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

Camden Council (202219739)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202219739

Camden Council

17 June 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. The complaint is about how the landlord handled the resident’s report of noise from his neighbour.
  2. The Ombudsman has also considered the landlord’s complaint handling.

Background

  1. The resident is a secure tenant of the landlord, a local council. The property is a single bedroom flat in a 4–storey block.
  2. In October 2022 he complained to the landlord about unreasonable levels of noise coming from his neighbour’s flat. The resident reported noise consisting of a newborn screaming, banging, and excessive DIY. He then chased this complaint directly with the landlord and via the Ombudsman intermittently until 3 May 2023, when the landlord issued its stage 1 response. It determined the noise he reported was regular “household noise” but said it would consider insulating the party wall as a way to mitigate the noise.
  3. The resident was dissatisfied with this as he felt the landlord had failed to take suitable action to resolve his complaint, and he escalated it to stage 2 on 27 May 2023.
  4. The landlord responded on 3 July 2023 and explained it still considered his report related to household noise. It also ruled out the soundproofing measures it said it would consider at stage 1 but explained it had organised an inspection for 11 July 2023 to consider what other feasible remedies it could provide.
  5. The resident has stated that the landlord has not discussed the outcome of this inspection with him since and has taken no further action since in relation to the noise report.
  6. The resident feels the landlord has not taken reasonable action to resolve the noise, which he complains is still ongoing. It is for this reason that he wants the Ombudsman to investigate. To resolve his complaint, he wants the landlord to provide the inspection report from 11 July 2023 and carry out some form of soundproofing works to the property.

Assessment and findings

How the landlord handled the resident’s report of noise from his neighbour

  1. The landlord’s policy on responding to noise reports states it will contact residents within 10 working days to advise them on next steps.
  2. Its policy on handling these reports sets out a step-by-step process which it should investigate them according to. In the first instance, it should attempt to discuss the report with the allegedly responsible party. When this does not resolve matters, other means of investigating the noise should be considered. These include inviting the reporting party to collate ‘noise diaries’ documenting instances of noise, or to use ‘noise apps’ which monitor the noise via a mobile device. The landlord should also document any action taken in relation to investigating the noise.
  3. The landlord said it visited the resident and discussed the noise with the neighbour in May 2023. Based on this, and notably before the 11 July 2023 inspection, it concluded that it was household noise. There is no evidence in the landlord’s records to show how it decided it was household noise at this stage, and no indication the resident was invited to complete noise diaries or use a noise app, as per the policy.
  4. While we accept the landlord spoke with the neighbour as per the first step in the policy, it did so 6 months after the initial report in October 2022 and failed to document it. This exceeds the timescale set out and the requirement to document actions taken in relation to the investigation. There is also no evidence of communication with the resident during this delay.
  5. We expect landlords to make evidence-based decisions when deciding what type of noise a resident is experiencing. We also expect landlords to respond to residents within a reasonable time frame when they receive a noise report, and to keep them updated about any delays. The landlord failed to meet both obligations in this case. Therefore, it is our view that the landlord failed to take reasonable action to investigate and address the noise report from October 2022 to July 2023.
  6. As part of its stage 1 response the landlord indicated that it would organise an inspection to assess whether insulation could be fitted to soundproof the party wall. The stage 2 response then confirmed an inspection for 11 July 2023, but contradicted the stage 1 position by stating that soundproofing would not be considered. However, the landlord stated it would be considering other options to mitigate the noise.
  7. We accept that the landlord may have reasonably decided it could not fit soundproofing material. However, we would expect the reasons for this to be documented and communicated to the resident. There is no evidence to show why the landlord’s position on this changed between complaint stages. Its policy obligates it to document actions taken in relation to investigating noise reports, and so it is our view that this decision was not made in line with this policy. It is also our view that the landlord acted unfairly by raising the resident’s hopes for a resolution via insulation and then ruling it out without any explanation, and that this likely caused the resident further distress.
  8. We can see that a surveyor inspected the property on 11 July 2023 and found there was no significant noise permeating the flat at the time of the inspection. They advised that the only measure available to mitigate the noise was to install soundproofing materials on either side of the party wall. It invited the landlord to consider whether an exception could be made to fit these, but acknowledged it was not obligated to do so.
  9. The soundproofing materials detailed in the report would be classed as improvements, and so the landlord was not obligated to fit these. However, the Ombudsman still expects landlords to consider whether exceptions can be made when they are identified by a surveyor, to document this consideration, and then communicate about this with the resident. There is no evidence the landlord has done so, and it is our view that it has therefore missed an opportunity to manage the resident’s expectations about the noise in a timely way and reach a resolution.
  10. The Ombudsman’s Spotlight report on noise states that if landlords are aware there is going to be a delay in addressing a noise report, it should explain this at the earliest available opportunity and provide revised timescales.
  11. We can see the landlord attempted to call the resident on 12 July 2023 and left a voicemail inviting him to call back. The resident says he attempted to call back several times over the next week. We can also see he sent an email to the landlord asking for an update on 27 July 2023. There is no evidence the landlord has responded to this email or attempted to return his calls. This is not in keeping with the Spotlight recommendations, and as a result the resident remains unaware of the conclusions detailed in this report and whether the landlord intends to do anything further about the noise.
  12. Therefore, the landlord has failed to communicate with the resident as we would expect it to following the inspection. Given he expected some kind of action to be taken as a result of the inspection, the landlord’s failure to communicate with him about this for the past 11 months was likely to have aggravated the distress already caused by its previous omissions up to this point.
  13. The resident says he was distressed whilst he waited for the July 2023 inspection and then following this whilst he waited to hear about the outcome. He says he felt “totally abandoned” during both periods. He also says his ability to enjoy the property was severely impacted. For instance, he said he spent a month staying on a sofa at his mother’s house as the noise was preventing him sleeping. He also spent considerable time chasing a response, both via the landlord directly and then via the Ombudsman, and the landlord has not presented any evidence to show that it responded in line with its policy.
  14. The landlord’s policy on compensation for service failure states it will calculate redress sums as follows:
    1. £25 per month for failure to provide a service
    2. £100 – £300 for distress (up to £1000 if prolonged and severe)
    3. £100 – £300 for time and trouble
    4. £20 per month for delay
  15. It is our view that the period of inaction in relation to the noise report from October 2022 to July 2023 amounts to a failure to provide a service for 8 months. Therefore, we will order the landlord to compensate the resident £200 in accordance with its compensation policy to put this right. It is also our view that the failure to communicate with the resident since the July 2023 inspection constitutes a further 11-month delay, so the landlord should compensate £220 to reflect this.
  16. We have also considered the distress that was likely caused to the resident due to delays, inaction, and mixed messaging from October 2022 to present and will order the landlord to pay £200 to remedy this. We are of the view that this should be in the mid-range of the landlord’s scale given the length of time he has been left without appropriate action and support.
  17. The resident also expended time and trouble chasing the landlord from October 2022 to July 2023. We can see he contacted the Ombudsman or the landlord roughly once a month in the hopes of progressing some form of action. While this was clearly frustrating, it does not amount to an extraordinary amount of time or inconvenience. For this reason, we will order the landlord pays him £100 to remedy this.
  18. Considering the noise report has yet to be properly addressed, we will order the landlord considers carrying out the soundproofing measures outlined in the surveyor’s report and communicates this decision to the resident. We will also order the landlord takes steps to address the resident’s most recent noise report.

Complaint handling

  1. The landlord’s complaint policy states it will provide stage 1 responses within 10 working days, and stage 2 responses within 20 working days. It states it may occasionally need to extend a response by 10 working days, but that when this is required it will explain the reasons for this and agree a new timeframe with the resident.
  2. The resident first complained in October 2022. The landlord then responded to this with an email closing the complaint on the basis that it would be “resolved informally”. It then failed to contact him following this email, and so in December 2022 he contacted the Ombudsman.
  3. We contacted the landlord in December 2022 and requested it issue a stage 1 response to the resident’s complaint. There was no response, and so we contacted it again in January 2023. By April the landlord still had not responded, and so on 13 April 2023 we asked it to provide the stage 1 response within a week. There was no response to this, and so on 2 May 2023 we gave a final notice to respond, and it did so the following day. Ultimately, the landlord failed to meet its complaint handling obligations. Its response was 6 months late, and it failed to update the resident during this period.
  4. The resident has claimed frustration, inconvenience, and distress as a result of the delay in providing a stage 1 response, which we consider can be reasonably attributed to this. However, it is our view the impact caused by this period of delay is covered by the compensation payments already outlined, so we will not order a duplicate payment.
  5. While the landlord provided its stage 2 response 5 working days late, this exceeds the timeframe only slightly. In the interest of proportionality, we will not make any orders or recommendations in relation to this.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was:
    1. Maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of noise from his neighbour.
    2. Maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the complaint.

Orders

  1. The landlord to apologise to the resident for the failings identified in this report.
  2. The landlord to pay the resident £720, inclusive of:
    1. £200 for the failure to provide a service from October 2022 to July 2023
    2. £220 for the 11 months it has failed to communicate with the resident since July 2023
    3. £100 for the time and trouble the resident incurred from October 2022 to July 2023
    4. £200 for the distress caused by the failings identified
  3. The landlord to provide its position to the resident on any works to the property with specific reference to the 11 July 2023 surveyor report.
  4. The landlord to offer a meeting with the resident. The purpose of the meeting is to re-establish the relationship between the landlord and resident. It will be an opportunity to discuss the concerns regarding the handling of the noise case, and any support or signposting which the landlord can offer. It will also be an opportunity for the landlord to address the resident’s most recent noise report in line with its policy. The resident is not obliged to attend if he does not wish to.
  5. The landlord to complete the above by 15 July 2024.