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

Peabody Trust (202213125)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202213125

Peabody Trust

24 May 2024


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. This complaint is about the landlord’s handling of the resident’s noise nuisance reports.

Background and summary of events

  1. The resident is a tenant of the landlord. He started his tenancy in 2019. He lives in a flat with another flat above.
  2. The resident has explained that he has experienced noise disturbance from neighbours for a lengthy period. The landlord has confirmed that it received multiple reports from him in 2020 and 2021, but no reports between April 2021 (when the resident said the neighbour had promised to install carpets to reduce noise) and August 2022, when the resident reported further disturbance and stated that the neighbour had bare floors again.
  3. The resident raised a complaint with the landlord through the Ombudsman in November 2022 about the noise nuisance and the landlord’s handling of it.
  4. The landlord sent its complaint response on 5 January 2023. It set out a detailed timeline of the resident’s noise reports since May 2020, and the actions it had taken in response to them. It noted that there had been some communication errors in its early correspondence with the resident, but concluded that its actions generally had been appropriate. It explained that while he had provided diary sheets and video, that had not been enough for it to substantiate his reports, particularly as he had declined to send any further diary sheets since December 2020, and the videos he provided did not show excessive noise. It explained it had previously offered to install noise equipment on several occasions to help capture noise evidence, but he had declined. It said that option remained open, but until it was able to meaningfully confirm that the noise was above acceptable levels it could not offer any progress. It explained how the resident could escalate his complaint if he remained dissatisfied.
  5. The resident contacted this Service again on 23 March 2023. He explained he was still being disturbed by noise from his neighbour, and said he had sent the landlord evidence of the neighbour’s floorboards the previous day.
  6. On 11 April 2023 the resident sent diary records to the landlord for the period 27 March to 10 April. They primarily documented banging and slamming on doors and floors. The landlord’s records and correspondence show that it opened a new case, and updated the resident. Through April, May and June the landlord attempted to call the neighbour (unsuccessfully), left messages, wrote to them, and made unannounced visits on multiple occasions without being able to find them home. It noted that installing carpets in the neighbouring flat may be a possible option to address the noise transfer, but that the presence of hard floors had not yet been confirmed. It maintained contact with the resident through the period. It suggested again that he try using appropriate audio recording equipment to capture evidence, which it could provide, but he declined as he felt it infringed on his privacy. It explained the limitations it had in taking formal action with the neighbour without further evidence.
  7. On 22 June 2023 the resident told the landlord he was dissatisfied with its handling of his concerns and asked to escalate his complaint.
  8. The landlord made enquiries of the local authority’s noise team in July 2023. They told it they had not had reports from the resident since February 2021 and therefore could not provide supporting evidence.
  9. The landlord sent its final complaint response on 27 July 2023. It explained it had reviewed its handling of the resident’s reports, and its earlier complaint response. It explained how it needed evidence supporting his reports before it could take action, which is why it had suggested the use of recording equipment or that he also report the noise to the local authority. It urged the resident to make use of those options. It explained that its further review has identified further shortcomings in its handling, in that it had not done a risk assessment for the resident in one of his cases, and it said it had not handled his complaints as well as it should have. It apologised, and offered him £100 for its complaint handling, and £100 for the flaws in its handling identified in its two complaint responses. It explained how he could bring his complaint to the Ombudsman if he remained dissatisfied.
  10. The landlord made contact with the neighbour in September 2023, and was able to discuss the noise issue with them. It updated the resident and said it had advised the neighbour to install soft floor coverings. A note in the landlord’s records for January 2024 states the neighbour informed it they had installed carpets, and that they had provided photos. The resident has told this Service that the noise disturbance continues.

Assessment and findings

Investigation scope

  1. In its complaint response to the resident the landlord gave a chronology of the noise reports it had received from him since 2020. The resident did not dispute its records. They show that prior to his formal complaint in November 2022 there had been one report to the landlord in August 2022, and no others since April 2021.
  2. There are time limits for complaints which the Ombudsman may investigate. One of the time limit requirements is that a formal complaint is made with the landlord within a reasonable period of the issues arising. Most of the resident’s reports of noise disturbance were in 2020 and early 2021, well over a year before a complaint about its handling was raised in late 2022. Because of that, this investigation centres on the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports in August 2022 up to the point it issued its final complaint response in July 2023. References to the earlier periods is for context and background only.
  3. The landlord’s records state that the neighbour informed it they had installed carpets, and had provided evidence. The resident has told this Service that he has continued experiencing noise nuisance to the present time. If he is dissatisfied with the landlord’s handling after July 2023 (when it issued its final complaint response) it is open to him to make a new formal complaint to the landlord. If he remains dissatisfied after exhausting the landlord’s complaint process he has the option of asking the Ombudsman to open a new investigation. If a new investigation is opened it will take into consideration any findings made in this report as part of its assessment of the landlord’s further actions.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s noise nuisance reports

  1. The landlord has an antisocial behaviour (ASB) policy, in which it includes issues of noise nuisance. It states that “We will investigate noise nuisance where the noise is frequently excessive in volume and duration or occurs at unreasonable hours.” It further explains that “We encourage customers to take responsibility for solving personal disputes between themselves where appropriate. This may include collating evidence, liaising with other agencies and taking part in mediation.”
  2. The policy sets out that the landlord has a range of measures it can take, such as signposting to mediation services and legal action, but the methods used will be “proportionate to the seriousness, impact and frequency of the behaviour, the level of risk that it poses to those affected, and the evidence available to support the case.”  As part of its process when receiving noise reports the policy explains that “We will agree an action plan with the complainant and…keep them informed of the actions we take.”
  3. The resident’s tenancy agreement states that tenants can have hard floors, provided they obtain permission from the landlord (which it says will not be unreasonably declined). However, it also explains that if the flooring causes noise nuisance tenants may be asked to use soft coverings or remove it completely.
  4. In response to the resident’s complaint the landlord explained that following his noise reports in August 2022 it had opened a new case, asked him to document the incidents he was experiencing in a diary, recommended he also report the noise to the local authority’s noise team, and explained how it could assist. It is reasonable and appropriate that a landlord asks for further information beyond a tenant’s report of noise, because such information allows it to assess the nature and scale of the problem, and supports it taking further steps. There is no evidence of the resident providing the requested information, or that he contacted the local authority. While there were further actions the landlord could take after receiving this report, the landlord’s initial actions were in line with its processes, wherein it asks tenants to collate information and work with other organisations. The evidence indicates mediation had been suggested in previous years and declined by the resident, so it was understandable that option was not raised again. Given that the landlord does not appear to have received the information it asked for, it follows that there was no further action it could meaningfully take at that point.
  5. The resident made a new report in April 2023, and provided supporting information in the form of diary logs and video recordings. The landlord opened a new case, did a risk assessment, created an action plan, and shared it with the resident along with updates. These were relevant and appropriate actions in line with the landlord’s processes and basic good practice. The difference between this report and the previous one being that the resident had provided supporting information which the landlord could act on.
  6. The resident reported that he believed the noise he experienced was due to hard floorings in the flat above. The landlord’s internal records show that it also believed hard floorings could be exacerbating the problem, although it did not agree that this was a certainty. It was therefore appropriate for it to seek to discuss the issue with the neighbour. The evidence shows that it made a wide range of unsuccessful attempts to contact the neighbour over several months. It was pragmatic for the landlord to try multiple forms of contact, including letter, phone, text messages, and in person visits. However, the resident’s tenancy agreement states that tenants must allow access for the landlord (with appropriate notice) to inspect the property condition. This is generally a universal element of tenancies, and presumably is also in the neighbour’s agreement.
  7. Yet by the time the landlord issued its final complaint response in late July 2023 it had still not been able to discuss the noise and flooring issue with the neighbour approximately 3.5 months after the resident’s report. In this particular case that was at the very limit of what could be considered a reasonable amount of time to allow a tenant to respond to a landlord’s request for contact and access. Its complaint investigation did not comment on this, but it was a noticeable aspect of the case in light of the volume of unproductive contact attempts. It should have been identified, especially because of the clear distress the resident had explained the noise was causing him. There is no evidence of the landlord considering a change of approach, or what options it might have to escalate the access issue. The landlord finally was able to reach the neighbour in September. It updated the resident about that on 27 September, approximately 5.5 months after his original report. In the circumstances of the resident’s distress, the uncertainty about the flooring, the landlord’s entitlement to access the property and inspect the flooring, and the absence of any clear mitigating evidence or evidence of the landlord’s consideration of escalation options, the total time taken was not reasonable by any relevant standard.
  8. The Ombudsman published a Spotlight report on noise complaints in October 2022. The report focused on noise disturbance related to household noise and transference rather than ASB. It made a wide range of recommendations for landlords. By the time of the resident’s 2023 report the landlord should have been aware of these recommendations and of the significance of hard flooring in noise nuisance complaints. The landlord’s handling of this particular aspect of the noise report does not reflect the recommendations or advice in that report.
  9. The landlord’s other actions in regard to the resident’s report were in line with its processes and basic good practice. It regularly updated him, made clear why it required further evidence, liaised with the local authority to see if it could provide supporting evidence, and again offered audio recording equipment. This last option had previously been declined by the resident, and he declined it again. Nonetheless, the landlord’s records state that the recordings he had provided did not provide sufficient evidence, and specialised recording equipment was more likely to capture the necessary evidence. It was reasonable for the landlord to offer it.
  10. In its final complaint response the landlord identified that it had not wholly followed its policy with one of the more recent of the resident’s reports, because it had omitted to do a risk assessment. It is clear that it did do this in response to the 2023 report, and there is no evidence of a specific impact from failing to do it with the earlier one. Nonetheless, it was appropriate for the landlord to identify its earlier shortcoming, apologise and offer compensation. It also identified there had been failings in its handling of the resident’s complaint. The evidence shows there were delays with both of the landlord’s complaint responses when measured against its 10 and 20 day targets for the respective stages. These delays amounted to approximately 2 weeks for its first response, and 5 days for its second. The apology and £100 compensation the landlord offered was proportionate and appropriate to the scale and nature of the delays.

Determination (decision)

  1. In line with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure by the landlord in respect of the complaint.

Reasons

  1. In the time period considered in this investigation the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports was largely in line with its policy and procedures, and with basic practice when dealing with noise nuisance. The landlord identified some ways in which it had not followed its process, and delays in its complaint handling. There is no evidence of specific consequences from these shortcomings, and the landlord provided reasonable remedies for them.
  2. However, at the time of the landlord’s final complaint response it had been trying unsuccessfully to contact the resident’s neighbour for over 3 months. There is no evidence of it reconsidering its approach at that point. In the circumstances that was not reasonable. It then took a further 2 months to successfully make contact, meaning the overall time taken was unreasonable, and clearly added to the resident’s continued frustration and distress.

Orders

  1. In light of the failing identified in this report the landlord is ordered to pay the resident £450. This amount is inclusive of the £200 it previously offered. Evidence of payment must be provided to this Service within 4 weeks of this report.
  2. The primary failing found in this investigation centres on the landlord continuing to attempt contact with the neighbour without success for an unreasonable amount of time, without considering other options or ways in which it could escalate its efforts. In light of that, it is ordered to review its handling of that aspect of the case, to identify what it could have done differently and what lessons it can learn and use to improve its service. Its review must be provided to this Service within 8 weeks of the date of this report.

Recommendations

  1. If it has not done so already, the landlord is urged to ensure staff who deal with ASB and noise nuisance reports and complaints are familiar with the Ombudsman’s Spotlight report on Noise Nuisance, and its follow up report.