Weaver Vale Housing Trust Limited (202302250)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202302250

Weaver Vale Housing Trust Limited

14 July 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

1. The complaint is about the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of neighbour nuisance.

Background

2. At the time of the complaint the resident had a joint tenancy with the landlord which is a housing association. The tenancy commenced on 3 April 2023 and ended on 13 May 2024. The property is a 2 bedroom semidetached bungalow. The evidence shows that the resident is diagnosed with anxiety, Obsessive Compulsive Disorder (OCD) and depression.
3. On 12 April 2023 the resident contacted the landlord to report concerns about noise caused by his next door neighbour. During the landlord’s visit to the resident on 25 April he raised concerns about noise, the condition of the boundary fence and his neighbour’s dog. During the period between May and August the resident continued to log reports with the landlord who responded accordingly.
4. On 29 August 2023 the resident contacted us about his dissatisfaction with the landlord’s response. It was unclear what stage the complaint had reached. We therefore wrote to the landlord to request that it provide a complaint response by 21 September 2023.
5. The landlord issued its stage 1 complaint response on 28 September 2023. It said it was satisfied that it had carried out a full investigation into the resident’s reports and was also satisfied with its response. It said it had reviewed noise recordings submitted by the resident and concluded there was no evidence of statutory noise nuisance. Consequently it would not consider his request to install sound proofing on the adjoining bedroom wall.
6. The resident emailed the landlord on 29 September 2023 to request to escalate his complaint to stage 2. He felt he was being targeted and that the landlord’s response lacked empathy. He disputed that the noise was “living noise” and asked the landlord to either move him or install sound proofing.
7. The landlord provided its stage 2 complaint response on 24 November 2023, the main points being:
   1.        It was satisfied that it carried out a full investigation into the resident’s reports of noise/ Antisocial Behaviour (ASB). It said it had responded in line with its “policy guidelines for investigating and supporting customers who make noise nuisance complaints.” The resident had also said he was happy with works carried out to the fence. It did not uphold the complaint.
   2.        Having reviewed the evidence it agreed with its stage 1 response that the noise was likely to be a result of a “conflict of lifestyles.”
   3.         There was no evidence of statutory nuisance however, given the impact on the resident by the noise it had agreed to instruct an independent acoustic sound test.
   4.        The test was carried out on 17 November and made no recommendations regarding works. Considering the report, the fact the resident said noise had improved and there being no evidence of statutory noise nuisance it would not carry out sound proofing.
   5.        It noted the resident declined to participate in mediation and asked him to continue to make recordings via the noise app.
   6.           It offered to refer the resident to its support and wellbeing team.
8. The resident called us on 3 January 2024 to report that he was unhappy with the landlord’s response because it had “disregarded” his concerns and failed to carry out sound proofing.

Assessment and findings

The complaint is about the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of neighbour nuisance.

9. The landlord’s ASB Policy says that it may not consider “normal activities” and use of domestic items, such as lawn mowers, at reasonable times of the day as ASB.
10. The Housing Ombudsman’s Spotlight Report on Noise Complaints (October 2022) requires landlords to develop a strategy for handling non-statutory noise seriously, sensitively and proportionately. This should include action plans and risk assessments. Reports should be triaged to ensure the correct approach is applied to help manage expectations. This will avoid residents feeling like they are submitting evidence of noise “for no purpose.”
11. An internal email dated 12 April 2023 set out a report from the resident. His neighbour had knocked on his door to let him know he was going to be doing some DIY. The resident advised it started at 7.00am and continued until later afternoon which disturbed his peace. He advised he had a recording of the noise. However, there is no evidence that the landlord listened to it which was inappropriate.
12. On 25 April 2023 the landlord visited the resident. He said he was concerned about the neighbour’s dog getting through the boundary fence because it was not secure enough. Having inspected the fence the landlord’s file note confirms it was unable to see any “obvious” signs of entry. The landlord’s response was reasonable.
13. The landlord’s file note dated 12 May 2023 shows that during a visit to the resident the previous day it told him the condition of the boundary fence was a matter between him and his neighbour. There is no evidence to suggest its position was unreasonable.
14. The resident also reported ongoing noise issues including his neighbour singing and what sounded like something being scraped on the wall. On one occasion noise started at 2.00pm and continued for 2 hours which he felt was inconsiderate.
15. A file note dated 16 May 2023 sets out a telephone call between the landlord and resident. The resident reported that noise was ongoing, including dog barking. He agreed to keep a written diary and was encouraged to use the Noise app to make recordings although he expressed reservations about doing so. He said he had 3 of his own recordings however, there is no evidence that the landlord listened to them which was inappropriate.
16. There is no evidence that the landlord risk assessed the resident’s reports or that it had created an action plan for how it would respond. There is no evidence that it agreed a period during which the resident would log reports and/or when it would the review the evidence. It therefore failed to manage the resident’s expectations about how it might respond. This was particularly important given the nature of the noise reports.
17. During the call with the resident on 16 May 2023 the landlord suggested “shuttle mediation” as a means of resolution. The resident agreed and a possible start date of 22 May was proposed. An internal email dated 23 May shows the landlord was in the process of trying to arrange shuttle mediation. While this was positive there is no evidence that this was progressed. This was inappropriate because the landlord failed to pursue a course of action which might resolve the situation. Furthermore, there is no evidence that it contacted the resident to provide an update.
18. On 17 May 2023 the landlord phoned the resident’s neighbour and arranged to visit on 1 June. The landlord’s file notes state that during the call the neighbour said his dog “hardly ever barked.” The landlord responded appropriately by contacting the neighbour to discuss the resident’s reports.
19. A file note shows that the landlord visited the resident’s neighbour on 1 June 2023. He was having work carried out in the hallway which may have accounted for some of the noise. He said he would take responsibility for the fence and would replace it. He also confirmed that he muzzled his dog in public because it could be “temperamental” with other dogs.
20. During June 2023 the resident continued to report ongoing issues which he believed were caused by his neighbour. For example on 13 June he said he believed his neighbour had shone a light into his property. He also remained concerned about the potential risk of harm from the dog because it wore a muzzle. He said he was still reluctant to use the Noise app but had taken recordings on his phone. However, again there is no evidence that the landlord listened to them.
21. In an internal email dated 26 June 2023 the landlord confirmed that it had replaced the boundary fence. On 28 June the resident emailed to say thank you for replacing the fence. It was appropriate that the landlord used its discretion to resolve this aspect of the complaint to the resident’s satisfaction.
22. Following further discussions with the landlord regarding use of the Noise app the resident submitted 6 recordings between 27 July and 6 August 2023. An internal email dated 8 August set out a call from the resident who said “constant noise” from his neighbour was affecting his sleep. The landlord’s file note of 9 August said the case “was to close” as there was no evidence of statutory noise nuisance.
23. There is no evidence that the landlord contacted the resident to advise him of this setting out its reasons. It is also unclear under which process it had opened the case in the first place. Furthermore, there is no evidence that it had considered an alternative action plan considering its decision such as progressing mediation and/or other relevant interventions.
24. The day after the case was closed, on 10 August 2023, an internal email was sent saying it had reviewed the Noise app submissions and had “not found anything concerning.” It concluded the noise was “normal household” noise. The sender sought confirmation that its position was reasonable. It is unclear why this came after the decision was made to close the case. This is because it would have been appropriate to conduct the review as part of its decision regarding progress of the case.
25. On 17 August 2023 the landlord emailed the resident to address several points he had raised regarding the ongoing issues, including his concerns about the dog. It advised him that it would need to undertake an investigation to assess the potential effectiveness of sound proofing before it could consider it. Landlords are not obliged to carry out improvements such as sound proofing. That it was willing to investigate the possibility was positive. It demonstrated that it had considered the impact on the resident.
26. The landlord visited the resident on 19 September 2023. During the visit he reported daily noise from his neighbour between 6.00am to 8.00am. He also showed the landlord a hole behind the vent in the bedroom which he felt could be increasing the amount of sound transference between the 2 properties. The landlord agreed to enquire whether it might be possible to block this up.
27. The resident disagreed that the noise was normal daily living noise arising from a “clash of lifestyles.” He advised that he had severe OCD and anxiety and was being supported by his doctor. The landlord appropriately offered to refer him to its support and wellbeing team however, the resident’s response is unclear.
28. A file note, also dated 19 September 2023, confirmed that internal advice was to “follow the normal process when determining noise nuisance” which it had done. It is unclear what that process was as noise from “normal activities” was not covered by its ASB policy. While this is reasonable, there is no evidence that it had a process in place setting out its response in the alternative.
29. The file note also confirmed that sound proofing had not been considered due to lack of evidence. It also added that the hole in the wall was from a vent from the flue to the old fireplace. Blocking the hole may increase the risk of damp and mould therefore it could not action the resident’s request. The landlord’s position was reasonable.
30. On 20 September 2023 the landlord emailed the resident to say it would consider sound proofing. It could not provide a timescale but said it “was looking for this to proceed forward as soon as.” In his email to the landlord dated 29 September the resident said he was dissatisfied because he felt the landlord had “backtracked” on a promise to install sound proofing.
31. This investigation has not seen any evidence that the landlord expressly said it would carry out sound proofing. However, it is acknowledged that the resident may have misinterpreted the landlord’s email of 20 September that “this” meant carrying out sound proofing rather than consideration of the matter.
32. An internal email dated 18 October 2023 attached a support and wellbeing referral for the resident. Considering the limited options available to the landlord to remedy the noise issue and the distress caused to the resident this was an appropriate response.
33. On 26 October 2023 the landlord emailed the resident to let him know it had decided to instruct a professional sound insulation test in the bedroom of both properties. This was carried out on 17 November 2023 and a report provided to the landlord. The report confirmed that the properties met the required Buildings Regulations Standards. The specialist did not recommend any works to soundproof the property.
34. By instructing the sound test the landlord demonstrated that it had carried out a thorough investigation as to whether the structure of the building was causing a sound transference problem. Furthermore, it was reasonable that it used the results of the report as a reason for not carrying out sound proofing.
35. On 21 November 2023 the resident emailed the landlord to say that at times, the noise he was experiencing, for example the dog barking, was louder than the decibel levels used for the pass rate on the sound test.
36. The landlord’s stage 2 complaint response of 24 November 2023 concluded it had responded to the resident’s reports of noise appropriately. The evidence demonstrates there were positive elements in its response. For example, it used the complaint to resolve the concerns regarding the fence, it visited his neighbour and it discussed the resident’s concerns about the dog with him. It also provided support to him by carrying out visits to his home and referred him to its internal support team.
37. However, its basic approach to the resident’s reports lacked clarity. It is unclear what formal process it followed when responding to the reports of noise nuisance. For example, there is no evidence it had a process setting out its response to reports of non-statutory noise. There is also evidence that it failed to review the resident’s own recordings taken early in the process which was inappropriate.
38. The lack of clear process impacted on how it managed the resident’s expectations and further eroded the landlord/resident relationship. Had there been a clear action plan in place the resident may not have felt that its response “lacked empathy” and that it “disregarded” his concerns.
39. It is also noted that its stage 2 complaint response said the resident did not want to proceed with mediation. The circumstances relating to this are unclear because we have not seen any ‘live’ evidence to support this. This is a record keeping failure.
40. The landlord’s failures amount to service failure because there was a minor failure in the service it provided which it did not appropriately acknowledge. The landlord has been ordered to pay the resident £75 in line with the Ombudsman’s Remedies Guidance where the failure may not have affected the overall outcome for the resident.
41. It is noted that the landlord’s website contains a Good Neighbourhood Management Policy (dated May 2025) which sets out its response to reports of noise that sit outside of its ASB Policy. Therefore it has not been necessary to make an order in this regard.

Determination

42. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was service failure in the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of neighbour nuisance.

Orders

43. Within 4 weeks of the date of the determination the landlord is ordered to:

a        Apologise to the resident for the failures identified in this report.

b        Pay the resident £75 compensation for the distress caused by its failures in its response to the resident’s reports of neighbour nuisance.

44. The landlord is ordered to provide evidence of compliance with the orders set out above to the Ombudsman, also within 4 weeks.