Sandwell Metropolitan Borough Council (202229853)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202229853

Sandwell Metropolitan Borough Council

29 August 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

The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of:
1. The resident’s report of noise disturbance from a neighbouring property.
2. The resident’s concerns about the level of noise transference between his property and his neighbour’s property.
3. The associated complaint.

Background

The resident is a secure tenant of the property. He has disclosed to the landlord that he has a diagnosis of depression, and medical conditions including high blood pressure.
On 6 September 2022, the landlord recorded that it spoke to the resident about music coming from a neighbouring property. It wrote that the resident initially believed it was a one-off incident and did not want to begin the landlord’s antisocial behaviour (ASB) process. The landlord’s records say it attempted to contact the resident’s neighbour the same day, but they did not answer the phone.
Following a second disturbance the resident disclosed that his neighbour had been intimidating towards him in the past and said that they had a gun in their home. The landlord visited the resident at home to discuss the allegations on 14 September 2022. It encouraged him to report his concerns to the police. It wrote to the resident’s neighbour and spoke to them by phone. They denied playing music at an inappropriate level.
On 20 September 2022, the resident reported that his neighbour had shone a laser pointer into his cat’s eyes deliberately. He reported the incident to the police. He asked the landlord to open an ASB case but asked it not to interview his neighbour while the police investigation was ongoing.
The resident reported another disturbance to the landlord on 15 October 2022. On 14 November 2022, the resident reported further disturbances and asked the landlord to open an ASB investigation. The landlord recorded that the resident said he would consider mediation with his neighbour and agreed to it interviewing his neighbour. The landlord spoke to the resident’s neighbour the same day. The resident continued to report disturbances to the landlord. On 17 November 2022, the landlord recorded that the resident had told it that the noise disturbance had reduced. As a result of the call, the landlord told the resident it intended to close the ASB case.
On 23 November 2023, the resident contacted the landlord as he felt that the wall between his property and his neighbour’s was “too thin”. He asked the landlord to consider installing additional sound insulation the next day. The landlord agreed to inspect the resident’s home.
The landlord’s records show that the resident complained to the landlord by phone on 30 November 2022, as he was unhappy with its decision to close his ASB case. The landlord spoke to the resident on 20 December 2022, and said it would call the resident on 3 January 2023 to see if there had been further disturbances. On 3 January 2023, the landlord’s records show it called the resident, who said there had been a continued improvement in the noise. As a result of the call, it closed the resident’s complaint.
The landlord inspected the resident’s property on around 10 January 2023. It recorded that there were no issues with the wall, which was a standard brick and plaster construction.
The landlord carried out a “home check” on the resident on 25 January 2023. It installed noise monitoring equipment in the resident’s home on 10 February 2023. It informed the resident on 24 February 2023 that it did not identify any ASB on the recordings made. However, it said it would ask the resident’s neighbour to consider moving their audio equipment away from the adjoining wall.
The landlord did a second inspection of the adjoining wall between the properties on around 3 March 2023. It said there were no visible defects in the wall.
On 8 March 2023, the landlord sent the resident a letter saying it was closing the ASB case. The following day the resident made an application for an ASB case review, or community trigger. The ASB case review process reviews qualifying cases, aiming to encourage partnership working between agencies and identify resolutions to ASB. The landlord, a local authority, responded on 23 March 2023 refusing the resident’s application for an ASB case review. It said it felt the response to the resident’s reports of ASB had been proportionate. The resident was unhappy with the landlord’s response and requested a review of its decision. He asked the landlord a series of questions about its handling of the case.
The resident contacted the Ombudsman, saying the landlord had not replied to his complaint. We wrote to the landlord and asked it to respond to the resident’s complaint by 28 April 2024. The landlord responded to the resident’s complaint at stage 1 of its complaints process on 21 April 2024. It said:
1. It had reviewed the noise recordings again and confirmed that nothing was picked up by the noise monitoring equipment. Its officers had confirmed that the noise monitoring equipment was working.
2. It had asked the neighbour to move their TV/ audio equipment away from the adjoining wall, and for the resident to move his bed.
3. The evidence showed the landlord had contacted the resident appropriately and used the tools available to it to investigate the resident’s reports.
4. The landlord had liaised with the police appropriately. The police did not take action against the resident’s neighbour, but the resident had been issued a warning letter.
The resident continued to report noise disturbance to the landlord. He said he was unhappy with the level of noise transference between the properties and asked the landlord to do an airborne sound test. On 21 April 2024, the landlord told the resident it could not facilitate an airborne sound test. It advised him that he could arrange one independently.
On 3 May 2023, the resident wrote to the landlord saying he had moved his bed away from the adjoining wall, the landlord did not ask him to do this. He did not feel this would have been an appropriate suggestion. He said that the noise disturbance from his neighbour’s property had reduced but not stopped. He sent the landlord diary sheets on which he had recorded instances of disturbance.
The landlord responded to the resident’s request for a review of its ASB trigger decision on 4 May 2023. It said:
1. Cases were progressed to its ASB team when there was enough evidence for the landlord to consider legal action. As there was insufficient evidence in the resident’s case it had not been passed to the ASB team.
2. There was no open investigation against the resident, but the landlord had received counter allegations about him.
3. It did not have a service that could provide a sound test.
4. The landlord had sent an official warning to the resident’s neighbour because of the resident’s complaints.
5. The landlord had interviewed the resident’s neighbour and they denied the allegations. The landlord was not able to take action because of everyday household noise.
6. It had failed to give the resident diary sheets to report disturbance, but this would not have had a detrimental effect on the resident, as it used diary sheets to determine whether to install a noise recorder. The landlord had installed a noise recorder without diary sheets.
7. The noise recorder did not identify any actionable noise. It accepted that the resident disputed that there was noise when the recorder was in situ. The landlord would not take legal action based on diary sheets if there was no evidence recorded by noise monitoring equipment.
8. The landlord had no recollection of telling the resident not to submit diary sheets. The resident could do so. However, the landlord did not anticipate this would change the outcome.
9. The resident had been given access to the noise app, which was a reasonable way to progress the investigation.
10. There was insufficient evidence of verbal abuse reported by the resident and the resident’s neighbour had denied the allegations. The landlord had investigated the resident’s concern that his neighbour had a gun in their home. The police had confirmed there was no unlawful action by the resident’s neighbour.
11. There was no evidence of bias in the investigation.
12. It did not uphold the resident’s request for an ASB case review.
The resident began using the “noise app” (a mobile phone application used to record noise disturbance) in April 2023. He has continued to report noise disturbance through the noise app until at least July 2024. He asked the landlord to escalate his complaint to stage 2 of its complaints process, saying:
1. The landlord’s wall inspections were inadequate.
2. It had agreed to carry out a 3rd inspection, but although he had asked twice by email what the nature of the inspection would be, the landlord had not responded.
3. The information in the landlord’s stage 1 response was inaccurate. The landlord did not ask him to move his bed.
4. He had requested an airborne sound test, but the landlord had closed the case without telling him.
5. The landlord’s handling of ASB was inadequate and biased. He felt this was demonstrated by its refusal to consider his request for an airborne sound test, and its assertion that the noise recorder had failed to identify noise disturbance.
6. The ASB had affected his health significantly.
The landlord responded to the resident at stage 2 of its complaints process on 8 June 2023. It partly upheld his complaint, saying:
1. It had misinterpreted information it was given in the investigation of the resident’s complaint. It accepted that it had not asked him to move his bed. He had told it that he had done this. However, it felt that it was reasonable to ask residents to consider practical steps to resolve a dispute.
2. The inspection of the resident’s walls was to see if they were adequately sound-proofed.
3. The landlord accepted that it had assumed from what the resident had said that he had asked for an airborne sound test as part of legal action he was considering taking against his neighbour. However, it confirmed that it did not offer airborne sound tests.
4. Having reviewed the handling of the ASB case, the landlord felt that the action it had taken was proportionate.
On 15 June 2023, the resident called to ask that the inspection of his wall be moved to later in the day due to a prior commitment. The landlord attended at the original appointment time. The resident said that when he called to rearrange the appointment, the landlord told him it would not be rearranged.
The resident was unhappy with the outcome of the landlord’s review of his application for an ASB case review and sent it a series of questions. It responded to these on 4 July 2023. It said:
1. The landlord’s was not able to offer him an airborne sound test.
2. It had received allegations from a neighbour about ASB caused by the resident. These had been investigated but there was no current investigation.
3. There was no record it had installed noise monitoring equipment in his neighbour’s home.
4. It explained that the questions it had asked during its home check were part of its standard procedures. They were not realistically attributable to the resident’s neighbour.
5. It would not be able to respond in a similar level of detail if the resident asked similar lists of questions in future.
Since the resident exhausted the landlord’s complaints process, the landlord and resident have continued to communicate about noise disturbance. The resident remains dissatisfied with the landlord’s handling of the case. He told the Ombudsman that while there had been some recent improvement in noise disturbances, they had not fully abated. He strongly believes that the noise from his neighbour’s property is deliberate.

Assessment and findings

Scope of the investigation

The Housing Ombudsman Scheme sets out what the Ombudsman can and cannot consider in its investigations. Paragraph 42 a. of the scheme says that we may not consider complaints which are made prior to exhausting the landlord’s complaints procedure. In this case, the resident has continued to report ASB to the landlord after he had exhausted the complaints process. We have seen evidence that he had complained to the landlord about its handling of his later reports, but we have not seen evidence that these reports have exhausted the landlord’s complaints process. As such, reports of ASB made to the landlord after it sent its stage 2 complaint response have not been considered by this investigation. If the resident is unhappy with the landlord’s handling of his later reports of ASB, he can ask his landlord to respond to his concerns through its complaints process. If he remains dissatisfied with the landlord’s response after it has exhausted the complaints process, he can refer the matter to the Ombudsman for investigation at that stage.
In 2024, the resident became aware that the attic between his property and his neighbour’s was not adequately partitioned, and his neighbour could access his attic. The landlord subsequently carried out repairs. The Ombudsman has not seen evidence that the resident complained to the landlord about its handling of this issue, so it is outside the scope of this investigation. As above, if the resident is unhappy with the landlord’s handling of this issue, he could complain to his landlord. He may be able to refer the issue to the Ombudsman as a separate complaint if he is dissatisfied once he has received the landlord’s final complaint response.
During the period of the complaint, the resident says the ASB he experienced had a detrimental impact on his health. The Ombudsman does not doubt the resident’s testimony. It is widely accepted that stress can have a negative impact on health. The Ombudsman can consider the general impact of stress, but it is outside our remit to establish if there was a direct link between the action or inaction of the landlord and the specific health conditions of the resident. We will consider any general distress and inconvenience the resident may have experienced because of errors by the landlord
The resident’s landlord is a local authority. The resident made an application to the local authority for a community trigger, or ASB case review, which was rejected by the local authority. The Housing Ombudsman Scheme says we cannot investigate matters in respect of Local Housing Authorities in England which do not directly relate to their provision or management of social housing. The community trigger is available to all residents in the local authority’s area, not just those who are tenants of the local authority. As the community trigger process does not directly relate to the local authority’s provision or management of social housing, its decision making in the community trigger process is outside the scope of this investigation. If the resident is unhappy with the local authority’s decision, he could consider seeking advice from the LGSCO (local government and social care ombudsman). The LGSCO is able to consider complaints about local authorities’ non-housing related activities.

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

The landlord’s antisocial behaviour policy uses the Crime and Policing Act 2014 as the basis for its definition of antisocial behaviour. It defines ASB as “conduct that has caused, or is likely to cause, harassment, alarm or distress to any person…conduct capable of causing nuisance or annoyance to a person in relation to that person’s occupation of residential premises”. In its ASB policy, the landlord goes on to say it does not consider some noise disturbances to be ASB, including DIY, unless it is it unsocial hours, or everyday living noises. It also says it will not take action in response to reports of occasional or one-off incidences of noise, including music. Some of the resident’s reports of noise disturbance did not meet the landlord’s threshold for antisocial behaviour under its ASB policy, but other incidents, like the loud music reported by the resident on repeated occasions, or an incident where the resident alleged his neighbour used abusive language towards him, met the landlord’s definition of ASB.
The Ombudsman’s spotlight report on noise, available on our website, highlights the human consequences of noise disturbance. It is clear to this Service that the resident’s wellbeing has been detrimentally affected by his worries about his neighbour during the time considered by this investigation. He made changes to his activities of daily living as a result of the noise disturbance and told the landlord he felt that stress caused by the ongoing situation had affected his health. This has been considered when investigating this complaint.
It is not the Ombudsman’s role to establish whether someone has committed ASB but rather we will assess the landlord’s handling of the resident’s ASB reports. We will consider whether the landlord’s response was fair and reasonable in view of all the circumstances, considering its policies, the law and industry best practice. In our investigation, we have reviewed and considered all evidence submitted by both the landlord and the resident. However, our report focusses on the key issues that we believe affect the outcome of the case.
Overall, the landlord used appropriate tools to investigate the concerns reported by the resident. For example:
1. It advised the resident to report disturbances and incidents to the police. This was appropriate as the police have different powers to landlords and are best placed to lead investigations into alleged criminal activity, such as possession of a gun. Evidence provided by the police may be used in legal action taken by landlords against perpetrators of ASB.
2. It did not speak to the resident’s neighbour until the resident had given it consent to do so.
3. It liaised appropriately with the police during its ASB investigations, including arranging and attending a professionals meeting.
4. It met with both the resident and his neighbour face to face to discuss the allegations. This enabled it to get a clear understanding both the resident’s allegations, and the neighbour’s response to them.
5. The landlord used noise monitoring equipment in the resident’s home and provided the resident with access to the “noise app” so that it could assess the disturbances being reported. These can be effective tools for landlords to gather evidence of and assess noise disturbance.
6. The landlord liaised with professionals working with the resident, with his consent.
7. It discussed practical solutions with the resident, which included rehousing. It recorded that he did not want to consider this. The resident was entitled to decline the offer of rehousing and the landlord was still expected to investigate his ASB reports.
8. It asked his neighbour to move his audio equipment away from the adjoining wall between the properties. This was a pragmatic solution to reduce noise transference between the properties.
9. The landlord offered the resident and his neighbour mediation, which was appropriate. Mediation requires the consent of both parties to progress, so in this case no mediation was carried out. This was outside of the landlord’s control. In this case, the resident and his neighbour had been in dispute about 2 issues before the resident complained about noise disturbance. These disputes are outside of the scope of this investigation, but the history of dispute between the neighbours remains relevant. Where mediation is offered after significant deterioration in the relationship between neighbours, they are less likely to consider it, so and landlords should consider offering mediation as an early intervention. Both the resident and the neighbour were entitled to decline mediation and landlords should not take any negative action against tenants for declining mediation.
10. When the resident asked the landlord why it had not escalated his case to its ASB team, it gave a clear and reasonable answer.
The landlord did not take any legal action against the resident’s neighbour, although it did interview them and send them a warning letter. To take legal action against a resident, landlords need to have enough evidence to convince a court that on the balance of probabilities, anti-social behaviour has occurred. Landlords also need to prove to the court that the ASB is serious and prolonged and reasonable efforts have been made to resolve it before taking legal action. In this case, many of the incidents reported by the resident were not witnessed by a 3rd party and there was no independent evidence. The police closed their case without taking any legal action and told the landlord that the matter was not criminal. As a result, the landlord did not feel it had enough evidence to take legal action. The landlord explained this to the resident in its response to his request for a review of his case through the ASB trigger process. This was reasonable.
In addition, the Ombudsman has seen evidence that when the resident used the noise app, the landlord assessed the intervals between reported disturbances, the types of noise, and the times of day that disturbances occurred. These were reasonable steps by the landlord that will have helped it to determine whether legal action had a realistic chance of success.
The landlord should have records of all interactions it has with residents, including correspondence. Its records should be clear and specific. This is important as the landlord’s records will be used if the landlord considers legal action. In this case, there were some gaps in the landlord’s record keeping. For example:
1. Although the landlord’s records indicate that it interviewed the resident’s neighbour about the allegations, it did not provide the Ombudsman with a full record of the interview.
2. Although the landlord said it had sent the resident a warning letter about the disturbances, it did not provide the Ombudsman with a copy.
3. On one occasion the landlord recorded that it had attempted to interview the alleged perpetrator “quite a few times”, but they did not answer the phone. The landlord should have made a record each time it attempted to contact the resident’s neighbour, to clearly demonstrate its actions.
4. The landlord’s records show several instances where the resident called in with queries about his case or asked for an update, but the landlord did not record any response to the resident. As a result, this investigation cannot determine if the landlord failed to respond to the resident, or if it failed to record its responses, either way this is a failing by the landlord.
To improve its record keeping practices, the landlord could consider self-assessing against the Ombudsman’s spotlight report on knowledge and information management (available on our website), unless it has already done so.
On 3 May 2023 the resident sent the landlord copies of diary sheets he had been keeping. He sent the landlord further emails on 15 May 2023 and 3 June 2023, as he said the landlord has not responded. As the landlord has not provided any evidence that it did respond to the resident’s emails in this time, the Ombudsman accepts the resident’s account. This was not appropriate. The landlord should have responded to the resident’s emails. Its failure to do so for at least 1 month may have led to the resident feeling that the landlord was not taking his concerns seriously.
There were some occasions where the landlord should have gone further to support the resident or investigate his complaints. For example:
1. It is good practice for landlords to agree a contact frequency with residents when they begin an ASB investigation. This helps establish clear shared expectations between landlord and resident. There was no evidence that the landlord did so. However, although there were some gaps in communication, overall, the landlord provided detailed responses to the resident’s enquiries.
2. It is important for landlords to be clear about what they do, and do not consider, to be ASB. This helps to manage residents’ expectations. While the landlord did refer to daily living noises in its investigation of the resident’s reports of ASB, it could have been clearer about the types of noise it would consider to be actionable. For example, the resident complained to the landlord about DIY during daytime hours. The landlord says in its ASB policy that it does not consider DIY to be ASB unless it is in unsocial hours. This is reasonable and in line with industry best practice but we did not see evidence that it told the resident this. This may have caused the resident frustration and time and trouble reporting later incidents that were unlikely to result in enforcement action from the landlord.
3. The landlord accepted that it should have provided the resident with diary sheets when he first complained of noise disturbance. It said that overall, this had not had a detrimental impact on the investigation as its usual process was to use diary sheets provided by residents to assess whether it had reason to install noise monitoring equipment. It had installed noise monitoring equipment in the resident’s home without the sheets he provided, and as the equipment had not recorded any actionable noise, it would not have considered further action. This was a reasonable assessment, although this incident may have impacted the resident’s trust in the landlord going forward. The landlord explained that it had taken learning from this to improve its process going forward, which was appropriate.
4. The resident told the Ombudsman that he did not feel that the landlord kept him updated on the actions it was taking against his neighbour. The landlord’s records support his account. While the landlord recorded the actions took, it does not appear to have told the resident that it had interviewed his neighbour, or sent letters to them, until he directly asked about this as part of his request for a review of the ASB trigger refusal. While the landlord has a legal responsibility to keep information about his neighbour confidential, it could have done more to keep the resident updated about the progress of his case, by sharing appropriate information sooner.
5. The landlord could have considered asking the resident’s neighbour to sign a good neighbour agreement, or acceptable behaviour contract. Both are voluntary written agreements where an alleged perpetrator of anti-social behaviour agrees to abide by specified terms. They can be useful tools in preventing future ASB and can be used by landlords as evidence that they have been proportional in their enforcement actions if legal action is later considered.
6. There was no evidence the landlord did a ‘victim vulnerability risk assessment’ of the resident after he reported being disturbed by noise. While the landlord does not commit to carrying out a risk assessment in every case in its antisocial behaviour policy, it would have been appropriate to do so in this case, as the landlord was aware that the resident had a history of depression, and he disclosed concerns about the effect the noise was having on his health. If the landlord had done a risk assessment, it may have considered it appropriate to signpost the resident to relevant support services. Overall, this did not appear to have had a significant adverse impact on the resident as he was able to contact support services himself when he felt he needed support.
After the landlord installed noise recording equipment in the resident’s home, it told his representative that it did not record any ‘noise issues’. It confirmed the equipment was working. However, in its complaint response, the landlord said that it did not identify any ‘actionable noise’. This language was unclear and may have caused the resident confusion. The landlord should have clearly stated whether nothing was recorded, or whether it recorded noise, but did not consider it to be actionable.
The resident said there was music playing in both his home and his neighbour’s home when the recording was made, and this was of a sufficient volume for the noise recorder to pick it up. As such, he was unhappy with the landlord’s findings. The landlord agreed to listen to the recordings again. However, as the findings of the noise recorder were disputed, it would have been reasonable for the landlord to either offer to install the equipment in the resident’s home again, or to explain why any noise it recorded was not actionable. This may have reassured the resident that the landlord was being transparent in its investigation of his reports.
The resident told the landlord that he believed the ongoing stress of the noise disturbance was affecting his health and provided it with evidence of his health conditions. The landlord missed opportunities to respond to this. For example:
1. When the resident’s representative emailed the landlord on 16 February 2023, they said the situation was affecting the resident’s physical and mental health. The landlord failed to address this in its response to the resident’s representative. There was no evidence it contacted the resident directly to address the concern.
2. The resident emailed on at least two other occasions, including his stage 2 complaint escalation request, and referred to the impact he believed the situation was having on his health. He told the Ombudsman the landlord did not respond to him about his concerns on these occasions. As the landlord’s evidence does not contradict this, we accept his account. This was not appropriate as it may have led him to feel the landlord did not care about his wellbeing.
The resident felt that the landlord was biased in its investigation of his ASB reports. In its response to the resident’s request for a community trigger review, the landlord said it did not find any evidence of bias in its investigation. It said in addition that it had applied the same presumption of innocence to both the resident, when allegations were made about him, and his neighbour, when the resident made allegations of anti-social behaviour. The evidence seen by this investigation supports the landlord’s findings and the Ombudsman did not see any evidence of bias in the landlord’s records.
Cumulatively, there was maladministration in the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of ASB. This will have caused him avoidable frustration, worry and inconvenience. As such, the landlord is ordered to pay the resident £200 in compensation. The Ombudsman’s remedies guidance, available on our website, says that awards in this range are appropriate where actions by the landlord have had a detrimental impact on the resident, but the impact may not have been permanent. In this case, the impact was not permanent as we have not seen evidence that the landlord’s failings have materially affected the outcome of its investigation into the resident’s ASB reports.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s concerns about noise transference

As above, the role of the Ombudsman is not to assess whether the resident experienced an excessive amount of noise transference from his neighbour’s home. Our role is to determine whether the landlord responded to the issue reported by the resident in a reasonable manner and in line with any obligations it had under policy or statute. In this case the landlord has not provided any policy documents or guidance on its approach to requests for soundproofing. Landlords have an obligation to ensure that a building meets the building regulations that were relevant at the time the property was constructed. The landlord is not usually required to bring older buildings into compliance with the specification required in current building regulations.
The landlord should have been clear with the resident about its legal obligations and its approach to requests for soundproofing. For example, it should have told him if it considered requests to improve soundproofing within properties, or if it would only carry out repairs where there were defects in construction. The landlord should also have been consistent in its approach to the resident’s request between teams. In this case, the landlord’s communication with the resident was inadequate and confusing, and suggested that different departments within the organisation lacked a shared understanding of the landlord’s approach to requests for soundproofing / insulation.
Due to the resident’s concerns about the level of noise transference between the resident’s property and his neighbour’s, the landlord agreed to inspect the adjoining wall. While this was reasonable, the landlord should have told the resident how it would inspect the wall, what it would look to identify, and what the potential outcomes of the inspection could be. It appears from the landlord’s records and the resident’s account that the landlord carried out 2 primarily visual inspections of the property, seeking to identify visual construction defects. There is no evidence the landlord was considering carrying out any improvements to the property. The evidence provided to this investigation does not suggest that it told the resident this, which was inappropriate.
The landlord recorded that, having inspected the property on 2 occasions, it was of a standard plaster and brick construction, and there were no visual defects. Following the inspections, the landlord could have written to the resident with the outcome. This would have been a further opportunity for it to clarify its position and manage the resident’s expectations. There is no evidence it did so.
The landlord raised a 3rd inspection of the property for 16 June 2023. Its reasoning for doing so was unclear, given its earlier findings. The resident said in his stage 2 complaint escalation request that he asked the landlord to give him more detail about the inspection on 2 occasions, but it did not respond to his emails. As the landlord did not dispute this assertion, the Ombudsman can only conclude that the resident’s account was correct. This was not appropriate, as it may have led to the resident feeling he was being ignored.
In its stage 2 complaint response, the landlord told the resident that the inspection on 16 June 2023 was to determine if his walls were “adequately sound–proofed”. This description was inadequate as it did not give the resident any more detail about the methods that would be used in the inspection. It also indicated that there was a level of soundproofing or insulation expected between the properties. This may have raised the resident’s expectations. The landlord’s records show that, following its initial 2 inspections it did not believe there was any sound-proofing or insulation in the walls, but it did not consider this to be a defect. This was reasonable. It is common for there to be no insulation/soundproofing in older properties. They may have walls with a solid brick construction, or uninsulated cavity walls. The insulation of cavity walls was not a building requirement until the 1990s and as above, the landlord is not required to alter the property in line with modern construction standards.
The resident tried to reschedule the inspection appointment on 16 June 2023, but the landlord attended at the time it had initially arranged. As the landlord recorded the resident’s request to reschedule the appointment, it appears its failure to reschedule it as requested was an internal communication failure, which would have caused inconvenience to the resident.
The landlord’s notes show that a member of the repairs team recorded that it had inspected the wall twice and found there were no defects, so they recommended no further inspections were logged. As a result, when the resident called to rebook the appointment, the landlord told him it would not do any more inspections of the wall. The landlord’s contradictory messaging about the inspection will have caused the resident frustration, and time and trouble rearranging the appointment.
The landlord’s records do not show that there was direct communication about the inspection requests or outcome between the department requesting the survey and the surveyor who inspected the resident’s wall. This was a communication failure that may have contributed to the landlord’s mixed messages about the issue. In addition, the landlord’s records show that after the resident had exhausted the complaints process, the landlord raised and then cancelled a 4th inspection at the property in November 2023. This does not demonstrate that the landlord has identified its failures in internal communication and the detrimental impact this will have had on the resident.
To improve its service, the landlord should consider developing staff guidance on its approach to requests for additional insulation or other improvements to reduce noise transference between properties. It could also consider cross-training between teams to ensure that it gives a consistent message to residents about sound insulation requirements and improvement requests.
The resident asked the landlord to do an airborne sound test. Airborne sound tests are carried out by generating noise in one room or property. The level of sound transference is then measured in the other room or property. The landlord told the resident it did not have the facility to carry out an airborne sound test and would not be expected to provide one. This was reasonable, as airborne sound tests are commonly used to make decisions about improving the soundproofing between properties. As explained earlier in the report, the landlord is not required to consider improving the soundproofing between the properties. As such arranging an airborne sound test may have unreasonably raised the resident’s expectations and would not have led to the landlord taking any action to resolve the noise.
The landlord suggested that the resident could arrange an airborne sound test privately, as part of legal action he was considering against his neighbour. The landlord later apologised for assuming that the resident was considering legal action. While the landlord’s apology was appropriate, it did not recognise that its suggestion that the resident could do independent sound testing was not reasonable. To do an airborne sound test, the resident would have needed access to his neighbour’s home. The resident had no right of access to his neighbour’s property. The relationship between the neighbours was poor, so the resident may have expected that his neighbour would be unlikely to agree to an airborne sound test. Landlords should not unreasonably refuse residents’ requests to make alterations to their homes, so it may have been more reasonable for the landlord to suggest that it would consider any request the resident made to install additional sound insulation.
Overall, the failures discussed above amounted to maladministration. While the landlord was not required to improve the resident’s home, it failed to manage his expectations, and its communication about the issue was unclear. This will have resulted in considerable time and trouble to the resident, both in arranging access for the inspections, and in pursuing the issue. To put things right for the resident, the landlord is ordered to:
1. Apologise to the resident in writing for the failures identified in this report.
2. Pay the resident £300 in compensation for the avoidable time and trouble its handling of his concerns about the level of noise transference between the properties caused him. The Ombudsman’s remedies guidance says that awards in this range are appropriate where a failure, ore series of failures, by the landlord have adversely affected a resident.

The landlord’s complaint handling

The Housing Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code) sets out our expectations for landlords’ complaint handling practices. It defines a complaint as “an expression of dissatisfaction, however made, about the standard of service, actions or lack of action by the organisation, its own staff, or those acting on its behalf, affecting an individual resident or group of residents”.
The landlord’s complaints policy says it will acknowledge complaints at both stages of its complaints process within 3 working days. It will then respond at stage 1 of its process within 10 working days, and at stage 2 of its process within 20 working days. These timescales are appropriate as they align with, or are shorter than, the timescales set out in the Code.
The landlord’s records show the resident initially complained to the landlord about its handling of his ASB case on 30 November 2022. It said that there could be a delay in its response due to unprecedented circumstances. The landlord wrote to the resident to say it would respond by 13 December 2022, but it did not call him to discuss the complaint until 20 December 2022. This was outside the landlord’s policy timescale. The landlord’s records indicate that the delay may have been due to staff absence. While staff absence is unavoidable, if the landlord could not meet its policy timescale it should have called the resident to let him know. There was no evidence it did so.
After it spoke to the resident the landlord recorded that it had agreed further actions with the resident and closed the complaint. The Code says that “the early and local resolution of issues between landlords and residents is key to effective complaint handling”. As such, if the landlord and the resident were able to agree a way forward during the call, it was reasonable of the landlord to close the complaint without issuing a formal response. However, in this case there appears to have been a miscommunication between the landlord and the resident, as the resident later contacted this Service and told us that the landlord had not formally responded to his complaint. This suggests that the landlord and the resident did not share an understanding of the outcome of the resident’s complaint. To avoid similar confusion in future, the landlord could consider confirming the status of withdrawn complaints to residents in writing.
After the resident contacted our Service, we wrote to the landlord and asked it to respond to the resident at stage 1 of its complaints process by 28 April 2023, and it responded within this time frame, which was appropriate. The resident escalated his complaint to stage 2 of the landlord’s complaints process on 17 May 2023, and the landlord appropriately responded at stage 2 of its complaints process within its policy timescales.
The landlord sent the resident 2 stage 2 complaint acknowledgement letters. The letters were not consistent with each other, giving different dates for the resident’s stage 2 escalation request, and different deadlines for the landlord’s response. Overall, this error will not have had a significant detrimental impact on the resident as it did not affect the outcome of the complaint and the landlord responded within its policy timescales. However, it is clear from the resident’s correspondence to the landlord that it had an impact on his trust in the landlord.
In its stage 2 complaint response, the landlord accepted that it had misinterpreted information during its investigation of the stage 1 complaint. As a result, it incorrectly said that it had asked the resident to move his bed, when in fact he had done so independently. Although the error did not affect the overall findings of the complaint response, it undermined the landlord tenant relationship, so it was appropriate for the landlord to acknowledge its error.
For the reasons above, there was service failure in the landlord’s complaint handling, but this did not have a significant impact on the outcome for the resident. To put things right for the resident, the landlord is ordered to pay him £100 in compensation for the inconvenience he experienced because of its complaint handling failures. The Ombudsman’s remedies guidance says awards in this range are appropriate where there has been a service failure which has caused frustration and inconvenience to the resident.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was service failure in the landlord’s complaint handling.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was maladministration in:
1. The landlord’s handling of the resident’s concerns about the sound transference between the properties.
2. The landlord’s handling of the resident’s ASB complaint

Orders and recommendations

Orders

Within 4 weeks of this report, the landlord is ordered to:
1. Apologise to the resident in writing for the failures identified in this report. It should consider its response to his request for soundproofing and explain any steps it has identified to improve its service going forward.
2. Directly pay the resident £600 in compensation, comprising:
  1. £200 for the inconvenience and worry caused by the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of ASB.
  2. £300 in compensation for the avoidable time and trouble its handling of his concerns about the level of noise transference between the properties caused him.
  3. £100 for the avoidable frustration caused by its complaint handling.
The landlord must provide the Ombudsman with evidence that it has complied with the orders above within the timescale given.

Recommendations

The landlord could consider implementing a neighbourhood management policy in addition to its ASB policy, in line with the recommendations of the Ombudsman’s spotlight report on noise.
The landlord should consider developing staff guidance on its approach to requests for additional insulation or other improvements to reduce noise transference between properties, and its approach to requests for airborne sound tests.
The landlord should consider cross-training between teams to ensure that it gives a consistent message to residents about sound insulation requirements and improvement requests.
The landlord could consider self-assessing against the Ombudsman’s spotlight report on knowledge and information management, unless it has already done so.