident’s reports of noise nuisance.
The Ombudsman has also investigated the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint.

Background

The resident has a secure tenancy with the landlord which began on 24 March 2014. The landlord is a local authority. The property has one bedroom and is on the ground floor. The landlord is the freeholder of the neighbouring property.
The landlord said it does not have any vulnerabilities recorded for the resident. The resident has been diagnosed with hypertension, grave’s disease with hyperthyroidism, type 2 diabetes and depression.
Around November 2022, the resident reported noise nuisance from the neighbouring property. The landlord says it attempted to contact the resident, but it could not reach her to discuss her reports.
The resident reported loud banging, running and stamping from the neighbouring property on 21 February 2023. She reported similar noise including shouting, screaming and drilling at least 17 times between March and September 2023.
The resident contacted this Service. On 22 September 2023, we sent a letter to the landlord. We said:
1. the resident’s complaint was about noise nuisance.
2. the resident wanted the landlord to support her and take action against her neighbour.
3. the resident wanted the landlord to move her to a more suitable property.
4. the landlord was to issue or send a copy of its complaint response by 13 October 2023.
The landlord issued a stage 2 complaint response on 13 October 2023. It said:
1. it did not uphold the complaint.
2. it had spoken to the antisocial behaviour (ASB) officer who confirmed the reported noise was domestic banging, slamming, dropping and drilling.
3. it had visited the neighbours who admitted noise from children but not a drill.
4. it had looked into whether it was possible for the leaseholder to replace the wooden floors with carpet or if the occupants or council could put a rug in the property. It confirmed it could not make the occupants do this.
5. it acknowledged the resident was unable to use the noise app. It said it had installed a noise monitoring device in the property. It said this showed regular noise, which was not antisocial behaviour, deliberate or excessive.
6. it was unable to consider enforcement action.
7. it wanted to continue to address genuine noise nuisance. It said it had provided diary sheets for 2 weeks to record non-domestic noise.
8. the resident could pursue her own statutory nuisance action.
In referring the complaint to this Service, the resident said she was unhappy with the landlord’s stage 2 response. She felt her neighbours were deliberately harassing her. She was not happy that the landlord had not upheld her complaint and wanted it to take her reports seriously. As a resolution to her complaint, the resident would like to be moved and compensation for the distress she has experienced.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

We may not consider complaints that a resident brings to us before exhausting a landlord’s complaint procedure or that the resident did not bring to the landlord’s attention as a formal complaint within a reasonable period, usually 12 months. The landlord’s complaints policy reflects this.
In correspondence with the Ombudsman, the resident referred to other issues she had raised with the landlord, including issues with repairs in the property. These matters did not form part of the original complaint brought to us and it is unclear whether the resident raised these issues as a separate complaint with the landlord.
This investigation will only consider the issues which exhausted the landlord’s internal complaints procedure on 13 October 2023. The landlord needs to be given a fair opportunity to investigate and respond to any reported dissatisfaction with its actions before the involvement of the Ombudsman. Any new issues that have not been subject to a formal complaint can be addressed directly with the landlord and progressed as a new formal complaint if needed.
In its stage 2 response the landlord does not specify the period it investigated. The resident has reported noise from different occupants of the neighbouring property since 2017 and the landlord has opened multiple cases. It closed a case on 2 September 2022 as it had not received reports from the resident since June 2022 and the neighbours had moved out. The next time the resident reported noise nuisance was around November 2022.
Taking into account the passage of time, availability and reliability of evidence, we have limited the scope of this investigation to the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of noise from November 2022 onwards. However, we have referred to the resident’s historical reports of noise to provide contextual background to the complaint.
As part of the complaint the resident has expressed a desire to be rehoused. The Housing Ombudsman can only consider complaints about transfer applications that are outside of Part 6 of the Housing Act (1996). The Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman (LGSCO) can review complaints about applications for rehousing that fall under Part 6. This includes complaints concerning applications for rehousing that meet the reasonable preference criteria, and the assessment of such applications.
However, we have considered the landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns about rehousing, and whether it acted reasonably in relation to the information it provided to the resident.
The resident said the noise she reported impacted her mental health and caused her significant distress. Unlike a court, we do not determine whether there was a direct link between the landlord’s action or inaction and the resident’s health. We do not determine liability and award damages. The resident may wish to seek legal advice if she wants to make a personal injury claim. However, we can consider the distress and inconvenience the resident experienced.

Reports of noise nuisance

The landlord says the resident reported noise nuisance around November 2022. It has not provided evidence of these reports. However, the landlord emailed the resident and said it tried to contact her several times about the noise reports without success. Given that the landlord received no reports or response from the resident between November 2022 and January 2023, it was reasonable for it to take no further action. However, the evidence suggests the resident reported noise nuisance again in January 2023 and on 21 February 2023.
The resident made an enquiry about noise nuisance with the mayor’s office, which wrote to the resident on 28 March 2023. It said it had spoken to the landlord’s ASB team and found:
1. the resident’s reports of noise were allocated to an ASB investigator in November 2022, but they received no response and closed the case.
2. the resident contacted the landlord again in January 2023 and it reopened the case.
3. the ASB investigator contacted the neighbours who said they were not doing DIY during unsocial hours or causing other noise nuisance.
4. the landlord advised the resident to report the noise using a noise app. The resident was unable to use this. The landlord said it had arranged to instal a sound machine in the resident’s home, and this should be available within 2 weeks.
The landlord’s ASB policies say that if a resident reports noise nuisance, it will write to them and issue a written warning and advice to the alleged ‘perpetrator’. There is no evidence the landlord wrote to the resident following her reports in January or February 2023 or that it wrote to the alleged ‘perpetrator’ in line with its ASB policy. There is no evidence it told the resident it did not consider her reports to be ASB or explained why it had not followed its policy. This was a failure of service to the resident.
Between 5 March 2023 and 5 September 2023, the resident reported noise from the neighbouring property to the landlord at least 17 times including jumping, shouting, banging, drilling and slamming. On 7 September 2023, the landlord noted it could hear the banging and drilling the resident was reporting over the phone.
The landlord’s ASB policies state it will open a case and investigate if persistent noise nuisance is reported. The policies also say it can instal noise monitoring machines if there are persistent reports of noise. In its stage 2 response the landlord said it installed noise monitoring equipment and it had visited the neighbouring property. It said it had provided the resident with diary sheets.
The evidence suggests the landlord completed these actions following the resident’s noise complaints in previous years. However, it has not confirmed the dates it took this action or provided evidence it took this action in 2023. We therefore cannot assess whether its actions were reasonable in the circumstances.
It is good practice for landlords to communicate clearly with residents, set clear timeframes for investigation and create an action plan if appropriate. The evidence shows there was a lack of communication with the resident about her reports of noise nuisance. The landlord failed to explain what actions it was taking, and what actions the resident needed to take. This was a missed opportunity to manage the resident’s expectations and make sure she felt her reports were being listened to.
The landlord’s ASB policies say it may take enforcement action if it has evidence of persistent noise nuisance. It says it will consider whether there is statutory nuisance. If there is, it says an abatement notice may be issued. It was appropriate for the landlord not to seek an abatement notice if it had not identified a statutory nuisance and to confirm it was not considering enforcement action in its stage 2 response.
However, the landlord has not provided evidence of the action it took to obtain evidence of the noise or assist the resident to do so. It would have been helpful for the landlord to explain the definition of antisocial behaviour and the threshold for statutory nuisance with reference to its policies. It could have made it clearer to the resident what it required to be able to take enforcement action.
Having decided it could not take enforcement action, the landlord failed to consider whether any of the other options available to it under its ASB policies such as a letter to the licensee or residents, or mediation were appropriate.
The resident reported noise from differing neighbouring occupants over years. It was therefore appropriate for the landlord to address the impact of poor insulation and consider the flooring between the properties. In its stage 2 response, the landlord said it looked into whether it was possible to place carpet or rugs in the neighbouring property. It managed the resident’s expectations by confirming it could not compel the occupants to do this.
The landlord has provided no evidence of efforts to instal a carpet or rugs. The resident says it did not update her about this following its stage 2 response. This was a missed opportunity for the landlord to keep the resident updated and provide a solution. Especially as the resident had been reporting noise for years and it had identified poor insultation as a contributing factor. We have ordered the landlord to contact the resident with an update on the actions set out in its stage 2 response, regarding enquiries about the flooring/carpeting in the neighbouring property.
The resident told us she sent the landlord GP letters including one dated 31 March 2023 confirming her health conditions, that the noise had a severe adverse physical and mental effect on her, and that her depression was worsening. The landlord said it did not carry out a risk assessment as it considered the noise to be ‘low level’ and ‘general domestic’ noise.
The landlord’s ASB policies highlight the importance of the impact of behaviour. Our Spotlight Report on Noise Nuisance outlines good practice for landlords, to consider impact regardless of whether it is considered ‘every day’ or ‘low level’ noise. The landlord’s ASB policies say it will make referrals when appropriate, and work with agencies to ensure residents receive appropriate support and it manages risk of harm effectively. It is good practice for landlords to complete risk assessments where appropriate.
There is no evidence the landlord considered whether the resident had any vulnerabilities, the impact the noise was having on her, or whether it should conduct a risk assessment. It did not offer any support in its stage 2 response. This was a missed opportunity for the landlord to address the impact of the noise, make appropriate referrals and manage the risk of harm in line with its ASB policy. We have recommended that the landlord records the resident’s vulnerabilities and offers to discuss any support that may be available to her in line with its ASB policy.
We told the landlord that the resident wanted to move to a more suitable property. The resident told us that the recurring noise was impacting her mental health. She told us she was not sure of her rehousing options or the actions she needed to take. In its stage 2 response, the landlord did not respond to the resident’s request to move. It would have been reasonable for it to address the resident’s requested solution.
The resident told us the landlord advised her to apply to its housing register. Given that the resident requested to move in connection with her noise complaint and she had been reporting noise for years, it would have been reasonable for the landlord to discuss her move options and explain its position on transferring her outside its housing register, with reference to its policies.
We note that the landlord’s ASB policies did not deal with transfers or rehousing. It is good practice for landlords to clearly define the circumstances that a move or relocation may be considered. We have therefore recommended that it considers including guidance on transfers and rehousing in its ASB policy if it has not already done so.
We would not order the landlord to move a resident immediately as part of our investigation. This is because we do not have access to information about the availability of suitable vacant properties owned by the landlord or details of other tenants waiting to move who may have higher priority for rehousing. However, we have ordered the landlord to contact the resident to discuss her rehousing options.
The landlord referenced some noise reports from the resident which it has not provided evidence of. It refers to actions and correspondence in its stage 2 response that it has provided no evidence of. It is important that landlords have standard data recording requirements to ensure good records. Once information has been created, it should be stored and maintained appropriately.
The landlord’s record-keeping has impacted this Service’s ability to carry out a thorough investigation. We have therefore recommended that it considers our Spotlight report on Knowledge and Information Management.
In summary, the landlord failed to:
1. write to the resident or the alleged ‘perpetrator’ in line with its ASB policy.
2. provide evidence of visiting the neighbours, installing noise equipment, or providing diary sheets in 2023.
3. keep the resident informed of its actions and the actions expected of her.
4. explain the threshold for it to be able to take enforcement action.
5. consider all the non-legal tools available to it in line with its ASB policy.
6. keep the resident informed about its efforts to improve insulation.
7. consider whether the resident was vulnerable, the impact of the noise on her, or whether to complete a risk assessment.
8. respond to the resident’s request to move due to the noise nuisance.
The landlord has failed to acknowledge or attempt to put right any of the above failures in its complaint response. The resident has reported that the landlord’s handling of her reports caused her significant distress, including impact to her sleep.
Considering the above, we have found maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of noise nuisance. In line with our remedies’ guidance, we have ordered the landlord to pay the resident £300 compensation.

Complaint handling

The landlord’s complaints policy defines a complaint as an expression of dissatisfaction, however made, about its standard of service, actions or lack of action. It states that, whoever it is raised by, it may not be classed as a complaint if the landlord has not had a reasonable opportunity to respond or resolve.
The Complaint Handling Code 2022 said that landlords must only escalate a complaint to stage 2 once it has completed stage 1.
The resident’s member of parliament (MP) wrote to the landlord on her behalf on 28 February 2023. The MP said:
1. the noise nuisance from neighbours continued, despite there being new tenants.
2. they understood the landlord previously used noise equipment but did not detect statutory noise nuisance.
3. the resident had tried recording the noise but struggled to pick it up.
4. the resident wanted to know if there were any other steps the landlord could take to resolve the problem.
There is evidence the resident made an enquiry with the mayor’s office which spoke to the landlord’s ASB team and responded to the resident on 28 March 2023. The landlord told us it did not receive a complaint, issue a stage 1 response or receive an escalation request from the resident. It told us it had escalated the resident’s complaint to stage 2 as it had received multiple MP enquiries from the resident about the same issue.
The landlord knew from the MP’s letter and her enquiry to the mayor that the resident wanted it to take further action on her noise reports and was seeking help to facilitate this. It would have been reasonable for the landlord to have considered whether it should have considered the resident’s concerns set out in the MP or the mayor’s enquiry as a complaint. If it was unsure, it would have been within the spirit of the Code for the landlord to clarify with the resident whether she wished to raise a complaint. The resident said she felt she had raised multiple complaints with the landlord and did not feel listened to.
Given that the landlord did not define these enquiries as complaints, it was not in line with the Code for it to issue a stage 2 response without having issued a stage 1. This effectively resulted in a one–stage internal complaints procedure which was not appropriate. The landlord missed an opportunity to identify, address and learn from its failings. And denied the resident an opportunity to respond to its comments.
The landlord did not acknowledge any complaint handling failures or try to put things right. We have therefore found service failure in its handling of the complaint. In line with our remedies guidance and its compensation policy, we have ordered the landlord to pay the resident £50 compensation.

Determination

In line with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of noise nuisance.
In line with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was service failure in the landlord’s handling of the complaint.

Orders and Recommendations

Orders

Within 28 days of the date of this report, we order the landlord to:
1. provide the resident with a written apology for the failures identified in this investigation.
2. pay the resident a total of £350 compensation, made up of:
  1. £300 for the distress and inconvenience caused by the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of noise nuisance.
  2. £50 for the distress and inconvenience caused by the landlord’s handling of the complaint.
3. contact the resident to discuss her rehousing options.
4. contact the resident with an update on the actions set out in its stage 2 response, regarding enquiries about the flooring/carpeting in the neighbouring property.
The landlord is to provide evidence of compliance with the above orders to this Service within 28 days of the date of this report.

Recommendations

We recommend the landlord updates its records to reflect the resident’s vulnerabilities.
We recommend the landlord contacts the resident to discuss:
1. whether she has any outstanding concerns regarding the noise nuisance.
2. any support that may be available to her in line with its ASB policy.
If it has not already done so, we recommend the landlord considers whether to include guidance on transfers and rehousing in its ASB policy.
If it has not done so already, we encourage the landlord to consider the Ombudsman’s Spotlight report on Noise Complaints.
If it has not done so already, we encourage the landlord to consider the Ombudsman’s Spotlight report on Knowledge and Information Management.