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

Brentwood Borough Council (202315073)

Back to Top

A blue and grey text

Description automatically generated

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202315073

Brentwood Borough Council

31 January 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 handling of the resident’s reports of noise nuisance.

Background

  1. The resident is a secure tenant of the landlord, of a 3-bed house. The resident’s young daughter also lives in the property. The landlord is a local authority.
  2. The resident reported that her neighbour was regularly carrying out DIY inside his property which was causing noise nuisance. The resident raised a complaint about the landlord’s handling of her reports of noise nuisance on 14 September 2023. She stated that the noise had been ongoing for 5 years and that the landlord had ignored her previous reports. The resident also raised that she had been unable to speak to any of the landlord’s staff, despite leaving messages.
  3. The landlord issued its stage 1 complaint response on 22 September 2023 in which it stated that:
    1. It had been progressing the investigation by liaising with the resident’s neighbour, the repairs team and planning/building control teams.
    2. It had actively engaged in assessing the situation and ensuring that all necessary steps were taken to address the issues raised.
    3. The resident could provide further information or evidence that would be pertinent to its investigation and asked her to update the landlord on a fortnightly basis if she was disturbed by noise.
    4. The complaint was not upheld in relation to the action taken in response to the noise reports as it concluded that its officers had acted on the information given and were dealing with the issue.
    5. The complaint was partially upheld as the landlord had not contacted the resident within the timescales promised. It offered an apology for this.
  4. The resident escalated her complaint on 25 September 2023. She stated that she began complaining in 2021 and that she had provided evidence to support her reports, but the issues remained ongoing. The resident indicated that she was receiving mental health support due to the situation.
  5. The landlord issued its stage 2 complaint response on 29 September 2023, and stated the following:
    1. It had evidence of the resident reporting noise nuisance intermittently since January 2020.
    2. It had written to the neighbour to ask them to keep the noise down as it was disrupting surrounding properties. It said that no further action was taken due to a lack of evidence.
    3. The resident’s most recent report made in May 2023 was being investigated and it had been communicating with her neighbour to resolve the issue. It said that it could not discuss the issues with the resident as it would breach data protection to discuss another person’s tenancy and personal circumstances.
    4. The resident should report any DIY or general noise to the landlord weekly with dates and times so that it could continue to investigate the case.
  6. The resident raised her complaint with the Ombudsman on 20 November 2023. She stated that the landlord had not done anything to help her during the 5 years she had complained about the neighbour. She said that in order to resolve her complaint, she wanted to the landlord to write to her to acknowledge its poor handling of the reports and to offer an apology.

Assessment and findings

Scope

  1. The Ombudsman acknowledges the resident’s comments that the noise disturbance incidents caused her distress and affected her mental health. It is not possible for the Ombudsman to determine if there was a direct link between any action or inaction by the landlord and any specific damage to the resident’s health in this case. Matters of legal liability for damage to health may be better suited to a court or liability insurer to decide. Further, it is important to note that it is not this Service’s role to determine whether noise nuisance occurred or, if it did, who was responsible. What the Ombudsman can assess is how a landlord has dealt with the reports it has received and whether it had followed proper procedure, followed good practice, and behaved reasonably. We can consider any distress and inconvenience that the resident experienced due to the landlord’s handling of her reports. 
  2. The resident said that she had been reporting ASB and noise nuisance for 5 years, but the landlord had ignored her. The Housing Ombudsman Scheme sets out that the Ombudsman may not consider matters that were not brought to the attention of the landlord as a complaint within a reasonable timescale, usually within 12 months of the issues arising. Further, we can only consider complaints that have exhausted the landlord’s complaints procedure. The resident raised her complaint in September 2023 and the landlord considered the complaint at stage 2. Taking all of the circumstances into account, this investigation focuses on events from September 2022 onwards, which was 12 months prior to the complaint. Any previous events will be referred to for context only.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of ASB and noise nuisance.

  1. The landlord’s ASB policy states that it will not get involved with issues such as DIY, unless the DIY is being done late at night. The policy does not provide guidance on reasonable times for DIY to be carried out. The landlord’s “A handy guide to looking after your home” found on its website, provides the following advice to residents regarding carrying out DIY: “Try to start jobs first thing in the morning. You’re less likely to annoy the neighbours if you work during the day…”
  2. The resident reported that her neighbour was carrying out noisy DIY works in his property at unsociable hours. On 25 February 2022 the landlord advised the resident that “occasional repair and DIY work within a neighbouring property was allowed and they are not causing a statutory nuisance”.
  3. No evidence has been provided to reflect that the resident raised further reports about noise until May 2023, when she reported DIY noise that took place over a weekend and on a bank holiday. The resident said that she had received conflicting advice from the landlord regarding restrictions on carrying out DIY.
  4. On 25 May 2023, the landlord wrote to the neighbour and instructed him to cease works in his property. On 5 June 2023, the landlord advised the resident that it had visited the neighbour’s property and that the work being conducted had not been approved. It said her neighbour had been instructed not to carry out further works while investigations took place. The landlord also stated that advice had been sought from the environmental health team who said that any restrictions on days and times listed on its website was for construction works, rather than DIY, and the hours would be recommended, not enforceable.
  5. On 21 July 2023, the resident contacted the landlord and stated that she had tried to report noise 7 times that day but was unable to get through to anyone. She made further reports of loud drilling and banging on 22 and 23 July and said that her mental health was deteriorating due to the noise. On 24 July 2023, the landlord advised the resident that there were no laws imposing restrictions on times or days when people can undertake DIY, but “reasonable times” should be adhered to. The landlord told her thatthe matter is in hand” and that it would speak to her neighbour regarding his behaviour.
  6. There is no evidence that the landlord informed the resident that it had given the neighbour permission to re-start the works. If permission had been granted, it would have been appropriate to notify her. Further, there are no records to indicate whether it spoke to her neighbour following the July 2023 reports. Again, it would have been appropriate for the landlord to have updated the resident and provide her with the outcome of any such discussion.
  7. On 7 August 2023, the resident reported that noise had started at 7:30am that morning and that she had tried to call the landlord to report this. She said that the landlord had told her it was dealing with the reports, but she was unsure what this meant. The landlord responded to advise that there were no laws regarding times permitted for DIY. It said it was aware of the works and again advised her that the matter was “in hand”. The resident raised further reports of noise in September 2023 before making her complaint on 14 September 2023.
  8. The Ombudsman’s Spotlight report on noise complaints states that the Ombudsman considers that landlords should have 2 distinct policies; 1 for good neighbourhood management and 1 for issues that meet the ASB threshold. It recommends that “landlords should have a proactive good neighbourhood management policy, distinct to the ASB policy, with a clear suite of options for maintaining good neighbourhood relationships and a matrix for assessing which option is the most appropriate. These options should include mediation, information sharing and community building events and, where appropriate, dedicated staffing. This will ensure that low level issues of neighbour friction are dealt with at the appropriate levels and not inappropriately handled as potential ASB.” The report also recommends that landlords should have a triage methodology for identifying whether a noise report should be handled under the ASB policy or the good neighbourhood policy.
  9. The resident did not report that the DIY noise occurred at night, and so it is reasonable that the landlord did not deal with her reports under its ASB policy. It is acknowledged that noise caused by DIY is often unavoidable and that it can cause disruption to neighbours. However, when reports are made of excessive noise at unreasonable times, landlords should take steps to assess the noise and the impact caused. It therefore would have been appropriate for the reports to have been dealt with under a good neighbourhood or similar policy however, there is no indication that the landlord has implemented such a policy, in line with the Ombudsman’s recommendations.
  10. The landlord ought to have responded to the resident’s reports of excessive noise during unsociable hours, separately to its enquiries into the specific works carried out by the neighbour. There is no indication that the landlord gave any consideration to assessing the noise levels, whether the noise was being carried out at “reasonable times”, the impact of the noise on the resident or options it could take to resolve the issue, such as mediation. This was a service failure by the landlord.
  11. Where there are failings by a landlord, the Ombudsman’s role is to consider suitable remedies in line with the Ombudsman’s Dispute Resolution Principles: be fair, put things right, and learn from outcomes.
  12. The resident stated that she experienced distress and inconvenience due to the landlord’s handling of her noise reports, and she said that her mental health declined during this time.
  13. In order to put things right, orders have been made below for the landlord to write to the resident to apologise for its handling of her noise reports and to pay her £100 compensation to remedy the impact of the failing identified. This amount is in line with the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance for failings that the landlord did not appropriately acknowledge. The resident advised that the noise is no longer ongoing, and so there is no requirement for an order to be made for the landlord to respond to this.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure by the landlord regarding its handling of the resident’s reports of noise nuisance.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

  1. Within 4 weeks, the landlord is ordered to:
    1. Pay the resident £100 compensation in recognition of the distress and inconvenience caused regarding its handling of her reports of noise nuisance. This should be paid directly to the resident and not offset against any monies owed unless the resident states otherwise.
    2. Send a letter of apology to the resident for the identified failures and acknowledge the impact on her.

Recommendations

  1. The landlord should consider if it needs to re-assess itself against the Ombudsman’s Spotlight on Noise complaints report and ensure it complies with the recommendations in the report.